Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Cars have uses besides hurting people.  Weigh the positives and negatives and nearly everyone will conclude the value of cars is greater than their hazards.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Cars have uses besides hurting people.  Weigh the positives and negatives and nearly everyone will conclude the value of cars is greater than their hazards.

So now we weigh acceptable losses when you might lose your car.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Cars have uses besides hurting people.  Weigh the positives and negatives and nearly everyone will conclude the value of cars is greater than their hazards.

Well, here's my $0.02 as someone who doesn't like guns and doesn't own one.  Guns might not have value to you, but they clearly have value to millions of people who don't want to kill others.  And while it's easy to dismiss that as someone who doesn't like guns, I think it's important for the debate to take that into account.

So what might some of those reasons be, and what would be a safe and effective way to appease both parties.

"I like to hunt with guns"

This is a big thing for people.  Hunting can be a time-honored tradition with families, and guns are essential to the process.  People will fight hard for tradition and family and memories, and so I think there needs to be a hunting exemption. 

My idea - either you "rent" your guns from a specific office where you keep it (near a hunting ground) and you aren't allowed to take it off the ground.  If you only want the gun when you're hunting, this makes sense (just like how you rent bowling shoes or a paintball gun or ice skates).

"Guns are fun to shoot"

This is something that people have a problem with, but it can be a hobby like anything else.  It's a skill you can learn, and there's adrenaline that you get from shooting. 

My idea - create special gun ranges where people can go and shoot guns for free.  Everything is subsidized by the government - the guns themselves, ammo, targets, and most importantly, security.  And assuming that the security is strong enough, I'd be okay letting people shoot basically whatever guns they want.  This is where I'd want background checks to be run, but if people want to shoot and it can be safe, I don't see any reason why they can't be allowed to shoot.

"I need a gun for protection"

This is the trickiest one.  I saw an online debate where people were arguing in favor of AR-15s because they were better for protection.  That the gun makes it more likely that you'd only hurt an intruder.  I don't know nearly enough about guns to know if that's true, and honestly, it doesn't matter to me.

What's interesting...and it's something that I don't see much....is why people are so scared.  Home invasion seems to be a very-real threat that people are concerned about, and it's not something that seems to be addressed.  So I wonder...are home invasions more prevalent in the US than other countries?  If not, how do foreigners make their families feel safe?  If so, what do other countries do to keep home invasions down?

And I honestly don't have an idea here.  You could stiffen the punishment for a home invasion to hopefully keep the numbers down.  Maybe that might help people feel safe.  Maybe subsidize other forms of home security so that people don't think guns are their only option.  Additional police presence?  Subsidize something like tazers or a non-lethal form of home protection?

And that's the thing.  I think most people just don't feel safe.  And not from the government....from each other.  And when the government talks about taking away people's guns, I think most people aren't worried about the government taking over - I think it's just that they're going to feel less safe.  That the police won't get there in time.  That their spouse or children could be killed because they don't have the tools to defend them.

Now I know it might seem silly to say an assault rifle is necessary for security, but some people feel that way.  Take away their gun, and they feel like their child is in danger.  And I think until both sides understand where the other side is coming from, we're just not going to get any better on this issue.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

If I bit my tongue any harder, I'd need stitches. smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Should the politics of an entertainer impact your enjoyment of that person's work?

I've never watched Roseanne.  My parents didn't like her brand of comedy, and something about the show turned me off.  But it was widely popular with a lot of people, and it re-premiered the other night to huge numbers.

Roseanne Barr is a Trump supporter, and her character on the show is a Trump supporter.  This has called for a lot of anti-Trump people to boycott the show.  I was interested in reading about this so I went to Twitter.  I saw a lot of this:

"I loved the show back in the day, but I cannot support her if she's a Trump supporter."
"America doesn't want to see Trump supporters painted in a positive light"
"No one wants to watch a show done by a Trump supporter."
"If you watch this show, you're as bad as Trump."

Hollywood has always skewed liberal.  When the West Wing came out, it skewed to the left, but it was still a widely popular show.  Even with Republicans.  And while it focused on a Democratic White House, the Republican figures weren't shown as cartoonish monsters that were trying to pollute the Earth and destroy the poor.  People disagreed, there was a healthy debate, and democracy prevailed.

And I don't think watching a show by a liberal or even a show *about liberals* means that I agree with everything that the creators/writers/performers believe.  I disagree with a lot of entertainers but will still fork over money.  At the end of the day, I like the work and not the person.

We've become so divided that there's no more separation.  Conservatives hate Hollywood and are avoiding anything made by the "liberal left" - and liberals are trying to do the same with Roseanne.  Even people who admitted to liking the show when it first aired or people that admitted to liking the shows that aired *this week*.  To me, it shouldn't matter.  To a lot of people now, it really does.

