U.S. Politics: Houston Avoids Second Disaster

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So we consign the people who fought and died to best the enemy without becoming the enemy to the pages of history, because their pain was soooo then. If they had faced what we face, man, hold all our beers, cause Gandhi gonna kick some Tommy ass!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/917/214/a4c.jpg

 

/I don't think you understand. I didn't come here to rescue Gandhi from you. I came here to rescue you from him. 

[TrueMetis]

24 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

If I see a bully pushing you, I'm going to come over and help you push back. What I'm not going to do is help you push down the guys standing next to the bully, maybe they want to do some pushing too, but still they'll see what happened to their friend, and I'll use my speech to make sure they get the message.

Can we not pretend that the bullies friends standing there aren't active participants? Go ahead push the guys standing there, cause they are every bit as active in the bullying as the guy doing the pushing. The only reason they aren't pushing (yeah right "pushing") is because they are winning. They'll jump in the second that changes.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/31/2017 at 7:06 PM, Rippounet said:

Liberals by definition should be protective of free speech. People on the left don't have to be, and were never that much.
I'm of two minds on the issue myself. A year ago I was in favor of absolute free speech and thought the French Gayssot Act was a bad thing. Not anymore. Generally speaking I'm starting to think of myself more as a socialist than a liberal.

Absolute free speech isn’t defensible. Clearly there are cases were it has to be limited. The usual American approach has been to be skeptical of restrictions placed on the offensiveness or content of the speech, at least in public spaces (as a practical matter, we do put limits in restricted environments ie schools, the military, work etc. based on the content or offensiveness of the speech. All these are sensible in my opinion, so people can get their educations and work without feeling harassed or demeaned.)

But, the fact of the matter, is there has been a spat on the left (at least the American left) about free speech for a while. And a lot of it stems of the nature of “truth”. If you work in a tradition that sees truth as being mainly subjective, it stands to reason that you won’t think highly of the truth finding function of free speech.

On the other hand if you think truth has some objectivity, then you will think more of the truth finding function of free speech.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Manafort Documents Tie RNC to Russia...

 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/manafort-notes-russian-meet-contain-cryptic-reference-donations-n797816?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

*Mueller licks his lips suggestively*

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

27 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Absolute free speech isn’t defensible. Clearly there are cases were it has to be limited. The usual American approach has been to be skeptical of restrictions placed on the offensiveness or content of the speech, at least in public spaces (as a practical matter, we do put limits in restricted environments ie schools, the military, work etc. based on the content or offensiveness of the speech. All these are sensible in my opinion, so people can get their educations and work without feeling harassed or demeaned.)

But, the fact of the matter, is there has been a spat on the left (at least the American left) about free speech for a while. And a lot of it stems of the nature of “truth”. If you work in a tradition that sees truth as being mainly subjective, it stands to reason that you won’t think highly of the truth finding function of free speech.

On the other hand if you think truth has some objectivity, then you will think more of the truth finding function of free speech.

Well said.  I also agree there are reasonable limits to free speech as there are to any liberty rights.  Content neutral time, place, and manner restrictions are not beyond the pale.  The grey comes in when we see people arguing in favor of violence.  The hard fact intensive question is when does such speech rise to the level of incitement.  

[Rippounet]

36 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, the fact of the matter, is there has been a spat on the left (at least the American left) about free speech for a while. And a lot of it stems of the nature of “truth”. If you work in a tradition that sees truth as being mainly subjective, it stands to reason that you won’t think highly of the truth finding function of free speech.

On the other hand if you think truth has some objectivity, then you will think more of the truth finding function of free speech.

I actually think I have the very opposite problem: I'm concerned free speech is efficiently used to knowingly spread falsehoods. I'm not talking about libel or slander, but what basically amounts to organized propaganda on economic or historical facts.

I'm really starting to wonder whether some very powerful and very well-financed organizations shouldn't be held to account when they deliberately mislead the public (not to mention politicians, but at least they can be held to account on election day).
In other words, I'm starting to wonder just how efficient the "truth finding function of free speech" is in our day and age. I used to be a firm believer in that. Now I'm starting to think that speech designed to manipulate public opinion is harmful to democracy. Like, when you start using neuro-sciences to get people to vote against their own self-interests, perhaps the truth isn't so powerful anymore. In theory, the media was supposed to act as a counter-power ; today the media have been bought by the people who already have the most power. And the results are proving devastating. It's not theoretical: elections are being won or lost thanks to the support or lack of support of the media and the facts they give to the public. And elections have very real consequences on our lives.

