*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Now nepotism is your ENTIRE argument.

I guess you need to read this again:

The argument is that Jarvanka shouldn't be involved in government because a) they're not qualified; and b) there's conflicts of interest.

Whether you find nepotism in and of itself problematic doesn't change a) or b) above; in fact it's the least important part of the whole argument.

Edit: please answer me before banana does so I can have an intelligent conversation about it.

Also maybe take the hint this time and let someone else respond.

[BananaStand]

Funny how it seemed believable given everything else that's gone on though.

Wrong. You WANTED to believe it. It took me two seconds of looking for independent verification before I found the actual facts.

In any case, yeah Pakman played fast and loose with the facts there

Finally some truth!

But his video does not speak for me: I just posted it.

Along with the caption "What the living fuck", and a follow up post asking why no one else is as outraged as you and Pakman.

You don't get to assume I agree with everything in a video because I post it

As far as I can tell, the video makes two assertions. 1) Ivanka sitting in for Rex, and 2) Nepotism.

Post #1121 illustrates 4 separate times where you explicitly agreed with #1, and ever since then you've been ranting about #2.

[Poopadoop]

maybe take the hint this time and let someone else respond.

.

[BananaStand]

Also maybe take the hint this time and let someone else respond.

Tired of getting curb stomped?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ok well let me summarize too: The argument is that Jarvanka shouldn't be involved in government because a) they're not qualified; and b) there's conflicts of interest.

Whether you find nepotism in and of itself problematic doesn't change a) or b) above; in fact it's the least important part of the whole argument.

Edit: please answer me before banana does so I can have an intelligent conversation about it.

A) What qualifications do you mean?
According to https://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm
The only qualifications are that the SS is appointed by POTUS under the advisement and consent of the Senate.

B) What new conflict of interest in introduced? We already know about the extant conflicts of interest due to the Trump family not cutting ties to their private businesses. In what way does this potential appointment (even a de-facto appt.) exacerbate the preexisting conflicts of interest?

***
Is it necessarily nepotism?
According to this https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110
so long as she doesn't get paid for the job, it's not nepotism.
I didn't know that.

***
Please ignore nanners if you don't want to be side-tracked. I cannot promise to respond in a rapid manner (or that my response will be intelligent, but I do my best on the latter).

[Poopadoop]

A) What qualifications do you mean?
According to https://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm
The only qualifications are that the SS is appointed by POTUS under the advisement and consent of the Senate.

Neither of them are sec. state. Both of them are involved in the gov't though obviously. The idea that in general the president decides who is qualified to work in the WH is based on the presumption the president is competent to judge who is qualified to serve, which presumably most are. But, when one chooses two relatives both in their 30s with no experience in gov't to 'advise' him, that doesn't raise suspicions?

B) What new conflict of interest in introduced? We already know about the extant conflicts of interest due to the Trump family not cutting ties to their private businesses. In what way does this potential appointment (even a de-facto appt.) exacerbate the preexisting conflicts of interest?

Does it matter whether it makes an existing conflict worse? I guess not. If you're willing to accept a conflict then you may as well go all the way and make Trump's cousin the "unofficial" liaison to China.

Is it necessarily nepotism?
According to this https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110
so long as she doesn't get paid for the job, it's not nepotism.
I didn't know that.

It's not really a big part of the argument since they aren't breaking any laws. The bigger issues are qualifications and conflicts of interests. Basically, they are skirting the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it.

Tell me, would anyone forego a salary to stay within the law if they could profit bigly through an "unofficial" position?

Even just based on any reasonable definition of qualified, neither of them can cut it. But when posts are being filled by guys from Fox News, maybe it all just seems normal now and people find it easy to accept, I don't know.

Please ignore nanners if you don't want to be side-tracked. I cannot promise to respond in a rapid manner (or that my response will be intelligent, but I do my best on the latter).

Happily.

[BananaStand]

But, when one chooses two relatives both in their 30s with no experience in gov't to 'advise' him, that doesn't raise suspicions?

Why would it raise suspicions? Their age? LOL

How about you ask the question differently? Are there any circumstances you can think of where an incoming president might value the perspective of a trusted relative over that of an experienced politician?

Does it matter whether it makes an existing conflict worse? I guess not.

I hate to break up this circle-jerk that you and Monkey are having...but what existing conflict? Do you think that these are the first people ever in politics to also own a business?? As you've astutely pointed out, Jared and Ivanka have no actual job in the administration. So how exactly could they exploit their positions for personal gain? Whatever influence they might have on policy is de minimus at best. It is plausible that they could use their prominence to enhance their interpersonal networks, resulting in personal gain. However, that conflict (if you want to call it that) isn't unique to Jared and Ivanka. You could make the same argument for just about everyone ever involved in the realm of politics.

It's not really a big part of the argument since they aren't breaking any laws

The only part of your argument that was ever bigger than "ZOMG! Nepotism" was your original pants-shitting over "Ivanka=SoS"

The bigger issues are qualifications and conflicts of interests.

Not really. That's just the only life-raft you have left to cling to.

Tell me, would anyone forego a salary to stay within the law if they could profit bigly through an "unofficial" position?

So if you're admitting that they are within the law, then it seems your problem is with the law, and not those abiding by it.

Even just based on any reasonable definition of qualified, neither of them can cut it.

What is your "reasonable" definition of qualified, and why don't they "cut it"?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Neither of them are sec. state. Both of them are involved in the gov't though obviously. The idea that in general the president decides who is qualified to work in the WH is based on the presumption the president is competent to judge who is qualified to serve, which presumably most are. But, when one chooses two relatives both in their 30s with no experience in gov't to 'advise' him, that doesn't raise suspicions?

Sure, I can get on board with raised suspicions.

It's probably worth pointing out that Trump ran, in part, on a ticket of "not an entrenched political crony." As such, I'm not surprised that he would favoring appointments of non-politicians to key positions. That much seems like something I should have predicted if I'd thought about it.

I can also say that for my own 2 cents as someone whom is not fascinated by the inner workings of either business or international politics, that they seem to be integrally similar in ambition. I.e., to secure the best possible negotiations for your side without screwing over the other side so hard that you screwed yourself on future negotiations.
At least, I'm not seeing anything that suggests that being a solid businessman necessarily means that you cannot be a good politician.
(To be fair, I don't see any evidence that Jared or Ivanka is a solid businessperson, either... not that I've looked.)

