Taylor Swift's Instagram Post

[ElmerJFudd]

8 hours ago, Bill H. said:

I'd swap AP and Newsweek. AP seems pretty unbiased to me. I'm often clicking onto links to Newsweek because they're in Google News, and I'd hardly call them neutral. 

AP News is pretty good, left or right of center news on that list are most definitely not playing the same game as Fox or MSNBC (or others in their category).   I do find Newsweek’s web site to offer balanced - telling both sides of a story - news.   
 

Example

 

The stuff that is clearly labeled as opinion is trash with outlandish spin.  But I appreciate the clear designation.  As well as the fairness meter on articles.  

[Stokely]

I hate the whole idea that there are "two sides" to a story, or to everything.

There are often many sides, or what we call context and history.   But everything has to boil down to "left" and "right" which basically implies both are spinning.  White hat, black hat, good guy and bad guy.   We basically have two realities in this country as a result.   I don't talk politics often because we can't even get to the point where we are debating what the facts mean--we can't even agree on what the facts are.   As a result I keep a strict no-politics rule with one bandmate, some coworkers and some family.   (Our band has been together 12 years and one reason is that we never talk politics, ever.)  I'm always open to honest discussion as long as it doesn't devolve into loony conspiracy nonsense or made-up bs, but in experience it always does.   

[Bill H.]

7 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

  I do find Newsweek’s web site to offer balanced - telling both sides of a story - news.    

 

It's probably the Newsweek links provided to me by Google - which is laziness on my part, but it's just too easy to swipe right on my phone when I get up. And since Google's links are tailored to the individual, it could also be a reflection of my worst instincts first thing in the morning. 

 

I might have to take a look at that. 

 

I'm supposed to fly to Tokyo next week, and this morning's links are all about the potential Air Canada pilot's strike. Somehow Google knows I'm flying Air Canada too - helpful and scary at the same time. 

[ElmerJFudd]

1 hour ago, Stokely said:

I hate the whole idea that there are "two sides" to a story, or to everything.

There are often many sides, or what we call context and history.   But everything has to boil down to "left" and "right" which basically implies both are spinning.  White hat, black hat, good guy and bad guy.   We basically have two realities in this country as a result.   I don't talk politics often because we can't even get to the point where we are debating what the facts mean--we can't even agree on what the facts are.   As a result I keep a strict no-politics rule with one bandmate, some coworkers and some family.   (Our band has been together 12 years and one reason is that we never talk politics, ever.)  I'm always open to honest discussion as long as it doesn't devolve into loony conspiracy nonsense or made-up bs, but in experience it always does.   

I understand how you’ve arrived at this perspective and position because of course our interactions with band mates and people in general (friends, even family) inevitably expose matters of contention, differing views.  
 

I do believe that little in this life is clear, entirely black or white, good or bad, etc. due to the imperfections in us and our environment.  Even science can only provide accuracy within a margin of error due to unforeseen variables, spooky behavior at a distance.  
 

Point being, humans are strange creatures and differ from each other even when they share a lot of similarities. Friends from the old neighborhood, siblings and parents are going to have different perspectives, opinions, attitudes due to some experience(s) they do not share.  So, I think there are 2, 3 , 4+ sides to every story and I expect it.  So that’s something we don’t agree on, and that’s ok! Already accounted for!  😂
 

 

[Stokely]

Agreed.  I'm just done with people are are certain of things that are complete horseshit.   And nobody is willing to admit their beliefs might be wrong as facts come out (as you say, science).  Everything has to be cut and dried, there's a right and wrong side that has to be able to be boiled down to a soundbite.   Any diving into context is boooooring, or fake news, or some conspiracy by "them" to change what happened.

There are facts in this world, or at the very least things that are extremely close to factual based on the evidence (e.g. evolution).     What meaning we can derive from those facts is of course up for debate.  For years any discussion I've tried to have never makes it that far.   My coworker and I talking about covid for example--we are both data analysists, our job security hinges on being accurate with data.   He started sounding me out about "depopulation" and it ended up with Bill gates having a plan to kill certain population segments by using 5g in the covid vaccines, to paraphrase.  It was so nutty that I thought he was joking but it finally became clear to me that he wasn't.  This is a dude making six figures as a senior analyst, not a loony behind the bus stop yelling at clouds, but you could have fooled me at that moment.    Whatever discussion we might have had about covid ended there, by mutual agreement  

I think my kryptonite is simply the conspiracy madness that seems everywhere now.   Flat earthers when I was young felt like the weirdest people out there, and who ever saw one?  Now we have people everywhere in society including Congress spouting dangerous nonsense.   Measles and probably polio are coming back due to this crap.   Done with it, and the people who spout it.