Not that I have a solution, mind you, because any attempt at "solving" the issue might prove terribly counter-productive -for obvious reasons. Perhaps there should be some laws passed to make sure that the media remain a neutral counter-power dedicated to truth. Enforcement of such laws would shift the problem back to the political and judicial arenas at least, upon which the people do have some kind of power.

[The guy from the Vale]

50 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Absolute free speech isn’t defensible. Clearly there are cases were it has to be limited. The usual American approach has been to be skeptical of restrictions placed on the offensiveness or content of the speech, at least in public spaces (as a practical matter, we do put limits in restricted environments ie schools, the military, work etc. based on the content or offensiveness of the speech. All these are sensible in my opinion, so people can get their educations and work without feeling harassed or demeaned.)

But, the fact of the matter, is there has been a spat on the left (at least the American left) about free speech for a while. And a lot of it stems of the nature of “truth”. If you work in a tradition that sees truth as being mainly subjective, it stands to reason that you won’t think highly of the truth finding function of free speech.

On the other hand if you think truth has some objectivity, then you will think more of the truth finding function of free speech.

I used to think the way you do, but like Rippounet, I've shifted on this position over the last few years under the direct impression of the rise of the "alt" right. The problem with this framing is the following: It assumes that people come to the marketplace of ideas to find the truth. Now that may be the case for some... but the majority seem to come there to feel good about themselves. These two goals are often in direct contradiction, and I fear there are too many who frequent the marketplace of ideas to listen to snake oil salesmen who push ideas of racial superiority, Macho Rape Apology and pseudoskeptical anti-gay bigotry because it makes them feel good about themselves instead of facing the actual truth about people who do not live in the same position of privilege as they do.

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Rippounet said:

I actually think I have the very opposite problem: I'm concerned free speech is efficiently used to knowingly spread falsehoods. I'm not talking about libel or slander, but what basically amounts to organized propaganda on economic or historical facts.

I'm really starting to wonder whether some very powerful and very well-financed organizations shouldn't be held to account when they deliberately mislead the public (not to mention politicians, but at least they can be held to account on election day).
In other words, I'm starting to wonder just how efficient the "truth finding function of free speech" is in our day and age. I used to be a firm believer in that. Now I'm starting to think that speech designed to manipulate public opinion is harmful to democracy. Like, when you start using neuro-sciences to get people to vote against their own self-interests, perhaps the truth isn't so powerful anymore. In theory, the media was supposed to act as a counter-power ; today the media have been bought by the people who already have the most power. And the results are proving devastating. It's not theoretical: elections are being won or lost thanks to the support or lack of support of the media and the facts they give to the public. And elections have very real consequences on our lives.

Not that I have a solution, mind you, because any attempt at "solving" the issue might prove terribly counter-productive -for obvious reasons. Perhaps there should be some laws passed to make sure that the media remain a neutral counter-power dedicated to truth. Enforcement of such laws would shift the problem back to the political and judicial arenas at least, upon which the people do have some kind of power.

I agree with a lot of this. It's hard, watching the events of the last few years, and even extending it back 20 or 30 years, to escape the notion that most of us are just meat with complex, but pretty predictable, responses to stimuli. I don't believe in the rationality of humans or the essential decency or fair-mindedness of Americans.

Republicans have been waging a war on facts and expertise and rational discourse for so long, it's almost like they've poisoned the well. No amount of universal critique will get past the oh-so-convenient "fake news" "liberal media" canards.

How do we solve it? Bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Limbaugh et al set up shop not long after it was repealed. I'm sure he and his army of white grievance will cry about how oppressive that is, though. Maybe the Fairness Doctrine is the horse that you can't get back in the barn.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/31/2017 at 8:12 PM, Rippounet said:

I actually think I have the very opposite problem: I'm concerned free speech is efficiently used to knowingly spread falsehoods. I'm not talking about libel or slander, but what basically amounts to organized propaganda on economic or historical facts.