I'm sure that anyone who's spent that much time near Trump has learned negotiation tactics. It's a near certainty that he's the kind to brag about his successes in private company, and that his daughter has been there to hear him sing the praises of his most successful deals. Say what you like about Ivanka, she's no idiot. Furthermore, there's a slant if not a full bend toward sociopathy in the family. I don't mean that as any attack, just that the most successful CEO's tend to be on the spectrum. The statement from Ivanka's book that the perception of what you're doing is more important than the actuality of what you're doing is one piece of a puzzle that leads me to put her somewhere on the "diminished empathy" spectrum. A modicum of lacking empathy for your adversaries is of benefit in these kinds of negotiations (international), I bet. You don't want some bleeding heart Polyanna pushover negotiating for your side, but you don't want someone who's cruelly ignorant of the cost to the other side, either.
(I'm no expert at any of this stuff, so grain of salt.)

All in all... while I don't see any political bonafides indicating that Ivanka is qualified, I see plenty of circumstantial stuff that suggests she's no spring chicken, and nothing at all that indicates she's unqualified. (I know even less about Jared, so can't really speak to his role in this.)

Does it matter whether it makes an existing conflict worse? I guess not.

Of course that matters. Either it's a non-sequitur, or it's not.
If you're saying this is the source of the conflict of interest, then that's one thing, but you're not saying that (I think.)
Up to now, you've only been saying it's a conflict of interest, and not a further conflict of interest on top of the already known conflicts of interest.
If you're now saying it makes the preexisting conflict worse, then that's a new assertion on your part, and please elaborate on how this exacerbates the preexisting conflicts.

If you're willing to accept a conflict then you may as well go all the way and make Trump's cousin the "unofficial" liaison to China.

What I'm willing to accept isn't relevant to the conversation. My opinions are unstated, because I know they are irrelevant to affecting change in this arena.
...?
If that was a round-about way of asking what I'm willing to accept here, then my answer is that this whole thing is bad news (but not for rational reasons, just because it feels dangerous to set the precedent). However, that's not worth discussion, because as I'm trying to make clear, I do not have well-informed positions on these issues, which is my motivation to understand your positions.

Try not to conflate my questioning why you believe something as criticism of that belief. I barely care about any of these issues. What I care about is understanding what your positions are.

I am not empowered make anyone Trump's liaison to China. Nor do I know anything about said cousin or their qualifications. I only feel that setting the precedent for this kind of appointments makes political dynasties more likely, which is antithetical to the American dream.

It's not really a big part of the argument since they aren't breaking any laws. The bigger issues are qualifications and conflicts of interests. Basically, they are skirting the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it.

I get that. I only included that link because it surprised me how the law defines nepotism.

Even just based on any reasonable definition of qualified, neither of them can cut it. But when posts are being filled by guys from Fox News, maybe it all just seems normal now and people find it easy to accept, I don't know.

I'm not sure there is an objectively reasonable definition of "qualified" in this regard.
I suppose there's an argument that there is nothing which could reasonable qualify anyone to serve as SS other than to have done it. I personally believe that's true for POTUS, and I don't feel any discomfort with asserting the same for any high-level gov't position which has top security clearance as a part of the job. You simply can't know what you're getting into until you have that security clearance.

Respectfully, I don't care about what anyone but you thinks or accepts in this conversation. I consider you to be an intelligent person, and your passion to share your thoughts on this subject opens a door for me to understand how and why you are so passionate about this and whether or not I follow your reasons.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oh crap... sorry for the wall of text. I got a bit stream-of-consciousness there.
:/

[BananaStand]

Oh crap... sorry for the wall of text. I got a bit stream-of-consciousness there.
:/

And somehow you still said nothing.

Impressive

Kind of ironic how you claim to know so little about these things and then just demonstrated your extreme competence for politics.

[wufwugy]

...using a tin foil argument.

Calling something natural or normal is no argument for why that thing is good or right.

For sure. I definitely did not explain it as well as I normally do.

[BananaStand]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-...age=BBKAINc|31

*GASP*

Oh no! Not the N-word!!

[OngBonga]

Alex Jones, the conservative host of Infowars known for spreading baseless conspiracy theories...

How to spot biased reporting... look for needless smears when referring to opponents.

You see it all the time with the BBC, they literally cannot refer to IS without saying "so-called" first. There is no reason for this at all except to show contempt... but contempt for an ideology is the expression of a political opinion, or to be more concise... bias.

inb4 lol defending Alex Jones. Yes he's a tit, that's besides the point.

[Poopadoop]

Seems like a pretty unbiased description of him to me.

[OngBonga]

You're very good at missing the point, aren't you?

It doesn't matter if it's factual. Even then, the word "baseless" is subjective as fuck, especially when we go into the murky world of conspiracy theories.

But still, the point is the author wants the reader to be aware that Alex Jones promotes conspiracy theories. The "baseless" caveat only reinforces the bias, but even without it, it's clearly an attempt to ensure the reader goes on to read Jones' comments with a high degree of sceptisism.

This isn't simply reporting news, it's propaganda.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It doesn't matter if it's factual. Even then, the word "baseless" is subjective as fuck, especially when we go into the murky world of conspiracy theories.

But still, the point is the author wants the reader to be aware that Alex Jones promotes conspiracy theories. The "baseless" caveat only reinforces the bias, but even without it, it's clearly an attempt to ensure the reader goes on to read Jones' comments with a high degree of sceptisism.

This isn't simply reporting news, it's propaganda.

You're eager to read between the lines of what nanners says and to defend his ridiculous attitude.
I'm surprised your analysis on this issue isn't to read past the bias and see the deeper truth in the statement.

What's up with that?

[BananaStand]

This isn't simply reporting news, it's propaganda.

Right

It's really hard not to be dumbstruck by the insanity of this article. First of all, it presumes that the word "nazi" hasn't been lobbed carelessly around political discourse. People on the right have been called "nazi" and "fascist" quite a bit. It's gotten so common that those words have lost their gravitas. That is, until it got used against the left.

