[QUOTE=deathworlds;858099]This plays into a growing problem with social media in particular, we often put ourselves into these "info-bubbles" where we isolate ourselves from information that we dislike, and based on these algorithms (in Facebook in particular) you're shown content you're more likely to "like" and less likely to dislike. People tend to "like" content they agree with, thus Facebook shows you almost exclusively information that you agree with. This creates a sort of positive feedback loop, to the point where some people's perception of reality completely disagrees with another person's.
EDIT:
I should also talk about how this plays into the human psyche, humans are tribalistic by nature, we tend to group up with people that we share traits with, whether that be race, gender, political alignment, or interest. Machine algorithms are more than likely exploiting this aspect of the human psyche.[/QUOTE]
I have a lot of respect for this post.
Originally Posted by deathworlds
This plays into a growing problem with social media in particular, we often put ourselves into these "info-bubbles" where we isolate ourselves from information that we dislike, and based on these algorithms (in Facebook in particular) you're shown content you're more likely to "like" and less likely to dislike. People tend to "like" content they agree with, thus Facebook shows you almost exclusively information that you agree with. This creates a sort of positive feedback loop, to the point where some people's perception of reality completely disagrees with another person's.
EDIT:
I should also talk about how this plays into the human psyche, humans are tribalistic by nature, we tend to group up with people that we share traits with, whether that be race, gender, political alignment, or interest. Machine algorithms are more than likely exploiting this aspect of the human psyche.
[QUOTE=Ganelon;856941]I think the saddest part about the thread is that politics has to be such a contentious issue when the only moment when your political leanings matter is when you vote.[/QUOTE]
Im not sure that I understand this position. Do morals only matter when they are exercised?
I think belief systems and values hold value because when they are shared they can alter perspective. Simple things like this thread on a forum where we are talking about our political views can help to open our minds and change the way we think about the issues we face as a society. I feel like the existence of our values and beliefs holds intrinsic value. That its the predominate defining characteristic of our existence.
In a word- I believe sharing my perspective and beliefs with others holds greater value than voting because of the direct impact it can have on others lives. Reaching out to another human being and letting them understand how you see them and feel about them keeps us from being alone. I can't imagine life without that.
Originally Posted by Ganelon
I think the saddest part about the thread is that politics has to be such a contentious issue when the only moment when your political leanings matter is when you vote.
Im not sure that I understand this position. Do morals only matter when they are exercised?
I think belief systems and values hold value because when they are shared they can alter perspective. Simple things like this thread on a forum where we are talking about our political views can help to open our minds and change the way we think about the issues we face as a society. I feel like the existence of our values and beliefs holds intrinsic value. That its the predominate defining characteristic of our existence.
In a word- I believe sharing my perspective and beliefs with others holds greater value than voting because of the direct impact it can have on others lives. Reaching out to another human being and letting them understand how you see them and feel about them keeps us from being alone. I can't imagine life without that.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;856916]Oh and truthfully I think on policy and general politics Helz and I agree quite a bit, if not fully. I guess our only point of disagreement is approach to our roles as citizens, pertaining to voting strategy and importance of recent issues. He's more of an idealist I suppose, and I'm more of a pragmatist. I'd much prefer a better system where we wouldn't have to make compromises, and I think, for the two of us, an ideal society would look very similar.[/QUOTE]
I feel like this is very fair. I like that we were able to take different positions on a subject as hairy as politics without ever touching ad hominem. I do still feel that news organizations as a whole hide their opinions behind purported facts and have trouble seeing the right as creating a narrative of anti-voting; but its something I will probably have to read into for a very long time before I can say I have a really valid opinion on the matter.
On the subject of Google's bias its 100% a thing. Google as a company leans hard left. There was a scholarly journal I read a few years back that questioned if it was appropriate for search platforms to curve results and its abstract specifically mentioned how if you created a new account and searched the word 'news' on google the first 8 or 9 results were all left leaning news sources. For anyone that doesn't want to accept that just look at demonetization practices on youtube in relation to political viewpoints.
I also push hard against calling the impeachment charade a 'trial'. A trial has structured law, burdens of proof, professionals who understand legal structure and above all- a Judge or Jury to decide on the matter. The impeachment farce was nothing more than a bunch of window licking politicians saying what they think and then arguing about if what they said is factual because they said it.