The modern world is, don't base your beliefs based on facts (even as they change).  Just go find "facts" that match what you already believe.   We are screwed as a society, IMO, but I reserve the right to be happily surprised if we pull through  

[Philbo King]

It all brings new meaning to the phrase 'Don't believe everything you think.' 

 

Thoughts vary over time; truths do not.

[ElmerJFudd]

3 hours ago, Stokely said:

Agreed.  I'm just done with people are are certain of things that are complete horseshit.   And nobody is willing to admit their beliefs might be wrong as facts come out (as you say, science).  Everything has to be cut and dried, there's a right and wrong side that has to be able to be boiled down to a soundbite.   Any diving into context is boooooring, or fake news, or some conspiracy by "them" to change what happened.

There are facts in this world, or at the very least things that are extremely close to factual based on the evidence (e.g. evolution).     What meaning we can derive from those facts is of course up for debate.  For years any discussion I've tried to have never makes it that far.   My coworker and I talking about covid for example--we are both data analysists, our job security hinges on being accurate with data.   He started sounding me out about "depopulation" and it ended up with Bill gates having a plan to kill certain population segments by using 5g in the covid vaccines, to paraphrase.  It was so nutty that I thought he was joking but it finally became clear to me that he wasn't.  This is a dude making six figures as a senior analyst, not a loony behind the bus stop yelling at clouds, but you could have fooled me at that moment.    Whatever discussion we might have had about covid ended there, by mutual agreement  

I think my kryptonite is simply the conspiracy madness that seems everywhere now.   Flat earthers when I was young felt like the weirdest people out there, and who ever saw one?  Now we have people everywhere in society including Congress spouting dangerous nonsense.   Measles and probably polio are coming back due to this crap.   Done with it, and the people who spout it.

The modern world is, don't base your beliefs based on facts (even as they change).  Just go find "facts" that match what you already believe.   We are screwed as a society, IMO, but I reserve the right to be happily surprised if we pull through  

Understood.   It gets exhausting hearing the light was red when it was clearly green.  I’ve also never wanted any “news” person’s opinion served along with a report to explain to me how I should feel about it.  It seems they need us to be outraged everyday of the week. 

[Anderton]

59 minutes ago, ElmerJFudd said:

It seems they need us to be outraged everyday of the week. 

 

This goes back to newspapers, where the saying was "If it bleeds, it leads." Sensationalism is not a new thing. As hard as it may be to believe, there have been times in our past where it was so bad the phrase yellow journalism was coined to describe it.

[ElmerJFudd]

56 minutes ago, Anderton said:

 

This goes back to newspapers, where the saying was "If it bleeds, it leads." Sensationalism is not a new thing. As hard as it may be to believe, there have been times in our past where it was so bad the phrase yellow journalism was coined to describe it.

I'd have preferred the muckrakers. 

[KenElevenShadows]

I think "sensationalistic journalism" might seem worse because the news cycle is considerably faster, there's more sources that are not truly news sources exacerbating the growing division, and rampant misinformation campaigns. 

[ElmerJFudd]

10 hours ago, KenElevenShadows said:

I think "sensationalistic journalism" might seem worse because the news cycle is considerably faster, there's more sources that are not truly news sources exacerbating the growing division, and rampant misinformation campaigns. 

I've no doubt the number of "news" sources is greater than ever, the delivery is rapid, and consumption is simple, we all have access to it all the time.  

[RABid]

I just don't understand why we cannot get better candidates. The people I like in both parties usually get knocked out early in the primaries. So now we have someone who is half crazy and cannot seem to hide it, or someone who created such a toxic environment early in her administration that that people on her staff were fleeing and they considered replacing her on the ticket for the next election. Seems she did learn to hide it. But still...

 

I want option 3. PLEASE! Give me someone better to vote for. 

[ElmerJFudd]

14 minutes ago, RABid said:

I just don't understand why we cannot get better candidates. The people I like in both parties usually get knocked out early in the primaries. So now we have someone who is half crazy and cannot seem to hide it, or someone who created such a toxic environment early in her administration that that people on her staff were fleeing and they considered replacing her on the ticket for the next election. Seems she did learn to hide it. But still...

 

I want option 3. PLEASE! Give me someone better to vote for. 

It's a strange thing this hot seat we call president... who is willing to run and able to both win and hold it.

Where are today's Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhauer or Wilson?

