US Politics Thread 2021-24

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by u crank

I think the reason is pretty obvious Markus. People know when they are being lied to.

Do we !?
Let me take this Corona pandemic

I have friends who are convince it's a hoax, they are entitle to believe this. I am not an expert in virology so I believe what the authorities tells me.

I do not have the knowledge to reject what they tell me.

Not all news is fake, far from it..It can have a political bias this depends on the journalist where he stands politically.

Despite this around 92 % of the Rep. voters say....news is fake news.

Then there is this Russian news RT who try to influence the voters in USA and other western countries.

For me it's har to see different if it's fake or not and I'm talking about news given to me from our main stream media. I know news from RT shall be taken with a ton of salt.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

^ Reading your post resulted in one important question:

Why ? Why does only 29 % of the American trust their media.

Would be interesting to know the reason.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Old news but a good example why corporate media sucks.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Do we !? For me it's har to see different if it's fake or not and I'm talking about news given to me from our main stream media. I know news from RT shall be taken with a ton of salt.
Markus

There's an easy fix, believe nothing you hear and only 1/2 of what you see. Follow that rule and you generally can figure out the truth.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Ahhh, but how does a person define what the "truth" is these days? Is the truth what a large group of people consider to be "truth" or is it the individual who decides? If one or person is telling a lie or falsehood and a group of people believe it is it then considered the "truth" by that group?

[Catfish]

Always funny to see statistics about what people believe or not, especially regarding political polls, newspapers or truth. It is absolutely insignificant (also statistically) what people *believe* when it comes to make a decision based on facts.

[Catfish]

Always funny to see statistics about what people believe or not, especially regarding political polls, newspapers or truth. It is absolutely insignificant (also statistically) what people *believe* when it comes to making a decision that should be based on facts.
Last month i read uk media are the worst, while i take it that russian and chinese are surely worse.
After four years of Trump it does not matter anyway, if someone believed anything of his bs it's a lost cause.

[Skybird]

The value and power and influence of rationality and reason in human decision making is terribly overestimated. The bigger the crowd, the less it takes to take reasonability out. Egoism trumps responsibility at the leaderhsip level, too.

Always assume the worst. And be pleasently surprised if if does not happen.


There are even psychological studies showing that pessimists and realists are more successful than optimists. Because the first tend to be more often better prepared than the latter.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Always funny to see statistics about what people believe or not, especially regarding political polls, newspapers or truth. It is absolutely insignificant (also statistically) what people *believe* when it comes to make a decision based on facts.

It's not a matter of what people believe as much as who is providing the information we are expected to evaluate. In the Jimmy Dore / Glenn Greenwald interview posted by Rockstar the problem is clearly exposed. Their discussion about Chris Hayes of MSNBC says it all. The lack of self awareness that people like Hayes and all of the media stars have is stunning. These people are not journalists but corporate shills who say what they are told to say. And that is the problem. If the facts are delivered by untrustworthy people then what?

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Kptlt. Neuerburg

Ahhh, but how does a person define what the "truth" is these days? Is the truth what a large group of people consider to be "truth" or is it the individual who decides? If one or person is telling a lie or falsehood and a group of people believe it is it then considered the "truth" by that group?

You're addressing an interesting thing.

How can I define what is true and not.

When I see the primetime news on one of our public tv channels I have to believe what I see and heard is as true as possible.

I could as MaDef said
"There's an easy fix, believe nothing you hear and only 1/2 of what you see. Follow that rule and you generally can figure out the truth."

If I should follow this rule I should not believe what our authorities tells me about Corona virus, nor shall I believe my friends(I do not believe them anyway, when it comes to this Corona)

And that's why I have decided to stay neutral in politics and society related problems.

An another thing.
What a person see as truth or fake is mostly based on this person political standpoint and perhaps their social standpoints.

Markus

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by mapuc

You're addressing an interesting thing.

How can I define what is true and not.

When I see the primetime news on one of our public tv channels I have to believe what I see and heard is as true as possible.

I could as MaDef said
"There's an easy fix, believe nothing you hear and only 1/2 of what you see. Follow that rule and you generally can figure out the truth."

If I should follow this rule I should not believe what our authorities tells me about Corona virus, nor shall I believe my friends(I do not believe them anyway, when it comes to this Corona)

And that's why I have decided to stay neutral in politics and society related problems.

An another thing.
What a person see as truth or fake is mostly based on this person political standpoint and perhaps their social standpoints.

Markus

To some extent, this is true.

There are several issues that give rise to disbelief in the news.

1. "Experts" who aren't. I'll use Fauci since he is an easy target. He's not a virologist or epidemiologist. He's an immunologist who moved from the ranks of active researcher to administrator years ago. Someone like that is *not* the right expert to address a pandemic because he's focused on zero-risk based upon immunological factors (a single point addressing of how to respond) - not on the impact of human nature on how a pandemic unfolds. You need someone *intimately* familiar with actual human nature and a separate someone also familiar with how disease *actually* spreads. Then you also need someone who is familiar with what can reasonably be done from a marketing/messaging standpoint. Fauci is none of these. The various modelers showing millions dead aren't either. They've pretty much all been wrong in their predictions.

2. Unbiased experts. You can't have people advising government if they have a conflict of interest - even the appearance of bias is a problem.

3. Politicization of science. You can't have people citing various studies (on either side of the political aisle) to push public policy if the citing doesn't pass the smell test. When you have people asking common sense questions and don't address them seriously, it leads to conspiracy theory thoughts. A simple one: if masks and social distancing are supposed to prevent covid transmission and the experts claim that it prevented flu season this year, why did covid cases continue on throughout that time instead of also dropping? Instead of ignoring, deflecting, etc., a better response from the experts would have been to explain that coronaviruses are strongly seasonal and they outcompeted flu. Which *also* tracks with why covid started to decrease after January as we entered rhinovirus season which outcompeted covid. Again, the other piece is actual masks and distancing vs claims of them could have resulted in continued transmission. The piece that needs to be addressed is whether masks *actually* work against covid or if it is actually airborne without needing the medium of exhaled breath since we know it's smaller in size than a mask weave. Again - address the questions rather than ridiculing the questioner...

[Rockstar]

Another good look into the blue-anon liberal media. To think some believe Democrats are more inclusive than Republicans, what a joke. Liberal media is the Q-anon of the left but on a much grander scale having a national broadcast and a following of liberal lemmings.

[Catfish]

“They’re turning the frogs gay”: the psychology behind internet conspiracy theories
https://www.newstatesman.com/science...net-conspiracy

[Buddahaid]

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/pol...upporters.html

[Rockstar]

Liberals destroyed the black family unit then blame everyone else for their failures