Should it matter?  Will we eventually get to the point where there's "liberal" scripted television and "conservative" scripted television like the CNN/FOX divide with news?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It shouldn't matter, unless the writers are going out of their way to bash you, or jam politics where it doesn't belong. I obviously get annoyed when stupid political jabs are made for no reason, but I don't boycott shows or movies just because of a liberal slant. I think that if conservatives did that, there would be nothing left to watch. Aside from Roseanne, who are the conservatives on TV? Schmidt on New Girl? Are there any others?

And when Christian conservatives are depicted, it's usually as some weird culty figure that dresses like a 1950's sitcom character, while spewing a ton of hatred at people, because they're written by people who have never actually met a conservative.


I was reading a review of Roseanne, and the person reviewing it dinged the show because they couldn't believe that Roseanne not only voted for Trump, but because she expressed no remorse for her decision. They dinged the second episode because they couldn't see how a Trump supporter would possibly stand up for their "gender fluid" grandkid who had to face bullies at school. (and I put the term "gender fluid" in quotes because the reviewer used this label for a character who clearly identified as a boy, not because of any personal views that I have about this transgender issue)

It's insane and it's stupid. I watch a lot of TV, which means that I'm fed a steady diet of liberal ideals and being told how evil I am. The thing is, for a lot of those characters, it makes perfect sense for them to be liberal, so I don't care. Some characters are in no way liberal, but the writers will not call them conservative because it would probably make them sick to do so.


What I liked about Roseanne this week was that the show made fun of everyone. Whereas most comedy has skewed away from actually telling jokes and more toward tearfully preaching to the audience about the evils of conservatism, the show actually told jokes, and they were funny. Hell, I laughed out loud at a Jackie line, despite the fact that she was wearing a pussy hat and a "Nasty Woman" shirt the whole time.

The show was having a real discussion about the grandson who wears girl's clothes, and what that decision will mean for him. It was making gay jokes about Darlene (who isn't gay, but who is played by a lesbian actress). Comedy is funny when its honest, and these discussions were more honest than pretty much anything else I've seen from the teary-eyes dramas over the past decade.

Over the years, I've gone through phases of enjoying Roseanne's show, and thinking that it was disgusting and annoying. I don't know why, but sometimes I'm in the mood and sometimes I'm not. I did make an effort to rewatch some old episodes on Amazon Prime before the revival started, and I can see why people connected to it. TV characters are usually portrayed as upper middle-class families who never wear the same outfits twice, and who walk around with Starbucks cups in their hand as though they have their own personal barista following them around all day. A large, large chunk of the population can't relate to them at all. Roseanne depicted a family who struggled for money, who had to decide between buying shoes for one person or a dress for another, or who had to work two jobs and barely ever saw their spouse. A lot of America relates to those struggles, and a lot of those people voted for Trump.

It seems like every interviewer who sits down with Roseanne to discuss the new show wants her to answer for her Trump-supporting sins. Whereas they will accept a Trump joke from most celebrities, and act as though it is some deep political insight, they want Roseanne to explain foreign relations, healthcare, and union crap.

The media clearly has a bias. Entertainment is made for liberals 99.9% of the time, because the writers live in bubbles where everyone thinks like they do, and they genuinely believe that "most of America" thinks that way. I've long said that writers should have to live wherever their shows are set/filmed, because they way they do it is unrealistic. I have friends who are liberal. I have friends who aren't Christian. In the real world, most people know different types of people, and it's fine. It's just in television and movies that we're expected to follow the liberal propaganda while being told that conservatives are evil at every turn. And Roseanne's numbers prove that this needs to change. Hollywood needs to get out of its bubble and recognize not just the large American audience that they've been ignoring, but the large audience around the world that share similar beliefs.




So I probably could have summed all of that up by simply saying, no. It should not matter, but sometimes it does.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I was reading a review of Roseanne, and the person reviewing it dinged the show because they couldn't believe that Roseanne not only voted for Trump, but because she expressed no remorse for her decision. They dinged the second episode because they couldn't see how a Trump supporter would possibly stand up for their "gender fluid" grandkid who had to face bullies at school.

Well, that's because we've stopped seeing each other as people with different political beliefs.  If you're a Republican, you see liberals as whiny, weak, East/West coast snobs who look down on hard-working people.  If you're a Democrat, you see conservatives as naive, prejudiced hillbillies who hate everything that isn't Fox News.

Voting for Trump doesn't mean that you agree with everything he does or everything he stands for.  There are countless issues, and everyone weighs those issues differently before they make their choice.  If your number one issue is (EXAMPLE) and your candidate is still advocating your side of (EXAMPLE) , then you'll support that candidate no matter what else they do.  You could be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and you could vote for either party depending on a million factors in your own life and how they rank at any particular time.

So you can like what Trump has done with the economy and still support gay marriage.  Or protect children from bullies.  Or a hundred different things that Trump might not support.  It's not as black and white as people want it to be.  It wasn't 20 years ago when Roseanne first aired, and it isn't now.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Exactly (though, to be nitpicky... Trump was pro-gay marriage before Hillary was). I think most of America gets that, but there are some coastal liberals who don't. I had an east-coast family member over once, and she acted as though she legitimately didn't think that we got, like, *the news*, in Texas.