 

People who rise to senator tend to stay there (no term limits) and do not seek the presidency.  In our nation's history only "16 of the nation's 45 presidents served in the Senate at some point in their public careers."  Out of them, "only three—Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama—won their presidential races as incumbent senators."

[Tusker]

9 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

I've no doubt the number of "news" sources is greater than ever, the deliver is rapid, and consumption is simple, we all have access to it all the time.  

 

Yes, I appreciate the historical references to muckrakers and yellow journalism. I also enjoy Shakespeare's wit in his Rumor character. 

 

But when the misinformation is a continuous feed, there is an additional health effect. I don't think we are designed to stay doped up on adrenaline and cortisol 24/7.

[Thethirdapple]

to "like" or not to "like", that is the question

 

 

 

 

 

 

PEACE

_

_

_

[Anderton]

4 hours ago, Tusker said:

But when the misinformation is a continuous feed, there is an additional health effect. I don't think we are designed to stay doped up on adrenaline and cortisol 24/7.

 

Agreed. When historians look into reasons behind the fall of civilization in the late 2000s, they'll identify social media as the main culprit.

 

[Anderton]

13 hours ago, RABid said:

I want option 3. PLEASE! Give me someone better to vote for. 

 

What always puzzles me is how elections are always 50-50. Surely it would be possible to have someone who appeals to, say 60% of the population? Is the country really split exactly down the middle in what people think? If so, why?

 

The best politician I ever encountered was a local politician in Mendocino country. He was popular on both sides and did a superb job. He didn't run for a second term because he got tired of dealing with idiots.

[analogika]

On 9/11/2024 at 9:12 PM, Stokely said:

The response by Musk was nauseating, even for him.
 

 
And her comeback was just perfect: 

 

[Anderton]

Brilliant!

 

Don't get into a...uh...catfight with Taylor Swift. 

[Polychrest]

8 hours ago, Tusker said:

Yes, I appreciate the historical references to muckrakers and yellow journalism. I also enjoy Shakespeare's wit in his Rumor character.

Famous quote from a simpler time on the historical role of newspapers in America:  “Mr. Brady, it is the duty of a newspaper to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable".  (From “Inherit the Wind”, a 1955 fictionalized dramatization of the Scopes monkey trial.)  Nowadays, the public service role of our increasingly partisan news media seems to be “comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted”—in other words, torque the news feed to favour your powerful friends and discredit their snarling, wrong-thinking enemies.  What about objectivity?  To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does objectivity have?

[Stokely]

That was indeed a great response.

Amazing to contrast the two.  It's obvious who the adult in the (very public) room is, and who the childish troll is.  "Childish" is too tame for the things he's been posting and re-posting and liking...he's riling people up because they take his garbage to heart, even if he believes it or doesn't.   Because of that, "just joking" is a feeble and poor excuse.    Simply because that dude has bazillions, he's considered the pinnacle of success by so many; personally, I hope my kids never turn out anything like him even if that means they have to actually think about money to live.

[KenElevenShadows]

6 hours ago, Anderton said:

Brilliant!

 

Don't get into a...uh...catfight with Taylor Swift. 

That was a battle of wits with an unarmed man if there ever was one.

[nursers]

8 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

What always puzzles me is how elections are always 50-50. Surely it would be possible to have someone who appeals to, say 60% of the population? Is the country really split exactly down the middle in what people think? If so, why?

 

The best politician I ever encountered was a local politician in Mendocino country. He was popular on both sides and did a superb job. He didn't run for a second term because he got tired of dealing with idiots.

 

This is one of the downsides of first past the post electoral systems, without ability to indicate preferences past first choice. Optional or mandated preferential voting is in place here and you tend to get more representative outcomes. Then there's the even more representative proportional representation approach our Senate (and lots of European parliaments) use. 

[ProfD]

Living in a 24/7/365 media cycle is one thing.

 

The sensational headlines and poorly written articles lead to head scratching.😁

 

Reading comments at the end of new articles is hilarious in showing the voter population is split in half.😎

[Tusker]

20 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

What always puzzles me is how elections are always 50-50.

 

You already knew this, but the two parties evolve their positions, so as to attract unsupported votes. It's like two wrestlers circling each other in a ring. Sometimes there is a flip on one issue which cascades through the system of positions. One of those flips occurred when Nixon's southern strategy flipped the positions of the two parties. Some commentators say we are in the middle another flip right now anchored around the question of who speaks for the working class.

 

Voters choose their politicians but politicians also choose their voters.

