- Oct 8, 2003
- 17,333
- 9,059
Not even close.
100000000000%
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- Jan 3, 2011
- 4,405
- 2,973
I think he hated the mask.
The absurdity of THIS guy being an anti-masker will never cease to amaze me
- Jul 29, 2001
- 20,735
- 10,801
Fam would've floated to re-election passing all the stimulus bills Pelosi and House dems passed but look at you now
A list of things that would have gotten Trump re-elected:
1. National mask policy, and sell MAGA masks for $30/pop. His sycophants would have fought each other over buying them, and everyone else would have worn masks anyway.
2. Tell Mitch to pass stimulus bills (makes Trump look good), and give fat checks to people, and tell him he gets to basically run the country the next four years.
Literally, TWO simple acts that would have assured re-election by a landslide. It's unbelievable how bad he was at this.
Last edited:
- May 25, 2004
- 30,345
- 40,898
What do you expect? He can’t even run a casino.
- Dec 19, 2013
- 17,295
- 24,306
Just his damn name signed on stimulus check he sent swayed a lot of voters. All he had to do was send those every month and he would've won. Mitch finessed him... 
- May 25, 2004
- 30,345
- 40,898
Man I forgot all about those letters saying that he sent those checks. Like he personally gave me money out of his bank account.
foh, you’re just giving me back my stolen tax money.
foh, you’re just giving me back my stolen tax money.
- Mar 30, 2007
- 151,239
- 202,676
- Jul 22, 2015
- 3,043
- 7,177
Now listen here, these are merely six individual crazyed lone wolf madmen, purely... accidentally operating in synchronicity... as you can... erm... ANTIFA! ANTIFABOTHSIDESANTIFA!
- Dec 8, 1999
- 7,396
- 29,275
Thank you for sharing some details about the sources of your own radicalization.Methodical Management
As far as my own experience goes, I got radicalized in a rightward direct because of Meet the Press and the responsible moderate Democrats. It’s 2002 and early 2003 and I’m 18 and trying to figure out how the world works and every Sunday, I get told that by the most respected members of both Parties that: crime is everywhere; workers will game the system so public assistance must be stingy and come with conditions; wages are based on an objective a measurable skill set; women make less than men because they are baby crazy and seek out “easy” jobs; the world is full of scary Arabs and Russians, who want to kill us; and so on.
If you accept the framing of the MSM and the respected statesmen from both parties, then right wing policy makes sense and left wing policy is deeply irresponsible. Again this is my own experience but “Meet the Press” kick started my rightward shift and a combination offline experiences and online stuff moved me left.
Also, not to defend Facebook and other sites’ algorithms but it seems like they make right meaning people more rightwing and left meaning people more rightwing. Moreover, as we saw in Ezra Klein’s article a few weeks ago, racial attitudes have been getting better all while social media becomes more and more widely used.
Not to defend Facebook but it could act in a responsible, civic minded manner tomorrow and we’d still have very real, very offline forces of history, economics, public policy and lack of moral leadership from academia and the legacy press that makes radicalization so easy.
We can agree that "both sides" framing did not begin with social media, and was accelerated by cable television (also in pursuit of profit.) This did not go unnoticed or unremarked upon at the time. Georgetown linguist Dr. Deborah Tannen wrote what I consider a criminally underrated book on the subject called The Argument Culture. In it, she writes,
Zuckerberg et al. play to this tendency, and their libertarian roots, by acting as though we ought to "hear out" Holocaust deniers, and perhaps make a buck or two while we're at it. You know - to be fair.
Let "both sides" duke it out and we'll choose the winner by a show of clicks. (Mouse or trigger.)
Framing governance as a contest or combat rather than a conversation has proven regressive, toxic, and, ultimately, counterproductive - and yet, because conflict drives ratings, commodified political content has bent further and further towards Jerry Springer over the years. Facebook and Youtube aren't just accelerating that trend - they're automating it.
Their business models are built on rubbernecking, and yet people continue to act surprised by their unwillingness to leverage the power of their platforms to promote public safety.
That, of course, does not mean the largest social media sites have been a driving force for progress.
You'll find a similar improvement in attitudes towards gender equality when tracking public opinion polling. Here’s one such effort using GSS data: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0891243218809604
Now, ask any woman you know how that maps to her online experiences.
Or, if you'd rather see more poll data:
You are, perhaps, alluding here to Gordon Allport's contact hypothesis: the notion that intergroup contact leads to reduced prejudice. Obviously I believe that the Internet holds extraordinary and previously unimaginable potential for this - and I've dedicated a considerable amount of my life thus far to that premise. Recall, however, that Allport stipulated three conditions necessary to ensure the mutual beneficiality of intergroup contact:
- “equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals”
- “contact is sanctioned by institutional supports (i.e., by law, custom or local atmosphere)”, and
- contact is “of a sort that leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity between members of the two groups."
Is that truly the case on platforms owned and operated by companies that are diverse only in their asset portfolios?
It is strange to me to see you (post-2011, at least) appearing to take a relatively lackadaisical attitude towards ruthlessly capitalist automata running amok, flouting regulations, and leaving fatal misinformation, targeted harassment, mass murder, and even attempted genocide in their wake. The problem with Facebook is that it isn't a new problem - and the danger is that people will become inured to its malignant presence while, like COVID, it continues to spread unchecked.
This is like failing to muster any fresh vitriol for Wall Street in 2007 because you're old enough to remember Lincoln Savings and Loan.
It's 2020. Facebook is doing a lot more damage than Chuck Todd.