It's been used in the context of drawing parallels between historical events, and current events. It's not being used as an inflammatory epithet. It's a commentary on gun policy and on those who espouse nazi-like gun policy.

What this WP article says, is that the word "nazi" is being used as an inflammatory epithet. And they bolster that claim by completely ignoring anyone making cogent arguments about historical parallels except the one guy, Alex Jones, whose reputation is dicey.

[BananaStand]

You're eager to read between the lines of what nanners says and to defend his ridiculous attitude.

I posted a link + six words. There isn't much space between the lines. What exactly are you seeing there?

I'm surprised your analysis on this issue isn't to read past the bias and see the deeper truth in the statement.

Please...enlighten us on this "deeper truth"

[BananaStand]

Here's another example of someone clueless about the issues getting media attention because he's shitting on Trump. Just because he has a "hip" opinion, he's magically given credibility.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/0...fter-loss.html

Here's where the cluelessness comes in.

[Trump] would have had the decency to meet with a group, to see what's going on, and how important it is, and how important our children should be to us.

What the fuck man?? This was barely a month ago....

[OngBonga]

You're eager to read between the lines of what nanners says...

What makes you think I didn't just read the article and come to that conclusion myself?

I'm surprised your analysis on this issue isn't to read past the bias and see the deeper truth in the statement.

There once was a time where ethical journalism meant trying one's hardest to not communicate one's own bias when reporting news.

Deeper truth? The deeper truth is that the media is cancer ridden.

[Poopadoop]

You're very good at missing the point, aren't you?

I got your point 100%, I just don't agree with it.

It doesn't matter if it's factual.

Yes it does because if it's factual how can you call it bias? If the reporter gives an accurate description of what AJ is about and it's bad, that's AJ's fault, not the reporter's.

Next you'll be saying they shouldn't refer to Jeffrey Dahmer as a serial cannibal because that biases how the audience sees him.

Even then, the word "baseless" is subjective as fuck, especially when we go into the murky world of conspiracy theories.

With what little exposure I've had to AJ, I'd say 'baseless' is pretty apt. Or do you think he has concrete evidence that Hillary is literally a demon and Obama is the head of Al Queda?

But still, the point is the author wants the reader to be aware that Alex Jones promotes conspiracy theories.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. You can't know what their motivation is. Perhaps they used the words to help specify for the audience who they were referring to. Reader: "Alex who? Jones? Oh, the conspiracy guy...now I know who you mean."

The "baseless" caveat only reinforces the bias, but even without it, it's clearly an attempt to ensure the reader goes on to read Jones' comments with a high degree of sceptisism.

Again you're assuming motive with incomplete information. That's a good example of the bias you're arguing against.

This isn't simply reporting news, it's propaganda.

I've explained how it can plausibly be reporting news alone, without any inherent 'bias'. You're assuming it's propaganda. Fine, we disagree.

If it was a big fat lie then I'd be more sympathetic to your view, and I'm well aware such clear-cut propaganda is out there in the media. I just think this is a very marginal example of it, if it's an example at all.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What makes you think I didn't just read the article and come to that conclusion myself?

your use of quotes in post 1138

Sorry, have you trolled me and you just made up some biased statement on your own and used it as a springboard to lambaste the media?

If so, touche'.

There once was a time where ethical journalism meant trying one's hardest to not communicate one's own bias when reporting news.

Deeper truth? The deeper truth is that the media is cancer ridden.

Sure, but there has never been a time when journalism has fully lived up to that standard.
Furthermore, who is using the word "ethical," you or them?
I don't see much in the way of ethical news as a goal.
No major news agencies in America are interested in being ethical so much as being entertainment.


I'm curious why you don't describe nanners in the same way, though.
Both are spewing their bias without any acknowledgement of objective fact as though somehow they are purveyors of truth.
Why the defending of one, but the condemnation of the other?

[Poopadoop]

Why the defending of one, but the condemnation of the other?

Could it be at all related to the extent to which you agree with their respective messages?

[OngBonga]

Yes it does because if it's factual how can you call it bias?

Because its sole intent is to influence, not inform, the reader.

With what little exposure I've had to AJ, I'd say 'baseless' is pretty apt.

"I'd say"

Like I say, subjective as fuck.

Or do you think he has concrete evidence that Hillary is literally a demon and Obama is the head of Al Queda?

I don't give a fuck if he does or does not have evidence, or does or does not believe these theories. It doesn't matter what I think.

If I'm writing a piece about Tony Blair's recent comments about Brexit, and I point out that he took the UK to war based on lies, I would be being both factual and biased. It's irrelevant to the topic, so the point of publishing that fact would only be to ensure the reader knows I hold him in contempt.

Modern politics at its finest. You're ok with this media bias because you agree with it, it reflects your bias.

You can't know what their motivation is.

Of course I can. He said "baseless". Even you can't dodge the subjective nature of that, you said "I'd say", as in it reflects your opinion, not a fact.

His motivation is bias. That is abundantly clear. Just because you're unobservant (I chose a nice word), don't assume everyone else is.

Again you're assuming motive with incomplete information. That's a good example of the bias you're arguing against.

Sure. I'd actually really appreciate this comment if I were a journalist writing an artcile on this subject. As it is, I'm not a journalist, so my bias is irrelevant.

If it was a big fat lie then I'd be more sympathetic to your view

You, like most other who will read this, are too lazy to find out if it's factual or not. You just assume so because lol Alex Jones.

It doesn't matter if it's a lie or not. If it's irrelevant, then it shouldn't be there.

Let's give an example...

Recently, Jeremy Corbyn, who has met with senior IRA figures in the past, critisised the government's response to the Russia spy scandal.

THAT is bias, even though it's factual. What has the IRA aspect got to do with the story? Nothing, but don't forget the cunt met the IRA back in the 80's.

Modern politics, and you lap it up.

[OngBonga]

Why the defending of one, but the condemnation of the other?

banana isn't a journalist. I'm not here for news, I'm here to talk bollocks. Bias is fine here.

[OngBonga]

banana isn't a journalist. I'm not here for news, I'm here to talk bollocks. Bias is fine here.

