Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 01, 2020, 01:38:58 PM »Quote
Profit-driven greed is undermining our democratic republic. There's money to be made in how to frame headlines and news articles. Conservatives and Liberals are target markets, and better targeting is leading to more divergence of info.
And the problems either side see with the other cant get taken seriously because both sides just look at what the other has wrong instead of what pieces of the truth they have right. But what both sides have is pretty much so distorted it guarantees the other side will reject it unless it has everything right.
And as long as both sides are scorning each other for what they have wrong, they will never see the bigger threat comes from fragmented info. For a few years, I quit voting because of this, because politicians have done the same thing to where campaigning has become a disinformation game rather than an information one.
But it's making it really annoying trying to sift through any claims these days. It's so much more tedious. So I think it's better that we approach claims with interest in finding fragments of truth on either side instead of dismissing things wholesale if they have a flaw.
Quote
Well it's not about being neither blue or red though. I think the bigger threat though is the threat being reduced into highly targetable info markets poses to the country.
Focusing on how it's politicians just keeps our eyes off of just how dangerous being targeted info markets has become.
Quote
Red, Blue, or Gold... It's all indoctrinated bullshit.
If you vote for a politician to become a Legislator,
You vote for a person who drafts and enacts rules.
You vote for somebody who makes rules people must obey under penalty of death.
If you vote for a politician to become a Mayor, Governor, or President,
You vote for a person to enforce the rules made by Legislators.
You vote for somebody to make people obey or kill people if they resist.
Thus, If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system.
Quote
For now, this is the system that we have, and it can get better or worse in terms of function or dysfunction and fairness and unfairness.
So even if you oppose the system wholesale, this is about what's inside the box. Because we have to have those conversations too if the system can't be replaced anytime soon.
Quote
Interesting commentary.
I'm beat this evening.
I'm bookmarking your link for further consideration and discussion. Might be Thursday before I focus and reply... Because I have to go interact with the system that exists tomorrow.
Quote
Fair enough, have a good one!
Quote
As a Boomer with CRS, it's a good thing I bookmarked this beginning of a conversation.
With that timeline distance and intervening distractions, I'm seeing more than just the one sentence that triggered my reply. Setting that aside for now, I really do find your comment intriguing.
➽ So even if you oppose the system wholesale, this is about what's inside the box. Because we have to have those conversations too if the system can't be replaced anytime soon.
What's inside the box, is interpreted by me to mean the properties of "the system". And IMO, it's the discussions of those properties that need a public airing. Too many are blind to the realities of "the system". And I'm very convinced that unblinding the masses is what is required for the masses to understand why the system MUST be replaced. And once that is understood, pressure will mount to make it happen sooner.
So while I have my own agenda and narrative to present, I am curious about what you mean regarding this targeting of markets. If I'm properly grokking the gist of your post, the google filter bubble problem comes to mind.
➽ Conservatives and Liberals are target markets, and better targeting is leading to more divergence of info.
"Conservatives and Liberals"... Meaningless labels to me. Not descriptive of anything I care about. I'm not even sure Voltaire's admonition of defining terms to communicate would apply or assist. But to stay focused on your narrative...
Information is either a fact or a non fact (a lie). It also could simply be a fact with errors; neither fact nor lie, perhaps needing provisos.
➽ And the problems either side see with the other cant get taken seriously because both sides just look at what the other has wrong instead of what pieces of the truth they have right.
If I'm correctly understanding your meta-points; discussion in general is halted because of (1) a side's refusal to let go of errors, lies, or propaganda; and (2) a side's refusal to consider points that are not errors, lies, or propaganda. Either side that does either simply cannot be taken seriously. I often present taking a person seriously even when I know their thinking is fucked up beyond what I can believe. Perhaps it's because of that disbelief of their stinking thinking that I continue to present my information looking for a substantial interaction.
On any given point, if a side is wrong about a point, then that point is an error not worth continuing discussion. Trash can or 40 yd roll off dumpster?
➽ But what both sides have is pretty much so distorted it guarantees the other side will reject it unless it has everything right.
See the meme I've attached to this post. I reject both sides. Plus the third faction since it's been gaining attention as an alleged answer to the duopoly. Red, Blue, or gold, it's all bullshit. And provably so.
➽ For a few years, I quit voting because of this, because politicians have done the same thing to where campaigning has become a disinformation game rather than an information one.
Sorry to bust your delusion... Government is a disinformation game. If you even vote, you have been scammed by the game. This is where your curiosity allows me to direct the direction of the discussion. But only if you engage and take the bait.
➽ So I think it's better that we approach claims with interest in finding fragments of truth on either side instead of dismissing things wholesale if they have a flaw.
Your curiosity regarding my claims is how my narrative and agenda get presented.
➽ Focusing on how it's politicians just keeps our eyes off of just how dangerous being targeted info markets has become.
Sorry. It's the politicians that are dangerous. Not the this side v. that side popularity contest which is the distraction from the information hashing (my term) that I think you you are focused on. Theists believe in doG. Atheists do not. Statists believe in State, government, and its alleged (and disprovable) "authority". Astatists do not.
Astatist is a term that has other terms bracketing the same group of people. Terms that have been co-opted and corrupted to have negative meta-meanings. More upon further discussion.
➽ we have to have those conversations
Astatists are often not even allowed into the conversation. That is also why statism, (to coin a phrase or several) governmentalism, and voterism are all so dangerous. Don't you dare discuss the inconsistencies and lies about the system.