A Nation of Simpletons

[Hypothetical]

Oh I agree completely.

Unfortunately though, the unbiased source is mythological. It has never existed. Even Kronkite had his spin. But there’s a vast difference between spin/bias and yellow journalism/fake news.

Here’s my opinion on this:

We as the consumer of the news must recognize spin. ( the use of the word administration vs the word regime is a great indicator ) Recognizing spin, we should find multiple sources of various spins. Accept the data that agrees, then compare the spins and let the spin inform us as any good argument should.

And once we have our fact based opinion settled in our mind, find people that will respectfully challenge it.

sometimes the only way to recognize spin is to look at the actual source documents and see if they agree with the readers personal thoughts on the matter.

let me ask you this.... do you or do you not believe both sides engage in propaganda?

 

[NWRatCon]

I am a big believer in "limited government" - but that means "limited to what it is authorized to do", not hamstrung and diminished to the point it can be drown in a bathtub. Government needs to be robust enough to address the issues it is called upon to deal with, as well as competent and efficient. It requires adequate understanding of the issues before it, a grasp of the scope, parameters and limitations. That implies expertise in subject matters sufficient to be effective (you don't hire a construction contractor to perform heart surgery). In the modern world there are lots of complexities, and even somewhat straightforward requirements (a census, for example), have to address a myriad of ancillary effects. Then there are truly complicated responsibilities, like immigration, national security, international relations, environmental protection, economic policy, etc., etc., etc. I don't expect Joe Sixpack on the corner to have expertise on these subjects, but I hope he'd want me to hire the right person for the job (and he wouldn't look for a plumber to do electrical work, would he?). Why shouldn't the government be expected to follow such commonsense approaches?

 

[NWRatCon]

I promised yesterday that I would follow up this response with citations.

Oh my, there is so much to disagree with there, this may take some time. I'll start with the last statement - while "generalization", hardly unsupportable. Indeed, I think you will be hard pressed to refute the assertion - I'm looking forward to you supplying some support for yours. (I'll supply some citations in the morning to refute yours. There is plenty of academic work that validates my personal impressions.)

Unfortunately, I'm preparing to depart on a weekend getaway, so my time is limited. Here, however, are some initial public references to the studies I was talking about:
We Are All Getting Dumber, New Science Proves, and No One Is Sure Why; (inc.) These Huge Changes In Human IQ Are Frightening (PsyBlog). Also,
Study: People Are Getting Dumber (U.S.News); People Are Getting Dumber: The Flynn Effect Goes Into Reverse (Reason) (Different study)

Now, these are specifically about IQ tests, which is only ancillary to my point, but does counter the assertion I was addressing in my previous post. Here are some other references which are more germane:
Our attention spans are shrinking. Here’s why that matters. (Phil. Inquirer) Still with me? A Media Avalanche is Burying Our Attention Spans (Web MD); Internet age really DOES mean we get bored more easily and have shorter attention spans, study finds (Daily Mail)

Sociologists, psychologists and teachers have warned of an emerging crisis of concentration stemming from a 'fear of missing out' (FOMO), keeping up to date on social media, and breaking news coming at us 24/7.

So far, the evidence to support these claims has only been hinted at or has been largely anecdotal.

The new study shows that our collective attention span really is narrowing and that the effect occurs not only on social media, but also across a range of topics - including books and web searches.

Our need to keep up to date on a range of subjects is beginning to overwhelm our brain's capacity to focus on multiple items of interest, they suggest.

While these citations are not to the journals, they are what I could get my hand on immediately... heh.

 

[JustHanging]

I wonder why the simpleton is President and the cerbral types like yourself are TDSing anonymoysly on the internet. Why do you think that is?

Because the USA is fast becoming an Idiocracy?

Give Trump credit, he nailed it:

Donald Trump: 'I love the poorly educated' — and they love him

 

[AlphaOmega]

Because the USA is fast becoming an Idiocracy?

Give Trump credit, he nailed it:

Donald Trump: 'I love the poorly educated' — and they love him

So again..not so smart if you let poorly educated people beat you.

 

[JustHanging]

So again..not so smart if you let poorly educated people beat you.

