*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[BananaStand]

Well it seems that this collective tantrum has chilled somewhat, it's my turn.

Monkey - I won't go into extensive details here because you probably won't listen. But Poop laid out a very astute explanation of your M.O. around here. Short version, it's not very useful. That, coupled with your own statements about having little to no interest in politics and world affairs makes a person wonder why you are even here? What do you get out of it?

Another point, if you want an example of your pollyanna tendencies, look no further than your most recent conversation with Ong. You have asserted that Ong should simply avoid what he has identified as a bias news source. C'mon man. It doesn't work like that. If everyone just boycotted any news source they found biased, all you would be left with is a polarized group of people either hooked on Fox News, or MSNBC. That's not a world you want to live in. You can't be an informed person if you aren't digesting different perspectives of every issue. So trying to avoid bias is counter productive, and ignorant.

So some bias is inevitable, and it's probably is a good thing. But there is a huge difference between bias, and propaganda. The article in question today is clearly propaganda. I've explained why already. scroll up and learn something.

Ong - You seem like an ok guy, even though I loathe your chosen lifestyle of barely-usefulness. Though you seem to have become slightly less useless now that you have a job. So that's good. You seem to be the most open minded around here, and most willing to have your mind changed. While I enjoy having someone around to agree with me, my friendly advice would be to try and be less agreeable. Don't change your mind until your previous position has been sufficiently broken.

Wuf - Wuf and I don't clash all that much. An intellectually lazy interpretation of that would be to say "you're both conservative Trump acolytes". But I don't believe that's the case. I don't even think that's an accurate statement. Wuf expresses his arguments with facts, credible economic theories, and informed citations. He makes his arguments in a way that makes me think "hmm, maybe he knows something I don't". If anyone here is frustrated at their inability to change my mind, ask wuf for help.

Poopadoop - Demagogue. That word pretty much sums it up. His week-long squak-session about Jarvanka should demonstrate that to anyone not yet convinced. If you want more examples, how about his posting of the link to the Cambridge Analytics non-story. Or before that, there was another idiotic Pakman video about Trump having 5 different positions on minimum wage. He hasn't put forth any sensible support for his belief in the Trump/Russia garbage. And he's claimed to have better knowledge of Trump's health than Trump's doctor.

None of these positions are defensible with facts, logic, or anything credible. Everything he's said on these things has been nothing but hollow, incendiary, deceitful demagoguery. He has been challenged on all of these positions, and rather than concede any points of fact, his chosen response has been to move the goal post and pretend like he was participating in some other, completely different argument. Then he puts that new argument forward with a flourish of demagoguery and the cycle repeats itself.

Cocco - Recently you put forward the idea that the world should be ruled by one or a handful of super-governments. If we learn nothing else from the 20th century it should be the idea that the Utopia is an unattainable fantasy. The 9-figure body count should be enough to convince you but apparently you think that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao just fucked up the implementation. You've asserted that if things were done YOUR way, then the Utopia would arrive. If you were in Stalin's place, maybe communism would have worked out, hmm?

let me be abundantly clear to everyone here. If someone claims that they would have brought the Utopia if they had been given the opportunity to implement their chosen government policies, you should disassociate yourself with that person immediately. There are only two explanations for such a radical point of view. 1) Hopeless irreparable incompetence 2) Pure malevolence.

Oskar, boost, spoon, gorilla....I'm mostly indifferent on you guys. Post more.

As for me....I don't see much of a problem with my tone. I talk EXACTLY the same way in real life, and I have friends. I presume that much of the vitriol you all seem to be reading in my posts is the result of your own personal bias.

And I can see why you might be biased against me. I am difficult to debate with. An intellectually lazy assessment of that might conclude that I'm just stubborn. There might be a few cases of that. But more often than not, my firmness is the result of a thoroughly informed and well thought out position. I consume news, analysis, and commentary from as many sources as possible as often as possible. I've developed my opinions only after open-minded research into the issues. then I challenge those opinions. I seek out data that both proves and disproves that opinions. I refine my opinion as necessary. and THEN I post.

At that point you're gonna need more than pussy-ass pollyanna bullshit, demagoguery, and leftist propaganda if you want to convince me to adjust my opinion. Hint: I find data compelling.

I certainly don't feel that I owe anyone here an apology. However, in the interest of maintaining the life of this forum, I will commit to making an effort to being less disgusted at some of the insanity I see posted here. I'll use less capital letters. And I'll try to cut down on the well-intention-ed ribbing/banter that seems to be interpreted as poo-flinging. I'd like to invite everyone to un-ignore each other and collectively hit the reset button.

[OngBonga]

I presume that much of the vitriol you all seem to be reading in my posts is the result of your own personal bias.

haha wp

I think this is a fair statement.

[OngBonga]

It is that easy.

