U.S. Politics: Leaving On A Jet Plane

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Twenty Nine Percent

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

"Hey, you clowns want to own a pillow company?"

"Gee, I dunno. Do I have to wake up early? That sounds like a lot of work."

"Nah, son. It's easy. We'll be rolling cash!"

"Bruh."

"Bruh."

"Cheers." -tink-

https://www.rawstory.com/dominion-voting-systems-mike-lindell/

[Heartofice]

29 minutes ago, Inkdaub said:

I'd also like to say that we are already better than the other group.  It does no good at all for us to pretend that isn't the case. 

Also, I worry that many people are aware of these programs but aren't actually watching.  So you have your righty people seeing their guy on the tube owning the libs...but they don't actually understand or even watch the 'debate' or whatever it might be presented as.  Their guy being on tv writes it's own narrative. 

I would love it if pointing out the idiocy of the right had some sort of effect but I just don't think it does.  I have to come down on the side that platforming these people does more harm than good. 

I think it’s the platform that is the problem,  rather than who gets platformed. Watch one Ben Shapiro video on YouTube and your feed is changed forever, it will be filled with right wing videos about owning the libs etc. The same if you watch left wing videos, the whole algorithm is designed to create an echo chamber.

Obviously network tv is its own echo chamber but I think the internet is the real issue these days. It does everything it can to make sure you never get a balanced view on anything.

[Mindwalker]

6 hours ago, SpaceChampion said:

I waited all day to find the perfect MLK quote that would never be used by virtue-signalling right wing politicians, and here it is:

Nominee for worst person(s) in the world virtue-signalling about MLK today:
 

 

My favorites were Ivanka and good ole Lindse.

[Relic]

2 hours ago, Inkdaub said:

I'd also like to say that we are already better than the other group. 

This is an extremely dangerous line of rationalization. "We" and "other" are the two most problematic words you used in that sentence. The polarization in the USA is going to bite everyone in the ass. The Republic desperately needs 3 more viable political parties, at minimum. Lumping people into left and right, blue and red is going to lead to massive bloodshed, and no matter which "side" "wins" we're going to end up being rules by authoritarians. 

[DMC]

Speaking of approval ratings, Gallup came out yesterday with its final poll of Trump as president.  Nothing surprising, but the writeup does share some interesting comparative figures.  Trump's average approval (throughout his presidency) checks in at 41.1%, over four points lower than the next lowest (Truman).  His final approval - 34% - is not the lowest ever final poll for a president.  That still belongs to Truman at 32, and Dubya and Carter were both at 34 as well.  However, Trump's final poll dropped 12 points from his final pre-election poll.  The only other president whose numbers dropped there was Carter, and his only 3 points.

As for the quibbling over how many Americans want authoritarian rule, I'd put it at 33%.  A third of the electorate - not the country - are fascists, or at least prefer an authoritarian regime.  This composes 75-80% of the Republican party, or at least consistent Republican voters.  This seems to be Trump's nadir and about the percent that "believes" Trump won.  You can see it on the inverse too - Biden is getting about 67% approval for how he handled the transition, but that's clearly his ceiling.

Senate malapportion aside, this would actually be right at the precipice of being tenable given the 2/3 thresholds for extraordinary action in the legislature.  The problem is on top of that 33%, around about 10% - again, of voters - don't seem to give a shit.  As evidenced by Trump's disapproval topping out at about 58% and the percentage that opposes Trump's removal.  This also is supported by Obama's approval during his lame duck period, which topped out at around 55-59%.

[Knight Of Winter]

  

8 hours ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

I'll put it another way- I'll worry about hosting the likes of Weiss or any other conservative pundit when fox starts routinely hosting liberal viewpoints.

Most of the time, most people unwittingly end up in ideological echo-chamber. Rarely have I seen someone who so knowingly and cheerfully marches straight into in and considers it a good thing.

Hypothetical platforming of right-leaning pundits (or left-leaning in case of Fox) is not done for the benefit of pundits themselves, or the ideology they're propagating; but for the benefit of audience (and public in general) who get to hear richer and more balanced view of a particular topic.
 

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I think it’s the platform that is the problem,  rather than who gets platformed. Watch one Ben Shapiro video on YouTube and your feed is changed forever, it will be filled with right wing videos about owning the libs etc. The same if you watch left wing videos, the whole algorithm is designed to create an echo chamber.

Obviously network tv is its own echo chamber but I think the internet is the real issue these days. It does everything it can to make sure you never get a balanced view on anything.