I'm really starting to wonder whether some very powerful and very well-financed organizations shouldn't be held to account when they deliberately mislead the public (not to mention politicians, but at least they can be held to account on election day).
In other words, I'm starting to wonder just how efficient the "truth finding function of free speech" is in our day and age. I used to be a firm believer in that. Now I'm starting to think that speech designed to manipulate public opinion is harmful to democracy. Like, when you start using neuro-sciences to get people to vote against their own self-interests, perhaps the truth isn't so powerful anymore. In theory, the media was supposed to act as a counter-power ; today the media have been bought by the people who already have the most power. And the results are proving devastating. It's not theoretical: elections are being won or lost thanks to the support or lack of support of the media and the facts they give to the public. And elections have very real consequences on our lives.

Not that I have a solution, mind you, because any attempt at "solving" the issue might prove terribly counter-productive -for obvious reasons. Perhaps there should be some laws passed to make sure that the media remain a neutral counter-power dedicated to truth. Enforcement of such laws would shift the problem back to the political and judicial arenas at least, upon which the people do have some kind of power.

A lot of what you say or the theme of what you are saying is prevalent in post modernist thinking. In short, it believes that free speech is just a tool for dominant classes (however you define that) to maintain control.

Before I give a response, I’ll just lay my cards out on the table. I’m not a fan of post modernism. Now, I consider myself a lefty, but my apathy for for post modernist thought will probably piss at least some on the left off. But, there it is.

Anyway, I think that really the way the dominant class would maintain control is just basically to have your skull busted open by some burly sort of people whenever you said something they don’t like. Certainly, when free speech was developing during the Enlightenment era, philosophers were making some stinging attacks against Feudal institutions and the Church (both of which needed a good attacking).

I don’t deny that the dominant classes often spew bullshit. In a prior post, I’ve complained about powerful business people spewing economic bullshit. And of course you have way too many white people believing in lost cause theories of the Civil War. 

So there is a lot of bullshit out there. But, I just don’t think that heavy handed regulation of free speech is the way to go. Or you might ended up having burly sorts of people busting in you in the skull, when you dissent. Or you might have a Russian prosecutor trying to prosecute you when you make a play that wasn’t kind, in her estimation, to Czar Nicholas Schmuckatelli I or whatever. Or you might end up having speech you’d like to hear being suppressed.

The problem with heavy handed speech regulation that some on the left seem to think is appropriate is they never seem to think it will backfire on themselves.

And while the nature of our disputes can surly be frustrating at times, with all the bullshit out there, it would be unfair to say that we haven’t made any progress in some key areas.
 

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/31/2017 at 8:16 PM, theguyfromtheVale said:

I used to think the way you do, but like Rippounet, I've shifted on this position over the last few years under the direct impression of the rise of the "alt" right. The problem with this framing is the following: It assumes that people come to the marketplace of ideas to find the truth. Now that may be the case for some... but the majority seem to come there to feel good about themselves. These two goals are often in direct contradiction, and I fear there are too many who frequent the marketplace of ideas to listen to snake oil salesmen who push ideas of racial superiority, Macho Rape Apology and pseudoskeptical anti-gay bigotry because it makes them feel good about themselves instead of facing the actual truth about people who do not live in the same position of privilege as they do.

Of course a lot of people push dubious bullshit. But, I think you make a mistake, by believing you can remove bad beliefs by heavy handed regulation and it will never end up backfiring on you.

And quite frankly, I think it's a bit advantageous to have this stuff come out in the public where it can be addresses. Sure there are a lot of quacks out there. But, let's hope at least a few people can be persuaded to change their minds given logical arguments. If not, then the whole liberal democracy project is probably fucked.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I think post-structualism works better as a tool than a framework.

[Inigima]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

So, the catchphrase for free speech...I hate what you have to say, but will fight to the end for your right to say it....

 

Tell me who said this without Googling it.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just an FYI, There was guy on NPR the other day from the ACLU explaining that even back in the 30s when they were defending Nazis right to free speech, and again I'm Solid, that they drew the line if then protestors/Marchers/whathaveyou were armed.  He mentioned some pamphlets from those times making that distinction.

 

Also, re: ghandi and coming for statues.  Google ghandi statue and a bunch of articles come up from the last few years where people have protested the installation of Ghandi statues or petitioned for their removal mostly due to his racist attitudes during the Boer wars

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

Tell me who said this without Googling it.

Can't remember who it was, just remember who it wasn't. (Voltaire) 

edit: ok, so I googled it and can honestly say I'd not have remembered if you gave me a year to try. Did you know?

