10 ms·

I don't like stories like this, that are supposed to make us feel good towards the ultra rich. This is a raindrop in an ocean of people in need. Tax the rich an

by make3 5y ago

I don't like stories like this, that are supposed to make us feel good towards the ultra rich. This is a raindrop in an ocean of people in need. Tax the rich and it wouldn't be necessary.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> that are supposed to make us feel good Is a new story 'supposed' to make you feel anything? It's just giving you the facts.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Stories are chosen for a reason. I don't know what that reason was, in this case, but you can be certain that it benefits those in control of the printing press. It is in this sense that all journalism is propaganda of one sort or another. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > I don't know what that reason was Right.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      So, you get it now? This story is most certainly made to influence you in some way (i.e. make you feel something). That's the literal definition of propaganda, after all.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > So, you get it now? You said you thought it was supposed to make us feel good, then you said you don't know what it was supposed to do. Both things cannot be true at the same time, can they?
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I never said it was supposed to make anyone feel good. You are confused. You asked: > Is a new story 'supposed' to make you feel anything? It's just giving you the facts. I just showed you how it is supposed to make you feel something.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > I just showed you You just claimed it - you didn't show anything but your opinion! There are lots of reasons people print stories - such as earning income.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I did. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        That’s polemic. In reality we know the situation is more subtle. For example news outlets do in practice write stories that are critical of their advertisers. Many write stories that are critical of themselves.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    Or it could be because it sells papers as River Dave attracted a lot of attention. Black and white thinking is presented as critical thinking far too often.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    As a one time sub-editor I can tell you the most pressing reason is often to fill space - ie the 'news hole' which is what people buy (or visit the website of) a paper to read, and which makes the advertising profitable to sell in the first place. I take your point about PR/propaganda, which is surely a factor in this public (rather than anonymous) donation from a CEO of a company with a mediocre reputation. But while some editorial decisions are as political as you say, others are just pragmatic bids upon a fickle public's attention.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      And I take your point about "filling space." But, tell me: would you even dare to print anything you thought would offend one or more of your advertisers? How do you think your bosses, and the publisher would feel?
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > But, tell me: would you even dare to print anything you thought would offend one or more of your advertisers? But news organisations do this all the time! Companies like Google advertise in all major national newspapers, but of course those newspaper carry criticism of Google. Have you really never noticed this?
      - anigbrowl 5y ago
        I've been out of that business for a long time now, but short answer is yes, absolutely. Yes, it might create problems - there is always and has always been tension between editorial and business. This can definitely be a problem at the local level, it's gonna be hard for a small paper to run a negative story about a big industry or company that's the biggest employer in a town or region or that advertises heavily in the paper, eg real estate firm or the like. I have had stories spiked because they were 'too political' and that sucked. And I've quit jobs for ethical reasons (though not in that same context), which also sucked. I think your criticism is valid but I also think that an overly ideological analysis - which a guy like Noam Chomsky does a lot - can mislead one into oversimplifying a complex picture. Understanding the idea and mechanics of manufacturing consent is important for media literacy and political understanding. But it's a rule of thumb to keep in mind when consuming media, not an iron law of social behavior; if you start assuming that everyone in the media is part of a giant consent-manufacturing conspiracy, then you can fall into a different cognitive trap that is just as bad as uncritical acceptance.
DoreenMichele 5y ago
In this case, the guy was a squatter for 27 years and his cabin burned down while he was in jail. There is no magic cure for statistical outliers of this sort. He was a logger for years and he didn't have much money and he was used to being in the woods and then probably society grew up around him and now he's the one somehow in the wrong, basically. Society moves forward and then we are all judgy towards the still living anachronisms who maybe weren't so weird "back in the day" but now it's just not done. I'm glad someone had a little compassion for him instead of criminalizing him for being poor and old as is done all too often these days.
- voidfunc 5y ago
  27 years ago was 1994. Society has been here a long time already. Lets be real. Its not like its a post 94 invention. I get that he is not really harming anyone but he us squatting on someone else’s property. Theres all kinds if legal liability concerns for the property owner.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    I'm substantially younger than River Dave and a lot of social norms and legal stuff has changed within my lifetime. Even if the law doesn't change, how it gets viewed, interpreted and applied can. Social norms change and then older people are sometimes treated like their assumptions are crazy talk rather than totally normal assumptions from their childhood when what they are doing now wasn't some freakish, weirdo, "you must be an abusive criminal type" back then.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Squatting is good in my opinion, property rights are overly favorable to property owners while neglecting the needs of the property-less. The world is not like a game of Monopoly where we all start out with the same potential and resources and succeed or fail through a combination of look and good or bad decision-making. I think it's worth remembering that the US mores about property as enshrined the Constitution were a) meant to protect against landed aristocrats' forcible expansions of their estate, and b) codified at a time when the first Americans had colonized one relatively small corner of a continent that seemed vast beyond the imagination, and the acme of mechanization/industrial production was the water wheel.
smabie 5y ago
I mean the US Gov already prints as much money as if feels like. You really think it's not enough taxes that's preventing it from helping river Dave?
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  The US Gov and county tax assessors are worlds apart.
jl2718 5y ago
This was caused by some bureaucrat “taxing the rich” landowner for the makeshift shack that was built on his property without his knowledge. Plausibly, the landowner burnt it down to reduce taxes. Sounds like a value destruction event to me. Comments like this make it seem like you have no awareness of how our government works from the inside. That’s a sad failure of civics education. Here’s a basic outline: it takes money from individuals, and gives it to contractors.