I think its disgusting and offensive to our legal system to give that circus any measure of the respect that trials command and I like to push this position when I can.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
Oh and truthfully I think on policy and general politics Helz and I agree quite a bit, if not fully. I guess our only point of disagreement is approach to our roles as citizens, pertaining to voting strategy and importance of recent issues. He's more of an idealist I suppose, and I'm more of a pragmatist. I'd much prefer a better system where we wouldn't have to make compromises, and I think, for the two of us, an ideal society would look very similar.
I feel like this is very fair. I like that we were able to take different positions on a subject as hairy as politics without ever touching ad hominem. I do still feel that news organizations as a whole hide their opinions behind purported facts and have trouble seeing the right as creating a narrative of anti-voting; but its something I will probably have to read into for a very long time before I can say I have a really valid opinion on the matter.
On the subject of Google's bias its 100% a thing. Google as a company leans hard left. There was a scholarly journal I read a few years back that questioned if it was appropriate for search platforms to curve results and its abstract specifically mentioned how if you created a new account and searched the word 'news' on google the first 8 or 9 results were all left leaning news sources. For anyone that doesn't want to accept that just look at demonetization practices on youtube in relation to political viewpoints.
I also push hard against calling the impeachment charade a 'trial'. A trial has structured law, burdens of proof, professionals who understand legal structure and above all- a Judge or Jury to decide on the matter. The impeachment farce was nothing more than a bunch of window licking politicians saying what they think and then arguing about if what they said is factual because they said it.
I think its disgusting and offensive to our legal system to give that circus any measure of the respect that trials command and I like to push this position when I can.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855630]I agree with this, but I also think it could be better. Out of the Democrats and Republicans, Republicans have been taking much greater steps towards totalitarianism with their cult of personality lately, plus stacking courts and blatantly anti-democratic actions.[/QUOTE]I absolutely agree with you. A lot of the recent direction is unprecedented.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855630]I'm not talking to you as if you're a Republican, I'm talking to you as if you've fallen for the apathy and cynicism that Republicans have been trying to sow. There's a reason that Republicans push so hard to suppress votes with useless voter ID laws and reducing any sort of mail-in voting; it's part of their overall voter suppression plan, which largely hurts Democrat outcomes. The other plan is blatant astroturfing and convincing otherwise reasonable people such as yourself that Republicans and Democrats are the same and that nothing you can do will even matter.[/QUOTE]I suppose I just disagree with you that the 'both sides are evil' narrative is a republican move. They probably leaned hard into the 'our actions are justified because the other side is doing it too' argument but I feel like their narrative ends in "vote us because the other side is worse" as opposed to "voting is broken." The strongest "voting is broken" campaign I can think of was when Trump got elected after loosing the popular vote which was a democrat argument.
Im not sure if any of that holds any bearing on what were talking about. I just feel like not many people actually keep up with scholarly articles and my position is rather original but I kind of unplugged from big news like 6 years ago. Either I was duped, theres a new narrative pushing in that direction I haven't seen, or you are mistaken. But in any situation its the position that logically makes sense to me. Im not opposed to hearing out your position and changing mine but I just feel like focusing on the things I can change while avoiding toxic rhetoric about things I cant is the best thing I can do for my life and the lives of those I care about.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855630]He specifically mentions a system where he'll introduce a public health plan, which is a right step towards single-payer. Single-payer is by and far the best way to reduce costs even in a capitalistic system, and there's scores of evidence to prove that. I'd like to see what mathematical explanation you have, sure.[/QUOTE]I get what he is proposing but think of it like this:
-The VA is a socialist healthcare system. The government pays employees and owns the hospitals that treat the veterans providing services that are paid for by the government. This model makes sense to me.
-He is proposing the government pay for services from the private sector for all citizens. In that situation private, for profit corporations will provide a service thats paid for by the government. This functions at a higher price point because the for profit corporations require a profit margin. This model is worse for the tax-payer.
Just think about the massive conflicts of interest in politics and how that will be exploited when you give private healthcare direct access to federal funds. The case I started against the company LHI is exactly in line with this issue in terms of the VA subcontracting out to a for profit company and that company exploiting the contract. You could also read into how Dialysis has gone over as a government subsidized program (which by the way costs half as much as we spend in total on education each year.)
[spoiler=Lame math stuff]
So this will just all be about basic microeconomics. Important concepts:
-The 'unseen hand' or natural tendency for a free capitalistic market to establish a price point at equilibrium between supply and demand
-Equilibrium generates maximum profits for a firm
-Publicly traded firms have a legal obligation to maximize profits
[ATTACH=CONFIG]26887[/ATTACH]
So in the first figure theres your natural market. Grey marks the firms gross market.
