---
How do we reverse the damage?
Thu, 2016-09-01 00:49
#1
How do we reverse the damage?
Thu, 2016-09-01 00:50
#2
Thu, 2016-09-01 00:53
#3
Part of the problem is America's obsession with free speech
America's Constitution in the 21 century is a lot more problematic than we realize
Thu, 2016-09-01 07:52
#4
alan smithee
Americans only seem to care about the 2nd ammendment. As far as a plurality of Americans,the rest of the Constitution is toilet paper.
Thu, 2016-09-01 08:56
#5
*yawn*
Right. It's all democracy and free speech.
Anti-Jewish conspiracies have been around forever, the great grandparent of all conspiracy theories - The Protocols - was created by the French and Russian empires, reached its peak with the Nazis, and seems to be thriving in Muslim countries.
The first 9-11 conspiracies weren't an American creation; they started in Europe.
And if you think America has a monopoly on it you might want to watch the Night Wolves' 2014 Rally in Sevastopol.You can find the whole hilarious thing on the internet. Here's a clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu7L4C4xUgQ
So excuse me if I don't entirely buy the notion that this is all America, democracy and free speech.
Thu, 2016-09-01 10:44
#6
Mainstream media has been bought. They are in the business of entertaining people not informing them. If the environmental movement had left it to the mainstream media to educate people we would be decades behind. It is an article of faith in the mainstream media that Alberta oil reaching tidewater is a good thing.
Instead of 20 minutes of sports every night there should be 20 minutes of environmental news both good and bad worldwide.
It isn't alternate news sources that created the Trump monster. It's deliberate poor education and the impoverishment of Americans. The right was smart enough to harness the discontent and put it to their own ends even though they caused it.
Restoring faith in MSM is not the answer.
Thu, 2016-09-01 10:57
#7
The reigning liberal institutions of the postwar era, which strove for objectivity and fairness (while frequently, and inevitably, falling short of them), first came under assault during the 1960s from both the right and left. Though the left did more damage at first by attacking the liberal establishment on civil rights and the Vietnam War, the right (empowered by the very excesses encouraged by the left) soon got the upper hand.
Penetrating insight into how America starting going bad. It was those goddam lefties, hippies, panthers, and students. If only they had left well enough alone, Fox News wouldn't exist today.
What a dufus.
Thu, 2016-09-01 11:23
#8
yup i agree unionist
Thu, 2016-09-01 12:14
#9
ikosmos
Instead of a conservative revolution to replace liberalism, we've ended up with a tribune of the alt-right seriously competing for the presidency.
These are code words for "I'm worried for HRC, who may not win in November." It undermines the author's claims of concern for the public good.
The author of the piece has also failed to address the deliberate and lengthy media strategy of "dumbing down" the public by the methods he describes. It is a strategy ... and arm-waving about "restoring objectivity" by reigning back the excesses of "the principle of democratic egalitarianism" just comes across as ... elitist.
See Henry Giroux and other, more radical observers of public life in the USA. Liberals that stand in the middle of the road will deservedly get hit by traffic going in both directions.
Thu, 2016-09-01 12:24
#10
Liberals that stand in the middle of the road will deservedly get hit by traffic going in both directions.
Thanks for the laugh of the day.
So if you AREN'T one of the conspiracists screaming some dogma from one side or the other you deserve it if WHAT happens?
Thu, 2016-09-01 14:25
#11
Part of the problem is America's obsession with free speech
Which speech do they need to criminalize?
Thu, 2016-09-01 15:05
#12
Part of the problem is America's obsession with free speech America's Constitution in the 21 century is a lot more problematic than we realize
This is (to put it mildly) likely incorrect. If you cannot speak freely, how are you going to talk to other people about how to fix the obvious problems that clearly exist?
Thu, 2016-09-01 16:51
#13
how are you going to talk to other people about how to fix the obvious problems that clearly exist?
Sadly, that's exactly what Birthers and Truthers and Swiftboaters and Craig Paul Roberts believe that they're doing.
I'd suggest one radical change: effective immediately, no political, religious or current events discussions or posts permitted on Facebook. Only selfies, and pictures of pets/food/swag.