by make3 5y ago

I don't like stories like this, that are supposed to make us feel good towards the ultra rich. This is a raindrop in an ocean of people in need. Tax the rich and it wouldn't be necessary.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> that are supposed to make us feel good Is a new story 'supposed' to make you feel anything? It's just giving you the facts.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Stories are chosen for a reason. I don't know what that reason was, in this case, but you can be certain that it benefits those in control of the printing press. It is in this sense that all journalism is propaganda of one sort or another. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > I don't know what that reason was Right.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    So, you get it now? This story is most certainly made to influence you in some way (i.e. make you feel something). That's the literal definition of propaganda, after all.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > So, you get it now? You said you thought it was supposed to make us feel good, then you said you don't know what it was supposed to do. Both things cannot be true at the same time, can they?
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I never said it was supposed to make anyone feel good. You are confused. You asked: > Is a new story 'supposed' to make you feel anything? It's just giving you the facts. I just showed you how it is supposed to make you feel something.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > I just showed you You just claimed it - you didn't show anything but your opinion! There are lots of reasons people print stories - such as earning income.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I did. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        That’s polemic. In reality we know the situation is more subtle. For example news outlets do in practice write stories that are critical of their advertisers. Many write stories that are critical of themselves.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  Or it could be because it sells papers as River Dave attracted a lot of attention. Black and white thinking is presented as critical thinking far too often.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  As a one time sub-editor I can tell you the most pressing reason is often to fill space - ie the 'news hole' which is what people buy (or visit the website of) a paper to read, and which makes the advertising profitable to sell in the first place. I take your point about PR/propaganda, which is surely a factor in this public (rather than anonymous) donation from a CEO of a company with a mediocre reputation. But while some editorial decisions are as political as you say, others are just pragmatic bids upon a fickle public's attention.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    And I take your point about "filling space." But, tell me: would you even dare to print anything you thought would offend one or more of your advertisers? How do you think your bosses, and the publisher would feel?
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > But, tell me: would you even dare to print anything you thought would offend one or more of your advertisers? But news organisations do this all the time! Companies like Google advertise in all major national newspapers, but of course those newspaper carry criticism of Google. Have you really never noticed this?
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      I've been out of that business for a long time now, but short answer is yes, absolutely. Yes, it might create problems - there is always and has always been tension between editorial and business. This can definitely be a problem at the local level, it's gonna be hard for a small paper to run a negative story about a big industry or company that's the biggest employer in a town or region or that advertises heavily in the paper, eg real estate firm or the like. I have had stories spiked because they were 'too political' and that sucked. And I've quit jobs for ethical reasons (though not in that same context), which also sucked. I think your criticism is valid but I also think that an overly ideological analysis - which a guy like Noam Chomsky does a lot - can mislead one into oversimplifying a complex picture. Understanding the idea and mechanics of manufacturing consent is important for media literacy and political understanding. But it's a rule of thumb to keep in mind when consuming media, not an iron law of social behavior; if you start assuming that everyone in the media is part of a giant consent-manufacturing conspiracy, then you can fall into a different cognitive trap that is just as bad as uncritical acceptance.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

In this case, the guy was a squatter for 27 years and his cabin burned down while he was in jail. There is no magic cure for statistical outliers of this sort. He was a logger for years and he didn't have much money and he was used to being in the woods and then probably society grew up around him and now he's the one somehow in the wrong, basically. Society moves forward and then we are all judgy towards the still living anachronisms who maybe weren't so weird "back in the day" but now it's just not done. I'm glad someone had a little compassion for him instead of criminalizing him for being poor and old as is done all too often these days.

voidfunc 5y ago
27 years ago was 1994. Society has been here a long time already. Lets be real. Its not like its a post 94 invention. I get that he is not really harming anyone but he us squatting on someone else’s property. Theres all kinds if legal liability concerns for the property owner.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  I'm substantially younger than River Dave and a lot of social norms and legal stuff has changed within my lifetime. Even if the law doesn't change, how it gets viewed, interpreted and applied can. Social norms change and then older people are sometimes treated like their assumptions are crazy talk rather than totally normal assumptions from their childhood when what they are doing now wasn't some freakish, weirdo, "you must be an abusive criminal type" back then.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Squatting is good in my opinion, property rights are overly favorable to property owners while neglecting the needs of the property-less. The world is not like a game of Monopoly where we all start out with the same potential and resources and succeed or fail through a combination of look and good or bad decision-making. I think it's worth remembering that the US mores about property as enshrined the Constitution were a) meant to protect against landed aristocrats' forcible expansions of their estate, and b) codified at a time when the first Americans had colonized one relatively small corner of a continent that seemed vast beyond the imagination, and the acme of mechanization/industrial production was the water wheel.

smabie 5y ago

I mean the US Gov already prints as much money as if feels like. You really think it's not enough taxes that's preventing it from helping river Dave?

anigbrowl 5y ago
The US Gov and county tax assessors are worlds apart.

jl2718 5y ago

This was caused by some bureaucrat “taxing the rich” landowner for the makeshift shack that was built on his property without his knowledge. Plausibly, the landowner burnt it down to reduce taxes. Sounds like a value destruction event to me. Comments like this make it seem like you have no awareness of how our government works from the inside. That’s a sad failure of civics education. Here’s a basic outline: it takes money from individuals, and gives it to contractors.