So your argument is that there were more stupid people than intelligent people, so there were more votes cast by the stupid people, and this proves that stupid people are actually smart.

Is Racism Just a Form of Stupidity?

white evangelicals are the only religious group to support Trump
A new poll says 71 percent of white evangelicals approve of his presidency.




:lamo Oh god! I'm dying here. Quit working so hard to earn Trump's love, my sides can't take it. Jesus, thank you AlphaOmega. I just showed your post to a friend of mine. We can't stop laughing. Oh my I'm actually crying. :lamo

 

[sangha]

I am not sure, I would first have to see whether the provisions secured the border well enough and there were no further loopholes. I do not feel that we owe amnesty to illegal aliens already here, but nor should we waste time going after them with a vengeance either UNLESS they commit a crime.

but see this is an example of what i am talking about.. you are arguing what other people, possibly biased , possibly not are telling you about the bill, but not enumerating clearly and discussing the ACTUAL blll with the points you want to make. there is a link to the bill, or a summary of it. I will read that and see what I think. it may take a while.

it all depends on whether you willing to work for a REAL discussion of the ACTUAL legislation and possible compromise, or we want to continue to allow "NEWS", politicians and lawyers lead BOTH sides around on a leash with their opinions and bias.

if we had a federally funded unbiased news source with oversight who could enumerate policies like this, cite them, publish their findings and explain what they are really about to save us all time and make it easier for us in our own investigations of actual policy and WHO is for or against it,THEN we could speak with a more united voice, possibly.

hell its hard enough to come to a concensus when we discuss REAL legislation people have read like the Mueller report. we need to cut out the middleman in so many ways.

Umm, the links I posted have links to the actual bill. If you want to know what's in the actual bill you have to actually read it. No one can do that for you.

However, I didn't ask if you would support those 2 specific bills. I asked if you would support a hypothetical bill that YOU felt had provisions for border security that were sufficient.

IOW, if YOU were satisfied with the bills provisions relating to border security, would you drop your support if the bill also included granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants who met the conditions outlined in the two Immigration reform bills that have been proposed AND passed by the Senate?

 

[AlphaOmega]

So your argument is that there were more stupid people than intelligent people, so there were more votes cast by the stupid people, and this proves that stupid people are actually smart.

Is Racism Just a Form of Stupidity?

white evangelicals are the only religious group to support Trump
A new poll says 71 percent of white evangelicals approve of his presidency.




:lamo Oh god! I'm dying here. Quit working so hard to earn Trump's love, my sides can't take it. Jesus, thank you AlphaOmega. I just showed your post to a friend of mine. We can't stop laughing. Oh my I'm actually crying. :lamo

No only an idiot thinks Trump won because there are more stupid people. I'm just poking fun at the moronic leftist argument. Trump won because lefties don't represent American ideology...they only think they do. Reagan said it best..."It's not that our liberal friends are wrong, it's that they know so much about that which isn't so." He was so spot on with that.
A recent example..lefties want felons to vote. That's not something intelligent people think will win an election. That's what idiots who think they represent America think. These would be the self professed educated crowd. In fact, this is the single dumbest generation of leftists I have ever seen.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

No only an idiot thinks Trump won because there are more stupid people. I'm just poking fun at the moronic leftist argument. Trump won because lefties don't represent American ideology...they only think they do. Reagan said it best..."It's not that our liberal friends are wrong, it's that they know so much about that which isn't so." He was so spot on with that.
A recent example..lefties want felons to vote. That's not something intelligent people think will win an election. That's what idiots who think they represent America think. These would be the self professed educated crowd. In fact, this is the single dumbest generation of leftists I have ever seen.

You weren't poking fun at any argument at all. You just asked a lame, trolling question and got your ass handed to you. Multiple times.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Here puppy, free HC ( a basis human right not to be dangled for votes), free college if you can afford to live through it. You don't a job, we give you a few dollars. Lets leave the border open for other simpletons to come...more to admire us. We promise.

You're going to have to drop the right wing myth that most liberals want open borders, and the other myth that most of us support free money for those who don't want to work before anyone takes you seriously.