This is where the very silliest of the silly ideas gets a toehold. And after all, who would you rather trust? The corrupt, oligarchic, self-serving, government-obedient mainstream media? Or some guy you friended one time whose memes make everything clear?
Thu, 2016-09-01 18:04
#14
Freedom has its limits
Thu, 2016-09-01 18:14
#15
As I basically asked in post #10, what do YOU feel those limits should be?
Thu, 2016-09-01 18:25
#16
From the originally posted article:
You probably haven't been to the city of Timbuktu in the African country of Mali. You've never seen it and most likely have never met anyone from there. Yet I bet most of you — just about all, in fact — assume and accept that it exists. But why? You have no personal experience of it at all. The reason is that you trust the authorities who have told you it exists: the map- and globe-makers, the people who mention it on the news from time to time, the teachers and authors of textbooks who made passing reference to the city and its storied history in lessons you learned as a child.
There is something missing in this analysis. I trust 'the authorities' on Timbuktu, even though I've never been there because I can't imagine what someone, let alone a whole crowd of people, would have to gain by lying to me about it. Where would be the profit in convincing me that the sun circled the earth instead of the earth circling the sun?
The level of trust I have in anything is, first off, provisional, and secondly, is based on the possible motive someone could have for trying to convince me of it's truth. The more I see that someone could benefit from some particular story, the closer scrutiny I would give it.
Thirdly, I understand that some people tell stories just because they like to tell stories. So I do 'consider the source', although I'm willing to be convinced by concrete evidence, regardless of the source.
One can be skeptical without being cynical, and open-minded enough to know that new information may arrive which challenges existing thought. One can do all those things at the same time...
Thu, 2016-09-01 19:09
#17
I trust 'the authorities' on Timbuktu, even though I've never been there because I can't imagine what someone, let alone a whole crowd of people, would have to gain by lying to me about it. Where would be the profit in convincing me that the sun circled the earth instead of the earth circling the sun?
I'm really not trying to argue with you on this -- I mostly agree -- but consider this:
What would anyone have to gain by convincing you that government-planted controlled explosions are what really brought down the WTC? Where's their profit?
There is, indeed, nothing to be gained by suggesting that water sometimes also flows uphill... but what might "Truthers" gain from convincing you that 9/11 was an "inside job"?
Thu, 2016-09-01 19:54
#18
Same reason why anyone tries to convince others that everything happens for a reason, whether it be god's plan, or the CIA, or the illuminati.
Fri, 2016-09-02 00:55
#19
...I'm really not trying to argue with you on this -- I mostly agree -- but consider this:What would anyone have to gain by convincing you that government-planted controlled explosions are what really brought down the WTC? Where's their profit?
There is, indeed, nothing to be gained by suggesting that water sometimes also flows uphill... but what might "Truthers" gain from convincing you that 9/11 was an "inside job"?
Ya must've missed this part of my post:
...Thirdly, I understand that some people tell stories just because they like to tell stories. So I do 'consider the source', although I'm willing to be convinced by concrete evidence, regardless of the source.
At the same time, the 9/11 'truthers' do have a motive. Their contention is the goverment knew beforehand about the impending attacks, and were either complicit in them, or ignored them in the hope of being able to use them to overthrow the democracy (such as it is...).
A certain percentage of them blame it on the Jews. In either case, they have a motive.
Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. In the case of Timbuktu, and the operation of the solar system, I find it difficult to imagine what the motive might be. I do know that it's not necessarily money. It may just be someone taking the opportunity to bolster their own conspiracy theory. Certainly most the 9/11 stuff is just that.
I have one hard and fast rule however. That is, if I see it on the internet, I don't believe it. That is my default position. If I can verify by other means, then fine. To quote someone I recently read (can't remember the name) in my Oxford Dictionary of Quotations:
We were always told that a million monkeys with a million typewriters could produce the works of Shakepsear. With the advent of the internet, we know that's not true.
Fri, 2016-09-02 09:53
#20
Speaking of real theories, it isn't always money or some sort of personal gain (the Timbuktu thing is after all an absurd comparison in a so so article. The city does exist, and we know it).
