Rumors in the age of unreason

[dubman]

couple more things..

Originally Posted by Strangelet

3. There is no such thing as unuseful information.

4. And this is the biggie. Truth will always prevail. Always always. You can spin your propeller hat all day, it doesn't change the fact that reality is the framework in which you need to achieve your goals of survival. That means that even the most loudly shouted, manipulative news source, by definition must fail, and the reasons for that failure will be stark and unmistakable.

3. to summarize a lot of the above, information is made useless by how people talk, or are expected to talk, about it. since 'they' go for the kind of discourse people 'want', all usefulness out of this information starts to deteriorate with each person/source reporting it.

4. i'd like to believe that a lot of things are built on lies, and sometimes the bigger the lie, the more the truth, when/if found, serves as a symbolic triumph for those that found it, because whats been made from it is often treasured as a necessary thing.

if truth becomes something that can be decided by whoever markets their version the best, and it becomes normal, and we all dont become a grotesque monstrosity out of it, the habit will be considered how news is done today, with objections being waved off as 'archaic' vs 'what people want'
i suppose thats speculative and alarmist, conceivably the rules of backlash could mean an era of real unromantic reporting sometime, but it seems less likely somehow

[Sean]

Originally Posted by dubman

i agree, but i think we're too used to being a part of A Party that knows what's right. try to strip that away and the differences in opinion on how those should be done will still be lines drawn in the sand and made ideological. people understand that in order to get things done it has to be marketed to as many people as possible, meaning someone has to "lose", meaning co-operation is a facade at best.

I'm a big fan of diversity of opinions and ideologies, so I'm not speaking against that. What I'm speaking about is knee-jerk opposition for it's own sake, and how things like the internet have allowed it to become so coordinated on a large scale. Like cheering when the U.S. lost the Olympics - not because those people oppose the Olympics, but because they oppose Obama and perceived the loss of the Olympics as a way to damage his reputation. That's what I hate, and what makes me think we're not mature enough to handle our technological advances.

Originally Posted by dubman

we havent waxed enough on how everything's gotten smaller by now? exposure's only limited by reach. if we can reach everyone, it's still the same neighborhood mentality, with the rise and fascination and backlash and mockery. just because the size of these reactions has gotten bigger (advertising deals and job offers doesnt say much for real import, just how the chatter processes) doesnt mean a bold new age has come.

I believe it does in some ways. We're no longer isolated societies scattered around the world, where people's actions only impact those who share their immediate surroundings. Instead, we're suddenly being thrust into much more of a true, singular, global society where groups who rarely interacted in the past are now in constant and immediate contact with each other. It was within most of our lifetimes that this was not the case, so I see it as a pretty definitive bold new age. And my Joe the Plumber example was meant to simply illustrate that rather than just being a dumb-ass who asked a Presidential candidate a question, this guy actually has a national fan base that he can potentially influence if he manages to keep the spotlight on himself long enough. That certainly doesn't legitimize him, but it definitely does afford him far more import than he ever would have been afforded in past generations.

Originally Posted by dubman

this i agree with. whats funny is that currently, people are enjoying this widespread fairness (relatively) of exposure. that's new. the problem is that people are idiots. you have 'artists' on deviantart re-tracing the same image with little in the way of technical ability getting thousands of hits from other hubs of mediocrity, yet demanding respect for their 'style'. these people trade back and forth and convince themselves that they're brilliant and ready. you have a staggering glut of crap on youtube which goes without saying, but is still exciting enough people trying to figure out how to make millions off of it. running a blog is simultaneously a necessity as well as a liability. "user-generated content" is an eye-roll for the cynic and still exciting for the naive, but the saturation of this idea is going to get hit hard by backlash, because people just react to whatever is happening for the sake of new. what i cant tell will happen is what's going to come out of it.

Exactly.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by dubman

this i agree with. whats funny is that currently, people are enjoying this widespread fairness (relatively) of exposure. that's new. the problem is that people are idiots. you have 'artists' on deviantart re-tracing the same image with little in the way of technical ability getting thousands of hits from other hubs of mediocrity, yet demanding respect for their 'style'. these people trade back and forth and convince themselves that they're brilliant and ready. you have a staggering glut of crap on youtube which goes without saying, but is still exciting enough people trying to figure out how to make millions off of it. running a blog is simultaneously a necessity as well as a liability. "user-generated content" is an eye-roll for the cynic and still exciting for the naive, but the saturation of this idea is going to get hit hard by backlash, because people just react to whatever is happening for the sake of new. what i cant tell will happen is what's going to come out of it.

In regards to this statement, the medium of delivery is all that has changed.

[Strangelet]

god you guys are depressing. The one time I decide to be optimistic you guys are ready to throw the bed pan of the human race out the window and call the internet a tool that enabled bad people to be worse, as opposed to more evolved. At least Sean can see the bold new age coming

Regardless, I'm not really sure we're saying anything all that different at this point. I think we're just coming at this from different angles.

My angle is to desperately move away from post-partisan politics. I'm not optimistic enough to suggest that people would ever be "post-bias." I just want us to move out of this system of 1984-esque theatre of "choice" that plays out like pepsi versus coke

I'm firmly convinced that if this charade of democrat vs. republican continues much longer, people will be forced to rebel against the whole system. Because the "bias" problem goes deeper than the media and the internet.

For example, when Obama blames the economy on bush at the same breath he continues every single policy decision of the bush treasury, including all his wars, and when the dem news agents crucify bush for these policies but are silent about Obama's picking up where he left off, and when hannity all of a sudden decides a balanced budget is conservative, and when neither party are capable of pushing out legislation that does nothing more than promote the interests of the same banks and multinationals that stripped america's production and manufacturing and actually caused this mess, its going to collapse. maybe violently.