When you subsidize a a market it shifts the price point down sliding down the demand curve (increasing the quantity sold). In the second figure you can see how subsidization greatly expands a firms gross market.
In the 3rd figure you can see the potential gain for the firm by returning the price point to equilibrium (which they are legally obligated to do if publicly traded.) It is important to note that there is an overall increase in market share long term and a short term significant increase as the the price shifts back towards equilibrium for the firm.
In the 4th figure you can see the re-established price point necessitated by market conditions
[/spoiler]
TLDR- Subsidization only functions to profit firms unless price ceilings are established. Additionally they allow for higher profits than even possible in the short term (Upper right corner of gross in figure 3)
Basically any subsidization without a price ceiling temporary makes things more accessible for the consumer while permanently profiting the firm while a socialist healthcare system permanently makes things more accessible for the consumer. This is why subsidized capitalism is a terrible idea weather functioned through insurance or government payment. Free capitalistic markets just cant function that way unless firms decide to not act in their own best interest.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855630]I have no idea how health insurance works in the US, I just know it's garbage and the Republicans have no plans to fix it.[/QUOTE] I could go into that if you want. I personally would rather not.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855630]ox and CNN are hardly comparable; CNN is much less partisan and much more factual. A more apt comparison would be Occupy Democrats vs Fox, which I more or less agree with, although OD has their hearts in a better place IMO.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with that. I think the reason news organizations are bad is because of conflicts of interests. Both sides are owned by media conglomerates who have political interests and pass down storys as 'Can run, Should run, or Must run.'
At the same time I haven't watched either in a very long time so I probably dont have a very valid opinion.
I think it all comes down to the fact we live in an age of sociological meta-cognition where we have grown to understand how we get information and make decisions as a population. I do not think things will ever get back to the way they were because there is money and power to be had in controlling peoples perspective. If your ever bored this is a nice interview of 4 star general Robert Brown that reflects how even the US Military now considers information propagation a domain of warefare.[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE[/url]
(The same guy also has a few pieces on how perspective manipulation is done online. I hold his work in high regard.)
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
I agree with this, but I also think it could be better. Out of the Democrats and Republicans, Republicans have been taking much greater steps towards totalitarianism with their cult of personality lately, plus stacking courts and blatantly anti-democratic actions.
I absolutely agree with you. A lot of the recent direction is unprecedented.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
I'm not talking to you as if you're a Republican, I'm talking to you as if you've fallen for the apathy and cynicism that Republicans have been trying to sow. There's a reason that Republicans push so hard to suppress votes with useless voter ID laws and reducing any sort of mail-in voting; it's part of their overall voter suppression plan, which largely hurts Democrat outcomes. The other plan is blatant astroturfing and convincing otherwise reasonable people such as yourself that Republicans and Democrats are the same and that nothing you can do will even matter.
I suppose I just disagree with you that the 'both sides are evil' narrative is a republican move. They probably leaned hard into the 'our actions are justified because the other side is doing it too' argument but I feel like their narrative ends in "vote us because the other side is worse" as opposed to "voting is broken." The strongest "voting is broken" campaign I can think of was when Trump got elected after loosing the popular vote which was a democrat argument.
Im not sure if any of that holds any bearing on what were talking about. I just feel like not many people actually keep up with scholarly articles and my position is rather original but I kind of unplugged from big news like 6 years ago. Either I was duped, theres a new narrative pushing in that direction I haven't seen, or you are mistaken. But in any situation its the position that logically makes sense to me. Im not opposed to hearing out your position and changing mine but I just feel like focusing on the things I can change while avoiding toxic rhetoric about things I cant is the best thing I can do for my life and the lives of those I care about.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
He specifically mentions a system where he'll introduce a public health plan, which is a right step towards single-payer. Single-payer is by and far the best way to reduce costs even in a capitalistic system, and there's scores of evidence to prove that. I'd like to see what mathematical explanation you have, sure.
I get what he is proposing but think of it like this:
-The VA is a socialist healthcare system. The government pays employees and owns the hospitals that treat the veterans providing services that are paid for by the government. This model makes sense to me.
-He is proposing the government pay for services from the private sector for all citizens. In that situation private, for profit corporations will provide a service thats paid for by the government. This functions at a higher price point because the for profit corporations require a profit margin. This model is worse for the tax-payer.