No, it's not. You said I now know that news source isn't for me. If we were talking about one rogue news agency, then sure it's easy to cry bias and move on to another source. But when the entire mainstream media is cancer ridden, then it's not so easy. Now I have to go digging around for news sources, I can't just click the top article on google news.

Everyone comes from a perspective, and everything we say and do is colored by that perspective.

Ok, this is natural bias. But that isn't what's going on. Perhaps my problem is when that bias is a consequence of conflict of interests... for example, when the author is a subordinate to someone else's agenda.

Ball's in your court to serve me some unbiased news, then.

AlterNet and Reuters spind to mind immediately. This taken from Reuters' website...

Reuters would not be Reuters without freedom from bias. We are a “stateless” news service that welcomes diversity into our newsrooms but asks all staff to park their nationality and politics at the door. This neutrality is a hallmark of our news brand and allows us to work on all sides of an issue, conflict or dispute without any agenda other than accurate, fair reporting. Our customers and our sources value Reuters for that quality and it is one we all must work to preserve.

We must always strive to be scrupulously fair and balanced. Allegations should not be portrayed as fact; charges should not be conveyed as a sign of guilt. We have a duty of fairness to give the subjects of such stories the opportunity to put their side.

That's a good starting point for a discussion on what I mean by an "unbiased news source". I understand journalists have opinions, of course they do. But their JOB is to report news, not share their opinion. It is their JOB to find neutral language to achieve this goal. If they cannot do this, then they suck at their job. Or, they have a conflict of interest.

Yes, I know. It's a thing that is noble to strive for, despite it being an impossible goal.

Ethical journalism is an impossible goal? Well I'll just give up wanting it then. I'll also give up on democracy and a free society while I'm at it.

Yes, of course. No single source is to be trusted for anything. Duh.

It should be trusted to be factual and accurate, that's the entire point of news.

No, they can only choose to highlight or suppress their bias; they cannot eliminate their bias under any circumstances.

You're making it too easy for them. Of course people can put their personal bias to one side. You cannot eliminate it completely, but you can be skilled with language to ensure a neutral tone. THAT is ethical journalism, and it's not an impossible dream.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, it's not. You said I now know that news source isn't for me. If we were talking about one rogue news agency, then sure it's easy to cry bias and move on to another source. But when the entire mainstream media is cancer ridden, then it's not so easy. Now I have to go digging around for news sources, I can't just click the top article on google news.

I said let your knowledge of that news agency's bias sink in and color all the other news you get from them. (If I said the other thing, then fine, that's an option, if the news source is particularly terrible, e.g. mainstream sources.)

If you have identified that mainstream news gets to be mainstream because it is more about entertainment than news, then you're stating the problem in a manner which implies the experiment to solve the problem, which is excellence in thinking.

Your final point is always true. No single source can ever be taken as conveying knowledge. Realizing this as pertains to news means you're maturing in your ability to root out when someone is trying to manipulate you in subtle ways, and that's a good thing. Excellent towning.

Ok, this is natural bias. But that isn't what's going on. Perhaps my problem is when that bias is a consequence of conflict of interests... for example, when the author is a subordinate to someone else's agenda.

Well said.
There are terribly biased news sources and accidentally biased news sources. I'm introducing "accidentally biased" to address your next point, and to acknowledge that it's not appropriate for me to place intentional and unintentional bias under the same umbrella.

AlterNet and Reuters spind to mind immediately. This taken from Reuters' website...


That's a good starting point for a discussion on what I mean by an "unbiased news source". I understand journalists have opinions, of course they do. But their JOB is to report news, not share their opinion. It is their JOB to find neutral language to achieve this goal. If they cannot do this, then they suck at their job. Or, they have a conflict of interest.

OK, I'll look into them more seriously. Thanks.

I would say that actively trying to eliminate bias qualifies as ethical journalism. However, it doesn't change the biases I listed earlier, which cannot be eliminated. Let's call these "accidental biases," or perhaps "incidental biases," and put them on a lower, more acceptable tier of bias.

They cannot eliminate that the choice to report expresses a bias, the choice on what tone to use expresses a bias, the choice of whom will present the story expresses a bias, the choice of what to include given a time frame expresses a bias, the choice of which sources to search and which to present expresses bias.

Hunter S. Thompson exploded this wide open.

Ethical journalism is an impossible goal? Well I'll just give up wanting it then. I'll also give up on democracy and a free society while I'm at it.

Don't be petulant, ong. The world doesn't owe us an easy time of anything, but throwing our hands up because life is challenging isn't a favorable long-term plan.

Noble goals are the most worth striving for, whether or not their ultimate realization is possible. The act of reaching for the top, for constant improvement, is the awesome, practical goal.

It should be trusted to be factual and accurate, that's the entire point of news.