Oh, this. I've spent years pruning my youtube recommendation system, mostly because youtube doesn't seem to get "just because I liked video X doesn't mean I'll like ideologically-similar-to-X-but-otherwise-full-of-shit-video" argument time and time again.

Though it begs the broader question: are we becoming more polarized because of social networks, or are social networks just reflecting our own preferences to be polarized?

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

  

Most of the time, most people unwittingly end up in ideological echo-chamber. Rarely have I seen someone who so knowingly and cheerfully marches straight into in and considers it a good thing.

Hypothetical platforming of right-leaning pundits (or left-leaning in case of Fox) is not done for the benefit of pundits themselves, or the ideology they're propagating; but for the benefit of audience (and public in general) who get to hear richer and more balanced view of a particular topic.
 

Oh, this. I've spent years pruning my youtube recommendation system, mostly because youtube doesn't seem to get "just because I liked video X doesn't mean I'll like ideologically-similar-to-X-but-otherwise-full-of-shit-video" argument time and time again.

Though it begs the broader question: are we becoming more polarized because of social networks, or are social networks just reflecting our own preferences to be polarized?

It’s very difficult to prune your YouTube feed because it just keeps learning based on what you are watching. As you said, social networks tend to reflect our own preferences, so if you like to watch a certain type of thing then it’s just going to show you more of that.

Twitter has at least made moves to show opposing content but it’s debatable whether that will actually work given that people’s preference is to just ignore stuff that they don’t agree with and dismiss it anyway. 
 

Adding content warnings on Trumps tweets seemingly did nothing and probably just fuelled the notion that Twitter was all part of the conspiracy. It’s hard to know whether it’s actually possible to change human behaviour in their way.

Having said that, I still come to this site, which can be its own form of echo chamber , precisely because I’m unlikely to agree with anyone here. So there is hope! 

[Week]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

  

Most of the time, most people unwittingly end up in ideological echo-chamber. Rarely have I seen someone who so knowingly and cheerfully marches straight into in and considers it a good thing.

Hypothetical platforming of right-leaning pundits (or left-leaning in case of Fox) is not done for the benefit of pundits themselves, or the ideology they're propagating; but for the benefit of audience (and public in general) who get to hear richer and more balanced view of a particular topic.
 

Oh, this. I've spent years pruning my youtube recommendation system, mostly because youtube doesn't seem to get "just because I liked video X doesn't mean I'll like ideologically-similar-to-X-but-otherwise-full-of-shit-video" argument time and time again.

Though it begs the broader question: are we becoming more polarized because of social networks, or are social networks just reflecting our own preferences to be polarized?

First bold is a fantasy. Particularly in the US.

Second bold is absolutely true and some of the worst, those who should not have a broad platform - Shaprio, flat earthers, Bongino, etc. do extremely well. Fortunately social networks have started to try to rip out Jim Watkin's Qanon* hoax.

From listening to the Replyall (166 IIRC) and seeing the insurrection on 1/6 (and the insanity of Margarine Tayler Greene) - he seems to be a real life supervillain. Programming people in another country to commit acts of violence, to overthrow their government? Sheeeee-it.

ETA- Agree with DMC that it's both - I think the initial indoctrination (i.e. facebook recommending right-wing groups) and maintaining that echo chamber is more of the problem.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Though it begs the broader question: are we becoming more polarized because of social networks, or are social networks just reflecting our own preferences to be polarized?

Both.  It's what us fancypants eggheads call an endogeneity problem.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Hypothetical platforming of right-leaning pundits (or left-leaning in case of Fox) is not done for the benefit of pundits themselves, or the ideology they're propagating; but for the benefit of audience (and public in general) who get to hear richer and more balanced view of a particular topic.

What debate in the Weimar Republic could have stopped Nazism?

In what debate would an elegant speaker with good ideas stopped nazism?

Hitler was handed the Mike repeatedly and given the chance to implode.

He only got popular.

To be clear I am not calling everyone to the right of me nazis.

I am simply rejecting anyone must have access to any venue to spell their ideas and that there’s no limit,

Even if their ideas are sadly not especially rare.

Nearly a third of Americans are privy to sodomy laws.

The NYT doesn’t leave space for an op-Ed for someone to say sodomy laws in America need be enforced again.

45 of republicans think America should stay majority white.

Maher doesn’t need to have Richard Spencher on Roundtable

[Varysblackfyre321]

Hmm I’ve stated this previously;it should not be forgotten the prevelancy on concern trolling around these topics.