There are groups that benefit from keeping people scared and angry. Most people aren't eeeeevil, but if they can make enough people believe that the other guy is out to get them, it keeps those groups alive. If the fear and anger ends, they lose their jobs. This is why people should never trust anyone who wants them to avoid discussion and debate. I saw a quote somewhere online where someone said that if you're not willing to hear the best argument against your belief, you can't really know what you believe (or something along those lines), and that's true.

I wish less people would take the time to sit down and really learn the other side of the debate. Like, to the point where you could argue the other side in a debate if you had to. Nobody should fear understanding the other side. And a lot of the people that I see avoiding those conversations seem to fear what they don't know about their own side more than they fear the other guy.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My GF (bigger fan of orig than I) watched Roseanne, and gave me a quick synopsis.  Said political persuasion was not important; however, way too many OLD story lines that they tried to recap, left her head spinning.  She was more annoyed by how the characters "wound up" all these years later!  I myself was not a big fan.  I thought Aunt Jackie, and the friends were far funnier than the actual family.   For me, the show is out of date, I prefer something like Shameless.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well from what I heard, most of the political aspects were Roseanne defending her decision to vote for Trump and the rest of the family busting her balls for it.  If you looked online, I'd have assumed that the whole show is pro-Trump when it sounds like Roseanne is the only one on her own side.

I don't care about Trump.  I think he's a doofus, and I think he's totally in over his head.  But I also don't think that we need to vilify people that like him.  There used to be a dialogue between people that didn't get along.  It was how people got along with each other, and it was how understanding was found.  I might disagree with someone with the opposite beliefs, but understanding their POV is a goal of mine.  When you've cut out all your friends that disagree and cut out all the media that disagrees with you and formatted your social media to only include people that agree with you, you start believing that you're in the vast majority of sane people.  You've cut out the dialogue.  You've cut out the understanding.

It's easier to hate something you don't know and don't understand.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I didn't hate how the characters wound up. Darlene and David were always the broody artst types, and that's hard to make a living at. I know this from experience smile
Becky was always kinda flakey, so it doesn't surprise me that she never started her own business or anything like that.
Jackie being a life coach is just funny.

I don't think we know much about DJ, but he seemed to be doing okay. And Jerry is probably making a solid living on a fishing boat up in Alaska.

And it makes sense that most of the family would be liberal, though I think that DJ would be a good choice for another conservative. Maybe one who didn't vote for Trump.


And I agree on all of the stuff about not cutting everyone who doesn't agree with you out of your life. I found it really disturbing when some celebrities were telling people to abandon any family members who didn't vote for Hillary. That's just wrong.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Prince of Wails anyone?

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-a … 1824233490

Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner or operator of nearly 200 television stations in the U.S., would be forcing its news anchors to record a promo about “the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country.” The script, which parrots Donald Trump’s oft-declarations of developments negative to his presidency as “fake news,” brought upheaval to newsrooms already dismayed with Sinclair’s consistent interference to bring right-wing propaganda to local television broadcasts.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

heh!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't get it. What's the scandal here? They recorded a scripted promo for their company. That's pretty standard. And they didn't say anything that hasn't been said by plenty of left-leaning corporations/personalities.

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2 … s-facebook


This wasn't even a news report. It was a corporate mission statement, read by local affiliates. I find it far more unsettling when I see many people across different platforms using the same exact language (usually with uncommon wording) when reporting an actual news story. Or when many media outlets omit the same information from stories. Hell, there was an online group a few years back, filled with journalists from different outlets, discussing the best way to slant stories in order to promote a unified political agenda.

Sorry, but I have a hard time buying into the outrage surrounding a promo video when blatant media corruption has been ignored for years.

And that's not me defending people who are "right-wing". I have said many times that I don't trust any news outlet without checking their facts for myself (which really never involves visiting a fact checker website, which are biased themselves). I just clutched these particular pearls many, many years ago, for much better reasons.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The scandal is that they are forced to "inform" viewers that stories being covered by the rest of the media are "fake" when they are NOT.  It's the Trump admin and friends decrying negative press as fake, even though the facts continue to prove otherwise.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

But... Reports in the mainstream media are fake all the time. The media routinely generates outrage, fear and division by manipulating the information that they give viewers. They outright lie quite often, or sometimes allow the audience to believe a lie by not providing the facts in their stories. The fact is, you can't trust the information that you get on a regular news report because of what they choose to leave out.

I don't see how it scandalous to say this when half of the time people are complaining about fake news, it's the Democrats doing the complaining about Faux News.