This isn't a cop out either. If you guys are seriously holding journalists to the same standard as a random talking shit on the net, then we really have lost our way.

Journalism is not the job for someone to press their opinion on others, it's a job that is supposed to inform, not influence.

You should NOT be happy with being manipulated in such a manner, regardless of whether you agree with the premise or not.

[BananaStand]

I got your point 100%, I just don't agree with it.

Yes it does because if it's factual how can you call it bias? If the reporter gives an accurate description of what AJ is about and it's bad, that's AJ's fault, not the reporter's.

No, you completely missed the point. Like, not even close.

The bias is in invoking Alex Jones' name in the first place. This is by far not the first time someone has used "But the Nazi's did that..." as an argument against gun control. That's an unbiased, totally reasonable, factual, cogent, coherent and legitimate argument. Rather than respond to it with unbiased reason, facts, cogency, coherence, and legitimate arguments, the WP has waited until the Nazi parallel was put forth by someone they can portray as a nutjob.

This is one of the more subtle tactics of identity politics. Identity politics tries to homogenize groups of people, particularly if it makes those groups into villains. So, here's how it works...first, they identify a group of people. In this case, the group is made up of people who fear nazi-like fascism as a consequence of gun control. Then they find a member of that group who is detestable. Then they project that detestable-ness on to the entire group.

Now, they don't have to debate the "but Nazis did that..." issue anymore. They can marginalize and ignore it. It's invalidated by association with something invalid, even though the two aren't related.

That is a textbook example of propaganda.

[Poopadoop]

Because its sole intent is to influence, not inform, the reader.

That's what you say.

"I'd say"

Like I say, subjective as fuck.

Unlike you, I don't claim to know the objective truth of the matter.

I don't give a fuck if he does or does not have evidence, or does or does not believe these theories. It doesn't matter what I think.

If I'm writing a piece about Tony Blair's recent comments about Brexit, and I point out that he took the UK to war based on lies, I would be being both factual and biased. It's irrelevant to the topic, so the point of publishing that fact would only be to ensure the reader knows I hold him in contempt.

It wouldn't typically be done because that's not what he's primarily known for. If he were introduced as 'former prime minister Tony Blair' would you consider him more or less likely to be a cunt if you'd never heard of him before? And if the answer is 'more' does that make that description of him biased?

Modern politics at its finest. You're ok with this media bias because you agree with it, it reflects your bias.

That wasn't my argument. My argument was it was a means of helping the audience identify the person the reporter was talking about, and a more-or-less consensus view on who he is and what he is about. Sure, there's people out there who think AJ speaks the gospel truth, but seems to me those people are in the minority, and most see him as 'the baseless conspiracy guy'.

Of course I can. He said "baseless". Even you can't dodge the subjective nature of that, you said "I'd say", as in it reflects your opinion, not a fact.

Having the humility to state your opinion as an opinion is not a bad thing imo. Stating your opinion as a fact as you're doing is biased and shows a lack of self-insight into your own epiphenomology.

His motivation is bias. That is abundantly clear. Just because you're unobservant (I chose a nice word), don't assume everyone else is.

I don't have the kind of insight into others' motives that you have I guess. Need to get me one of those crystal ball thingies.

Sure. I'd actually really appreciate this comment if I were a journalist writing an artcile on this subject. As it is, I'm not a journalist, so my bias is irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant if one wants to point out the flaw in your argument.

You, like most other who will read this, are too lazy to find out if it's factual or not. You just assume so because lol Alex Jones.

You're approaching banana levels of irrationality here. I said the guy who argues that Hillary is literally a demon and Obama is head of Al Queda is probably a conspiracy nut. Your response is something like 'why do you accept that idea?' And my answer is 'because i have common sense.'

It doesn't matter if it's a lie or not. If it's irrelevant, then it shouldn't be there.

You nicely ignored my argument that the info could be included just for i.d. purposes, like you would say "Trudeau, the PM of Canada" or "Dahmer the serial cannibal" It helps the reader (or at least some of them) be certain of who they are talking about. It's not the reporters' fault that AJ is best known as being a conspiracy nut.

Mordern politics, and you lap it up.

What am I lapping up exactly? Hearing AJ referred to as a conspiracy nut doesn't change my opinion of him one iota.

[OngBonga]

That's what you say.

The author said "baseless". I can guarantee that the author didn't do the required research to even know what theories he promotes, let alone what evidence he claims to have.

Unlike you, I don't claim to know the objective truth of the matter.

I don't claim to know if Jones' theories are "baseless", I'm simply observing bias. Is that subjective or objective? I don't think it's a matter of opinion that the author is biased. It's either a fact, or I am wrong. We can't both be right. Something that is subjective, such as morals... I think there is absolutely nothing immoral in smoking weed, but others disagree. Neither of us are "wrong". If I say this guy is biased, and you say he isn't, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. So the question of the author's bias is very much objective.

It wouldn't typically be done because that's not what he's primarily known for.

Right, and Alex Jones is known for being the guy who fronts Infowars. That's enough to identify him to anyone who was thinking "who?".

My argument was it was a means of helping the audience identify the person the reporter was talking about...

I think this is somewhat disingenuous. Do you really think this is the likely motivation of the author, when he uses words like "baseless"?

Having the humility to state your opinion as an opinion is not a bad thing imo. Stating your opinion as a fact as you're doing is biased and shows a lack of self-insight into your own epiphenomology.

A journalist giving his opinion in an article painted as news is certainly not "humility". And what I'm doing is irrelevant, because, as I've said twice at least, I am not a journalist. Stop holding me to the same standard as you do people whose job it is to present ubiased news.

I don't have the kind of insight into others' motives that you have I guess. Need to get me one of those crystal ball thingies.

It's not a crystal ball, it's grey matter.

It's entirely relevant if one wants to point out the flaw in your argument.

If you think that me saying "he shouldn't be biased, it doesn't matter if I am" is a flaw, then you are completely missing the point.

I'm talking about ethical journalism here.

You're approaching banana levels of irrationality here. I said the guy who argues that Hillary is literally a demon and Obama is head of Al Queda is probably a conspiracy nut. Your response is something like 'why do you accept that idea?' And my answer is 'because i have common sense.'