There are liberals and leftist, centrists who genuinely think it’s necessary to show destroy hideous ideas is to expose and demolish them in the public.

And then there are those on far-right who spew the same dogma knowing full more public exposure to their ideas would most likely help them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 hours ago, DMC said:

It is a matter of fact that I delineated between the type of people and ideas Maher has helped propagate from all conservatives and you ignored that.  It is a matter of fact that Stewart and Colbert did nothing like what I and others were objecting to with Maher yet you persisted with such a blatantly false equivalence.  

Sigh, and yet their guests are largely from the same pool and some of the names you've cited are people all three have had on to humiliate them. I don't think your argument is as strong as you think it is. The three have a lot of mutual respect and learn from one another. 

Quote

And I brought up NAMBLA to point out that views don't need to be "censored" in order to be denied platforms by media.  I think both the speech/ideas peddled by Coulter, Conway et al. and that of NAMBLA fall under this category.  And, more importantly, the former is much more corrosive to our democracy and political discourse.  Do you disagree?

Yeah, this is kind of ridiculous. You can think poorly of Coulter and Conway and also realize they're not in the say league as NAMBLA. Sure, they've had more influence, but comparing them to a pro-pedophilia group is so over the top.

Quote

Again, I don't think a Chinese government official, or anybody for that matter, arguing in favor of one party rule should be given any platform.  Don't give a shit how it's "moderated."  And I really don't see why that "debate" should even be raised in the United States, or how it's relevant to this discussion.

The point is the person was brought on to highlight how wrong the system is. Most people have no clue of it works and it was informative to bring someone on who supports it and show why they're wrong. And that is very relevant to the debate. If you're going to discuss a controversial topic you need someone conducting the interview or moderating the topic that can be critical of bad ideas, not just be like Chuck Todd and let almost everything slide.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

@Tywin et al. - no. We don't have to be better than the other group. We have to win. We have to realize that anywhere from 20 to 30% of the populace wants authoritarian rule (regardless of other leanings). Ignoring that and ignoring the current environment means things will continue to be asymmetrical and one sided until, well, they win. 

You can win while being better at the same time. Would Biden have won if he sank into the mud with Trump? I'm not so sure.

[Knight Of Winter]

13 minutes ago, Week said:

First bold is a fantasy. Particularly in the US.

If it's a fantasy, it's a one that ideally should becoming less and less fantasy, and more and more of a possibility, ultimately leading to reality.

Speaking for myself, with the few exceptions - I don't really like listening to left pundits. What could they possibly say that I don't already know? What argument could they make that I couldn't make myself, only a bit more polished? And since they're surrounded by other left pundits who think similarly, there's no one to challenge their arguments and point flaws in them. As a result - I, the viewer - is none the smarter after watching all of this.

Now - smart and educated centrist or right-leaning pundits - they're the ones who can tell me something I don't already know. They are the ones who can cause me to strengthen my own ideas and arguments by poking holes in them; forcing me to either strengthen or abandon them. In short - they're the ones who have at least some chance of being useful. (same goes for left pundits and right-wing audience, as well).

Though I suspect there's always going to be some element of "fantasy" in this approach. Namely, I suspect that TV networks and YT channels will bring not those pundits who will generate the most productive discussion, but those who are most controversial and will bring in most viewers. 
 

24 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What debate in the Weimar Republic could have stopped Nazism?

Is there any reason that, each time I breach "people should talk to and debate each other" argument,  you immediately bring up Nazis? Almost without exception.

It's an age-told truth, unfortunately, as old as politics itself - that many people will always use the worst example of of rival group in order to justify their dismissal of them. For you, it's the "Nazis". For right-wingers, it could be "stalinists" For non-muslims, it's "jihadists". Et cetera, et cetera.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Speaking of approval ratings, Gallup came out yesterday with its final poll of Trump as president.  Nothing surprising, but the writeup does share some interesting comparative figures.  Trump's average approval (throughout his presidency) checks in at 41.1%, over four points lower than the next lowest (Truman).  His final approval - 34% - is not the lowest ever final poll for a president.  That still belongs to Truman at 32, and Dubya and Carter were both at 34 as well.  However, Trump's final poll dropped 12 points from his final pre-election poll.  The only other president whose numbers dropped there was Carter, and his only 3 points.