And it's a little dramatic to say that these people were "forced" to do anything. They're anchors, reading a script. That's pretty much the job description.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The scandal is that Sinclair broadcasting is dictating to local news channels that they own to report the same national stories using the same conservative slanted script, this has been a practice for the last year or so, saying that I can watch an almost identical local news telecast in dayton ohio and orlando florida.


slightly scary, if the local sinclair network doesnt complie they fire the crew and start over.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I just fail to see how that's a scandal. I'm not saying that it's the way things should be done (I'd have to see more examples of what stories they've pushed and the angle they've pushed. So far, I've only seen that one video that wasn't a news report at all, but an address to the audience, from the company), but this is how the media works. Am I supposed to act shocked by this, despite knowing about media corruption for many, many years? Or is it just a thing now because people suddenly care when it's a conservative organization?

The news lies. I know someone who appeared on a national news broadcast, in character, for a total lie of a story. I've been openly talking about this, and poo-pooed as a crazy conservative conspiracy theorist. Then I've watched as liberals said the same things about Faux News (which literally means fake news).

I don't buy the shock or outrage. If anyone really cared, every major news outlet would have been called out and held accountable years ago. I think this is just a convenient story, meant to remind the public that they should be outraged at eeeeevil conservatives. But not liberals. Because liberals never do this stuff. Liberal news outlets are totally reliable. CNN never pushes an agenda. Nor does NBC/MSNBC. Nor do all of the local affiliates who just innocently happen to omit the same vital facts all across the country.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm not complaining about a slant this way or that.  Everyone exaggerates these days, one way or the other.  What you should not be doing is flat out lying about facts.  Trump routinely lies, often out of thin air on the spot.  The media (beyond Fox) calls him out on it, and he brandishes this fake news.  These are not policies issues, these pertain to his disaster of a White House, and the various lawsuits and investigations it's embroiled in.  That remains my concern with him, the media has often acted as a check on his power, while Congress has laid down in front of the train tracks.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Nobody doubts that Trump loves to BS. However, the media does lie about him all the time, and they fail to report much of what he does, creating a narrative that doesn't represent the full picture. They did the same with Obama, but the other way around.

A lot of people believe that Trump is guilty of Russian collusion. That isn't based on any facts or evidence. In fact, as we've learned, most of those people have no idea what he supposedly did. The reason they believe it is because the press presented it as fact. They create narrative after narrative, causing people to feel like things are totally out of control and we're all doomed, when that's not really the case. As a President, Trump isn't the best ever, but he is nowhere near warranting the level of fear, hatred and disturbing displays of insanity that people feel toward him. That's all narrative.

Similarly, the comments that I'm seeing more and more often about guns and the NRA are ridiculous to anyone who has any knowledge of these subjects at all. Yet people believe them, because the media has created the narrative. They don't present the facts that would lead to more rational debate, because the blind fear is what moves their agenda along.

We have examples of the liberal press actively helping liberal candidates, feeding them debate questions, reading their talking points, taking part in a secret internet group where they discuss how to frame stories to benefit their candidates.

If the people who are outraged by Sinclaire were really outraged by the facts at play here, they would have been crying foul ling ago. But they didn't. Because they only mind it when it appears that the other team is guilty and the outrage could help their own side.

This swooning and fetching of the smelling salts is laughably disingenuous. Especially when you consider that the only reason why Trump is President is because the media liberals thought it'd be funny to push him during the primaries, just to goof on conservatives.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I wonder if we should start a post for non-American politics? These topics could inform what we do in our own country.

https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blo … lent-crime

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Not about American politics, but I'm sick of seeing news reports about the new royal baby, while those same news shows completely ignore the baby being forced to suffer and die in England right now, because of their backwards healthcare system. Far from the first. Far from the last.

The UK is quickly going to hell. Between this story, their war on knives and garden tools, and their battle against free speech, it seems like nothing good is coming out of that place lately.


Note: I'm not a citizen of their country. I have long known that they don't share the same rights as the US. This is nothing new, and is simply a different culture doing what different cultures do. I get that. But I don't have to respect it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

So how does the Mueller investigation affect your personal world?

Well, for years I’ve played an MMO called DC Universe Online (allowing you to create your own original DC Comics hero to go on adventures with Superman, etc).  Originally owned by Sony (licensing DC properties), the Sony Online Entertainmrnt division was sold in 2015 to a New York investment group called Columbus Nova who subsequently created Daybreak Games to house all of the SOE business.

Well, this was reported on April 4:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … -to-trump/

It was found as part of Mueller’s investigation that Andrew Intrater, CEO of Columbus Nova, gave $250,000 to the Trump inaugural fund; he had never donated this amount of money to any other politician.  Why this mattered to Mueller is that Intrater is a cousin of Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg who runs Renova Group (the parent company of Columbus Nova).  On April 6, Vekselberg and Renova were added to the list of Russia sanctions freezing their assets and ordering their businesses to shut down by June 5.

Currently, Daybreak Games is trying to erase history by editing their Wiki page and deleting articles they can control, but it was very clear in 2015 that they are a Columbus Nova company.  Now suddenly...they want you to believe they never were.