[ThinkerX]

single payer proposal from a top Dem...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kamala-harris-just-announced-her-support-for-medicare-for-all/ar-AAr0yPP?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) announced at a town hall on Wednesday night that she’ll be co-sponsoring Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) upcoming single-payer health care bill.

 

Talking to 700 people at a church in Oakland, California, Harris became the first Senate Democrat to publicly announce her support for Sanders’s legislation, which is expected to be released in mid-September.

“I’ll break some news: I intend to co-sponsor the Medicare-for-All bill because it's just the right thing to do,” said Harris, who is widely seen as a leading Democratic presidential candidate for 2020. She added with a laugh: “Somebody should tell my staff.”

 

 

[James Arryn]

One thing I always mean to tell Americans about govt/sing-pay health care is that it completely eliminates any worries about ulterior motives re:surgery recommendations, etc. You know the doctor saying you do or do not need X procedure won't see a dime more or less either way, so you get medical advice based entirely on medical opinion. 

[ThinkerX]

The cost of (Flood) relief according to Trump...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-is-said-to-weigh-tying-debt-limit-increase-to-harvey-aid/ar-AAr3ZkL?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=msnclassic

Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump is considering attaching an increase in the U.S. debt limit to an initial request to Congress for disaster relief funding of $5.95 billion for Hurricane Harvey, two administration officials said.

 

The White House request, which could come as soon as Friday, would include $5.5 billion to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the remainder to the Small Business Administration. The request is being prepared primarily to cover funding demands through the Sept. 30 end of the federal fiscal year, according to the officials, who described the matter on condition of anonymity.

Administration officials already have begun talks with congressional leaders about the approach, which is intended to ease early passage of a debt limit increase and avoid a stand-off over the issue that could rattle financial markets, one of the officials said.

[DMC]

10 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

While "dragged through the mud of history" probably doesn't fit, we just had a more minor example of this here with David Frum. And that was the case of a guy who is currently echoing many of the same concerns the Left has been forwarding about Trump. You yourself told the story of how you were yelling at Paul Wolfowitz in a bookstore. Not sure what the timeframe on that one was, but the stain of these things seems to take awhile to fade.  

Yeah, I intentionally left Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (and Cheney, for that matter) out for a reason.  They may well be dragged through the mud of history - I certainly hope so - but that's on them.  They were the architects of the neo-conservative policy and rational, and the driving force pushing us to war in Iraq.  The argument is that members of the administration would have their reputations tarnished by being associated with Trump, but I would argue Bush's reputation was tarnished by being associated with the above three.  So, there's a difference there.

As for Frum, part of that is just part of the job being a political operative in the White House - you are inherently going to encounter hatred by partisans of the opposition.  Is some of that hatred particularly pronounced - and perhaps unwarranted in its vehemence - because of his association with Iraq?  Sure, that's fair.

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

By wonky I meant discussing staffers that average people have no idea exist, which you just acknowledged. That handful of people who are household names are, for the most part, not viewed in a positive light these days. And their history is still young. Most of their falls from grace are only a decade old. I’m thinking about how they’ll be remembered 50 years from now.

Ok, well, if we're talking the neo-cons, see above.  If we're talking Rove, I'd put him in the same boat in that harsh judgment will be based on how conducted himself, not solely by being associated with the Bush administration.  And again, if we're talking Rice and Powell, I do not think they will be judged harshly.  Powell will always have to own that UN speech, but again that's an intentional action he decided to take that is fundamentally different than merely accepting a position in Bush's cabinet.

I think that gets us to the broader argument.  Trump officials are not going to tarnished merely be being in the administration.  Right now, the general consensus is the generals are a positive influence on Trump - and I suspect that would sustain through history.  However, if, say, Mattis provides Trump with the cover he's seeking (or might be at least) on discharging transgender members, then yes - he will be judged for that, as he should.

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, right?

Well, I certainly am never going to be a proponent of Mitt Romney acting on principle.  I had foreign service employees and careerists at the EPA in mind when I made that statement.

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I think that right now it is not a good time to bet anything on polling number trends.

Oh, I'm certainly not betting that Trump is going to be at 35 percent on election eve.  As I said, I think there's a very good chance his approval numbers will climb back up to the 40s at least at some point (although something's obviously going to have to change for that to happen, whether it's him ceasing to appeal and act solely for his base, a major legislative accomplishment, or a major crisis).  The discussion was if he's at 35 percent approval by 2020, not that he will be at 35 percent.