Those are fringe positions, and everyone knows they are, but you guys keep pounding the podium with your shoes claiming they're mainstream. Now you know why it gets ugly, now you know why there's less and less civil discussion, now you know "why we can't have nice things".

I got called a liar by someone when I said that "open borders" does not enjoy wide support on the Democratic Party side, and yet here you are following up and reinforcing it again. So now you're calling me a liar, too.

You almost had some salient points, but you ruined it. You canceled out anything logical by "running home to momma" and pounding the podium once again with your Sean Hannity talking points, or whichever idiot you heard say it - it doesn't matter who actually.

Spare me the indignant snorting and get real.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Not to defend the flat earthers or anti-vaxxers, but the other side of the coin is that WE have been conditioned to think in certain ways, and truth about various matters HAS BEEN suppressed.

Edward Bernays put a fine edge on it: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we've never heard of."

Yes, we are a nation of simpletons, and part of the reason for that is because substantial efforts have been made by those behind the scenes to manipulate the public perception. Since the time of Bernays, manipulation of the public perception has been brought to a very high art form.

When everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts, according to William Casey in 1981.

1981, only a decade after Lewis Powell suggested that the Right must fight back by any means necessary and at all costs, to ensure that corporate America "become more aggressive in molding society's thinking about business, government, politics and law in the US."

 

[cabse5]

Because someone loves the poorly educated and the poorly educated vote.

The highly educated have become the poorly educated and, seeing as the highly educated rack mounds of debt in doing so, maybe the highly educated are more highly uneducated.

See, I can be bigoted, too. Don't get me wrong, I mean the poorly educated highly educated quip.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

then why do you not call for the politicians you agree with to make up something we can all get behind , instead of just applauding them for stopping the President's policies on this issue?

Who says we haven't? It's being kind of "drowned out" at the moment, as you might imagine.

I am all for environmental cleanup, downsizing the power of harmful corporations, attempts at good governmental healthcare, lowering medicinal costs, abortion choice etc..

BUT I will not support further firearm restrictions without an amendment to the constitution, or illegal immigration laws that allow catch and release to our interior, or radical social justice reforms such as reparations.

can anyone with different beliefs here compromise on those? if not then how are we to solve these issues?

Items like reparations probably gained more traction right around the time when SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act just a few short years ago. No, not as a direct reaction, as a sign of the times. I doubt reparations will gain enough traction, if for no other reason than the fact that Native Americans aren't asking for them.

Catch and release is losing support right now as it is anyway, give it time and it will fade and make way for compromise.
Your firearms aren't going anywhere.

 

[AlphaOmega]

You weren't poking fun at any argument at all. You just asked a lame, trolling question and got your ass handed to you. Multiple times.

This is the stupidity I was talking about. You think you are correct. lol@ ass handed to me. Only a leftie. Lefties can't even figure out how not to **** on a street so elections aren't within their purview.

 

[nekrodev]

Nuance and real discussion are definitely very hard to come by nowadays, and it's not just one party, or one political leaning - although it probably shouldn't even be controversial to say that it's MOSTLY because of reality-denial on the right. There's also an issue of people not understanding the political leanings, and just wanting to label anyone that doesn't agree with them. Democrat is not the opposite of Republican. They're hardly any different in a lot of cases, depending on what issue we're talking about.

Media, and especially the wider reach the Internet gives, has really played a part in this. Headlines and tweets don't allow for much info, so they just make it as juicy sounding as they can, and then rarely does anyone actually READ the article to find out what's really going on, much less try to check from other sources and compare.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

if we had a federally funded unbiased news source with oversight who could enumerate policies like this, cite them, publish their findings and explain what they are really about to save us all time and make it easier for us in our own investigations of actual policy and WHO is for or against it,THEN we could speak with a more united voice, possibly.

If anyone proposed a federally funded news source, it would immediately be labeled SOCIALISM in large block letters.
Even if it survived that onslaught, almost no one would watch it because for the past forty-some odd years we've been conditioned to watch and accept cable news packaged as an exciting "consumer product".
What you describe would be much more objective, but the masses would think it was "boring".