Yes, but that sentiment ignores that news is gathered and presented by fallible, biased humans.

You're making it too easy for them. Of course people can put their personal bias to one side. You cannot eliminate it completely, but you can be skilled with language to ensure a neutral tone. THAT is ethical journalism, and it's not an impossible dream.

I've expanded on some things and changed my position on how we categorize different levels of bias.
It takes intellectual effort on both sides to approach the "factual and accurate" standard. The news agency needs to actively attempt to eliminate all possible biases, but there are biases which cannot be eliminated. The consumer of news needs to be vigilant to find news sources which are doing the above, while not ignoring that there are always biases which spin the telling of every story.

[CoccoBill]

Cocco - Recently you put forward the idea that the world should be ruled by one or a handful of super-governments. If we learn nothing else from the 20th century it should be the idea that the Utopia is an unattainable fantasy. The 9-figure body count should be enough to convince you but apparently you think that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao just fucked up the implementation. You've asserted that if things were done YOUR way, then the Utopia would arrive. If you were in Stalin's place, maybe communism would have worked out, hmm?

This is actually a very good example of what I mean. Yes, I did say that there are probably unnecessarily many countries in the world, there would be several big positives about having less. I think I went even into some detail on why, especially economically, it would make a lot of sense. Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings. For example, I was not aware that Stalin, Hitler and Mao were ever the elected leaders of a world government. I have definitely not asserted anything about doing things my way, I just objectively looked at the pros of having a more uniform governance, less overhead and vastly larger economies of scale. If I had been in Stalin's place I doubt I would have been able to weed out all the corruption and diminish the power of the oligarchs without any governance education or experience, but on the other hand it's hard to imagine how things could have turned out worse. They might have, but I'm not exactly sure why and how. Your only criticism has been "fascist!" and other indirect ad hominems.

let me be abundantly clear to everyone here. If someone claims that they would have brought the Utopia if they had been given the opportunity to implement their chosen government policies, you should disassociate yourself with that person immediately. There are only two explanations for such a radical point of view. 1) Hopeless irreparable incompetence 2) Pure malevolence.

I'm sure I don't need to point out no one has claimed that. Dude, I don't find you frustrating and annoying because you're boastful and snide, I do it because you keep twisting words, misrepresenting other people's views and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your cemented worldview. Just look at this post. Half of it is telling you "no I did not say that". If your argument is that concentration of power leaves more avenues for abuse of power, you could have just said that and I might have agreed.

[BananaStand]

This is actually a very good example of what I mean. Yes, I did say that there are probably unnecessarily many countries in the world, there would be several big positives about having less. I think I went even into some detail on why, especially economically, it would make a lot of sense.

Even if I agreed that it makes economic sense (it doesn't), you still haven't explained how your preferred policy of a single homogenized super government wouldn't lead to starvation, oppression, and massive widespread death. That's what happened whenever someone else tried that. What's your plan?

On one hand, it's possible that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's possible that you are absolutely clueless with regard to history and human behavior. And that this utopian fantasy you have is born out of uninformed ignorance and naivete. That's why I said in my post that one of the two explanations for this opinion is "hopeless irreparable ignorance"

The other explanation, "pure malevolence" stems from the possibility that you DO know what you're talking about. You're just deluded into believing that your particular playbook would not result in the hell-on-earth that everyone else's has. And that's a really really dangerous brand of evil.

Those are the ONLY two explanations for your opinion on this. So don't tell me that I'm twisting your words when you've cornered yourself into a finite number of interpretations.

Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings.

If you think a factual historical account of what happened every other time someone tried to implement your ideas is a "red herring", then you're the worst kind of evil.

Your only criticism has been "fascist!" and other indirect ad hominems.

Of course you'll never admit to being a fascist. No one has ever tried to run a campaign on 'fascism'. No one has ever gotten a positive response by saying "Hey, here's a great fascist idea...". But your proposal of a single government, consumed by egalitarianism, and governing all people by "the same laws", is literally a fascists wet dream. If you can't see that, it's because you're the kind of evil soul who thinks that his ideas would work, and that the atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were just symptoms of a poor implementation.

I'm sure I don't need to point out no one has claimed that.

It's precisely what you claimed.

Dude, I don't find you frustrating and annoying because you're boastful and snide, I do it because you keep twisting words, misrepresenting other people's views and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your cemented worldview. Just look at this post. Half of it is telling you "no I did not say that".

Fine, you didn't say it in those exact words. But that's the argument of a semantic prick. What you said was that a single planet-wide nationality would solve the world's economic problems and eliminate military conflict. The only question now is, why in the world do you think that?

Either A) you were just ignorant and misinformed about human beings and history. or B) You're a delusional megalomaniac who thinks he has the answers to all the world's problems.

So which is it? Ignorance or fascism?

