Thanks to the current administration, we live in an era where the supposed fact checkers are also biased.
j-mac
There was hardly anything elitist in that rant. I mean, if you have something actual to add; go ahead. But stupid little comments without logic to back up the claim are just that; stupid little comments. And stupid little comments do very little for advancing the debate or considering the direction. So if you have more stupid little comments, please feel free to keep them to yourselves. If you have something thought out which pertains to the subject matter at hand, then by all means contribute.
:roll: It's all hopeless and we're doomed.
I didn't say that, but if that is what you choose to believe then who am I to alter your decisions?
j-mac
It didn't start with Obama pal. This ****'s been going down for quite some time now.
But this is what we're talking about. The hyperpartisanship is making us stupid. We need to stop.
Well, maybe we'll be saved if we get a Republican president again. That will make people smarter.
It's funny how the centrists, libertarians, and moderates seem to grok this, but the hardcore conservative koolaid drinkers have their panties in a wad.
Maybe this is why...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...ee-episode-glenn-beck-faith-our-founders.html
Note the lack of objectivity, the need to reinforce paradigms over honest seeking of historical information, and the inability to screen for source bias.
Libertarians, at least, have learned to think for themselves to some degree. All too many partisans are spoon-fed their opinions, and form their judgements on the basis of what the partisan hacks say.
What I'm getting is this: because of the new freedom of information, and because news companies are competing with each other (in the free market) people are freely choosing to get information through sources some people don't like, and freely choosing to, as you said, not read books about the fed or finance economy, society is going down the toilet. Key words: freely choosing. In the old days, the choices weren't available, because the media was an entirely elite-run industry, and all information came through the filter of the elite. Now the realm of ideas is truly a free market, and it irks people who don't care for the free market in the first place - but it's not just them. It also irks smug people who see that their ideology is not popular even in the free market of ideas, and end up blaming stupidity and ignorance. In this sense it's easy to see how libertarians end up espousing elitist ideas, but the contradiction is still there. Those intensely arguing for a free market in the economy are bemoaning the free market of ideas.
It was an entirely elitist rant. It was smug too, but that's almost beside the point.
What I'm getting is this: because of the new freedom of information, and because news companies are competing with each other (in the free market) people are freely choosing to get information through sources some people don't like, and freely choosing to, as you said, not read books about the fed or finance economy, society is going down the toilet. Key words: freely choosing. In the old days, the choices weren't available, because the media was an entirely elite-run industry, and all information came through the filter of the elite. Now the realm of ideas is truly a free market, and it irks people who don't care for the free market in the first place - but it's not just them. It also irks smug people who see that their ideology is not popular even in the free market of ideas, and end up blaming stupidity and ignorance. In this sense it's easy to see how libertarians end up espousing elitist ideas, but the contradiction is still there. Those intensely arguing for a free market in the economy are bemoaning the free market of ideas.
Have you ever thought for just one moment that if people stopped watching Hannity and reading Coulter, and started reading the books you wanted them to read, maybe they'd still have the same ideologies and vote for the same people and not much would change? Of course not - your ideology is unpopular, and therefore it must be those damn pundits and distractions that make people stupid and ignorant (i.e. disagree with you). Ironically, in today's climate of the availability of information, fact-checking has become more possible and easy than ever. In fact, from a libertarian perspective (and this is my view), the new media and availability of information is one of the greatest things to ever happen to the human race. Disinformation has become a hundredfold harder to spread than ever - because while it has always been there, even when the elite controlled information, it is now possible to discredit it. If you believe in the free market, then you'd believe in the eventual triumph of obvious truths over obvious lies, because both are available to spread now and people get to freely choose which to believe. Only elitists, and some very confused smug people whose ideology is unpopular, would see something wrong with that, and fear that people are too stupid to make that distinction. Never mind that if this is true, it is true with every free market, including the economic one.
If it weren't for new technology, we would all be spoon fed our opinions. Now we an choose where to get information from - and believe it or not, if Beck didn't exist, basically nobody's political ideology would be different. If some people choose to listen to Beck or Olbermann, so be it. That's their choice, and I see nothing wrong with it, because I'm not smug enough to believe that everyone would agree with me if it weren't for "propaganda" that some freely choose to listen to.
I know that Obama's administration didn't "start" it, but they sure ramped it up. Hyper-partisanship is something that will always be present, what we need to focus on is why things like journalism slid from reporting facts, and investigating without bias changed to agenda reporting.
j-mac
Do you ever encounter leftist posters on here who have absorbed their opinions wholesale from the Daily Kos and/or Democratic Underground? Or rightist posters on here who regularly cite the Free Republic without any corroborating evidence?
That's what we're talking about here.
Not often enough for the President of the United States to publicly attack technology.
Remember what is the first thing that Iran tried to do in the face of riots over their sham elections? That's right attack the technology.
j-mac
Not often enough for the President of the United States to publicly attack technology.
Remember what is the first thing that Iran tried to do in the face of riots over their sham elections? That's right attack the technology.
j-mac
Not often enough for the President of the United States to publicly attack technology.
Remember what is the first thing that Iran tried to do in the face of riots over their sham elections? That's right attack the technology.
j-mac
:lol: dude is addicted to his blackberry,.
Good god, you're serious. Did Obama say that these devices should be disabled? Did he use his powers to take the phone service offline? Did he dismantle the internet and start censoring the use of it?
Ahmadinejad did ALL OF THAT. Obama suggested that Americans need to learn to use technology more wisely. He didn't suggest TURNING IT OFF.
You understand the difference between verbally discussing something and attacking the infrastructure and taking it down, don't you?
If not, I'm not sure you're up to this discussion.
America is in no way in the same place that Iran is, but it is interesting that certain notions of these birds of a feather carry forth in different degrees. Iran, cracks down, while Obama just demonizes. How big a step is it really?
You're not sure I am up for this discussion? are you?
j-mac
I think the focus may have been a bit too "old man". "Kids these days and their fancy XBoxes...well back in my day...". But we shouldn't allow that to completely distract from a valid point. Because there is a valid point. Is it technology's fault? No, it's our own. We allowed ourselves to be swept up and consumed by it. Technology could in fact aid us greatly in this very topic. We have to have the resolve and understanding to use these things as aids and to not be dominated by them. The lazy path is always easier, but it ultimately leads to a much worse place.
Iran, cracks down, while Obama just demonizes. How big a step is it really?
Obama is demonizing technology? Hyperbolic tonight aren't we?
Take a look, Ayers sits on the board that decides ciriculum [sic] for the nations high schools for God's sake!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?