Generation Wuss and related crap
#521
SadFab CEO
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: your mom's house phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,560
Total Cats: 1,142
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It's honestly hard though. There's such a volume of information and so many terrible sources that it's hard to see what the objective reality is anymore. Not everything comes with a conflict of interest so it's hard to see what folks really want out of what they're writing/claiming.
#522
Boost Pope
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/smod.png)
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It's honestly hard though. There's such a volume of information and so many terrible sources that it's hard to see what the objective reality is anymore. Not everything comes with a conflict of interest so it's hard to see what folks really want out of what they're writing/claiming.
Originally Posted by hi_im_sean
This is exactly what I was trying to explain to Joe a few months back. But Im not as eloquent.
So two question arise:
1: Should "we" do something about this, and
2: If so, what should we do and how?
There has always been false information and unverifiable data. Have we reached a point at which we deem the quantity of this information too great, or the people too stupid, to be able to decide for themselves what is valid and what is not, and shoulder the burden of making that decision for them? 2: If so, what should we do and how?
If so, should this be implemented at the state level (by repealing the first amendment), or by altruistically implementing censorship at the level where the distribution channels are managed (eg: Verizon, CNN, Google, etc.), thus trusting a few large corporations to make these decisions for us?
#524
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There has always been false information and unverifiable data. Have we reached a point at which we deem the quantity of this information too great, or the people too stupid, to be able to decide for themselves what is valid and what is not, and shoulder the burden of making that decision for them?
If so, should this be implemented at the state level (by repealing the first amendment), or by altruistically implementing censorship at the level where the distribution channels are managed (eg: Verizon, CNN, Google, etc.), thus trusting a few large corporations to make these decisions for us?
If so, should this be implemented at the state level (by repealing the first amendment), or by altruistically implementing censorship at the level where the distribution channels are managed (eg: Verizon, CNN, Google, etc.), thus trusting a few large corporations to make these decisions for us?
#525
Boost Pope
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/smod.png)
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yeah, that's what scares me...
It find it difficult to reconcile the fact that my parents' generation fought against censorship, and believed that every voice should be heard. My childrens' generation are now asking for censorship, demanding that some voices be silenced.
It's honestly chilling.
It find it difficult to reconcile the fact that my parents' generation fought against censorship, and believed that every voice should be heard. My childrens' generation are now asking for censorship, demanding that some voices be silenced.
It's honestly chilling.
#526
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
In one of our local district races, one candidate's party sent out a mailer stating that the other candidate had used tax payer dollars to fund a vacation to Hawaii. The accused candidate had never been to Hawaii... I think he ended up losing... Propaganda driven politics...
I don't think there's any repercussion being planned against the accuser.
Should there be? Should there not be?
Censorship on facebook is completely fine, its a private entity. They will do what makes them the most money.
I don't think there's any repercussion being planned against the accuser.
Should there be? Should there not be?
Censorship on facebook is completely fine, its a private entity. They will do what makes them the most money.
#527
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yeah, that's what scares me...
It find it difficult to reconcile the fact that my parents' generation fought against censorship, and believed that every voice should be heard. My childrens' generation are now asking for censorship, demanding that some voices be silenced.
It's honestly chilling.
It find it difficult to reconcile the fact that my parents' generation fought against censorship, and believed that every voice should be heard. My childrens' generation are now asking for censorship, demanding that some voices be silenced.
It's honestly chilling.
The real difference now is the access to information. Original, source data is at your fingertips if you are interested enough to actually dig for it. Likewise, opinion/spin is 24/7 and the number of outlets and access for those outlets is an order of magnitude larger than in the past.
The challenge for all of us is to try and not live in our bubbles -- to try and live as individuals. But, it's human nature to seek bubbles and like-minded people . . . it's hard.
#528
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Agreed.
So two question arise:
If so, should this be implemented at the state level (by repealing the first amendment), or by altruistically implementing censorship at the level where the distribution channels are managed (eg: Verizon, CNN, Google, etc.), thus trusting a few large corporations to make these decisions for us?
So two question arise:
1: Should "we" do something about this, and
2: If so, what should we do and how?
There has always been false information and unverifiable data. Have we reached a point at which we deem the quantity of this information too great, or the people too stupid, to be able to decide for themselves what is valid and what is not, and shoulder the burden of making that decision for them?2: If so, what should we do and how?
If so, should this be implemented at the state level (by repealing the first amendment), or by altruistically implementing censorship at the level where the distribution channels are managed (eg: Verizon, CNN, Google, etc.), thus trusting a few large corporations to make these decisions for us?
The flip side as you and brain are getting at is that the control of information is vital to censorship and there's too much information to control. The easiest way to do it is to make all media state run, but that's so fucked up and should never be an option in a democracy. I'm not saying you shouldn't have state-media (thought I'm not sure what purpose this would serve), but censorship of information is irresponsible in a democracy.