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

In particular, I am worried because the main states that would have to flip and have the greatest chances of flipping - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan - were shown to have almost no change in their opinion of Trump since the election. 

Except there have been changes - there's the Gallup analysis that shows his approval is about ten points less than his vote share in Pennsylvania and Michigan (albeit only 6 in Wisconsin).  There's the Marist poll from right after Charlottesville that puts his approval at 33% in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and 36% in Michigan.  Are Trump voters largely sticking with him?  Sure, for the most part:

Quote

Trump still has the support of most of those who backed him in the 2016 election.  Most Trump supporters in Michigan, 84%, Pennsylvania, 81%, and Wisconsin, 77%, approve of the president’s job performance.

But even that drop could or would prove fatal for Trump, which is reflected in how closely he won in those states.  He won Michigan by about 10,000 votes.  That means if he lost just one percent of his own voters, he loses.  In Pennsylvania (won by 44,000 votes) and Wisconsin (22,000 votes) it's a little better - a full two percent of his voters would have had to abandon him in order for him to lose.  Will many if not most of those 16, 19, and 23 percent come back to Trump if an election was held today?  Most likely yes - that's what past elections and statistics suggest.  But they also suggest that enough of those voters will not come back to Trump that would lead him to lose based on November's results.

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

If Trump continues to be largely unpopular with rank and file people but is still holding true at 35-40%, as he is now, I don't see why he wouldn't get re-elected, because he got elected in the first place. Nothing he has done so far has made appreciable dents in his super conservative friends save perhaps the 'many sides' bit (though polling, depressingly, does not bear this out in the slightest), and unless said super conservative friends are disinclined to vote (for him or in general) I don't see how he loses simply due to the combination of people's unwillingness to admit making a mistake (to themselves or others) combined with the demographic value that Trump has in being able to win the EC.

This entire argument is based on the idea that "nothings changed," which has been what we've been going back and forth on for months.  Then, I show you evidence that things are changing - like the recent 538 polling and discussion or the simple fact that his approval rating has been dropping about a point per month, and you still say nothing's changed.  I think we're just at fundamental disagreement at this point.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

A lot of what you say or the theme of what you are saying is prevalent in post modernist thinking. In short, it believes that free speech is just a tool for dominant classes (however you define that) to maintain control.

Before I give a response, I’ll just lay my cards out on the table. I’m not a fan of post modernism. Now, I consider myself a lefty, but my apathy for for post modernist thought will probably piss at least some on the left off. But, there it is.

Anyway, I think that really the way the dominant class would maintain control is just basically to have your skull busted open by some burly sort of people whenever you said something they don’t like. Certainly, when free speech was developing during the Enlightenment era, philosophers were making some stinging attacks against Feudal institutions and the Church (both of which needed a good attacking).

I don’t deny that the dominant classes often spew bullshit. In a prior post, I’ve complained about powerful business people spewing economic bullshit. And of course you have way too many white people believing in lost cause theories of the Civil War. 

So there is a lot of bullshit out there. But, I just don’t think that heavy handed regulation of free speech is the way to go. Or you might ended up having burly sorts of people busting in you in the skull, when you dissent. Or you might have a Russian prosecutor trying to prosecute you when you make a play that wasn’t kind, in her estimation, to Czar Nicholas Schmuckatelli I or whatever. Or you might end up having speech you’d like to hear being suppressed.

The problem with heavy handed speech regulation that some on the left seem to think is appropriate is they never seem to think it will backfire on themselves.

And while the nature of our disputes can surly be frustrating at times, with all the bullshit out there, it would be unfair to say that we haven’t made any progress in some key areas.

You write well.

Ok, first I think it's unfair to call this sort of talk "post-modernism." I don't think you'd find tons of articles about this in the media (ironically) if some people didn't see this as a very concrete problem. A quick google search gives me such articles, and I really don't think they can qualify as post-modernist:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/opinion/schmitt-politics-money/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy

Then, it's also unfair to say that the only solution is heavy handed regulation of free speech, as this is not exactly what I have called for and I've very explicitly said that one should be careful about attempts to solve the issue that could prove counter-productive (or be abused). However, a different approach to free speech might be in order. Very tough anti-trust laws for media ownership could help. In the US, reversing Citizens United v. FEC could help. Ethical commissions for journalists and the media could help. Identifying the organizations and people using significant amount of money to spread known falsehoods and calling them out on it could help.