The bottom line is that the U.S. government doesn’t even have to shut down Daybreak to kill DC Online.  DC is owned by Warner Brothers who also owns CNN (a network at war with Trump).  Trump has also had a hand in hindering the Warner / AT&T merger.  All it will take is Warner getting wind of the Daybreak / Russia connections in the Mueller investigation, and they’ll likely pull the plug on DC Online.  Disney did the same thing by pulling the licensing plug on Marvel Heroes last year, and the death of that game was over sexual harassment allegations within the company that developed Marvel Heroes.

So if it comes to pass and Daybreak / DC Online is shuttered - for me, Robert Mueller will have killed the DC Universe.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Renova Group is big in the news this week.  Lots of money coming from them.  Again, not a shock, given that Trump was schooled by mobsters, partnered with them for decades in NY, and now worldwide.

BTW: somewhat OT but I finally watched Roseanne S10, and beyond the joke-line of the first episode, this series has absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump or politics.  It was a stroke of genius for the writers and the network to hype it up that way, but the show is just good clean family corny-ness, with issues that we all face.  I've really enjoyed it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I've been rewatching Roseanne, even as I watch the new season. I've seen some critics saying that this isn't the Roseanne that they remember, but it is exactly the same character. They did episodes talking about the IRS being too big and taxes being overly complicated. They did an episode where DJ wanted to wear a girl witch costume for Halloween and Dan wasn't cool with it.

The problem is, as Roseanne herself has said, that the left has moved so far to the left that anything that isn't super extreme is branded "alt-right". I see pretty liberal commentators grouped in with the most extreme far right lunatics, simply because they're not liberal enough (I'm talking basic things like being pro-freedom speech).

A lot of today's "right" is really just what the center-left used to be.

I do like how Roseanne has approached things like the election, a grandson who wears girls clothes (I don't want to say "gender-fluid" like some, because he clearly said that he is a boy), Muslim neighbors, and the economic impact of illegal immigration without smacking us in the face with one-sided politics, like most shows. They remember that they're still entertainment above all else.

876 (edited by Informant 2018-05-18 21:30:22)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I somehow got lost in a Twitter black hole where people are so desperate to say hateful things about Trump that they're literally and not jokingly siding with and defending MS-13.

Like... I get it. People dislike Trump, and sometimes for legitimate reasons. But in the words of Kenny Rogers, "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run."

This situation has led me to a question. It will probably sound like I'm mocking people, but I'm not. It's a serious question.

I've seen Trump comments either taken out of context, misquoted, or fabricated quite a bit since he took office. I'm sure that happens with all Presidents. But these comments are usually what I see people use when they really want to dig I to Trump and show how ugly he is as a person. So the question is, are people aware when they're doing this? Are they aware that what they're saying isn't true or honest, and they just use it because it best expresses how they feel? Or do they genuinely now know that these comments are dishonest?

To be clear, I remember rolling my eyes at some Obama insults back in the day, so it isn't really about which side we're on. And I don't think that Trump is beyond being criticized legitimately, so this isn't about *all* critical comments. But there are some that are clearly dishonest, yet get used nonetheless. The latest being his calling MS-13 members animals (which is an insult to animals) and the media spinning it to sound like he was referring to all illegal immigrants. Even after it's been debunked, I see people using it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, I think the difference is that the Obama backlash wasn’t given as much of a voice.  The majority of the media talks about the horror of Trump 24/7; I think Twitter is moderating comments differently than they do with other topics (they probably consider it balance for allowing Trump to say whatever on his Twitter account); etc.

There was just as much vilification of Obama and Hillary; that’s part of the reason Trump got elected.  We just weren’t hearing those people’s voices until they spoke out at the ballot box.

878 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2018-05-19 09:16:20)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

What probably happened is someone in the media who didn't see the actual video and context of the quotes just saw the words in transcript and ran a story with it, because people in the media are under a tremendous amount of pressure to get a lot done in a little amount of time (and making very little money for it).  This sort of thing can happen with a president who has built a legitimate reputation as making ill-conceived remarks.

So the media makes a massive mistake, who don't like him to begin with, and what happens is people who support him, and don't like the media, point to this one instance, latch on it, and weaponize it.  They use it to undermine the credibility of the media, and while their point is true to some degree, they use it to color the situation worse than it is.  Because they, like the media, have an agenda.  And cannot shed their bias, no matter how hard they try.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

That's true. I think that the media obviously does treat the two parties differently. Whereas the people who said crazy things about Obama were painted as conspiracy theorist, anything said about Trump is regarded as legitimate news. For example, the birthers. Yeah, I never expected to find out that Obama was born in another country and couldn't be President, but there were legitimate questions to ask about why he wasn't required to show his birth certificate when it was requested (proving eligibility is something that even McCain had to deal with) and why he spent millions of dollars specifically to avoid showing it.

Most likely, it was because it made his detractors look insane, and that worked in his favor.

On Twitter, Erica Durance made a post about the whole "animals" thing. After is was proven to be fake news , she acknowledged that, but pivoted to say more bad things about Trump. So while the facts of the situation were tossed, "points" were still added to the "anti-Trump pile". Does that make sense?
And while this isn't significant on it's own, that pile of hollow hatred keeps growing with more and more instances where facts are thrown away while emotions are retained. I think that contributes to the overall toxic political climate in the media and on social media, whereas a more balanced disagreement/dislike would be more realistic and more productive.