This should not be a point of contention.
Perhaps you feel that they're somehow the enemy of your enemy because they're disliked by the "old gatekeepers," and yet, there are no greater gatekeepers today than tech monopolists.
I don't think anyone has ever made the claim that Facebook invented conspiracy theories, is assembling the world's first online monopoly, or was the very first business to import racism to the Internet. The issue here is more of scale than novelty. That said, what they're doing is not a mere extension of weekend political talk shows in the 1980s. John McLaughlin wasn't measuring your home's squalor index, for a start.
They are - this week - attacking Apple for their efforts to simply notify users about the types of personal information being surreptitiously siphoned up by their apps (to say nothing of their tracking cookies.)
This is not the lesser of two evils. It’s just evil - and calling that out doesn’t excuse anything that traditional media have done or are currently doing to cause harm or stunt debate. (Or any wrongdoing by Apple, for that matter.)
I can't tell if you're joking, but I thoroughly disagree with the implication that Facebook and Youtube's viral hate speech and misinformation are a worthy trade as long as they're also radicalizing liberals.
I reject this for the same reasons I reject the "horseshoe theory":
1) Ideological variation is not a linear continuum
2) The "dirtbag left" is hardly the embodiment or apotheosis of progressive values. Any comparison to right wing extremists should be rooted in their commonality as dirtbags, and perhaps to their mutual presence at mid-street LARP skirmishes.
We're not dealing with ethical algorithms here. They are opaque by nature and designed solely to reproduce a desired output. In other words: drive engagement by any means necessary. Most often, that results in appeals to users' base impulses.
Something isn’t “purer” the more controversial it is, and contemptuous of “political correctness” it becomes.
And yet, that appears to be YouTube’s litmus test.
If there is a political horseshoe phenomenon, it's a product of algorithmic funneling:
If the "U" in this case (and, perhaps, in 'youtube'), is just increasingly hostile White male resentment and conspiratorial scapegoating, that's not proof that progressivism and conservatism ultimately intersect.
Anything "too extreme" for Jacobin is not necessarily "further left," in the same way that the desperate-to-impress drunk guy who wants to privilege flex and push a cop isn't the "most hardcore."
Youtube, however, consistently rewards the Johnny Knoxvilles of everything. (See Gamergate, Comicsgate, etc. etc.)
Just look at their top "creators":
This is systemic.
You were "radicalized" offline, and were able to start course correcting primarily thanks to experiences outside of "personalized" online services. You didn't try to struggle your way out of the Youtube tar pit. You suffered from horribly regressive beliefs, like "women's studies is a dog and pony show," but you were regularly exposed to alternative views and, despite your differences, shared the fundamental belief that, to invoke the old adage, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. You were, thus, at least potentially persuadable. You were, and are, better off for that pathway - and it's one we ought to safeguard.
- Jul 15, 2018
- 2,996
- 7,850
I was talking to a Trump supporters that I am friends with a few weeks ago and said these two issues likely cost him the election because without a good economy and no signs of empathy or leadership people had had enough of Trump. Also that separating the kids from their parent at the boarder for no reason was likely a major factor in the 2018 blue wave being so large. It just left a bad taste in people’s mouths and they expressed that with their votes. In the grand scheme of things I think his mishandling of COVID 19 and the children will be the “scandals” we’ll all remember the most from these last 4 years.
If he doesn’t do those three things (denounce masks, refuse a second stimulus, and lock up children away from parents) I think he would still be the president and possibly have a good amount of seats in Congress to support his agenda. Americans tend to lean right because most religions lean right. It takes a Republican president to be completely out of touch with the public to only do be one term. W was a special kind of stupid but Rose evangelical support to two terms. Two of the last three Republican presidents being one term presidents say a lot about of their policies as well.
my Trump supporter friend ignored me and swore they were going to win the court case
Last edited:
- Dec 23, 2003
- 9,421
- 7,194
All the while the so called governor of Texas is bragging that his state will have 1million doses to administer
He's also giving out medical advice and telling doctors to use some antibody therapy
is ridiculous
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
Pence receives Covid vaccine in televised appearance
www.google.com
Pence receives Covid vaccine in televised appearance, hails 'medical miracle'
"While we cut red tape, we cut no corners," the vice president said, assuring the public it was safe and effective.
www.google.com
- Mar 30, 2007
- 151,239
- 202,676
Both of em made a joke of something as simple as wearing a mask
- Aug 11, 2012
- 55,524
- 147,157
- Aug 11, 2012
- 55,524
- 147,157
- Dec 15, 2017
- 17,811
- 43,327
- Dec 15, 2017
- 17,811
- 43,327
- Apr 30, 2010
- 69,690
- 106,349
Damn we were making progress getting people used to the idea of taking the vaccine too, now this ****** it up some.
- Mar 30, 2007
- 151,239
- 202,676
These people making more of this dumb shhh than they did bounties on soldiers heads
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
Unless that fund was used for Warnock, then he didn’t get me.
My MAGA hat purchase, years back, was my only financial “contribution” to the Trump campaign.
I do still get the emails. They are pretty outrageous.
- Aug 11, 2012
- 55,524
- 147,157
The irony too. The “war on Christmas” folks, f’n up delivery smh.
- Mar 30, 2007
- 151,239
- 202,676
- Oct 28, 2013
- 42,748
- 178,568
- Oct 28, 2013
- 42,748
- 178,568
- Aug 11, 2012
- 55,524
- 147,157
Smh 
Similar threads