[wufwugy]

If you think a factual historical account of what happened every other time someone tried to implement your ideas is a "red herring", then you're the worst kind of evil.

You're not going to get anywhere with this sort of language and finger pointing.

Believe me. There's a super duper smart economist I love to read, yet he thinks in these terms outside his domain. He says silly things like Trump is evil because he praised a dictator. The bitch of a position one puts himself in when he calls somebody evil is that he had better damn sure be right, because if he's not then he looks like a fool, just like that economist I described looks like a fool to people who don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[BananaStand]

You're not going to get anywhere with this sort of language and finger pointing..

Where am I trying to get to?

when he calls somebody evil is that he had better damn sure be right, because if he's not then he looks like a fool,

I am damn damn damn dog diggity damn sure I'm right on this.

A single planet-wide government governing all people as a single homogenized group??? Can you imagine a worse kind of hell?? I mean seriously now. What Cocco is saying is literally dangerous. And I really don't care if he's offended by the language or the finger pointing, or if anyone else around here find the tone toxic. This point has to be made.

Now I don't expect Cocco to relent in any way. But it's just slightly possible he will think twice before making this proposal to anyone else in his life. It's just slightly possible he reflects silently on what he's proposed and says "Shit, they already tried this in Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and probably a dozen other places and all they have to show for it is widespread abject poverty and some 100+ million gravestones"

If not, then it's just slightly possible that someone who found themselves nodding along with Cocco's post has now been pulled back from the brink of insanity and realized "Oh yeah, that sounded good, but now I see that Cocco's idea ignores basic human nature in a way that is profoundly dangerous"

The worst thing that could happen is to treat that opinion with any respect, or dignity. It would be terrible if we sat around here discussing the pros and cons, and then refined the idea into something we think might actually be implementable. And then some of us go off and convince two friends that its a good idea. Then they go out and convince two friends. And suddenly these ideas seep into the public discourse. And that eventually seeps into policy. And then all it really takes is one hellbent ass hole to gain some influence and then boom....society goes down the fucking toilet.

I know the timing sucks because everyone here is on an "I hate Banana" kick and is flat out determined to force themselves to disagree with whatever I say. But that's not going to stop me because this point has to be made.

Cocco's ideas can NOT be allowed to propagate.

They're evil

[wufwugy]

Cocco's ideas can NOT be allowed to propagate.

They're evil

I can go on for days about the problems of government, and how those problems escalate as government grows and centralizes.

However, I think it is important to point out that the historical examples of "evil" in big government appear to emerge from things other than big government. They appear to more deeply emerge from a popular belief of social justice. More specifically, it is the belief that there is a group of people that should be denied their freedoms at any cost, and that doing so is better for the collective. This theme is at the core of Nazism and Communism and virtually all genocidal totalitarian peoples. This manifestation of atrocity appears to be unique to societies that organize around such social justice ideals.

Yet that doesn't mean that other "softer" ideals can't also end up with the same result. One could argue that we have that in small doses today and that it undergoes power creep. Something like taxation may be a philosophical equivalent to social justice, each differing at the core only in their yield curves of how atrocity emergent from them develops.

So, I'm saying two things here:

(1) If Cocco is not the kind of guy who thinks that some people should be mistreated for the promise of bettering other people, then he is NOT explicitly like the evil Nazism or Communism or related others.

However, (2) a "soft form" of this can possibly exist as the type of collectivist ideals we have today, like that which manifest when people think it's fine and dandy to use government force to collect revenues for welfare.

It is possible that both of these end up in the same place, but the historical evidence shows that the former is obviously "evil", while the latter is up in the air.


In short, what I'm saying is as awful as big government is, it might not be big government alone that leads to true evil, but the popular belief of social justice at any cost that does.

[BananaStand]

(1) If Cocco is not the kind of guy who thinks that some people should be mistreated for the promise of bettering other people, then he is NOT explicitly like the evil Nazism or Communism or related others.

Stalin wanted to feed people in his cities. So he went out to the farms, and took all the grain. then the farmers starved to death.

Cocco has already posited a scenario where one part of the world might need oil, and the government could just take it from another part of the world and give it to them.

that might sound good. But this kind of redistribution generally leaves everyone with nothing. So we're seeing parallels between Cocco's utopia, and the utopian visions that killed hundreds of millions of people.

In short, what I'm saying is as awful as big government is, it might not be big government alone that leads to true evil, but the popular belief of social justice at any cost that does.

I've given Cocco the chance to address this. What does he intend to do with the 25% of the population that refuses to abide by "same rules" as everyone else? So far there hasn't been an answer to that, but it's not hard to imagine that there are really only two potential solutions here. 1) social justice at any cost, or 2) Kill all the muslims.

[Jack Sawyer]

That video is from december

Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings.

LOL, some things truly don't change