I'll bite. Prove he supports these theories. I was about to google it, but I assume you have already done so.

You nicely ignored my argument that the info could be included just for i.d. purposes

Disingenuous.

What am I lapping up exactly? Hearing AJ referred to as a conspiracy nut doesn't change my opinion of him one iota.

Try reading banana's post about identity polticics without your hate hat on.

I bet you've already replied negatively to that post...

[OngBonga]

I bet you've already replied negatively to that post...

Assuming you're not building a post as I type... well done for not doing so yet.

[Poopadoop]

The author said "baseless". I can guarantee that the author didn't do the required research to even know what theories he promotes, let alone what evidence he claims to have.

I'm fairly convinced you can't provide the slightest evidence for this claim, never mind guarantee it.

Right, and Alex Jones is known for being the guy who fronts Infowars. That's enough to identify him to anyone who was thinking "who?".

I actually forgot he fronted Infowars until today. So that would have helped me a bit I guess, but not as much as 'baseless conspiracy guy'.

[Poopadoop]

Assuming you're not building a post as I type... well done for not doing so yet.

What's it to you?

[OngBonga]

Stop holding me to the same standard as you do people whose job it is to present ubiased news.

In fact you're holding me to a higher standard. It's like you expect me to present my arguments in an unbiased and well researched way in order for me to be credible, yet journalists can spew their ill informed opinions and earn their wage in doing so, and that's just fine.

Whatever you think I should be doing... that's what journalists should be doing. And what you're accepting as credible journalism... that's the stuff for quiet little subforums.

[OngBonga]

I'm fairly convinced you can't provide the slightest evidence for this claim, never mind guarantee it.

Good job nobody is paying me to report the fucking news then, isn't it?

[OngBonga]

What's it to you?

He's right.

[BananaStand]

Assuming you're not building a post as I type... well done for not doing so yet.

LOL, I find his silence validating

[Poopadoop]

In fact you're holding me to a higher standard. It's like you expect me to present my arguments in an unbiased and well researched way in order for me to be credible, yet journalists can spew their ill informed opinions and earn their wage in doing so, and that's just fine.

Whatever you think I should be doing... that's what journalists should be doing. And what you're accepting as credible journalism... that's the stuff for quiet little subforums.

I'm disputing your argument. I don't really care if you're biased or not. I just think assuming you are biased against the media goes some way to explaining where you get the opinion that that particular characterization of AJ is any more biased than a characterization of Dahmer as a 'serial cannibal' or May as 'current PM' . And I say so because I don't share your opinion that it's necessarily reflecting the reporter's attempt to influence the audience unduly.

[Poopadoop]

Good job nobody is paying me to report the fucking news then, isn't it?

No, you're on social media making specious claims and someone is pointing them out to you.

[Poopadoop]

He's right.

He may be, but if so I'll never know.

[OngBonga]

No, you're on social media making specious claims and someone is pointing them out to you.

Do you know what specious means? Are you being deliberately ironic here?

If you know my claim to be false, that claim being the media is cancer ridden with bias, please present the evidence.

[Poopadoop]

Do you know what specious means? Are you being deliberately ironic here?

If you know my claim to be false, that claim being the media is cancer ridden with bias, please present the evidence.

I was referring to your specific claim about this specific reporter and your ability to read their mind.

[Poopadoop]

Do you know what specious means? Are you being deliberately ironic here?

Are you being deliberately patronising? ' cause the whole banana approach to argument won't make your arguments any stronger.

[OngBonga]

He may be, but if so I'll never know.

It's pretty sad that with this forum being so close to death, that we have people hard ignoring banana simply because you have a problem with his method of delivery.

I'm thinking either quoting everything he posts, or just accepting this place is finally dead and go and find somewhere else to talk shit.

I really hoped you'd rise above this.

[Poopadoop]

It's pretty sad that with this forum being so close to death..

Close to death? People post here nearly every day. Given there's only about a half-dozen or so regular contributors I'd say that's pretty good.

that we have people hard ignoring banana simply because you have a problem with his method of delivery.

Sorry, don't know what to tell you. My patience for abusive people gets lower the older I get.

[BananaStand]

lots of irony and hypocrisy in here today.

You can't re-brand your own cognitive dissonance as "abuse". Poop got duped by David Pakman and then spent a week exhausting every fallacious option in his arsenal. When they all failed and it was discovered that his "zomg Jarvanka!!" hissy fit was not supported by any actual knowledge of facts....then the solution apparently was to just ignore the person making him face his own wrong-ness.

If you think that's good for you, you're fucking bonkers.

Either man-up, and defend your position, or admit you were wrong and learn something.

Explain to us what Jarvanka are doing that bothers you so much. Explain to us why it's ok to debunk a cogent historical argument by connecting it, dubiously, to a conspiracy theorist. And then tell us why repealing the 2nd amendment in the US would be different than other times that firearms were confiscated by fascist governments.

or...

Admit that Jarvanka aren't doing anything dangerous. And admit that disarming citizens is bad for freedom.

Your insistence on doing neither, based on a hypocritical and untrue claim of abuse, demonstrates how informed your opinions are, and how much conviction you have in your desire to remain ignorant.

[OngBonga]

Half a dozen people keeping this place going. Well, you're down to four people to talk to now.

Abusive? I really don't know what to say to that. It's either a bad attempt to justify your decision, or you're too sensetive.

Stuff like "you're fucking bonkers", if that's abuse to you, get off the internet, fast.

[Poopadoop]

Stuff like "you're fucking bonkers", if that's abuse to you, get off the internet, fast.

It's the high frequency of that relative to the low frequency of thoughtful arguments I find excessive, to the point where it's not worth reading his posts imo.

And you're right, when people on the internet aren't worth talking to, I get off the internet.

[BananaStand]

It's the high frequency of that relative to the low frequency of thoughtful arguments I find excessive, to the point where it's not worth reading his posts imo.

If you're asserting that I don't explain and defend my positions with extreme voluminousness and verbosity...you're fucking bonkers.

[CoccoBill]

Spoiler alert, I haven't had him on ignore for a while, but it's been awfully nice when a smaller percentage of discussions have immediately turned into shit-slinging contests. I don't really have an issue with his delivery, it's that he doesn't want to discuss, he wants to argue.