And I've definitely done stuff like this in the past, calling Hillary a psychopath, or joking about "Pinky and McCain" back in the day. Hell, I make jokes about Trump too, because he makes me cringe all the time. But I do try to avoid getting so deep into irrational hatred that I can't find my way back to objective reality. A lot of the people I've seen online are way beyond the point of objective reality, and they react with pure hatred if you try to bring facts into the conversation.

But I guess the riots and lootings have died down, so... That's progress. smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

That's true. I think that the media obviously does treat the two parties differently. Whereas the people who said crazy things about Obama were painted as conspiracy theorist, anything said about Trump is regarded as legitimate news. For example, the birthers. Yeah, I never expected to find out that Obama was born in another country and couldn't be President, but there were legitimate questions to ask about why he wasn't required to show his birth certificate when it was requested (proving eligibility is something that even McCain had to deal with) and why he spent millions of dollars specifically to avoid showing it.

Most likely, it was because it made his detractors look insane, and that worked in his favor.

On Twitter, Erica Durance made a post about the whole "animals" thing. After is was proven to be fake news , she acknowledged that, but pivoted to say more bad things about Trump. So while the facts of the situation were tossed, "points" were still added to the "anti-Trump pile". Does that make sense?
And while this isn't significant on it's own, that pile of hollow hatred keeps growing with more and more instances where facts are thrown away while emotions are retained. I think that contributes to the overall toxic political climate in the media and on social media, whereas a more balanced disagreement/dislike would be more realistic and more productive.


And I've definitely done stuff like this in the past, calling Hillary a psychopath, or joking about "Pinky and McCain" back in the day. Hell, I make jokes about Trump too, because he makes me cringe all the time. But I do try to avoid getting so deep into irrational hatred that I can't find my way back to objective reality. A lot of the people I've seen online are way beyond the point of objective reality, and they react with pure hatred if you try to bring facts into the conversation.

But I guess the riots and lootings have died down, so... That's progress. smile

There's a saying, every villain sees themselves as the hero. And just the same, they see their counterparts (who some view as the 'good' guy) as the villain. 

People have their own rationality, and everyone thinks they are objective.  There's very few people who say, OK, I admit, I don't see the world through an objective lens or things as they actually are. 

In my opinion, some people are beyond reasoning with, and there's no point in trying to have an intellectual debate with them, because they are never going to move from their position, because ultimately, their agenda is going to help them rationalize whatever conclusions they want to arrive at.  Otherwise, the people not in this group need to be able to say things you don't agree with, and even miscommunicate them in an unsophisticated, non-PC way, without being attacked for their initial positions.  There has got to be listening and explaining why both parties feel as they do, because I guarantee you both parties haven't lived an issue the same way and have something to learn from each other.  But you know, there's no point in even engaging with folks who don't listen or say stuff that simply defies logic, or shows they are in a set agenda, and are not going to move anyway.  Because those folks are not gonna likely change, and it's better for people who are open to change to invest their time in any intellectual debate if there's going to be any sort of progress.

But the moment someone says something blasphemous, they really start to lose me.

One of the hard things about this country, and why our discourse is so poor, is because we are beginning in a situation where we have so much diversity, both in populations and the differences between our states, that there are a lot of competing incentives, and someone is going to catch the short end of the stick, no matter what, at least in the short term.  This is why we have so much trouble agreeing on the role of federal vs. state government, imo.  And it is hard to have a productive debate, where someone is going to always lose, given these circumstances.  So things become heated.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

All true.

In some old school debating situations, they'd force people to change their perspective by having them argue for the side that they don't agree with. I try to do this sometimes. Every so often, I'll even help out the person that I'm arguing with, because they're not making the best argument for their side. It's an interesting exercise, because we don't usually force ourselves to answer the hardest questions about what we believe.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

All true.

In some old school debating situations, they'd force people to change their perspective by having them argue for the side that they don't agree with. I try to do this sometimes. Every so often, I'll even help out the person that I'm arguing with, because they're not making the best argument for their side. It's an interesting exercise, because we don't usually force ourselves to answer the hardest questions about what we believe.

That's a good practice.  I don't think it's the key or anything (because I think blindspots and just different incentives is what causes us to see things so differently) but it's good way of getting people in a different mode of thinking, which can cause them to discover new logic for something.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

In some old school debating situations, they'd force people to change their perspective by having them argue for the side that they don't agree with. I try to do this sometimes. Every so often, I'll even help out the person that I'm arguing with, because they're not making the best argument for their side. It's an interesting exercise, because we don't usually force ourselves to answer the hardest questions about what we believe.

I think this country needs a lot more of this.  Since we can block people we don't agree with, and since so much of our interaction is no longer face-to-face, I think we're able to too-easily separate ourselves from people we disagree with.  And the more we separate from them, the less human they become.

