5 ms·

Just did a search for "cnn globalization mistake" and found this article[1] from May of last year. Seems pro-globlization but reasonably even handed, presenting

Just did a search for "cnn globalization mistake" and found this article[1] from May of last year. Seems pro-globlization but reasonably even handed, presenting points for and against. The elite of elites, Powell, says "There is a real possibility that globalization will go into reverse." I bring this to your attention in the hope that it may help you expand your bubble. If you're serious about the segment where people publicly admit their mistakes and that they were "obviously stupid" then best of luck. Personally, I think there are many voices critical of globalization from across the political spectrum. The problem, as I see it, is opponents of globalization have failed to articulate a clear, compelling alternative that will "deliver the goods." [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/politics/globalization-trade-tariffs-what-matters/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/politics/globalization-trade-...

jerf 4y ago
This is what I mean by "moving as fast as they can without having to admit they were wrong". That speed is not zero. It is still not a popular opinion. The occasional trial balloon is part of the process. "If you're serious about the segment where people publicly admit their mistakes and that they were "obviously stupid" then best of luck." Of course that's obviously satirical. CNN does not run actual news segments with that name or anything like it. I picked it that way on purpose, for that effect.
- aschearer 4y ago
  You said, "Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture" and then cited CNN as an example. I provided an example where CNN is talking about the issue seriously. What I'm saying is, you're wrong about it being "politically incorrect" and that "no elites will talk about it". In fact, Powell is talking about it and being reported by CNN! Furthermore, Trump and Bernie both ran strong campaigns on the question of globalization. As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect" or something the public isn't debating. Likewise, today steps are being taken by Biden to onshore more industries, again clearly not "politically incorrect." As far as "it's still not a popular opinion" I guess I don't know what that means. Taking my points above, it seems like we're actively debating the subject as a society with proponents on both sides. As I argued before, I think the "anti-globalization" crowd has yet to make their case convincingly. If it's just "a little less globalization, please" -- well then how is "globalization dead?"
  - svnt 4y ago
    You seem to have missed or misunderstood the term trial balloon. Not everything you read that is presented as a serious article is actually a serious article. edit: Apparently I should either stop trying to make points in the nuance or stop suggesting that news articles are managed because people think agreeing requires a tinfoil hat.
    - aschearer 4y ago
      Hard to call the CHIPS[1] act a trial ballon if I'm being honest. Or for that matter Trump's tariffs[2]. Again, the position upthread is wrong. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs
      - svnt 4y ago
        I mean I think you’re both right in ways, but you seem to be equating “elites testing talking about it publicly” with “elites privately lobbying for funding that fixes it” which are not at all the same thing, and the difference is part of the point GP was trying to make. Your references are also anachronistic to the narrative you’re constructing.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    > As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect" This reads like you've forgotten how Trump was portrayed in the mainstream.
  - keneda7 4y ago
    Not the person you responded to originally. When you bring up Trump and Biden and globalization I see a pretty big difference. On one hand Trump basically never stopped running his mouth about it. He would take action then tell everyone he is taking action to bring x jobs back home. Meanwhile Biden does not do that. To me it seems if you are supported by the right, beating the "end globalization" drum is beneficial. Yet if you are supported by the left, I do not see the same benefit. In fact I would argue the left as a whole supports globalization so it may actually hurt Biden to talk about steps he is taking to end it. Also you are saying its proven it is not politically correct because its talked about and Biden has taken action for onshore more industries yet that does not even jive with the definition of politically incorrect. I think you are just responded to the original poster saying its not being discussed because its politically incorrect but that statement in itself does not make sense either. Something is politically incorrect when someone does not avoid language or actions that may offend another group. Something can be politically incorrect and still be discussed to death. Where I got the definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20incorrect https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20inc... As for the last part about the anti-globalization crowd has yet to make a case convincingly, the same can be said on the flip said. For example the pro globalization crowd has not made a convincingly case for why we need to use slave/child labor overseas to make Nikes and electronics. If we produced these in the US, slave/child labor is generally illegal and this would not be a problem. Another example would be the fact the pro globalization crowd has not shown a convincing case for why would should be supporting other countries that commit massive humans rights abuses. Why should we send money overseas to a country that has reeducation camps they force citizens into?
- brookst 4y ago
  I'm suspicious of any theory that requires every reporter and every producer to both remember everything anyone has said and adhere to a code to avoid contradicting it. These are younger, lower paid, liberal arts majors. To the extent there's any selection bias in the content, it's based on what the audience wants to read, not any long-game strategy to ensure alignment with what was written in the past.
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    I believe the idea is that the content bias isn't needed because you get the employment based on the belief that you already align with the employer.
majormajor 4y ago
The post you're replying to appears to be trying to sidestep your "across the political spectrum" by blaming "elites" instead in a way that suggests they're party-agnostic. I think this is still inaccurate, "Made in the USA" was an early version of this and has been non-marginal and found supporters amongst both "elites" and "regular" people for decades, in my experience. They also slide towards another fallacy at the end - the one we saw a lot during Covid, of "changing your mind as new data arrives means you originally acted in, or are acting now in, bad faith." What's stupid is to assume that anything this complex is "obviously" a black and white must-do or must-not-do, versus something that will get adjusted over time.
- iinnPP 4y ago
  It depends how often you end up on the end of this flow: Completely organic self-thought based on logic is counter to information from official sources. The official source says your specific example is a conspiracy flavour of the month. 6 months pass and the information now matches your own. Everyone knew, it just wasn't a big deal. A big nothing burger! It is so tiresome.
splitstud 4y ago
[dead]

jerf 4y ago

This is what I mean by "moving as fast as they can without having to admit they were wrong". That speed is not zero. It is still not a popular opinion. The occasional trial balloon is part of the process. "If you're serious about the segment where people publicly admit their mistakes and that they were "obviously stupid" then best of luck." Of course that's obviously satirical. CNN does not run actual news segments with that name or anything like it. I picked it that way on purpose, for that effect.