[D. Gauss]

I'll just say that i regret working early in my career in a TV industry that pretty much pioneered and helped to popularize the horrible tabloid style television we have today. At one point several of my co-workers left to start a "news" channel you've all heard of that is "news" in name only.  Similarly, another former co-worker has set up shop in Russia and now consults to spread propaganda/disinformation to the U.S. and gets paid handsomely for it.  Through my TV work decades ago, I was in contact with one of the current candidates and I can tell you that had you met them/worked with them, you wouldn't want them anywhere near a Waffle House let alone the White House.

[ElmerJFudd]

2 hours ago, D. Gauss said:

I'll just say that i regret working early in my career in a TV industry that pretty much pioneered and helped to popularize the horrible tabloid style television we have today. At one point several of my co-workers left to start a "news" channel you've all heard of that is "news" in name only.  Similarly, another former co-worker has set up shop in Russia and now consults to spread propaganda/disinformation to the U.S. and gets paid handsomely for it.  Through my TV work decades ago, I was in contact with one of the current candidates and I can tell you that had you met them/worked with them, you wouldn't want them anywhere near a Waffle House let alone the White House.

Would it be even possible - and I can hear the outcry from the industry now - to label programs as we do cigarettes, gmo, or what have you.  When the talking heads are telling us how we should think and feel about the events of the day OPINION appears on the corner of the screen.  It obviously disappears on journalistic segments.   Print magazines and papers don’t seem to have any trouble labeling opinion.   (Of course the opinion shows would remain the most popular because clearly that’s what many prefer.   But at least the owners/management are forced to admit the programs are BS).   

[Stokely]

Elections mostly are 50/50 because the only votes that really matter anymore are in a handful of states.  Sure, if some big state like FL or TX or CA flipped then it changes everything.  Right now, thousands of voters in a few states decide the election.   I know people who don't bother voting because their vote literally doesn't matter in their area (though they should for local issues of course).  I'd be in that category too in current FL, but no way would I not vote.     The popular vote has been won by millions of votes most elections.

Personally I think the Electoral College sucks.   If you are in the minority in something over 40 states, local issues are the only thing in which you have a say.  No wonder so many people don't vote.   

It's a good idea to check your voting registration status well before the election.  I know some people that would not have been able to vote without them taking action, and they didn't realize it.   

In Taylor Swift related news, one of the POTUS candidates just posted this morning:

I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT

I guess in for a penny, in for a pound when you are trying to rile up a huge fanbase....

[Anderton]

 

2 hours ago, Stokely said:

I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT

 

That loud sound you hear is ambulances taking campaign consultants to ER rooms.

[MathOfInsects]

We're not really 50/50 as a country, we are 50/50 as a partisan voting population. Or rather, we are, but it's actually "50" non-affiliated and "50" a member of either party.

 

The 50-50 partisan votes are because each party has to cobble together these weird ragtag coalitions of strange bedfellows in order to be "the one of the two" that people pull the handle for when it comes time to do so. So what they need to do is compete AGAINST each other, as opposed to advocating FOR any one thing in particular. 

 

The country used to have more Democrats than Republicans, so the right had to do a bit more heavy lifting when it came to scrabbling together a coalition. That's why they ended up with these multiple competing concepts of "conservative," which, across the party, can mean anything from a Libertarian "Gubmint Off My Guns" to an authoritarian "Government in your wedding vows" or "Government in your deathbed" or "Government in your uterus."

 

But even then, the left also only had about a third of the population, which is why it needs to pretend the things it wants to do won't raise your taxes or change your personal choices.

 

Now, with each party only drawing about a quarter of the population, both have to frame the concepts in the "middle" in ways that best slice up the rest of the 50% in their favor. This is VERY hard to do with two parties, since each one only needs to "beat" the other. As a result, there is this constant tug-of-war of dangling better and better tasting candy for the kids to gravitate to. It will always fight to a draw.

 

When there is a third party, both existing parties tend to trend toward populism (third-party candidates are always populists)--that is, advocating FOR (people) instead of AGAINST (each other). Even then, though, the third party inevitably drops out, and his or her slice of the pie is divided up between the two vultures who race, equally, to the bottom of the plate together. 

 

It seems completely clear that ranked choice is a superior system for the places it's been tried. The question is whether it could ever make its way through the gauntlet of "Those With The Most To Lose From It," for our federal system ever to convert to it.

 

What we discovered recently is that our Democracy is only as strong as our agreements around it. We have a lot of ceremony built in to our cultural agreements. We've learned lately that all is takes is someone literally simply deciding not to agree, for the system to teeter. 

 

I'll be curious to see what comes, retrospectively, from this era in our development as a nation.