The Political & Philosophy Thread
- Thread starter End of Glory
- Start date
Dak
mentat
There's all this hysteria over fake news and the example of how dangerous it is this pizzagate bullshit. One story, which somehow tons of people had been duped by, yet I hadn't heard of it until after it was pizzagate (and I read a lot of different news sources, and I have a sufficient number of Trump supporters contributing to my FB feed). I suspect this blowup about fake news is an example of how misleading news can be just as if not more dangerous. Kind of like the breathless coverage given to Richard Spencer's national white nationalist gatherings that bring together a few dozen white nationalists from all over what is supposedly an incredibly racist nation. Even *if* coverage isn't slanted, what is covered shows a bias of its own, particularly when the level of coverage is so grossly out of proportion to the event.
rms
Active Member
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/my-president-was-black/508793/
Coates wrote a long piece on Obama, working my way through it now
Coates wrote a long piece on Obama, working my way through it now
Einherjar86
Active Member
Vice versa for me, personally...
I just don't follow your argument that the pizzagate story is a better example of how misleading news is more dangerous than fake news. Pizzagate wasn't a news story, as far as "misleading" news is concerned, until some guy decided to attack the pizza place where it was supposedly going on. Before that, "misleading" news wasn't covering it, because it was "fake" news.
I don't think your personal experience with various news platforms online and your familiarity with Trump supporters covers an extensive enough sample to serve as evidence here.
If you're trying to say that the news coverage of pizzagate after the attack is an example of how misleading news can be more dangerous, then I'm still not following. The "misleading" news coverage exposed pizzagate as a false news story, it didn't continue to promote it except for those people who would have already believed it in the first place.
I think you're trying too stir shit up here (which is weird for me to say, I agree).
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,745
- 1,442
- 113
doesn't matter if they're rambling/incoherent or eloquent/composed; if they're left they're fundamentally wrong
rms
Active Member
really surprised Tomi Lahren gets that much 'omg shes hot' -- so many other hotties on fox news and there is that one chica on that blaze channel too
Dak
mentat
Predates the attack
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38156985
But your point is somewhat taken.
Why is the MSM (Misleading News Media! lol) suddenly so concerned with "fake news"? Because of bullets hitting some shithole pizzeria? That's an excuse, not a reason. What is the solution offered in unison? Censorship. It's about reestablishing gatekeeper status, because no shots were ever fired because of MSM publications. Except for in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Dallas, Des Moines, Baton Rouge....
Einherjar86
Active Member
Ha, I take your point... somewhat.
This is compelling, and I think the internal contradictions here are worth looking at - i.e. that what we're calling "misleading news" is reporting (apparently) misleading stories about actual "fake news" ("actual fake" jesus fucking christ). I also think you're right that the act of violence is an excuse, not a reason. The primary reason is catering to a specific political agenda.
I'm still not sure we can qualify misleading news as more dangerous than fake news simply because it circulates more widely. As Adams suggested, fake news can have good intentions; and if this is true, then so can misleading news. My point would be that misleading news, even if it potentially has negative consequences, is ultimately positive because it contributes to a field of communication in which (or through which) different actors can express their agreements or disagreements about a subject.
One of the reasons why it is sometimes so difficult to speak across political gulfs is because of the kind of information people accept as probable, and the kinds of media that deliver such information. When Trump supporters talk about dishonest media (what we're calling the misleading news), they alleviate themselves of having to talk about topics that the dishonest media covers. For what it's worth, the left does the same thing when it talks about America's gun culture or systemic racism. I happen to accept the argument for systemic racism, but that's not because of stories I watch on MSNBC.
One project that's on my back burner right now is a paper on the current political conflict (there are many, but I mean the one that has divided supporters between Clinton and Trump) as a problem of communications, as Niklas Luhmann writes about it: more specifically, a problem between levels of meaning. This isn't to say that one group's understanding is better than another's, but that their internal vocabularies operate according to different scales of meaning. Ultimately, both run into contradictions, and both remain unable to translate themselves into the vernacular of their opponent. Luhmann doesn't really have any useful answers, unfortunately. It's just a helpful perspective on the problem; and actually, Luhmann wouldn't see it as a problem. In other words, he wouldn't insist that one side is right and the other wrong. He would say that the two sides are aspects of a distinction occurring at a higher, mostly unnoticed, level of society.
Dak
mentat
I more or less agree with this. Take a situation with a lot of grey, edit out the black or the white depending on what you want to sell, and then publish it on the correct venue. There are also many unspoken and maybe unconscious frameworks organizing the information into meaningful relationships. I think one that's starting to become more obvious is a gulf between groups that believe consent is constantly contingent and those that do not. Or if we put it in my language it would be "between those that do not honor contracts and those that do" or something to that effect. But here we already see the language and meaning diverging.
rms
Active Member
https://www.brookings.edu/research/...ium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=es
I don't get it. this is totally equality of outcome, right?
I don't get it. this is totally equality of outcome, right?
Dak
mentat
rms
Active Member
http://www.epi.org/publication/black-white-wage-gaps-expand-with-rising-wage-inequality/#epi-toc-7
yeah, neither article talks about majors/areas chosen but automatically goes to discrimination based on race.
are black people the same as feminists? only humanities degrees? what the hell kind of short sighted study is this
blacks get more higher ed and employed at a higher rate than whitey but that gets pushed under in both pieces. blown away here
yeah, neither article talks about majors/areas chosen but automatically goes to discrimination based on race.
are black people the same as feminists? only humanities degrees? what the hell kind of short sighted study is this
blacks get more higher ed and employed at a higher rate than whitey but that gets pushed under in both pieces. blown away here
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I have a hard time believing this, but at the same time you're radically left yourself so maybe what sounds retarded to me coming from the mouth of a woman sounds correct to you. The amount of women mindlessly ranting about the gender wage gap, rape culture, privilege, "mansplaining," "manspreading," etc far outweighs birtherism or whatever retardation is attributed to right-wing women.
Hell, I had an old friend (massive left-wing feminist type) actually tell me the first amendment was overrated.
Say what you want about the bill of rights but if I could save anything from the constitution from a fire it would be the first amendment.
The black woman that works for Alex Jones' "network" (I forget it's name as well as hers) is the hottest in my opinion. Blonde bombshells are cool and all over at Fox but that shit is played out.
Except for Trump of course?
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Am I really radical? Relatively speaking I guess I am, but I usually don't feel like it, mostly because I'm critical (or at least skeptical) of identity politics.
It has less to do with agreeing with the things leftists say than with disagreeing with what rightists say. Many of the people in my community here in Boston I agree with politically; but I come from a small town outside Buffalo NY where many of the women in my high school class still live today, having babies and going to church (that's a horribly reductive comment, and the connotations are regrettable; but it's basically true). My family and hometown friends are overwhelmingly right-wing, conservative, and (as far as family goes) deeply religious. I have a hard time taking many of them seriously.
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,745
- 1,442
- 113
no Trump is wrong on the things he is left or pressured into legislating somewhat left on, which i hope he doesn't, or ideally his extreme right cabinet/congress will act for him
rms
Active Member
I thought you just went to UB randomly, what town?
idk the black laydeeeeeeeeeeeeee but mostly brunettes on fox news for me
Einherjar86
Active Member
It's so much fun watching you twist yourself into knots. You're like a political contortionist.
Matt
Active Member
You are one of the most idiotically partisan people I've encountered on the internet arg. Congratualtions.