Not a conspiracy, but why was Einstein so dead set against quantum indeterminism, when Niels Bohr was not? It was just how he interpreted what he saw, and he wasn't willing to allow that it might be either way.
I think the problem with a lot of conspiracists isn't that they think something might have happened, but that their belief that it must have happened verges on mania, and that everyone has to acknowledge it or they are part of the conspiracy. And that clicks on the radio, or every time a plate falls it is also part of the conspiracy.
Considering that some people have lost work, reputation, and friends because they ascribe to some theory, clearly it is sometimes something that involves personal loss, not gain.
Fri, 2016-09-02 12:32
#21
I have one hard and fast rule however. That is, if I see it on the internet, I don't believe it. That is my default position. If I can verify by other means, then fine. To quote someone I recently read (can't remember the name) in my Oxford Dictionary of Quotations:
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.
Had I seen this "one hard and fast rule" on radio, TV, and book and magazine, I would have believed you without question. 
The quote may be from a Robert Wilensky speech at a 1996 conference, and at the moment, if you believe wikipedia, they report that this source is unreliable. Michael Moncur's (Cynical) Quotations (michaelmoncur.com)
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191804144.001.0001...
The quote "a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare" within this quote may have been misquoted from British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington's 1928 quote:
If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191804144.001.0001...
Infinite monkey theorem (wikipedia.org)
Fri, 2016-09-02 15:04
#22
Yes, the internet quotation supposedly by Robert Wilensky is in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, but it's source is second hand. They give the source as the Mail On Sunday of February 16, 1997.
I looked (on the internet) to see if I could find a firmer source, but I got what you did, supposedly from a speech in 1996. In that the quote was never published by the purported author, and he's now dead, we'll have to leave it as a 'maybe'.
The orginal monkeys quote is more reliable. Again, it is in my ODQ as:
If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum
The source for this is given as Eddington's book "The Nature of the Physical World", published in 1928. There is a bit of a caveat on it's meaning, however. From Wikipedia:
He is sometimes misunderstood as having promoted the infinite monkey theorem in his 1928 book The Nature of the Physical World, with the phrase "If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters, they might write all the books in the British Museum". It is clear from the context that Eddington is not suggesting that the probability of this happening is worthy of serious consideration. On the contrary, it was a rhetorical illustration of the fact that below certain levels of probability, the term improbable is functionally equivalent to impossible.
One of the nice things about humour is that it doesn't have to be passed along verbatim, and indeed it doesn't need to have a confirmed source. The effectiveness of it remains.
...Considering that some people have lost work, reputation, and friends because they ascribe to some theory, clearly it is sometimes something that involves personal loss, not gain.
Don't forget that motivation is a funny thing. Some people are motivated to become martyrs, which involves the biggest single personal loss one could have. Some people are motivated by the simple fact that they don't want to be in the majority, regardless of the merits of the situation.
Monetary gain is a pretty obvious motivation, but it is by no means the only one, nor even the most powerful. Individual motivators can be pretty strange.
Fri, 2016-09-02 16:58
#23
I think the problem with a lot of conspiracists isn't that they think something might have happened, but that their belief that it must have happened verges on mania, and that everyone has to acknowledge it or they are part of the conspiracy.
Another interesting heuristic of conspiracy theorists is that every conspiracy theory seems to be a potent "gateway drug" leading to the adoption of more and more and more conspiracy theories.
I don't think I've ever heard of a conspiracy theorist who says "Yes, I think the CIA shot Kennedy, but that's about it. I believe there's sufficient evidence to implicate the CIA in this, but that doesn't mean we didn't land on the moon, or that Sandy Hook was a scripted military exercise or any of that other stuff."
Or consider Paul Craig Roberts. Doesn't matter who goes on a shooting spree, he'll tell you it never happened. None of them. Even the ones that haven't happened yet won't have happened. Evidently, believing in one conspiracy theory pretty much obligates you to believe in twenty or thirty more (or, as you noted, you're part of the coverup).
Sat, 2016-09-03 11:44
#24
Exactly. I am sure there are plenty of people who believe that UFOs and ghosts are a possibility who don't mortgage their houses and drive away all their friends all their friends in their quest for the truth.