Just think about the massive conflicts of interest in politics and how that will be exploited when you give private healthcare direct access to federal funds. The case I started against the company LHI is exactly in line with this issue in terms of the VA subcontracting out to a for profit company and that company exploiting the contract. You could also read into how Dialysis has gone over as a government subsidized program (which by the way costs half as much as we spend in total on education each year.)
Spoiler : Lame math stuff :
So this will just all be about basic microeconomics. Important concepts:
-The 'unseen hand' or natural tendency for a free capitalistic market to establish a price point at equilibrium between supply and demand
-Equilibrium generates maximum profits for a firm
-Publicly traded firms have a legal obligation to maximize profits
So in the first figure theres your natural market. Grey marks the firms gross market.
When you subsidize a a market it shifts the price point down sliding down the demand curve (increasing the quantity sold). In the second figure you can see how subsidization greatly expands a firms gross market.
In the 3rd figure you can see the potential gain for the firm by returning the price point to equilibrium (which they are legally obligated to do if publicly traded.) It is important to note that there is an overall increase in market share long term and a short term significant increase as the the price shifts back towards equilibrium for the firm.
In the 4th figure you can see the re-established price point necessitated by market conditions
TLDR- Subsidization only functions to profit firms unless price ceilings are established. Additionally they allow for higher profits than even possible in the short term (Upper right corner of gross in figure 3)
Basically any subsidization without a price ceiling temporary makes things more accessible for the consumer while permanently profiting the firm while a socialist healthcare system permanently makes things more accessible for the consumer. This is why subsidized capitalism is a terrible idea weather functioned through insurance or government payment. Free capitalistic markets just cant function that way unless firms decide to not act in their own best interest.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
I have no idea how health insurance works in the US, I just know it's garbage and the Republicans have no plans to fix it.
I could go into that if you want. I personally would rather not.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
ox and CNN are hardly comparable; CNN is much less partisan and much more factual. A more apt comparison would be Occupy Democrats vs Fox, which I more or less agree with, although OD has their hearts in a better place IMO.
I disagree with that. I think the reason news organizations are bad is because of conflicts of interests. Both sides are owned by media conglomerates who have political interests and pass down storys as 'Can run, Should run, or Must run.'
At the same time I haven't watched either in a very long time so I probably dont have a very valid opinion.
I think it all comes down to the fact we live in an age of sociological meta-cognition where we have grown to understand how we get information and make decisions as a population. I do not think things will ever get back to the way they were because there is money and power to be had in controlling peoples perspective. If your ever bored this is a nice interview of 4 star general Robert Brown that reflects how even the US Military now considers information propagation a domain of warefare.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE
(The same guy also has a few pieces on how perspective manipulation is done online. I hold his work in high regard.)
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855605]There's a difference between the type of news that's like "omg trump tweeted covfefe that isnt even a real word" versus him actively supporting movements that advocate for re-opening states prematurely, and all the corruption scandals he's been a part of. It's important for people to understand that he is tearing down democracy in the US and giving support to movements and actions that may lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.[/QUOTE]
Im not sure what democracy you are talking about. America is a corporatocracy. I agree that he has taken many actions that counter the checks and balances established and I am curious where that will go in his second term. Generally presidents walk a line their first term and go a but more wild in their second because of the lack of re-election. If he makes it to election I will loose a bet that trump wouldn't make it through his term as president.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855605]This is just proof that the Republican-cultivated "both sides bad" cynicism that you've firmly latched onto is doing its job in clouding your views. [/QUOTE] I think my original disgust was the way both sides were leveraging a government shutdown to pass legislation that was not the consensus of the nation. You keep talking to me like I am a republican which I do not really understand. You see Republicans as the source of evil while I see lobbyists as the source and democrans/republicrats as two sides of the same disgusting coin.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855605]Otherwise, perhaps you would have realized that campaign finance/lobbying reform and healthcare cost reductions are cornerstones of Joe Biden's platform.
[url]https://joebiden.com/governmentreform/[/url]
[url]https://joebiden.com/healthcare/[/url]
Also I'm gonna pre-empt your argument of "hurr well maybe he's lying about that" by pointing out that the same argument applies against any of your favourite candidates, including Sanders, and we've already blatantly seen that Trump obviously isn't going to accomplish either of those.[/QUOTE] Well I just read Bidens healthcare section and its like every other. Line after line about insurance reform and subsidization. Its not like the money for all that extended coverage is coming out of nowhere. The only place he mentioned any actual price adjustment is with pharmaceutical companies. If you would like I can explain to you mathematically why subsidizing a capitalistic market can never work.