[OngBonga]

It's the high frequency of that relative to the low frequency of thoughtful arguments I find excessive, to the point where it's not worth reading his posts imo.

And you're right, when people on the internet aren't worth talking to, I get off the internet.

Fair enough. But from my pov at least, it reflects badly on you. He has a tone of mockery about him. Your tone is contempt.

I'm not going to continue to crisitise your decision, I've got no right to tell you what to do. But it makes me sad, because I do feel like he brought some life to this forum.

[CoccoBill]

Not all life is equal.

[OngBonga]

Spoiler alert, I haven't had him on ignore for a while, but it's been awfully nice when a smaller percentage of discussions have immediately turned into shit-slinging contests. I don't really have an issue with his delivery, it's that he doesn't want to discuss, he wants to argue.

I tried to not give a fuck about you doing it (or claiming to), but it did annoy me, and I hoped it didn't catch on.

[OngBonga]

Not all life is equal.

Some life is more equal than others.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Everyone is biased, BTW. There's never been any such thing as an unbiased human.

It doesn't matter who's a reporter and who's not. Knowledge is knowledge, and bias is bias.

E.g.: physics is awesome, fun, exciting, and rewarding. That is my bias. The fact that I'm biased doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Knowledge is independent of bias. A person can be biased toward a truthful position.

So, unless you're prepared to argue with those above points, what matters isn't whether or not someone is biased, it's whether or not you can see through the bias to discern knowledge.


You may be happy to have someone constantly change the subject and assert you said things you have never said, and that's fine. However, it's not about the abuse nanners brings to FTR. I can talk to spoony all day and he nearly constantly insults me. The reason is because he is still listening to my points and responding with his consistent world-view. You love to placate the nanner as though we're being babies about being internet bullied, but that is certainly not the reasons I've stated, and at length in the moderator's forum.
Your bias is showing.

You said, he's not a reporter, so his bias is irrelevant. Sure, as far as reporting goes, I can stand by that ideal, but it is an ideal, and not a realizable one.
However, that is a separate topic from whether or not you can divine deeper truth to the statements.

So I'm still curious why the disconnect, ong. Why are you willing to engage your intelligence with nanners, but not when seeking out actual news of world events?
Is it because a poster on FTR is easier to humanize? or because nanners speaks to the biases you bring to the table?
Is it because you want to paint "the media" as a single entity with a coordinated goal, rather than disparate entities vying for your attention?
Something else?

I'm curious.

[Poopadoop]

Fair enough. But from my pov at least, it reflects badly on you. He has a tone of mockery about him. Your tone is contempt.

Well ok, but from my pov I don't understand your sympathy for him.

I'm not going to continue to crisitise your decision, I've got no right to tell you what to do. But it makes me sad, because I do feel like he brought some life to this forum.

If looking at a forum and seeing pages of poo flinging is your idea of a lively discussion then we have different ideas.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Some life is more equal than others.

Is that a Bill Murray quote from Stripes?

It seems familiarly cute, but I can't exactly place it.
It's not on the IMDB quotes page for the movie.

I thought, maybe it was from PCU?
... but no, not on that quotes page, either.


Anyone?

[CoccoBill]

You might be thinking Animal Farm.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If looking at a forum and seeing pages of poo flinging is your idea of a lively discussion then we have different ideas.

The poo flinging is a red herring and if what upsets you about nanners is the poo flinging, then frankly, I'm on ong's side of this one.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You might be thinking Animal Farm.

Bingo!

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[Poopadoop]

The poo flinging is a red herring and if what upsets you about nanners is the poo flinging, then frankly, I'm on ong's side of this one.

It's only one of the things I find disagreeable about him; the coining of the term reductio ad bananum might give a hint as to another. Probably a few more I could mention if I could be bothered to try hard to justify my dislike of the same person pretty much everyone agrees about.

Moreover, even if the toxic attitude were the only thing, I'm fully capable of finding places to converse intelligently with people who don't have poo-flinging as a default behaviour. Maybe that's just a quirk of mine, expecting others to generally treat each other like grown ups.

[Poopadoop]

And generally, I really don't see why people keep trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't be willing to tolerate. I'll decide that for myself, thanks.

[OngBonga]

However, that is a separate topic from whether or not you can divine deeper truth to the statements.

What is this deeper truth you speak of? I told you, I got this "deeper truth" in the form of further evidence of my suspicion that the media is riddled with cancer of the bias. Or do you mean "deeper truth" to banana's comments?

Why are you willing to engage your intelligence with nanners, but not when seeking out actual news of world events?

I really don't know why you've jumped to this conclusion. Are you suggesting that observing bias is a lack of intelligence? Or the inability to accept bias as though it's simply human nature? I like wanking, that's human nature too, but I can't do it in public. A journo ramming his opinion down my throat in a news article is for all intents and purposes wanking in public.

Is it because a poster on FTR is easier to humanize? or because nanners speaks to the biases you bring to the table?

Possibly the latter.

Is it because you want to paint "the media" as a single entity with a coordinated goal, rather than disparate entities vying for your attention?

Aha. The media isn't a single entity. The mainstream media is, it's a state tool. That it isn't obvious to intelligent people saddens me more than people ingoring banana.

[OngBonga]

And generally, I really don't see why people keep trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't be willing to tolerate. I'll decide that for myself, thanks.

If only you were as tolerant as you are stubborn.

[Poopadoop]

If only you were as tolerant as you are stubborn.

Thanks.

There's very few people I find intolerable. Your FTR-based sample is very small in terms of the wider world, and small samples can lead you to the wrong conclusion if you try to extrapolate.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What is this deeper truth you speak of? I told you, I got this "deeper truth" in the form of further evidence of my suspicion that the media is riddled with cancer of the bias. Or do you mean "deeper truth" to banana's comments?

I'm talking about the deeper truth reflected in the journalists "baseless" comment, which poopy has addressed, though perhaps not to your liking.
You're already a champion of the deeper meaning in nanner's posts.

