4 ms·

I don't think that conservatively biased media is necessarily either stupid or cynically manipulative. Bastards is a strong word. Can you really not imagine an

I don't think that conservatively biased media is necessarily either stupid or cynically manipulative. Bastards is a strong word. Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person genuinely holding conservative beliefs? You seem to have strong feelings against Breitbart. Why?

jacquesm 8y ago
> Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person genuinely holding conservative beliefs? Sure, but that has nothing to do with the heady mix of garbage and conspiracy that the likes of Breitbart like to stir up in order to appeal to emotion rather than to ratio. > You seem to have strong feelings against Breitbart. Why? By trying to frame this as an emotional affair you've just killed my appetite for continued discussion. See, I am not going to let you goad me in the same way that Breitbart does to its visitors. It's cheap and in the end does not serve any purpose other than to derail the discussion. It's Schopenhauer 101.
- GABAthrowaway 8y ago
  See, I think this is the mistake you're making. You seem to think that there is some element of objective truth left here. There isn't. It's echo chambers all around. The truth is, everything is a simulacra. Fake news, fake memories, fake reality. Fake everything. Wake up.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    That's another tactic often employed: to try to make it seem as if there are no facts therefore it does not matter if one side or another lies with abandon. So therefore you should not believe anything you read in the newspaper, because after all 'nothing is real'. Truth is a matter of degree, there is no black and white, so yes, it is hard to get to an objective truth when there are more than one participants to any discussion of a real life event. Witness the variety of stories you will get about a car accident that happened 5 minutes ago with several eye witnesses. You will get as many 'truths' as there are people. But a majority of them will usually agree on the bulk of the observable facts, even if individuals can be - and have been proven to be - spectacularly wrong. But that sort of analysis does not pertain to the kind of bullshit that the likes of Breitbart will stir in with the soup to get the ratings up and the blood boiling. Those are calculated efforts at inflicting maximum damage and to get people to respond emotionally rather than rationally. Think 'pizzagate' rather than 'blue vs turquoise'.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - GABAthrowaway 8y ago
      It's the beginning of the Singularity, though people are not realizing it. Hivemind collectives are already growing exponentially, with extreme subcultures that are essentially customized filter bubbles. It will become steadily more impractical to resist the temptation to join one. You will be punished and an outcast (socially and economically) for not being apart of a hivemind consciousness. People are already deferring the vast majority of their cognition to machines. Eventually, I predict that as technology improves, cybernetics will become an inevitability. So there are an infinite amount of truths now, which is why I don't bother to seek something so fragmented (i.e. outside of my echo chamber).
- comesee 8y ago
  I'm not trying to frame this as an emotional affair. Feelings was just an expression in that case. I don't have an ulterior motive here, I'm sincerely asking in good faith. What are your objective issues with Breitbart? Nothing in Breitbart seems that extraordinary to me. Let me rephrase, Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person subscribing to Breitbart?
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > Nothing in Breitbart seems that extraordinary to me. That's your problem right there. If your understanding of the world, history and your reading comprehension are such that Breitbart looks normal to you then I'm afraid I am out of options to convince you of the opposite, you will have to do some catching up. We are talking about the same website I hope? It's a non stop orgy of emotional button pushing with a complete lack of balance with respect to the reality on the ground. It's quite possible to lie with facts by selectively leaving out facts that support counter examples and those things that do not support your worldview. Breitbart is apparently good enough at this that it can convince people like you - able to string together a couple of sentences with more than two syllable words in it - that this is normal. So, maybe it is possible that an intelligent and decent person subscribes to Breitbart, but it would require stretching 'intelligent' to the point of abstraction and 'decent' would not enter the picture by my definition of that word. Most decent and intelligent people that I know would be more than capable of seeing it for what it is: outright manipulation of public opinion for political purposes, so blatant that it is surprising it works at all. If you feel it is normal then that is your problem, especially if you consider yourself to be intelligent and decent. Personally I like my news diet to be solidly grounded in reality, not a carefully made selection of facts to support certain political bumper stickers such as 'white is good, black is bad', 'immigrants are bad', 'America is great' and so on. Remember too that history has a way of not looking too kindly on those that felt that obvious aberrations were perfectly normal and decent, when in fact all they were justifying was their own bigotry and biases. Time to figure out which side of history you want to be on, good luck, you'll need it.
    - comesee 8y ago
      I understand that you think Breitbart is manipulative but you really haven't offered any examples or any other type of evidence. I've never seen an article on Breitbart claim "black is bad" or "immigrants are bad." They are critical of illegal immigration, since it's illegal. They are pro-American, but so am I since I am American. What's wrong with thinking America is great?
malandrew 8y ago
The National Review and the American Conservative are two examples of news sources that lean conservative whose writers and audience are intelligent, decent persons genuinely holding conservative beliefs.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  I realized a bit ago that my news intake was from almost entirely left wing sources, so I started adding The American Conservative. I agree. Good site, and the comments are moderated, so they don't head straight into the sewer that other sites do.
happytoexplain 8y ago
>Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person genuinely holding conservative beliefs? Why do people jump to this wild ideological attack? I don't see anywhere in the parent post that implied otherwise. If you feel that calling Breitbart and Rupert Murdoch out for what they are is a statement akin to "all conservatives are stupid or indecent", isn't that just instigating a flamewar for no reason, rather than responding to the post?
- comesee 8y ago
  Not trying to instigate a flame war, thanks for correcting my language if that's what it seems like. I'm earnestly trying to understand what it is about Breitbart that causes Jacques to have the opinion that the people who produce are either stupid or cynical manipulators (not my words). Let me rephrase, can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person subscribing to Breitbart?
DanBC 8y ago
I know lots of right wing people and they loathe Breitbart. Why are you insisting that conservative people must support racist media outlets?
- comesee 8y ago
  I'm not. I didn't realize people thought Breitbart was racist. Forget conservatives. Let me rephrase, can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person subscribing to Breitbart?

jacquesm 8y ago

> Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person genuinely holding conservative beliefs? Sure, but that has nothing to do with the heady mix of garbage and conspiracy that the likes of Breitbart like to stir up in order to appeal to emotion rather than to ratio. > You seem to have strong feelings against Breitbart. Why? By trying to frame this as an emotional affair you've just killed my appetite for continued discussion. See, I am not going to let you goad me in the same way that Breitbart does to its visitors. It's cheap and in the end does not serve any purpose other than to derail the discussion. It's Schopenhauer 101.