Im not going to say health insurance became a dumpster fire after the last 'healthcare reform but I will say the last X-ray I got I claimed to not have insurance because it would have cost 350 as my deductible with my insurance or 50$ if I had no insurance.
Outside of the government matching donations for small candidates (wut..) his positions sound good but yeah, "hurr well maybe he's lying about that." Vague nice sounding promises get a hard 'boy that cried wolf' look from me. Im not saying thats not true for anyone else but theres a reason not much actually changes even though every 4 years someone steps up to the plate talking about how they will make good changes. If it makes you happy even though I think his healthcare reform ideas are atrocious he has a better direction than Trump.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855605]Yes, that is a problem. The solution is not to be apathetic. Proto-fascism relies on the population being apathetic and thinking that the government doesn't personally impact them, until it sneaks up on them, by which point it's too late.
Of course it is, I don't disagree. I'll say again, the approach isn't to throw your hands up and go "ehhhhh whatever". This is a situation in which one "side" is clearly, objectively bending rules to get their way and to take steps towards authoritarianism in the US. If that isn't combated by whatever means, then you are complacent in it.[/QUOTE] I agree. Im just focused on things I can change. I was able to start a white house investigation on a company named "LHI" that was essentially defrauding the VA for evaluations eliminating healthcare for veterans.
Its not that I am apathetic. Im just a pragmatist and I dont recognize me watching CNN or FOX doing anything other than making me bitter at 'the other side.' while I choke on bipartisan rhetoric.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855605]Study after study shows that government initiatives against global warming, such as carbon taxes, are substantially more effective than anything individuals can do, such as going vegan. Someone not making personal sacrifices to stop climate change isn't doing so because they don't actually care or they're virtue signalling, it's because their contribution and impact is absolutely negligible compared to lobbying the governments for even the slightest of change.[/QUOTE]I agree with this.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
There's a difference between the type of news that's like "omg trump tweeted covfefe that isnt even a real word" versus him actively supporting movements that advocate for re-opening states prematurely, and all the corruption scandals he's been a part of. It's important for people to understand that he is tearing down democracy in the US and giving support to movements and actions that may lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.
Im not sure what democracy you are talking about. America is a corporatocracy. I agree that he has taken many actions that counter the checks and balances established and I am curious where that will go in his second term. Generally presidents walk a line their first term and go a but more wild in their second because of the lack of re-election. If he makes it to election I will loose a bet that trump wouldn't make it through his term as president.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
This is just proof that the Republican-cultivated "both sides bad" cynicism that you've firmly latched onto is doing its job in clouding your views.
I think my original disgust was the way both sides were leveraging a government shutdown to pass legislation that was not the consensus of the nation. You keep talking to me like I am a republican which I do not really understand. You see Republicans as the source of evil while I see lobbyists as the source and democrans/republicrats as two sides of the same disgusting coin.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
Otherwise, perhaps you would have realized that campaign finance/lobbying reform and healthcare cost reductions are cornerstones of Joe Biden's platform.
Also I'm gonna pre-empt your argument of "hurr well maybe he's lying about that" by pointing out that the same argument applies against any of your favourite candidates, including Sanders, and we've already blatantly seen that Trump obviously isn't going to accomplish either of those.
Well I just read Bidens healthcare section and its like every other. Line after line about insurance reform and subsidization. Its not like the money for all that extended coverage is coming out of nowhere. The only place he mentioned any actual price adjustment is with pharmaceutical companies. If you would like I can explain to you mathematically why subsidizing a capitalistic market can never work.
Im not going to say health insurance became a dumpster fire after the last 'healthcare reform but I will say the last X-ray I got I claimed to not have insurance because it would have cost 350 as my deductible with my insurance or 50$ if I had no insurance.
Outside of the government matching donations for small candidates (wut..) his positions sound good but yeah, "hurr well maybe he's lying about that." Vague nice sounding promises get a hard 'boy that cried wolf' look from me. Im not saying thats not true for anyone else but theres a reason not much actually changes even though every 4 years someone steps up to the plate talking about how they will make good changes. If it makes you happy even though I think his healthcare reform ideas are atrocious he has a better direction than Trump.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
Yes, that is a problem. The solution is not to be apathetic. Proto-fascism relies on the population being apathetic and thinking that the government doesn't personally impact them, until it sneaks up on them, by which point it's too late.