Now we started this exchange by talking about free speech, so I'm not going to pretend that I don't have some kinds of limits in mind. I just don't know how they could be implemented in some way that couldn't be abused. What I do know is that some countries have passed laws to forbid negationism and that they work fairly well (despite the endless controversies). The heart of the matter is that the denial of historical truth can be exposed. If it can be done for genocide, I don't see why it couldn't be done on other matters. The issue would be figuring out what kind of truth should not be denied ; such truths would have to be so elementary that almost any reasonable person would agree that lying about them is a serious problem, because too many people might start believing them.
And here it occurs to me that I don't think such laws should really apply to individuals. Individuals spewing bullshit are not a problem. There is a problem when many individuals are paid by specific organizations to spew that bullshit. This is no longer free speech, it's propaganda. So perhaps what I'm really hinting at are laws dealing with conflicts of interest. Like, you can't seriously call yourself a scientist or a journalist if you're on the payroll of a major corporation or political organization ; there is an obvious conflict between your supposed dedication to the truth and the financial interest you have in promoting specific ideas. And if what you're saying can be shown to be a lie, perhaps you should be exposed for it, and no longer be allowed to speak as a scientist or journalist ; instead you would be known and treated as the spokesperson for the interests that you are actually representing. If it becomes known exactly who is a pawn of hidden forces, perhaps those hidden forces will lose some of their influence.

Because I really don't think control can be maintained solely through force. I think it's easy to demonstrate that propaganda is terrifyingly efficient, because that's mostly what the 20th century has been about. What I'm worried about is that the manipulations of the past are increasingly looking like a mere prelude. We are moving away from a time when manipulation was a a recurrent aspect of politics to achieve specific short-term ends and moving into an era when manipulation is permanent in order to achieve specific long-term ends. The truth is no longer powerful enough by itself to get through to the masses and desperately needs some help. And no, I'm not thinking about "my truth" but truth in general. It's taken me years of hard work to know some very basic things about the way the world works and at times I feel increasingly disconnected from people who don't have the luxury of taking the time to do the research, even when we share the same general ideas. I'm worried about what I have yet to learn, and worried that the truth is increasingly hard to get at. Some experts work very hard to dig and find it, but they are barely getting any kind of media exposure these days. Attacks on education and the humanities especially throughout the West are making this worse. If this trend continues, it will only be a few decades before some very basic truths about economics and politics are known only to the people who look for them, and know to look in the right place, with solid sources. The past is almost literally being rewritten before our eyes, the words are being changed to subtly alter the perceptions of people, and the voices warning about it are drowned in the endless cacophony of bullshit. I may be a bit dramatic, but I only watch the news on TV once every few months or so, and every time I'm shocked by how well they are formatted to present a worldview that has little to do with reality ; and then, I see exactly what impact this has on people's ideas.

A random anecdote before I go to bed. Just a few days ago I watched the news for the first time in six months or so. The journalist was interviewing the minister of labor. But the entire interview was cleverly designed to present her in a positive light, as someone dedicated to the "social" and "humane" aspects of her work. Two days later, I read an analysis explaining what the problem was: the journalist (the voice-over) had been praising the minister. It was no longer the case of interviewing her to let her make her case ; the voice on the report was saying good things about the minister that are demonstrably false. I work on the media. I've watched hours of newsreels from the eighties. And I think this type of manipulation has now become routine, which was not the case thirty years ago. And it's working. When you're watching the news, you may doubt the words of the minister, but you're far less inclined to doubt the disembodied voice of the journalist. It's unconscious, and it's powerful. That's the type of stuff that we've seen in authoritarian states in the 20th century. Today it's the stuff we're seeing in our so-called democracies, because the media are no longer dedicated to the truth, but serving some specific interests to achieve specific goals. The irony being, of course, that those who don't trust the media are somehow fed worse bullshit. It's a cycle of bullshit that I just don't see an end to.

 

[lokisnow]

@Rippounet I call The Voice on House Hunters "the voice of doom" as the disembodied relentlessly chipper authority--dictating with convincing enthusiasm a completely false narrative--is profoundly addicting and appealing.

house hunters renovations is even more terrifying, "John and Kay only went $100,000 over budget this week, but they are excited to see their new home," (insert ad for wayfair)

it may not be as high minded as "da news," but possibly more important.

(I hope I'm on house hunters someday!)