The closest we have come so far is AP News and Reuters, both of which have television offerings both on certain cable systems and the net, and Newsy, which is also a cable channel. Have you tried any of those yet?

 

[nekrodev]

If anyone proposed a federally funded news source, it would immediately be labeled SOCIALISM in large block letters.
Even if it survived that onslaught, almost no one would watch it because for the past forty-some odd years we've been conditioned to watch and accept cable news packaged as an exciting "consumer product".
What you describe would be much more objective, but the masses would think it was "boring".

The closest we have come so far is AP News and Reuters, both of which have television offerings both on certain cable systems and the net, and Newsy, which is also a cable channel. Have you tried any of those yet?

I'm not a fan of the idea of state media, and most people I know in places like the UK, don't really like the BBC. It doesn't REALLY matter anyway, because you'll always have one of the for-profit companies here functioning as state media. It's Fox News while a Republican is in, and it's MSNBC when a Democrat is in, and then CNN plays the slightly-less-partisan middleman. Sadly, there is no actual left-leaning major outlet in the US, you have to go on the Internet for that, pretty much.

 

[Fenton]

In my lifetime I have had 3 "careers" and at least 24 jobs, ranging from janitor, cook and bottlewasher (literally) to Executive Officer and Assistant Attorney General. I consider myself intellectual, as I like to think about all kinds of things, including what I think and do, but, notwithstanding some posts to the contrary, not arrogant. But... I have noticed, even in myself, a creeping pattern of discourse that is both crude and dismissive. It's not just here on this forum, it is in our newspapers and magazines, on our televisions, and in our daily lives. Conversations are boiled down to "tweets" and text messages (email is so passe), or, if particularly loquacious, a brief exchange while waiting for our lattes at Starbucks. People don't interact with each other as fully as they did even a few decades ago. They get their information and form beliefs from headlines, not the articles.

I've noticed it particularly on weighty topics like climate change, global economics or the Mueller report. In lieu of in-depth study or reading, we post and respond with pithy points based upon cursory knowledge or beliefs. Again, it is not just on discussion forums like this. It seems to be everywhere. We have become a nation of simpletons. Complex thoughts and understanding are becoming rarer and rarer. Part of it is the deteriorization (that's deliberate, not a typo) of our education system, and the divisions between the haves and have nots - but it infests every strata of society. The apotheosis, in my view, is Donald Trump in the White House, the apex simpleton, and a cabinet full of singularly unqualified appointees. But again, it is not a political thing. We, as a society, have attention deficit in the worst way. We can't hold onto a line of thought to the end of a sentence, much less a paragraph, and even less a 448 page report. Our understanding of a topic has to be reduced to a bumper sticker, 288 characters, or a single double-spaced page with bullet points. In that environment bad actors get away with murder, and much worse.

I haven't determined whether our political divide is a symptom of this or merely an accelerant of the trend. Our beliefs are becoming binary: With me, agin' me; fascist or socialist; crackpot or nutjob. But there are big, complicated issues that we have to address both individually and as a nation - security (social, national and personal), environmental degradation, national and international economics, social justice - and soon we are going to be faced with even more, like a worldwide water shortage, dwindling fuel supplies, loss of natural resources and population growth. These are issues that are not amenable to bumper-sticker sized solutions or pithy programs. We need to emerge from our simpleton stupor, but the question is, how?

Climate change, Mueller's report and economics are all inherently political topics.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm not a fan of the idea of state media, and most people I know in places like the UK, don't really like the BBC. It doesn't REALLY matter anyway, because you'll always have one of the for-profit companies here functioning as state media. It's Fox News while a Republican is in, and it's MSNBC when a Democrat is in, and then CNN plays the slightly-less-partisan middleman. Sadly, there is no actual left-leaning major outlet in the US, you have to go on the Internet for that, pretty much.

I am not very much a fan of it either but I am a fan of an institutionalized set of standards.
That said, it does not necessarily NEED to be strictly a federal program. The National Association of Broadcasters has a set of standards for both radio and television.
On the TV side it used to be known simply as The Television Code, and stations which enrolled in it displayed the NAB "Seal of Good Practice". This was more than just a beauty contest because on the journalism side, news operations were expected to adhere as much as possible to both NAB and AP (Associated Press) standards for journalistic integrity and AP Style.