I really don't know why you've jumped to this conclusion. Are you suggesting that observing bias is a lack of intelligence? Or the inability to accept bias as though it's simply human nature? I like wanking, that's human nature too, but I can't do it in public. A journo ramming his opinion down my throat in a news article is for all intents and purposes wanking in public.

I'm not jumping to a conclusion. You have repeatedly defended nanners as making good points, but that you have to read between the lines to see them. That's you engaging your intelligence with nanners. When you see an expressed bias that is much softer than anything nanners brings to FTR, you object that it's unethical, without engaging your intelligence to read between the lines.

I'm not suggesting that observing bias is a lack of intelligence. Perhaps the opposite. I'm suggesting that bias is a part of everything we are told, and it is unintelligent to ignore that fact.
I'm not suggesting that an inability to accept bias is human nature. I'm saying bias is a part of human nature and ignoring that will lead you to misunderstand the context of things you are told.

"Ramming his opinion down my throat in a news article" Now there's a mixed metaphor if ever I saw one.
Your participation in the consuming of that news article was purely voluntary. If you've asked to have something rammed down your throat, and asked a stranger to take care of that for you, then you're bound to have some unpleasant perspectives rammed in there from time to time.

Possibly the latter.

Does that mean it's not really about the expression of bias, but the fact that the expressed bias was antithetical to your own biases?

Aha. The media isn't a single entity. The mainstream media is, it's a state tool. That it isn't obvious to intelligent people saddens me more than people ingoring banana.

So the liberal media outlets and the conservative media outlets are the same entity? and both of those contrary entities are a state tool?
Maybe.... if you go full-on conspiracy and propaganda theory. However, it just doesn't make any sense under scrutiny.

A much simpler explanation is that neither gives a wet slap about presenting unbiased news, but both care a great deal about ratings and the value of melodrama to rake in viewership.


Stop with the whole, "I'm so sad that you guys are not me." talk. If ever there was a victim tactic, that's it.
If you're feeling depressed, then that sucks, man, but pointing your finger away from yourself is not going to help you climb out of that kind of hole. Seriously. If you're really feeling emotional about FTR conversations, then hit me up in a PM. I've kicked depressions ass dozens of times and I have tactics and shit to deal with the early warning signs as well as strategies to get out of the funk when it takes hold.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And generally, I really don't see why people keep trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't be willing to tolerate. I'll decide that for myself, thanks.

To be clear, I've never even hinted at any suggestion over whom you should tolerate.
(If anything I've asked openly that anyone who doesn't want to tolerate him simply ignore him, but that's a totally different beast.)

If any further clarity is needed, my red herring comment was meant to convey that nanners insults are directed toward such flimsy caricatures of any FTR personality that I can not even truly take it seriously that anyone here has been insulted by his asshattery. If anyone has taken offense, then they've painted themselves into that caricature, which says more about them than nanners.

As such, I don't believe you'd stay if nanners had actually insulted you. I believe that nanners comments are so blatantly puerile that you don't take them as any reflection of yourself.

Is that about right?

[Poopadoop]

To be clear, I've never even hinted at any suggestion over whom you should tolerate.
(If anything I've asked openly that anyone who doesn't want to tolerate him simply ignore him, but that's a totally different beast.)

If any further clarity is needed, my red herring comment was meant to convey that nanners insults are directed toward such flimsy caricatures of any FTR personality that I can not even truly take it seriously that anyone here has been insulted by his asshattery. If anyone has taken offense, then they've painted themselves into that caricature, which says more about them than nanners.

As such, I don't believe you'd stay if nanners had actually insulted you. I believe that nanners comments are so blatantly puerile that you don't take them as any reflection of yourself.

Is that about right?

My skin is plenty thick. I object to the asshattery because it lowers the tone of the discussion while adding nothing. And yes, it can get on my nerves when it's directed at me personally and repeatedly. I don't think that makes me different from anyone else, as reticent as many people seem to be to admit that.

And given a choice, I'd rather be somewhere where I don't get exposed to that behaviour either directed at me or at someone else. Either way it's below the standards of discourse I'm interested in.

[OngBonga]

I'm talking about the deeper truth reflected in the journalists "baseless" comment, which poopy has addressed, though perhaps not to your liking.

I addressed this. It's irrelevant what I think about the topic of whether Alex Jones has grounds for his theories. I'm talking about bias in the media, I have no interest in discussing the career of Alex Jones. I really can't be bothered to research him to find out what he actually claims. It's not the topic in question.

When you see an expressed bias that is much softer than anything nanners brings to FTR, you object that it's unethical,

I really don't want to have to say this again. banana is not a journalist. I do not expect ethical journalism from the bananas of this world.

Media bias is not "soft", it is far too influencial.

I'm saying bias is a part of human nature and ignoring that will lead you to misunderstand the context of things you are told.

I'm not disputing that bias is human nature. So is urinating, but there's an appropriate place for that. Journalists should not show bias, you guys of all people should appreciate this. Free press. You think a journo spouting his opinion is freedom of press? Depends who's paying him. If he's on the government's payroll, well that opinion will likely be in line with state policy. The opposite of freedom of press... state media.

Your participation in the consuming of that news article was purely voluntary.

So is the journalist's decision whether to be impartial.

When I click a link that takes me to a news article, I am consenting to news, and I expect the journalist in question to subscribe to journalism ethics and standards. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journa..._and_standards

If you take a link and you computer gets infected, did you consent to it? Of course not. Same principle applies here. It's reasonable for me to expect impartial news, especially from mainstream media. Well, it's not because I know it's hard to find these days, but it should be a reasonable expectation.

Does that mean it's not really about the expression of bias, but the fact that the expressed bias was antithetical to your own biases?

Ok no, if I agreed with the bias I would still be outraged at the lack of ethical journalism.

So the liberal media outlets and the conservative media outlets are the same entity? and both of those contrary entities are a state tool?

Ultimately, yes. Of course it's a state tool... welcome to identity politics. Divide and conquer.

A much simpler explanation is that neither gives a wet slap about presenting unbiased news, but both care a great deal about ratings and the value of melodrama to rake in viewership.

Rating isn't just money... it's influence.

