601–610 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to support Hillary, one must accept lies, corruption, warmongering, corporatism, voter manipulation and unfettered globalization. It's a choice between two evils, however you look at it.
I don't think unfettered globalization and corporatism are on the same moral level as being a sexual predator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why exactly shouldn't it be beneficial if we let the market (the viewer) without any regulation decide which information should spread and which shouldn't? If people prefer seeing outrageous stuff then let them have it. The reason why governments and institutions want to control this is in order to control its people, all the other reasons given are just an attempt to mask this.
> Why exactly shouldn't it be beneficial if we let the market (the viewer) without any regulation decide which information should spread and which shouldn't? 1) It doesn't work. It leads to the lowest common-denominator winning. 2) Humans aren't rational. 3) The world is complicated enough that the median person simply doesn't know much about anything outside of their silo. 4) There are powerful forces conspiring to…
It's also irrelevant how you would like people to be (more rational, empathetic and so on), actually no one on this planet even cares about your opinion on that matter enough to actually change themselves. (and no one ever will, trust me)
What matters is that people are free to choose to be whatever kind of person they want to be.
Some of them choose to be persons that you don't like, well then don't be around them, issue solved.
You seem to believe that we exist to follow some great plan devised by other people who believe they are smarter and know what we should actually be instead of what we choose to be. This is not the case.
We've all seen the results of ideology that seeks to reach utopia by changing man into something elevated. (Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Rouge Khmer, Venezuela) It always failed in a catastrophic manner and caused often unimaginable suffering because of the authoritarianism inherent in this ideology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mind linking to where Obama said that? The closest I can find is this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-decries-wild-west-media-lan... >"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh. Why do you think that the curation is going to be done by the government or by government…
It's implied by the use of the word "we" and the fact that he is a government employee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who vehemently opposes Trump, I feel that allegations of anti-Trump bias in the mainstream media were entirely correct and somewhat to be expected. Although Trump is certainly a name that sells papers, Trump's repeated threats to open up news media to broader libel laws were not well received. The news organizations' endorsements were pretty one-sided[0]. I don't want to take you too literally, but it seem…
You must have missed the leaked emails in which Clinton exerts massive influence on the media, planning every last details in exchange for all kinds of rewards [0] [0] http://observer.com/2016/08/wikileaks-reveals-mainstream-med...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has less to do with "the digital age" and more to do with governments ignoring large numbers of voters. This is what's supposed to happen when the ruling class gets out of touch.
The idea of a unified "ruling class" is laughable. The current president is constantly at odds with the political party that controls the Senate and the House of Representatives. I also disagree with the notion that most congressmen are out of touch with their voters. Each individual congressman is pursuing the agenda he or she was voted into office by his or her constituents. An example: some constituents want to re…
Sort of. Not really. The political parties do represent different power factions.
But they are unified in the sense that people in the "deep state" - mid-high level bureaucrats, academia, and the media have more in common with each other than they do with you and me. And anything that threatens their collective control will be dealt with more harshly than they deal with each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea of a unified "ruling class" is laughable. The current president is constantly at odds with the political party that controls the Senate and the House of Representatives. I also disagree with the notion that most congressmen are out of touch with their voters. Each individual congressman is pursuing the agenda he or she was voted into office by his or her constituents. An example: some constituents want to re…
>The idea of a unified "ruling class" is laughable. The current president is constantly at odds with the political party that controls the Senate and the House of Representatives. Sort of. Not really. The political parties do represent different power factions. But they are unified in the sense that people in the "deep state" - mid-high level bureaucrats, academia, and the media have more in common with each other th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why exactly shouldn't it be beneficial if we let the market (the viewer) without any regulation decide which information should spread and which shouldn't? 1) It doesn't work. It leads to the lowest common-denominator winning. 2) Humans aren't rational. 3) The world is complicated enough that the median person simply doesn't know much about anything outside of their silo. 4) There are powerful forces conspiring to…
It doesn't matter if I am rational or not, it is my freedom to consume information from whichever source I prefer just as it doesn't matter if it's justified to spend double the money on an Apple product over something from a competitor. It's also irrelevant how you would like people to be (more rational, empathetic and so on), actually no one on this planet even cares about your opinion on that matter enough to actu…
This has real effects that harm other people. Do what you want to yourself. The problem is when you harm others due to your own ignorance or avoidable biases.
None of the big bad movements you mention were genuinely trying to make humans into better thinkers. In fact, they all relied on humans not being such great thinkers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make some good points, but this: > Most people are reasonable Is blatantly false. People are tribal.
How does tribal automatically mean being unreasonable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to support Hillary, one must accept lies, corruption, warmongering, corporatism, voter manipulation and unfettered globalization. It's a choice between two evils, however you look at it.
Don't forget tolerance of rape and child prostitution. (See Jeffery Epstein and William Jefferson Clinton.)
“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York Magazine for a 2002 profile of Epstein. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”[1][2]
How can someone come to the conclusion that this means only Clintons support this? Clearly the common denominator is rich people abusing their power to rape children, not politicians raping children, and not Clintons only raping children. Rich people are abusing their power and America voted to fix it by electing a rich person who has abused that power.
[1]: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/09/the-friendship-between-tru... [2]: http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did and done. However, I fail to see why Wikileaks is considered a Fact-checker, or how this pertains to a belief that NO fact-checker is reliable. Are you claiming that Wikileaks is trustworthy and can replace a fact-checker, but isn't a fact-checker? Because that seems a bit circular and oxymoronic to me. Perhaps if you provided an alternative fact-checker source? The person in my original post has written off all…
You missed the point and sentiment of his comment. Wikileaks is not the fact checker in this case, you are. You were being invited to look at the raw data and draw your own conclusions/truths from it, not somebody else's.