Of course it is, I don't disagree. I'll say again, the approach isn't to throw your hands up and go "ehhhhh whatever". This is a situation in which one "side" is clearly, objectively bending rules to get their way and to take steps towards authoritarianism in the US. If that isn't combated by whatever means, then you are complacent in it.
I agree. Im just focused on things I can change. I was able to start a white house investigation on a company named "LHI" that was essentially defrauding the VA for evaluations eliminating healthcare for veterans.
Its not that I am apathetic. Im just a pragmatist and I dont recognize me watching CNN or FOX doing anything other than making me bitter at 'the other side.' while I choke on bipartisan rhetoric.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
Study after study shows that government initiatives against global warming, such as carbon taxes, are substantially more effective than anything individuals can do, such as going vegan. Someone not making personal sacrifices to stop climate change isn't doing so because they don't actually care or they're virtue signalling, it's because their contribution and impact is absolutely negligible compared to lobbying the governments for even the slightest of change.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855599]Yes. You are quite literally blocking out important news about the leader of your country because you don't want to hear it. Is that not what misinforming yourself is?[/QUOTE]Well I guess we will just have to disagree on the 'Important news' part here. Its hardly a 'hot new take' to say that Trump rambles like a blathering idiot.[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855599]The correct response to corruption and cronyism in politics (which is largely perpetrated by Republicans in recent years, mind you) is to just give up and declare that all sides are the same and hope it all fixes itself somehow? How else do you propose solving any issues besides "getting worked up over elected officials"?[/QUOTE]Not at all. I will totally support an elected official that steps up and pushes real change. I just don't hear any politicians taking a hard line on eliminating corporate lobbying or addressing healthcare from a position other than subsidization. There are tons that argue about making it more affordable which either comes from the angle of 'lets adjust insurance' or 'lets create a socialist system' but theres hardly any talk about actually addressing the price itself. That and I would even support a straight socialist healthcare system which most people think they are arguing for when they are really advocating for subsidized capitalism (Which is a terrible idea in sooo many ways.)
So lets say I do go all nuts on who's elected. I find someone and kinda agree with half of what they are saying but view them as the 'lesser of two evils' and vote them in. At that point they have no further obligation to act in my interests, and instead their incentive is in the lobbyists until re-election. There is a reason people get elected to congress, make 100k a year and retire 10 years later with 10 million. Even the ones that dont overtly do insider trading (like Sen. Kelly Loeffler.)
If your interested heres a nice piece explaining why votes dont matter very much (Although a pretty dry read)
[url]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B[/url] (Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern spelling out we live in an oligarchy and votes hardly matter)
And here is one thats more of a persuasive piece on influencing actual change [url]https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/documents/why-competition-in-the-politics-industry-is-failing-america.pdf[/url] (although once again, the solutions deal with altering public perception and having people in power take away from their own power which... just lol)
On the most basic level I believe in the concept of the phaneron. That we interact with objective reality through our senses. I believe that the political landscape is the result of our political senses being influenced through mass marketing campaigns; and because of media cross ownership this false dichotomy of republicrat vs democran rhetoric is poison to creating real change.
So I unplug, and I feel thats a more responsible choice than spreading the toxic rhetoric given my outlook.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855599]There is something called empathy, which means that you should also feel bad for other people's misfortunes and should be driven to help them out if you can. Just because you aren't personally affected at this very moment because of politics or the current president, doesn't mean other people aren't. I wanted to live in America at some point, Trump's changes to immigration made that difficult if not impossible and I gave up on that dream. Environmental policies that Republicans are enacting in the name of corporate profit are contributing to fucking up the climate and there are regular heat waves in Europe now that they weren't meant to handle, which killed several people last year and will probably kill more this year. It's great that your life is so disconnected from the bigger picture that your country's leader has no impact on you, but surely that doesn't stop you from understanding the impact on others?[/QUOTE]
I do feel bad about others misfortunes but I also feel that there is a very substantial issue in peoples inability to understand the difference between helping others and enabling them on both the macro and micro level. I am also in favor of limiting immigration although I feel Trump did it in the exact wrong way. He hurt others ability to have a chance to come here while also allowing mass visa programs on manual labor to be exploited. People make fun of the 'They took our jeeerrbs' argument but its very real in Texas. Manual labor skill based jobs have not seen substantial wage increases in decades because while normally wages would go up to meet the market supply of employees it has instead been supplemented with visa programs. I get that almost everyone came as an immigrant at one point but there is a massive difference between going somewhere where there is nothing to create a nice life, and going somewhere thats nice to enjoy what others have created.