GABAthrowaway 8y ago
See, I think this is the mistake you're making. You seem to think that there is some element of objective truth left here. There isn't. It's echo chambers all around. The truth is, everything is a simulacra. Fake news, fake memories, fake reality. Fake everything. Wake up.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  That's another tactic often employed: to try to make it seem as if there are no facts therefore it does not matter if one side or another lies with abandon. So therefore you should not believe anything you read in the newspaper, because after all 'nothing is real'. Truth is a matter of degree, there is no black and white, so yes, it is hard to get to an objective truth when there are more than one participants to any discussion of a real life event. Witness the variety of stories you will get about a car accident that happened 5 minutes ago with several eye witnesses. You will get as many 'truths' as there are people. But a majority of them will usually agree on the bulk of the observable facts, even if individuals can be - and have been proven to be - spectacularly wrong. But that sort of analysis does not pertain to the kind of bullshit that the likes of Breitbart will stir in with the soup to get the ratings up and the blood boiling. Those are calculated efforts at inflicting maximum damage and to get people to respond emotionally rather than rationally. Think 'pizzagate' rather than 'blue vs turquoise'.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - GABAthrowaway 8y ago
    It's the beginning of the Singularity, though people are not realizing it. Hivemind collectives are already growing exponentially, with extreme subcultures that are essentially customized filter bubbles. It will become steadily more impractical to resist the temptation to join one. You will be punished and an outcast (socially and economically) for not being apart of a hivemind consciousness. People are already deferring the vast majority of their cognition to machines. Eventually, I predict that as technology improves, cybernetics will become an inevitability. So there are an infinite amount of truths now, which is why I don't bother to seek something so fragmented (i.e. outside of my echo chamber).
comesee 8y ago
I'm not trying to frame this as an emotional affair. Feelings was just an expression in that case. I don't have an ulterior motive here, I'm sincerely asking in good faith. What are your objective issues with Breitbart? Nothing in Breitbart seems that extraordinary to me. Let me rephrase, Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person subscribing to Breitbart?
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > Nothing in Breitbart seems that extraordinary to me. That's your problem right there. If your understanding of the world, history and your reading comprehension are such that Breitbart looks normal to you then I'm afraid I am out of options to convince you of the opposite, you will have to do some catching up. We are talking about the same website I hope? It's a non stop orgy of emotional button pushing with a complete lack of balance with respect to the reality on the ground. It's quite possible to lie with facts by selectively leaving out facts that support counter examples and those things that do not support your worldview. Breitbart is apparently good enough at this that it can convince people like you - able to string together a couple of sentences with more than two syllable words in it - that this is normal. So, maybe it is possible that an intelligent and decent person subscribes to Breitbart, but it would require stretching 'intelligent' to the point of abstraction and 'decent' would not enter the picture by my definition of that word. Most decent and intelligent people that I know would be more than capable of seeing it for what it is: outright manipulation of public opinion for political purposes, so blatant that it is surprising it works at all. If you feel it is normal then that is your problem, especially if you consider yourself to be intelligent and decent. Personally I like my news diet to be solidly grounded in reality, not a carefully made selection of facts to support certain political bumper stickers such as 'white is good, black is bad', 'immigrants are bad', 'America is great' and so on. Remember too that history has a way of not looking too kindly on those that felt that obvious aberrations were perfectly normal and decent, when in fact all they were justifying was their own bigotry and biases. Time to figure out which side of history you want to be on, good luck, you'll need it.
  - comesee 8y ago
    I understand that you think Breitbart is manipulative but you really haven't offered any examples or any other type of evidence. I've never seen an article on Breitbart claim "black is bad" or "immigrants are bad." They are critical of illegal immigration, since it's illegal. They are pro-American, but so am I since I am American. What's wrong with thinking America is great?

malandrew 8y ago

The National Review and the American Conservative are two examples of news sources that lean conservative whose writers and audience are intelligent, decent persons genuinely holding conservative beliefs.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
I realized a bit ago that my news intake was from almost entirely left wing sources, so I started adding The American Conservative. I agree. Good site, and the comments are moderated, so they don't head straight into the sewer that other sites do.

happytoexplain 8y ago

>Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person genuinely holding conservative beliefs? Why do people jump to this wild ideological attack? I don't see anywhere in the parent post that implied otherwise. If you feel that calling Breitbart and Rupert Murdoch out for what they are is a statement akin to "all conservatives are stupid or indecent", isn't that just instigating a flamewar for no reason, rather than responding to the post?

comesee 8y ago
Not trying to instigate a flame war, thanks for correcting my language if that's what it seems like. I'm earnestly trying to understand what it is about Breitbart that causes Jacques to have the opinion that the people who produce are either stupid or cynical manipulators (not my words). Let me rephrase, can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person subscribing to Breitbart?

DanBC 8y ago

I know lots of right wing people and they loathe Breitbart. Why are you insisting that conservative people must support racist media outlets?

comesee 8y ago
I'm not. I didn't realize people thought Breitbart was racist. Forget conservatives. Let me rephrase, can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person subscribing to Breitbart?