At the same time, the advent of dr.google has made a lot of patently false medical information easily available and has made a lot of people really sick. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone with a GED to be able to sift through all that stuff if they're scared for their health and figure out what's real and what's not. I don't think that there should be spoon feeding, but there are a lot of americans who can't afford to get care (as fucked up as that is) and I don't think they deserve that fate.
I guess I should disclose that I'm in med school. It'll make my views on the thing above more clear.
I don't disagree with doing this for sites that are clearly set up for page views with inflammatory headlines and bogus information. Once you weed those out, the next steps become far more murky right?
#529
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
In one of our local district races, one candidate's party sent out a mailer stating that the other candidate had used tax payer dollars to fund a vacation to Hawaii. The accused candidate had never been to Hawaii... I think he ended up losing... Propaganda driven politics...
I don't think there's any repercussion being planned against the accuser.
Should there be? Should there not be?
Censorship on facebook is completely fine, its a private entity. They will do what makes them the most money.
I don't think there's any repercussion being planned against the accuser.
Should there be? Should there not be?
Censorship on facebook is completely fine, its a private entity. They will do what makes them the most money.
I think that may be a romanticized view of your parents' generation, honestly. Human beings are what they are. This country in particular has been much more divided in the past -- and limited media has also been more influential on a broader range of the population in the past.
The real difference now is the access to information. Original, source data is at your fingertips if you are interested enough to actually dig for it. Likewise, opinion/spin is 24/7 and the number of outlets and access for those outlets is an order of magnitude larger than in the past.
The challenge for all of us is to try and not live in our bubbles -- to try and live as individuals. But, it's human nature to seek bubbles and like-minded people . . . it's hard.
The real difference now is the access to information. Original, source data is at your fingertips if you are interested enough to actually dig for it. Likewise, opinion/spin is 24/7 and the number of outlets and access for those outlets is an order of magnitude larger than in the past.
The challenge for all of us is to try and not live in our bubbles -- to try and live as individuals. But, it's human nature to seek bubbles and like-minded people . . . it's hard.
The 24/7 news cycle is nuts though. During the election news channels had countdowns for hours and hours and hours to press conferences just going back and forth about what they thought was going to be announced. It's like holy ******* ****, why don't you report on what's going on in the rest of the world for a few hours and then come back to this half an hour before it starts.
#530
Moderator
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/moderator.png)
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,885
Total Cats: 3,075
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yeah, that's what scares me...
It find it difficult to reconcile the fact that my parents' generation fought against censorship, and believed that every voice should be heard. My childrens' generation are now asking for censorship, demanding that some voices be silenced.
It's honestly chilling.
It find it difficult to reconcile the fact that my parents' generation fought against censorship, and believed that every voice should be heard. My childrens' generation are now asking for censorship, demanding that some voices be silenced.
It's honestly chilling.
The words "melting pot" have been replaced with multiculturalism which is a method of dividing people into us/them groups to allow the politicians to give anyone and everyone an enemy to loathe and fear. This lets your fellow Americans be vilified and their ideas, values, and their very lives be reduced in value. It lets the politicians insulate their constituents from hearing ideas and proposals from the other side because the source is automatically not worthy of consideration. It works. And it will kill us.
I was also taught America was based upon self-reliance, rugged individualism, and personal liberty. We don't hear much of those ideas anymore.
#531
Moderator
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/moderator.png)
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,885
Total Cats: 3,075
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Agreed on the news being filtered drivel. There have been filters on news since it was a town crier, so there is nothing new under the sun. I go to foreign sources for world news because there is no world news in American broadcasting.
#533
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Trump was an okay landlord, but now that he's pres-elect...
Trump Name Removed From Manhattan Condo Complex After Residents' Petition | NBC New York
Trump Name Removed From Manhattan Condo Complex After Residents' Petition | NBC New York
Gold capital letters spelling the president-elect's last name were removed from a high-rise condominium complex in Manhattan Wednesday after hundreds of people signed a petition to have the building drop the moniker.
Crews were seen removing the gold-blazoned name on the facade of the building near Lincoln Square formerly known as Trump Place.
The three buildings dropped the name of President-elect Donald Trump in favor of their street addresses, 140, 160 and 180 Riverside Boulevard, a spokesman for complex manager and owner Equity Residential said Tuesday.
"We are assuming a more neutral building identity that will appeal to all current and future residents," spokesman Marty McKenna said.
...
"Our home is our most personal private space, a building we should feel proud of and happy to walk into every day... so... THE TIME HAS COME TO DUMP TRUMP," said Linda Gottlieb, Robert Tessler and Brian Dumont.
Crews were seen removing the gold-blazoned name on the facade of the building near Lincoln Square formerly known as Trump Place.
The three buildings dropped the name of President-elect Donald Trump in favor of their street addresses, 140, 160 and 180 Riverside Boulevard, a spokesman for complex manager and owner Equity Residential said Tuesday.
"We are assuming a more neutral building identity that will appeal to all current and future residents," spokesman Marty McKenna said.
...
"Our home is our most personal private space, a building we should feel proud of and happy to walk into every day... so... THE TIME HAS COME TO DUMP TRUMP," said Linda Gottlieb, Robert Tessler and Brian Dumont.