If we put ourselves in the shoes of people we disagree with, they become more human.  And I think once we see each other on the same level, we can find compromises.  Today, in politics, we seem completely unable to find compromises.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Anyone else getting super tired of fad outrage? Y'know, where everyone gets really, really fired up about some issue that they've done zero research on, just because they read a meme about it or saw an Oprah tweet, and logic or reason have absolutely no place in the conversation, because if you don't agree with their outrage, you are *literally* a Nazi?

How can people not recognize when they're being manipulated? It happens constantly, so people should learn the signs.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm tired of just hate all the way around.  I think so much of the current problems would be fixed if people simply *tried* to love their enemies.  Loving your enemies is attributed to Jesus a lot, but it actually spans most religions in one form or another. 

I think people have stopped empathizing with others.  I think people have stopped seeing political opponents as real, living, thinking people.  I see it on both sides, and it's getting worse.  One of the things I see online is people accusing people with opposite opinions of being bots - it's easy to disregard an opinion that you don't think is coming from a real person.

I saw this on twitter and then reposted on facebook https://twitter.com/kumailn/status/1008785416445726722

I understand feeling exhaustion from fighting a regime that he (and many others) see as completely immoral.  The situation at the border is making a lot of people rightfully upset, but I think it's critical now that we keep trying to have a national discussion.  When we give up on each other, that's when everything is truly lost.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Anyone else getting super tired of fad outrage? Y'know, where everyone gets really, really fired up about some issue that they've done zero research on, just because they read a meme about it or saw an Oprah tweet, and logic or reason have absolutely no place in the conversation, because if you don't agree with their outrage, you are *literally* a Nazi?

How can people not recognize when they're being manipulated? It happens constantly, so people should learn the signs.

Unfortunately, we elected such a person president

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

True. More than once, in fact.

But I'm talking more in terms of the larger culture. Right now, people are outraged over migrant children, for example. It's not a new subject, but people are upset now because--quite honestly--they love the imagery of Trump putting people in "camps" because it fits the "literally Hitler" narrative and this is the best they could do. The articles are years old. Why did nobody care when Obama was in office? Because Obama was scandal free.

And while there is a whole, very large, complicated conversation to be had on the topic, most people aren't interested in that conversation, because they just want to talk about how Trump is literally Hitler.


In a couple of weeks, they'll move on to the next subject. Because people don't understand how little the actual subject of the outrage has to do with anything. It's about keeping people in a constant state of outrage, because it is politically beneficial. I love the debates and conversations, but I would get frigging exhausted if I had to maintain the level of blind outrage that a lot of people seem to be capable of maintaining these days. They keep the real conversation from taking place.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant is free to declare on this forum that it's false outrage to be furious at how children are being forcibly separated from their parents, that all of Trump's homophobic/white supremacist/racist views can be safely ignored if he even acknowledges their existence and how any time a black man is gunned down by a cop or a negligent doctor lets a kid go blind, Informant is firmly and totally in their corner and Informant is also welcome to express the wisdom of noted fraudsters Kellyanne Conway, James O'Keefe and Sarah Palin as the epitome of ideal American thinking and debate and how Richard Spencer couldn't possibly be a Nazi because Informant says so --

I just want to reiterate that Informant's views are not the views of Sliders.tv as a whole and both his and all opposing views are welcome -- although whether or not one has the time or energy to expend on talking to Informant about anything outside make believe is entirely at your discretion. Personally, while I would eagerly hand Informant scripts and manuscripts for his review and read his as well (and spend money on them), if I have to watch another asinine 'documentary' of deceptively edited footage made by hate groups or discredited 'journalists,' I'll kill myself and make it look like Bill Dial did it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions, please stop saying that I believe things that I don't believe. Please stop claiming that I say things that I don't say. Please stop speaking for me in general. And when I do speak (or type), please pay attention to what I say, because the version of me that lives in reality is a lot less scary/crazy than the version of me that lives in your head.


What I said was that I'm not buying the current outrage, while at the same time pointing out that there is a very real, serious issue to discuss here. I also pointed out why I don't buy the outrage: The policies and articles pre-date Trump, yet people only care now because it fits their narrative. If people actually cared about this, and if it was as huge of bombshell as people are pretending it is, someone would have cared when the matter was first brought up. Also, people wouldn't be pinning the blame solely on Trump while excusing previous presidents.

If people cared about the subject, they would learn about the subject. They are not. They are outraged because someone blew their dog whistle, and all of the good little puppies know that they're supposed to bark really loud when that whistle is blown.