As for the quibbling over how many Americans want authoritarian rule, I'd put it at 33%.  A third of the electorate - not the country - are fascists, or at least prefer an authoritarian regime.  This composes 75-80% of the Republican party, or at least consistent Republican voters.  This seems to be Trump's nadir and about the percent that "believes" Trump won.  You can see it on the inverse too - Biden is getting about 67% approval for how he handled the transition, but that's clearly his ceiling.

Senate malapportion aside, this would actually be right at the precipice of being tenable given the 2/3 thresholds for extraordinary action in the legislature.  The problem is on top of that 33%, around about 10% - again, of voters - don't seem to give a shit.  As evidenced by Trump's disapproval topping out at about 58% and the percentage that opposes Trump's removal.  This also is supported by Obama's approval during his lame duck period, which topped out at around 55-59%.

I’m curious given the difficulties... how would you propose to remove equal representation in the Senate?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sigh, and yet their guests are largely from the same pool and some of the names you've cited are people all three have had on to humiliate them. I don't think your argument is as strong as you think it is. The three have a lot of mutual respect and learn from one another. 

Their guests "largely being from the same pool" has nothing to do with the argument.  Neither does them having mutual respect from one another - which you're overrating anyway.  I'm not repeating again why your argument here is objectively wrong.  If you don't get that, that's your problem.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, this is kind of ridiculous. You can think poorly of Coulter and Conway and also realize they're not in the say league as NAMBLA. Sure, they've had more influence, but comparing them to a pro-pedophilia group is so over the top.

In terms of giving them a platform, no they're not in the same league as NAMBLA, they're worse.  Because many more people are inclined to agree and be incited by their crazy racist hate-filled speech.  Are you saying Coulter and Conway do not propagate crazy racist hate-filled speech?

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The point is the person was brought on to highlight how wrong the system is.

I don't know what the fuck shows you're watching where anyone's gonna be "educated" on the dynamics of one party rule, but this demonstrates you fundamentally don't get the point.  If you want inform viewers on how one-party rule works, great!  Just don't put on a Chinese government official to explain it.  The "debate" is not legitimate, because one-party rule is not legitimate.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m curious given the difficulties... how would you propose to remove equal representation in the Senate?

I got nothing Scot.  Other than an amendment I don't see how you do it.  I guess make everyone read Frances Lee's book to try and gather enough support for it.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

As for the quibbling over how many Americans want authoritarian rule, I'd put it at 33%.  A third of the electorate - not the country - are fascists, or at least prefer an authoritarian regime.  This composes 75-80% of the Republican party, or at least consistent Republican voters.  This seems to be Trump's nadir and about the percent that "believes" Trump won.  You can see it on the inverse too - Biden is getting about 67% approval for how he handled the transition, but that's clearly his ceiling.

I don't think that's quite right. I don't know the exact percentages, but I think there is some amount of that 33% that don't want authoritarianism. Instead, it's that they are caught in an information bubble where every source they trust has told them over and over that the election was fraudulent and Trump was the legitimate winner and they honestly believe that. And they furthermore believe that every Trump action they hear about (which isn't all of them, there are plenty that Fox News and others gloss over or ignore completely; and they learn about) is justified because he is the one defending Democracy.

I don't know how anyone could effectively reach these people, and the end result is they support authoritarian actions. But I think there is an important difference between them and the white supremacists, or the "We know this is bad, but we really want judges/tax cuts/deregulation, so we're okay with it." If Trump had stolen the election, a lot of us would be calling for extraordinary actions to be taken, and these people believe Biden stole the election. 

[Week]

It's insane given the last 10 years (particularly ramping with Obamacare and birtherism) and most clearly the last two weeks that folks believe in the moral right and efficacy of the status quo.

We're very extremely fucked by climate change, an ascendant right wing - both politically and socially - with extreme poverty and yet - ya know - we gotta really just debate Ann Coulter, Shapiro, Rand Paul, Jim Jordan, and whatever other huckster comes around claiming to be a voice on the right. Fuck that.

There is a right and a left within wings of a big tent party with a few independents on the outside looking in (former Republicans who believe in democracy but a Democrat is a bridge too far) where there can be healthy debate about real issues.

Continuing with the status quo is going to drive us all insane with the right popping off about renewed fear mongering of immigrants (no DACA or compromise immigration - keep the system fucked), high taxes (raising taxes is a burden on real Americans(tm), minimum wage (enjoy your $35 burger), support for fossil fuels (our poor oil&gas grads, what are they going to do now??), BABY KILLERS, AND MEN IN THE LADIES RESTROOM Etc etc 

Catch me never with any of that shit again.