Rumors in the age of unreason

[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.

[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]

LOL dubman.

Can't say I disagree with much of what you said. Its just not enough to convince me that reading a lot of news sources of differing levels of quality and bents isn't a good idea and something to recommend everyone else do as well. If the reasons I gave above aren't enough I can provide more.

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.

That's actually the very core of the argument I was making why you *should* review a medley of news sources.

Like I said, reviewing various sources allows you to search and filter based on problem, not on ideology. Camping out on a single angle will not get you anywhere. Yes its true the attitudes you bring to the table will color your experience. But that's true whether you camp or go wander. Moreso if you just camp.

And unless you're an inert piece of angus tri-tip with the curiosity and imagination of a rock, eventually you'll have no choice but to a. suppose the possibility, b. begin a logical process of analyzing the possibility. Just because the process is tectonic in speed doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the process won't speed up over time.

Which is why

Originally Posted by dubman

come on. could you honestly be guilt tripped enough to look at pundits use weasel words to swipe at whoever you agree with just to know that you're goodly enough to sit through it?

completely misses the point. How do you expect any diversity of opinions to sprout up otherwise? Regardless i just don't buy the assumption that its a holier-than-thou attitude that is at play here.

I mean I don't know about you but I'm not smart enough to listen to one guy, decide I like him, formulate every possible counter argument and weakness, then decide I "agree" and turn off my brain. I doubt anyone is that smart .001% of the time. Ever experience the vertigo of watching stupid people call other people stupid? And the reason you think the stupid person calling the other person stupid is stupid is because you see a complexity of the argument that is completely oblivious to the person labeling everyone stupid?

Maybe I came across as self congratulatory, but if it helps me to burn through the occasional bubbling brook of bullshit to better my odds of not being that guy, I'm fine with that. Because if there's ever a surplus of people in the world, its the douche bags getting all hostile without reason about the stupidity of the opposing viewpoint.

Here's other reasons.

1. Know your enemy. Sometimes I watch fox news and listen to rush to get a better appreciation of where the country is at. You can hear about the birther's and the tea-party movement through the jokes and giggles of Maddow, or you can see it in action and get your own experience of it. And then weep.

2. You'll be surprised. Glenn Beck, this morning, was very surprising. A lady called in saying atheism and the constitution are contradictory and you can't believe in constitution without believing in the bible. Beck actually stopped her mid sentence and said atheists have a role in government like anyone else. He even went on to admit that the founding fathers had atheists in their ranks, mentioning jefferson and paine by name. They are welcome as long as they don't substitute God with the state.

I mean, its a start.

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.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Hey, stupid! Can I get a cigarette? Like that?

[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

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Just kidding. It's nothing like that at all.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Wiseman has since deleted his Facebook account.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...954271,00.html


Just out of curiosity, is not the UCAL or UCLA or ACLU or whatever that blah, blah, blah shit located here? It's just that I had made a call to them at one time in the past and it was the same old bullshit as most everywhere else I've been connected to for "help".