So ultimately it would be helpful if Uncle Sam at least published a proposal and guideline, and outfits like the NAB were to partner with Uncle Sam in crafting the standards.

This isn't about laws, or government meddling, it's about quality standards. We are accustomed to expect quality standards in many things, from floor wax to dessert toppings, to the gas we put in our cars, to the meat we cook up for hamburgers.
Why not expect a quality standard for news and public affairs?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

This is the stupidity I was talking about. You think you are correct. lol@ ass handed to me. Only a leftie. Lefties can't even figure out how not to **** on a street so elections aren't within their purview.

The funniest part of this is that you have absolutely no clue how badly you're embarrassing yourself.

Go ahead, tiger; have the last word.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

I am not very much a fan of it either but I am a fan of an institutionalized set of standards.
That said, it does not necessarily NEED to be strictly a federal program. The National Association of Broadcasters has a set of standards for both radio and television.
On the TV side it used to be known simply as The Television Code, and stations which enrolled in it displayed the NAB "Seal of Good Practice". This was more than just a beauty contest because on the journalism side, news operations were expected to adhere as much as possible to both NAB and AP (Associated Press) standards for journalistic integrity and AP Style.

So ultimately it would be helpful if Uncle Sam at least published a proposal and guideline, and outfits like the NAB were to partner with Uncle Sam in crafting the standards.

This isn't about laws, or government meddling, it's about quality standards. We are accustomed to expect quality standards in many things, from floor wax to dessert toppings, to the gas we put in our cars, to the meat we cook up for hamburgers.
Why not expect a quality standard for news and public affairs?

A reasonable thing to have, but why should the government be the steward of that standard instead of one or more private institutions with experts in these topics?

When the government steps in, there's always a potential to run into some First Amendment entanglements.

 

[jnug]

Well lets see....what does the Simpleton in Chief have to say these days:
- That the investigative agencies of the United States tried to stage a Coup with Mueller as the lead man in an effort to overthrow him.

So neither DonDon nor his ghoulish base that cheers this nonsense appears to know the meaning of the word Coup.

As I said in an earlier post, you have to be a complete dunce cap to "cheer" such nonsense because if the Chief Executive makes such a statement, he is stuck now because having made the statement he is then forced to prove it or shut up. He can't just continue to walk around as the Chief Executive. He has to stop everything else he is doing and prove it! Trump can't prove it and he won't shut up which is the current dilemma he has left for what few aides with a brain there are still in the WH. He is leaving himself ultimately with a base made up entirely of QAnon members.

MSM as usual misses the point in its horrific angst over providing entertainment for ratings. "ha...ha...ha..ha...ah..ah...ha" a Coup...isn't that funny."

ASSHATS!!!

They somehow grant themselves the right to define their roles in terms of late night variety show hosts as opposed to providing reporting and journalistic content.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

A reasonable thing to have, but why should the government be the steward of that standard instead of one or more private institutions with experts in these topics?

When the government steps in, there's always a potential to run into some First Amendment entanglements.

That's why I said "proposal and guideline". Outfits like the NAB would be the stewards. Additionally I would love it if the Associated Press grew some larger brass balls. AP Style is an excellent guideline but there's no teeth.

Where the government can come in handy is by simply setting a standard that defines "the public interest" much the way they used to in the days of the Fairness Doctrine. But in the end, since they can't dangle a broadcast license over a cable channel, it is up to the industry itself to implement the proposed standards. The FCC cannot tell Fox News or MSNBC what to do because neither of them operate a transmitter, so they can tell the FCC to pound sand.
But the AP and the NAB are organizations that even cable channels depend upon.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Imagine if the AP were able to also serve the broadcast/cablesat/journalistic equivalent of, say perhaps, Consumer Reports.
Media outlets would be assigned an overall quality rating, based on a set of criteria.

 

[smallvoice]

We might experience the first generation of bumpkins that do not want to send their kids to school for better lives.

I think you were in it.