I also dislike the idea of shoving altruistic action onto the government because it allows shitty people to 'look good' without any real conviction and most of the time the money just ends up in someones pocket. Its insane how profitable it can be to work at a non profit organization and that as low as 10 cents on the dollar can go to actually help.
My favorite story in this direction could easily relate on the subject of global warming. Basically a bunch of Oxford students got together and protested fossil fuels. The dean came back and offered to turn off the central gas heating. A news station reached out to him calling his response provocative to which he replied "You are right that I am being provocative but I hope I am provoking some clear thinking. It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve your goals."
Maybe its just me but I get annoyed when I hear people pushing to end some suffering should be ended, and [I]someone else should do it[/I]. I can count the times on one hand where I have had a discussion with someone on hot topic issues like world hunger or homelessness where that person has made any personal sacrifice in line with their supposed 'convictions'.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
Yes. You are quite literally blocking out important news about the leader of your country because you don't want to hear it. Is that not what misinforming yourself is?
Well I guess we will just have to disagree on the 'Important news' part here. Its hardly a 'hot new take' to say that Trump rambles like a blathering idiot.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
The correct response to corruption and cronyism in politics (which is largely perpetrated by Republicans in recent years, mind you) is to just give up and declare that all sides are the same and hope it all fixes itself somehow? How else do you propose solving any issues besides "getting worked up over elected officials"?
Not at all. I will totally support an elected official that steps up and pushes real change. I just don't hear any politicians taking a hard line on eliminating corporate lobbying or addressing healthcare from a position other than subsidization. There are tons that argue about making it more affordable which either comes from the angle of 'lets adjust insurance' or 'lets create a socialist system' but theres hardly any talk about actually addressing the price itself. That and I would even support a straight socialist healthcare system which most people think they are arguing for when they are really advocating for subsidized capitalism (Which is a terrible idea in sooo many ways.)
So lets say I do go all nuts on who's elected. I find someone and kinda agree with half of what they are saying but view them as the 'lesser of two evils' and vote them in. At that point they have no further obligation to act in my interests, and instead their incentive is in the lobbyists until re-election. There is a reason people get elected to congress, make 100k a year and retire 10 years later with 10 million. Even the ones that dont overtly do insider trading (like Sen. Kelly Loeffler.)
If your interested heres a nice piece explaining why votes dont matter very much (Although a pretty dry read) https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...D4893B382B992B (Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern spelling out we live in an oligarchy and votes hardly matter)
And here is one thats more of a persuasive piece on influencing actual change https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/...ng-america.pdf (although once again, the solutions deal with altering public perception and having people in power take away from their own power which... just lol)
On the most basic level I believe in the concept of the phaneron. That we interact with objective reality through our senses. I believe that the political landscape is the result of our political senses being influenced through mass marketing campaigns; and because of media cross ownership this false dichotomy of republicrat vs democran rhetoric is poison to creating real change.
So I unplug, and I feel thats a more responsible choice than spreading the toxic rhetoric given my outlook.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
There is something called empathy, which means that you should also feel bad for other people's misfortunes and should be driven to help them out if you can. Just because you aren't personally affected at this very moment because of politics or the current president, doesn't mean other people aren't. I wanted to live in America at some point, Trump's changes to immigration made that difficult if not impossible and I gave up on that dream. Environmental policies that Republicans are enacting in the name of corporate profit are contributing to fucking up the climate and there are regular heat waves in Europe now that they weren't meant to handle, which killed several people last year and will probably kill more this year. It's great that your life is so disconnected from the bigger picture that your country's leader has no impact on you, but surely that doesn't stop you from understanding the impact on others?
I do feel bad about others misfortunes but I also feel that there is a very substantial issue in peoples inability to understand the difference between helping others and enabling them on both the macro and micro level. I am also in favor of limiting immigration although I feel Trump did it in the exact wrong way. He hurt others ability to have a chance to come here while also allowing mass visa programs on manual labor to be exploited. People make fun of the 'They took our jeeerrbs' argument but its very real in Texas. Manual labor skill based jobs have not seen substantial wage increases in decades because while normally wages would go up to meet the market supply of employees it has instead been supplemented with visa programs. I get that almost everyone came as an immigrant at one point but there is a massive difference between going somewhere where there is nothing to create a nice life, and going somewhere thats nice to enjoy what others have created.