It will collapse in two possible ways. Either the two opposing sides will work themselves up into two caged dogs getting poked by their pundit handlers until they are let loose on each other, or a third, opposing grass movement will call bullshit on the whole facade. A coalition consisting of disgruntled independents, progressives and libertarians based on a platform of solving clearly defined problems with clearly defined solutions with the focus on individual freedoms, small businesses, and local economies.

I'm thinking that the only chance this country has is if the latter comes to pass.

What I'm saying is that drudge isn't just biased, he's partisan. Fox news is not just biased. They are the propaganda wing of the republican party. Actually they are the propaganda wing of a subset of the republican party that, through the 24 hour efforts of the network, appear to be the total republican party.

Assuming you prefer the huffington post and andrew sullivan I would ask if its because you necessarily agree with their bias, or is it because they are less partisan? (or that they talk in complete sentences)

Because I doubt, with our enlightened forum members, any of this is news to you all. I would be surprised if any of us consider themselves strongly republican or democrat. Which means we are using other criteria to decide what news sources are viable and which are bullshit that have nothing to do with partisanship.

And that's why we are saying the same thing. The original article talked about people getting entrenched in their own campsite based on who we agree with, without making any assertion about why they agree. We are making the assumption that all people are terrible and not capable of rational scrutiny, and that's the reason for the polarization. When its just as possible that some of the polarization is happening because the swamp gas republicans and the wide-spread-panic democrats are separating themselves from the critical thinkers. And the critical thinkers are just desperate for any news source that won't talk down to them like they should just assume the role of an angry manchild. Which is the reason I prefer the huffington post and andrew sullivan for the most part.

Originally Posted by dubman

if truth becomes something that can be decided by whoever markets their version the best, and it becomes normal, and we all dont become a grotesque monstrosity out of it, the habit will be considered how news is done today, with objections being waved off as 'archaic' vs 'what people want'
i suppose thats speculative and alarmist, conceivably the rules of backlash could mean an era of real unromantic reporting sometime, but it seems less likely somehow

You are right. The bumper sticker slogan of "Truth will prevail" should probably be rephrased. How about "Assertions that are true enough to not turn us in to grotesque monstrosities will prevail".

But either way, it is heartening to imagine that the internet has the power to speed up the process of that reckoning by way of providing information. So that people can go back and look through the audit trail of articles and see who was on the take and who wasn't, who should be voted out and who should be rewarded.

[dubman]

i dunno if you guys have noticed but this year i've been sniping on the side in this forum for just about anything i've cared to comment on. even though i knew the whole thing was going to be embarrassing a week later i figured that i should get it out there instead of becoming john-lite for no reason aside that i hate everyone.

i still cant take most of anything here seriously but it was nice to get it out.

We are making the assumption that all people are terrible and not capable of rational scrutiny, and that's the reason for the polarization

well no. all people are terrible, and thats the reason that no matter what happens, people will find new ways of being terrible, if necessary. it's not going to end with some brilliant third party taking charge, there's just going to be dissatisfaction and gnashing until someone who perverts the original intent takes charge and keeps screwing up.

i go on various news trackers, find articles i want to read, and do the wikipedia-style meandering where that leads to links to other interesting news articles. some days it's 2 hrs, other days it's 20 minutes.

[Strangelet]

so you're saying you're steven beck?

with respect to your views on humanity, you have to love something deeply in order to hate it. At least that's why I'm a misanthrope.

anyway, thanks, this is a new experience for me. I've never felt so condescended towards while finding accord at same time.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Just when you started to provide remarks that I didn't take a being snide, you go and say you were just being snide(in so many more words). Don't try to ditch the conversation just because not everyone here agrees with you.

It's, like, your filtering the conversation now.

[mmm skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Sean

Until people start looking at issues like the economy, health care, climate change, education, international relations, etc as things that need to be solved rather than as arguments to be won, I fear that we'll just keep sinking deeper and deeper into this vicious cycle of animosity and self-serving manipulation.

Follow the money. Ask this question: who benefits?

Originally Posted by Sean

We're no longer isolated societies scattered around the world, where people's actions only impact those who share their immediate surroundings.

This has been true for a long time. Ask Gavrilo Princip about it.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mmm skyscraper

This has been true for a long time. Ask Gavrilo Princip about it.

It really hasn't been true on this broad and massive scale for much longer than, say 20 years? Anyone who's in their mid-30's or older will vividly remember all the kinds of things you usually hear from your grandparents, like rotary phones with no call waiting or caller id, remote control-less televisions that only offered a handful of channels, the advent of the first, super-expensive VCRs, absolutely no internet or email - the means of easily communicating, finding information, being aware of what was happening in the world, all of that kind of stuff was just way way WAY more difficult. I mean a forum like this where I can debate what a global society we've become with people I've never met from all around the planet was unheard of back in the '70's and early 80's. Or more specifically, just look at the fact that you threw down the statement "ask Gavrilo Princip about it". That's a name I had never heard, and yet I was able to find out all about him instantaneously and without anything more than a couple mouse clicks. That simply wasn't possible just a short, short time ago.

So when you look at the rapid development of immediate global communication in the context of our species' entire 100,000+ year history of social evolution, you'll see that it's only been available to us for a tiny fraction of a sliver of a heartbeat in time - and yet it's been a HUGE step forward. Probably the biggest individual leap in human social development ever in fact.

[dubman]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

so you're saying you're steven beck?

with respect to your views on humanity, you have to love something deeply in order to hate it. At least that's why I'm a misanthrope.

it's the coulda been

anyway, thanks, this is a new experience for me. I've never felt so condescended towards while finding accord at same time.

whatever works, right?