Stop with the whole, "I'm so sad that you guys are not me." talk. If ever there was a victim tactic, that's it.
If you're feeling depressed, then that sucks, man,

It's like the final days of a favourite pub, the last few alcoholics propping up the bar discussing where they're going to go next, bickering about the pros and cons of each candidate pub. Yeah it's sad. Not depressing sad, but sad. Sorry if that smacks of victimhood, I was hopinh it would strike a chord with some people, seeing as we're all stubbornly refusing to let this place die. This "ignore" thing, it could be the final nail. I felt it needed saying.

[CoccoBill]

It's like the final days of a favourite pub, the last few alcoholics propping up the bar discussing where they're going to go next, bickering about the pros and cons of each candidate pub. Yeah it's sad. Not depressing sad, but sad. Sorry if that smacks of victimhood, I was hopinh it would strike a chord with some people, seeing as we're all stubbornly refusing to let this place die. This "ignore" thing, it could be the final nail. I felt it needed saying.

Ok now you're just being ridiculous. As if one person putting another on ignore has anything to do with this place dying. You don't need to like it, but my other option would have been to do what the other used-to-be-regulars did, leave. Sure, banana has been active and kept the conversations more active than they were a while ago, but it isn't about the quantity, it's about the quality. I'm sure you, spoon and wuf don't mind him, since you seem to be sharing a lot of the same views, which I guess is why he hasn't directed his toxicity towards you. You like him, I get it. It just seems that most other people don't. The only thing still keeping me here is I guess some nostalgia about the great discussions that used to go on here some years ago. At best they've been eye-opening and have calibrated how I see the world, and if not that at least they've been fun and funny. I don't see a lot of that anymore, just stubborn arguing about some inane technicality or word definition, and zero attempt to understand the person you're talking to. That's sad.

[MadMojoMonkey]

OK, so now you know that news source is not for you. Seems like it was an easy enough lesson to learn.

The thing I don't see is that your complaint is about bias. Literally every news source is biased, and you just found a bias that you can clearly identify. To me, that's a net plus. Watching a news program where I am not keenly aware of their bias means that they're simply speaking to my bias and telling me what I want to hear (except that what I really want to hear is as little bias as possible, which, I think is your actual desire, too.) So maybe I can better state that as them telling me what I already believe, rather than inform me with new information.

I don't get the "nanners isn't a journalist" argument. I don't see why it matters at all, other than your desire to find a trustworthy source of world information. I just don't believe that exists, so while I get your discomfort with that, I don't see it as a justification to assert any bias is unethical. People have bias. You will never find a news source which you can simply absorb without critical thinking.

People can control when they urinate (most of the time, at least), but people cannot control whether or not they're biased. People are biased.

I never mentioned money, and I agree that it's about power, for which money is only one avenue. I don't think the news media have as much control over public sentiment as they are a sounding board for public sentiments, though. The news can't tell us how to feel, it can only amplify what we already want to feel.

***
The pub analogy is pretty good. I'd argue that letting nanners post in the tone and style he uses is worse for FTR than people ignoring him. If we don't ignore him, every conversation is a race to the bottom of the barrel.

[OngBonga]

You like him

Incorrect. You have made this assumption simply because I tolerate him. I do find him amusing, but that's not the same as like.

I don't see a lot of that anymore, just stubborn arguing about some inane technicality or word definition, and zero attempt to understand the person you're talking to. That's sad.

Yep, and everyone of us is guilty of this.

I don't think I am being ridiculous. If the place was still thriving, I wouldn't give a fuck about one person ignoring another. And I tried not to when it was just you, it was when poop hinted he had done so I spoke out.

[CoccoBill]

Sure. I do agree with MMM here though. At the failing pub if there's a customer that's making trouble, you throw out the troublemaker, not tell everyone else to just chill since he's buying drinks. And no, I'm definitely not saying he should be kicked out.

[OngBonga]

OK, so now you know that news source is not for you. Seems like it was an easy enough lesson to learn.

Yeah if only it were this easy.

Literally every news source is biased

No it isn't.

I don't get the "nanners isn't a journalist" argument. I don't see why it matters at all, other than your desire to find a trustworthy source of world information.

The point is that I don't care if banana is biased or not, or if I'm biased for that matter. We're having a conversation, not telling the world what's happening. It's not about a "trsutworthy" source, it's about "ethical" journalism. That is actually a thing you know.

People have bias. You will never find a news source which you can simply absorb without critical thinking.

So you agree the media is not to be trusted?

People can control when they urinate (most of the time, at least), but people cannot control whether or not they're biased. People are biased.

People can choose whether or not to report an event with impartiality.

I don't think the news media have as much control over public sentiment as they are a sounding board for public sentiments...

I wish I agreed with you, but I don't.

In fact, I'm glad I don't agree, because then there's hope. If it's a reflection of public sentiment, and not the manipulation, we really are fucked.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah if only it were this easy.

It is that easy. Don't make it harder than it needs to be. You have identified a bias from that news agency. Now let that bias sink in and let it color everything you read from that news agency. Just like you do with everything I say and with everything everyone else you talk to says.

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

No it isn't.

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

The point is that I don't care if banana is biased or not, or if I'm biased for that matter. We're having a conversation, not telling the world what's happening. It's not about a "trsutworthy" source, it's about "ethical" journalism. That is actually a thing you know.

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

I just can't get on board with the "not telling the world what's happening" statement. I don't see any value in suspending critical thinking in any conversation.

So you agree the media is not to be trusted?

Yes, of course. No single source is to be trusted for anything. Duh.
It's called research because any single search is inconclusive. (I mean, probably not, but it makes a good point.)

It's actually pretty fun to check Al Jazeera's main page from time to time. They release negative stories about the USA about a day or 2 in advance of those same stories being released in the states. Vice versa for negative stories. That's an expression of bias on both sides.

... actually, I don't see how you can make these 2 quotes back to back without irony.

People can choose whether or not to report an event with impartiality.

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

I wish I agreed with you, but I don't.

In fact, I'm glad I don't agree, because then there's hope. If it's a reflection of public sentiment, and not the manipulation, we really are fucked.

You might be letting the public shouting match paint you a future that is at odds with history. The shouting match is ever-present, and societies will rise and fall around it. Keep in mind that people love to shout and put up a stink in public, but are usually more responsible behind closed doors.

[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.