I also dislike the idea of shoving altruistic action onto the government because it allows shitty people to 'look good' without any real conviction and most of the time the money just ends up in someones pocket. Its insane how profitable it can be to work at a non profit organization and that as low as 10 cents on the dollar can go to actually help.
My favorite story in this direction could easily relate on the subject of global warming. Basically a bunch of Oxford students got together and protested fossil fuels. The dean came back and offered to turn off the central gas heating. A news station reached out to him calling his response provocative to which he replied "You are right that I am being provocative but I hope I am provoking some clear thinking. It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve your goals."
Maybe its just me but I get annoyed when I hear people pushing to end some suffering should be ended, and someone else should do it. I can count the times on one hand where I have had a discussion with someone on hot topic issues like world hunger or homelessness where that person has made any personal sacrifice in line with their supposed 'convictions'.
[QUOTE=Ganelon;855575]This is something that pisses me off to no end. Whenever I try to find a news source that at least SEEMS to be neutral, it’s either anti-Trump or pro-Trump. I just want to read the newspaper without any bs shoved down my throat...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, its gotten totally insane. I am always astonished how far people will go to advocate for 'their side' under the justification that the other side is worse.
Literally for this whole Covid thing I have avoided the news and just been keeping up with medical journals because thats where news stations get their info anways. May as well cut out the middle man who puts their political spin in the info.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;855596]"I intentionally misinform myself because I can't handle the fact that the American right may be objectively misinformed and malicious."[/QUOTE]
Avoiding left or right sided rhetoric is intentionally misinforming myself because I dont want to hear BS about trump? I think you have been drinking the political kool-aid for too long..
If I remember right you were the one who actually turned me on to the inherent bias in the voting system and how it creates a false dichotomy in politics. For me until systemic issues are addressed getting worked up over who our elected officials is just is not worth the energy. Realistically my life has not been greatly effected under the last 3 presidents. When I see some people who are totally consumed in that political hatred I like to ask them if its really worth it. Is getting that angry about something you have no voice in and that hardly effects your life really worth it?
Originally Posted by Ganelon
This is something that pisses me off to no end. Whenever I try to find a news source that at least SEEMS to be neutral, it’s either anti-Trump or pro-Trump. I just want to read the newspaper without any bs shoved down my throat...
Yeah, its gotten totally insane. I am always astonished how far people will go to advocate for 'their side' under the justification that the other side is worse.
Literally for this whole Covid thing I have avoided the news and just been keeping up with medical journals because thats where news stations get their info anways. May as well cut out the middle man who puts their political spin in the info.
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
"I intentionally misinform myself because I can't handle the fact that the American right may be objectively misinformed and malicious."
Avoiding left or right sided rhetoric is intentionally misinforming myself because I dont want to hear BS about trump? I think you have been drinking the political kool-aid for too long..
If I remember right you were the one who actually turned me on to the inherent bias in the voting system and how it creates a false dichotomy in politics. For me until systemic issues are addressed getting worked up over who our elected officials is just is not worth the energy. Realistically my life has not been greatly effected under the last 3 presidents. When I see some people who are totally consumed in that political hatred I like to ask them if its really worth it. Is getting that angry about something you have no voice in and that hardly effects your life really worth it?
My favorite way to search for news right now is to use the -trump modifier on google. It cuts out all the political bullshit from both the right and the left, leaving raw news surprisingly well.
There is just so much toxic hatred in politics now I just dont understand why people go out of their way to keep it in their life. It just divides us.
My favorite way to search for news right now is to use the -trump modifier on google. It cuts out all the political bullshit from both the right and the left, leaving raw news surprisingly well.
There is just so much toxic hatred in politics now I just dont understand why people go out of their way to keep it in their life. It just divides us.
Originally Posted by deathworlds
This plays into a growing problem with social media in particular, we often put ourselves into these "info-bubbles" where we isolate ourselves from information that we dislike, and based on these algorithms (in Facebook in particular) you're shown content you're more likely to "like" and less likely to dislike. People tend to "like" content they agree with, thus Facebook shows you almost exclusively information that you agree with. This creates a sort of positive feedback loop, to the point where some people's perception of reality completely disagrees with another person's.
Reply With Quote