aschearer 4y ago
You said, "Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture" and then cited CNN as an example. I provided an example where CNN is talking about the issue seriously. What I'm saying is, you're wrong about it being "politically incorrect" and that "no elites will talk about it". In fact, Powell is talking about it and being reported by CNN! Furthermore, Trump and Bernie both ran strong campaigns on the question of globalization. As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect" or something the public isn't debating. Likewise, today steps are being taken by Biden to onshore more industries, again clearly not "politically incorrect." As far as "it's still not a popular opinion" I guess I don't know what that means. Taking my points above, it seems like we're actively debating the subject as a society with proponents on both sides. As I argued before, I think the "anti-globalization" crowd has yet to make their case convincingly. If it's just "a little less globalization, please" -- well then how is "globalization dead?"
- svnt 4y ago
  You seem to have missed or misunderstood the term trial balloon. Not everything you read that is presented as a serious article is actually a serious article. edit: Apparently I should either stop trying to make points in the nuance or stop suggesting that news articles are managed because people think agreeing requires a tinfoil hat.
  - aschearer 4y ago
    Hard to call the CHIPS[1] act a trial ballon if I'm being honest. Or for that matter Trump's tariffs[2]. Again, the position upthread is wrong. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs
    - svnt 4y ago
      I mean I think you’re both right in ways, but you seem to be equating “elites testing talking about it publicly” with “elites privately lobbying for funding that fixes it” which are not at all the same thing, and the difference is part of the point GP was trying to make. Your references are also anachronistic to the narrative you’re constructing.
- Izkata 4y ago
  > As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect" This reads like you've forgotten how Trump was portrayed in the mainstream.
- keneda7 4y ago
  Not the person you responded to originally. When you bring up Trump and Biden and globalization I see a pretty big difference. On one hand Trump basically never stopped running his mouth about it. He would take action then tell everyone he is taking action to bring x jobs back home. Meanwhile Biden does not do that. To me it seems if you are supported by the right, beating the "end globalization" drum is beneficial. Yet if you are supported by the left, I do not see the same benefit. In fact I would argue the left as a whole supports globalization so it may actually hurt Biden to talk about steps he is taking to end it. Also you are saying its proven it is not politically correct because its talked about and Biden has taken action for onshore more industries yet that does not even jive with the definition of politically incorrect. I think you are just responded to the original poster saying its not being discussed because its politically incorrect but that statement in itself does not make sense either. Something is politically incorrect when someone does not avoid language or actions that may offend another group. Something can be politically incorrect and still be discussed to death. Where I got the definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20incorrect https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20inc... As for the last part about the anti-globalization crowd has yet to make a case convincingly, the same can be said on the flip said. For example the pro globalization crowd has not made a convincingly case for why we need to use slave/child labor overseas to make Nikes and electronics. If we produced these in the US, slave/child labor is generally illegal and this would not be a problem. Another example would be the fact the pro globalization crowd has not shown a convincing case for why would should be supporting other countries that commit massive humans rights abuses. Why should we send money overseas to a country that has reeducation camps they force citizens into?
brookst 4y ago
I'm suspicious of any theory that requires every reporter and every producer to both remember everything anyone has said and adhere to a code to avoid contradicting it. These are younger, lower paid, liberal arts majors. To the extent there's any selection bias in the content, it's based on what the audience wants to read, not any long-game strategy to ensure alignment with what was written in the past.
- iinnPP 4y ago
  I believe the idea is that the content bias isn't needed because you get the employment based on the belief that you already align with the employer.

majormajor 4y ago

The post you're replying to appears to be trying to sidestep your "across the political spectrum" by blaming "elites" instead in a way that suggests they're party-agnostic. I think this is still inaccurate, "Made in the USA" was an early version of this and has been non-marginal and found supporters amongst both "elites" and "regular" people for decades, in my experience. They also slide towards another fallacy at the end - the one we saw a lot during Covid, of "changing your mind as new data arrives means you originally acted in, or are acting now in, bad faith." What's stupid is to assume that anything this complex is "obviously" a black and white must-do or must-not-do, versus something that will get adjusted over time.

iinnPP 4y ago
It depends how often you end up on the end of this flow: Completely organic self-thought based on logic is counter to information from official sources. The official source says your specific example is a conspiracy flavour of the month. 6 months pass and the information now matches your own. Everyone knew, it just wasn't a big deal. A big nothing burger! It is so tiresome.

splitstud 4y ago

[dead]