#534
Boost Pope
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/smod.png)
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Not really. The same criticisms are lobbied by people in most countries which support a free press which is not state-funded.
Within the US, NPR is a relatively objective source of news reporting, as is Al Jazeera which, despite its foreign ownership, operates as a commercial entity in this country. BBC, of course, is probably the most reliable English-language broadcast news source, though it, of course, is state-funded and state-operated.
What's the alternative, really? Repeal the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Do we only eliminate freedom of speech and of the press, or is it time for the freedom of religion thing to go as well (that way we can legally prosecute people who aren't protestant Christians), and maybe we don't need the freedom of assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. After all, riots start as assemblies, and there's no need to petition the government when we can clearly trust it to think for us.
Within the US, NPR is a relatively objective source of news reporting, as is Al Jazeera which, despite its foreign ownership, operates as a commercial entity in this country. BBC, of course, is probably the most reliable English-language broadcast news source, though it, of course, is state-funded and state-operated.
What's the alternative, really? Repeal the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Do we only eliminate freedom of speech and of the press, or is it time for the freedom of religion thing to go as well (that way we can legally prosecute people who aren't protestant Christians), and maybe we don't need the freedom of assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. After all, riots start as assemblies, and there's no need to petition the government when we can clearly trust it to think for us.
#535
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I grew up in India (moved here at 11), so grew up watching BBC. I agree that AJ is actually a great source of information even on US issues.
I don't think repealing the first amendment is the answer. I do think you can have fact checked information without quashing the right of folks to speak their minds and opinions. It's when opinion is presented as objective truth where I have issues. But again, then it becomes important to figure out who's doing the fact checking.
What do you think of the president-elect's vetting process for the press. Do you think it impinges on freedom of the press?
I don't think repealing the first amendment is the answer. I do think you can have fact checked information without quashing the right of folks to speak their minds and opinions. It's when opinion is presented as objective truth where I have issues. But again, then it becomes important to figure out who's doing the fact checking.
What do you think of the president-elect's vetting process for the press. Do you think it impinges on freedom of the press?
#536
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Side note: this is pretty interesting.
Do you live in a bubble? Take this quiz to find out | PBS NewsHour
Do you live in a bubble? Take this quiz to find out | PBS NewsHour
#539
SadFab CEO
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: your mom's house phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,560
Total Cats: 1,142
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I definitely under no circumstances would want the 1rst amendment repealed.
I simply have no answer for this Joe. That's not to say I haven't thought about it extensively. It seems like every time you come up with an idea to fix it, it require some form of regulation, that in order to work, would rely on the morals and principles of those regulating. To which I find ironic, as you could make the argument that morals and principles, or lack of(normal human behavior), is what put us here to begin with.
If the morons that put out the anti 205 ads here in AZ had any morals in this context or (in my eyes of course) the "right" principles, maybe they wouldn't have lied through their teeth and make up fake data to sway things in their favor. And unfortunately confirmation bias is a real thing. So, you make a governing body that ensures the truthfulness of political ads? And who insures they are doing their job correctly, how do we keep money away from them? It just spirals out of control.
So the more I think about it, the more I agree with the "pass a test to vote" or other conversations that have been going on here lately. Not that that idea isn't subject to the same issues I just spoke of. ie- who rights the test?
I simply have no answer for this Joe. That's not to say I haven't thought about it extensively. It seems like every time you come up with an idea to fix it, it require some form of regulation, that in order to work, would rely on the morals and principles of those regulating. To which I find ironic, as you could make the argument that morals and principles, or lack of(normal human behavior), is what put us here to begin with.
If the morons that put out the anti 205 ads here in AZ had any morals in this context or (in my eyes of course) the "right" principles, maybe they wouldn't have lied through their teeth and make up fake data to sway things in their favor. And unfortunately confirmation bias is a real thing. So, you make a governing body that ensures the truthfulness of political ads? And who insures they are doing their job correctly, how do we keep money away from them? It just spirals out of control.
So the more I think about it, the more I agree with the "pass a test to vote" or other conversations that have been going on here lately. Not that that idea isn't subject to the same issues I just spoke of. ie- who rights the test?
#540
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I think that democracy rests on an educated populace. This might be more of a 'long-game' but I'd prefer to start by ensuring that public schools in rural arkansas are as good as those in yuppie-ville central.
You can teach kids civics whether they want to be rocket scientists or auto mechanics. I'm all for having tech high schools as well. Just because you don't want to be an academic or intellectual doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of what's going on around you or be taught the tools with which to evaluate the world around you.
I think the reason people even started talking about tests etc is because our public school system is falling apart and the floor is set so low.
You can teach kids civics whether they want to be rocket scientists or auto mechanics. I'm all for having tech high schools as well. Just because you don't want to be an academic or intellectual doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of what's going on around you or be taught the tools with which to evaluate the world around you.
I think the reason people even started talking about tests etc is because our public school system is falling apart and the floor is set so low.