By contrast there are people who simply won't stop no matter how plainly you explain that you don't share their compulsion, and not because you are in the pay of the illuminati.
Like religion, multi-level marketing schemes and lotteries, these things aren't necessarily the problem in themselves (though some are) it is the people who have a psychological compulsion to go overboard with them.
Tue, 2016-09-06 18:20
#25
Fox News announced Van Susteren's departure just a few minutes after the channel's parent company, 21st Century Fox, confirmed a $20 million settlement deal with Gretchen Carlson, the anchorwoman who sued Ailes in July, starting the chain of events that led to his ouster.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/06/media/greta-van-susteren-leaving-fox-new...
Tue, 2016-09-06 18:24
#26
Are the wheeels coming off the Fox bus?
I wish to say it's so, but the Murdochs are making huuge yankee dolla offf the sick piece of shit that Ailes created
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/greta-van-susteren-leaving-fox-news_...
Tue, 2016-09-06 18:34
#27
Doesn't the US have a way to take Fox off the air like supposedly the CRTC is able to do in Canada?
THe USA rubbish media, basically since Reagan I think, perhaps much longer, has been spewing out their sick anti people vomit so it's no wonder Trump will get 40% of the vote.
Tue, 2016-09-06 19:03
#28
Doesn't the US have a way to take Fox off the air like supposedly the CRTC is able to do in Canada?
If I'm not mistaken, the CRTC is primarily concerned with content on the public airwaves in Canada, not satellite or cable.
so it's no wonder Trump will get 40% of the vote.
If Republican primary delegates had chosen Carrot Top as nominee, Carrot Top would also receive at least 40% of the vote, because he's the Republican, and "my family has voted Republican since we came over on the Mayflower!".
Tue, 2016-09-06 19:15
#29
There sure are a lot of people who came over on the Mayflower. I didn't realize it was that large a vessel.
Tue, 2016-09-06 19:43
#30
It was modeled after Noah's Ark. Y'know... the boat that held two of each of the 1.5 million species of animal. Think "the Love Boat" x 100.
Tue, 2016-09-06 20:24
#31
There sure are a lot of people who came over on the Mayflower. I didn't realize it was that large a vessel.
Actually that isn't surprising when you consider how much crossing of lines happens over 400 years.
I have family which came over on that ship. Anyone who thinks that makes them someone special probably hasn't done much genaeology. Most people who get back far enough find they are related to some blue blood or another. Why? Who else was special enough to keep records of that kind of stuff 600 years ago?
Tue, 2016-09-06 21:22
#32
I'm just not sure I have met anyone who didn't have relatives on the Mayflower especially if they are into genealogy. Maybe that's the attraction. Beats researching some great uncle who got hammered every nite at the local pub I suppose.
---------------------------------------------------
Getting back to the topic at hand, unpleasant as it will be, the progressive forces are going to have to more rapidly and forcefully against the anti-scientists that people like the Trump family, Fox News, Limbaugh, DrudgeReport, and many in the GOP. Climate change is showing us we cxannot afford not to act.
Tue, 2016-09-06 22:10
#33
I'm just not sure I have met anyone who didn't have relatives on the Mayflower especially if they are into genealogy. Maybe that's the attraction. Beats researching some great uncle who got hammered every nite at the local pub I suppose.
---------------------------------------------------
Getting back to the topic at hand, unpleasant as it will be, the progressive forces are going to have to more rapidly and forcefully against the anti-scientists that people like the Trump family, Fox News, Limbaugh, DrudgeReport, and many in the GOP. Climate change is showing us we cxannot afford not to act.
If you keep doubling, by the time you get to the year 1,000 you have 8,589,934,592 ancestors. Put differently with every generation your relations grow exponentially. So all you need to do is the research to see which branch is related to those on the Mayflower. Most people in Europe are also related to those on the Mayflower -- Amercians have gone back and intermarried into the the mother pot. The exponential nature of this means that this crosses racial lines -- it just might take a little longer to include everyone.
Now go tell your cousin Trump to stop being an a$$