(The views expressed by me above absolutely represent the entirely of the Sliders fan community, at least to the extent that ireactions' words represent me)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant, please accept my sincere thanks for your continued participation on this board and your commitment to sharing your views regardless of what anyone, myself included, may think. I cannot stress enough in the name of all that is sacred and holy that neither ireactions nor Informant's views represent the entirety of SLIDERS.tv dear God please don't ever think that. I personally think Informant is insane, but I'm pretty crazy too. Anyone who writes as many words about Jerry O'Connell's career as I have is clearly in a strange place.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Migrant children are certainly not a new subject.  People have been going back and forth across that border since long before it was a border.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21, sorry that I seemed to ignore your post earlier. I didn't even see it until now. Weird. But I agree. There is a temptation to attribute motives to anyone who doesn't agree with you, rather than listen to what they actually say. Most people aren't out to be eeeeeevil and most people don't want kids to suffer. Listening to both sides of an issue should be common sense, but it's not anymore. And I think that this is largely because the fad outrage is specifically designed to keep people angry and not talking. Because when people are talking, they stop seeing each other as the enemy. The comment that you linked to is a perfect example of the campaign to keep people divided. During the election, public figures were encouraging people to disown their families if they voted the wrong way. It was insane!



ireactions, I will agree that you're crazy. However, I would argue that the reason that I seem crazy to you is the fact that the version of me that lives in your head is kinda crazy. However, please try to remember that the me in your head is not actually me. I never supported Richard Spencer. I don't know that I've ever even had an opinion on Kellyanne Conway, much less been a fan. I have never supported shooting black kids. I have never supported racism. The fact that you think I support blinding children is appalling.

Again, these are words from inside your head that you're attributing to me. These things do not actually represent me or my thoughts.



pilight, agreed! And until recently, there was a really strong effort to put an end to human trafficking. Now people want to give kids to whoever happens to show up asking for them.

Border/immigration issues are not simple. This is why every country has a process that people need to go through in order to enter a country, or live in a country. I can't just walk into Canada (which is why I didn't go to Canada while I was up north) and nobody argues that I should be allowed to. I just think that it's dangerous and foolish to expect our country to simply open the borders wide and let everyone in. It's just unrealistic. And specifically when it comes to children crossing the border, we have to take into account unaccompanied minors, minors who are travelling with people who aren't parents or relatives, and children who really are coming over with their parents. But again, we can't just let everyone through without the proper processing, so what are we supposed to do? We can't keep children with adults who are caught crossing the border. That is just a recipe for bad.

It's a messed up situation. It's a long conversation. It's not just one issue, it's many issues. And yet I'm apparently the bad guy who likes blinding kids and killing black people because I'm not willing to go along with the blind outrage of the week.


Sigh. smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

You can absolutely walk into Canada.  People do it all the time.  Out west it's common for Americans to cross the border with their guns and camp in Canadian territory during hunting season.

As for human trafficking, Jeff Sessions said back in February that the administration had been very successful at reducing it.  There's no indication that this new, more draconian approach is needed.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Really? Everything I've read says that you need to cross with proper documentation, at a proper crossing point (or risk being stopped). But I've never tried it, so I don't know how well they patrol their border. I certainly wouldn't expect them to leave their border wide open or allow anyone to enter without proper documentation.


I'm not sure what you mean by "new, more draconian approach". The policy of separating families isn't new with this administration. Obama definitely did it. I think Bush did before that. And when you think about it, it makes sense. If adults are being detained/prosecuted for violating the law, do you want little kids being detained in facilities with adult prisoners? We wouldn't do that with American citizens.

And a lot of the kids that are being held in the facilities that we're seeing all over the media are unaccompanied minors. There's nobody to release them to until someone shows up for them. We certainly can't just shoo them out the door and wish them luck on the streets.

Then there are the kids who are travelling with adults who aren't related to them. Obviously, we're not going to let them take the kids.


The media is making a big thing out of "separating families", and calling this Trump's policy despite the fact that it's been happening for a long time. The logical conversation isn't taking place, as people conflate all of these separate issues into one big headline. And there is a remarkable lack of better ideas, aside from "Let everyone into the country!" which is just silly and unrealistic. We have an immigration policy which allows for many, many people from all over the world to come into our country legally. Why is it suddenly considered racist for America (and apparently only America) to enforce immigration policies? And why is it only considered racist in regards to people coming from south of the border? There are plenty of Europeans who have to go through the proper channels to be allowed into the country, and many get sent home once their visas expire. I had a friend whose visa expired and she went home, despite wanting to stay in the country. It was a shame, but it happens.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Listen to Children Who’ve Just Been Separated From Their Parents at the Border

ProPublica has obtained audio from inside a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility, in which children can be heard wailing as an agent jokes, “We have an orchestra here.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/chil … ion-policy

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

why is it only considered racist in regards to people coming from south of the border?

Are we detaining people coming across the other border?  AFAIK we're still doing "catch and release" on that end.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Anyway, how long before we’re all just pets of our machine overlords?

https://www.cnet.com/news/an-ibm-comput … mpetition/

Will make everything moot.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I do have to say, though - watch this video and tell me if you think she’s acting or not:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-madd … -detained/

I say that because it’s not even good acting.  It’s like in Superman 2 when Superman is pleading for people’s lives, but it looks like Christopher Reeve is about to break out laughing.

https://youtu.be/vpL_xVNLxAc