Conspiracy Theories / Wild Predictions

[The Human Q-Tip]

So yesterday, Obama made a speech in which he discussed a few things, and at one point said this:

"Because of changes in the media, we now have a situation in which everybody is listening to people who already agree with them, and are further and further reinforcing their own realities to the neglect of the common reality that allows us to have a healthy debate, and then try to find common ground and actually move solutions forward," Obama said in his first set of remarks since he left the White House in January.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...reinforce-their-own-realities/article/2621075

I post this not to discuss Obama, but to bring up the substance of the point he's making. I believe similar opinions have been expressed here and elsewhere.

To me, his statement begs the question of who gets to decide what that "common reality" really is? For example, the entire justice system in this country is premised on the recognition that we don't agree on a "common reality". The role of a jury isn't to decide what the law is -- it's to decide what the facts are. And if we have set up an entire justice system promised on the truth that we do not agree on a "common reality", then how can we agree on a 'common reality" in society at large?

And I'm not sure I see a particular virtue in a media environment in which everyone believes that Walter Cronkite is the voice of truth and reason. Frankly, the primary reason the reputation of the mainstream media is in the toilet is that they have proven themselves unreliable when it comes to passing on "reality".

 

[buzzdog]

So yesterday, Obama made a speech in which he discussed a few things, and at one point said this:

"Because of changes in the media, we now have a situation in which everybody is listening to people who already agree with them, and are further and further reinforcing their own realities to the neglect of the common reality that allows us to have a healthy debate, and then try to find common ground and actually move solutions forward," Obama said in his first set of remarks since he left the White House in January.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...reinforce-their-own-realities/article/2621075

I post this not to discuss Obama, but to bring up the substance of the point he's making. I believe similar opinions have been expressed here and elsewhere.

To me, his statement begs the question of who gets to decide what that "common reality" really is? For example, the entire justice system in this country is premised on the recognition that we don't agree on a "common reality". The role of a jury isn't to decide what the law is -- it's to decide what the facts are. And if we have set up an entire justice system promised on the truth that we do not agree on a "common reality", then how can we agree on a 'common reality" in society at large?

And I'm not sure I see a particular virtue in a media environment in which everyone believes that Walter Cronkite is the voice of truth and reason. Frankly, the primary reason the reputation of the mainstream media is in the toilet is that they have proven themselves unreliable when it comes to passing on "reality".

I've always wished for some entity where only provable, verifiable facts are presented and cataloged as something we can commonly agree upon and base important decisions upon.

I have no idea what that entity could or should be or what it could or should look like.

But at the moment we live in a world where anyone can say anything no matter how ridiculous or how provably false it is, and somehow have that passed off as credible truth. And on the deepest level that just strikes me as being fundamentally wrong.

It's like a total anarchy of knowledge and truth, and in some ways in the age of the information highway where we are flooded and over-stimulated, and everything is fungible, absolute knowledge and truth don't exist any more.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I've always wished for some entity where only provable, verifiable facts are presented and cataloged as something we can commonly agree upon and base important decisions upon.

I have no idea what that entity could or should be or what it could or should look like.

But at the moment we live in a world where anyone can say anything no matter how ridiculous or how provably false it is, and somehow have that passed off as credible truth. And on the deepest level that just strikes me as being fundamentally wrong.

It's like a total anarchy of knowledge and truth, and in some ways in the age of the information highway where we are flooded and over-stimulated, and everything is fungible, absolute knowledge and truth don't exist any more.

The flip side is that there have always been people who challenge "conventional wisdom", and try to change other peoples' understanding of reality. And in some cases, they've been correct.

Also, I think a lot of this is really more like people objective to inferences/conclusions that others draw from facts. It is generally not so simple as "the plane crashed/the plane did not crash" type of factual dispute.

I always think that the folks who complain about this are really just saying that they think everyone should accept their view of reality.

 

[AZ_]

Can someone explain how this is legal?

 

[buzzdog]

The flip side is that there have always been people who challenge "conventional wisdom", and try to change other peoples' understanding of reality. And in some cases, they've been correct.

Also, I think a lot of this is really more like people objective to inferences/conclusions that others draw from facts. It is generally not so simple as "the plane crashed/the plane did not crash" type of factual dispute.
I always think that the folks who complain about this are really just saying that they think everyone should accept their view of reality.

Contrary to what you said I personally welcome challenges to the conventional wisdom from all sides. But at some point there should be some kinds of historical facts we can all agree on and those can always be challenged and changed, then communicated, if new information shows the truth to be something different.

I think if you hung out in different circles you'd be amazed at how many people believe things like 9/11 conspiracies, the Alex Jones version of Sandy Hook as well as other black flag operations, a disturbing percentage who still believe Obama is a closeted Muslim and he set up a Muslim shadow government, people who believe the Paris climate agreement and the EU are ways for the Bilderberg Society to create the NWO, and on and on. These fringe beliefs are an undercurrent that exists with a lot of Trump supporters and some of the more fringe Bernie supporters. I'm talking about a pretty broad swath of the fly-over heartland population here, far more widespread than reported. They are the targeted audience for the strategy by the Russian government to drive greater wedges into our society, and that strategy has been wildly effective.

 

[TopGun]

Can someone explain how this is legal?

Are you suggesting women should not legally be allowed to be entrepreneurs? Very misogynistic of you.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Can someone explain how this is legal?

Can you explain how it isn't? She is not a U.S. government employee. She's a private citizen, and there are beaucoup NGO's that get money from all sorts of governments. Heck, the Clinton Foundation got money from foreign governments while Hillary was Secretary of State.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Contrary to what you said I personally welcome challenges to the conventional wisdom from all sides.

I wasn't accusing you personally of anything. I was just pointing out the difficulty of line-drawing when it comes to "fake news".

But at some point there should be some kinds of historical facts we can all agree on and those can always be challenged and changed, then communicated, if new information shows the truth to be something different.

For the most part, the basic ones are generally accepted. But it's once you get beyond the basic "The Germans were defeated in 1945/we landed on the moon in 1969" that things can get squirrely.

I think if you hung out in different circles you'd be amazed at how many people believe things like 9/11 conspiracies, the Alex Jones version of Sandy Hook as well as other black flag operations, a disturbing percentage who still believe Obama is a closeted Muslim and he set up a Muslim shadow government, people who believe the Paris climate agreement and the EU are ways for the Bilderberg Society to create the NWO, and on and on.

Oh, I'm well aware of all that stuff. What I'm saying is that determining what is "nutty" and what is a legitimate challenge to disputed facts may well be in the eye of the beholder, and to the extent we would ever give any person or entity the power to make that determination, it would be ripe for abuse.

I'm talking about a pretty broad swath of the fly-over heartland population here, far more widespread than reported. They are the targeted audience for the strategy by the Russian government to drive greater wedges into our society, and that strategy has been wildly effective.

See, what you're doing there is pointing to a specific group with whom you disagree, the "fly-over heartland population", and pegging them as the people out of touch with reality. I would argue that belief in a false reality/facts is just as common among leftist elites on the coasts. They just dress it up in fancier words. And I'd say it is every often our own mainstream press that tries to do the exact same thing.

Frankly, I think the whole "fake news from Russia" thing was wildly overblown in terms of any impact on the election. For the most part, the people who believed those stories were people who were going to vote for Trump anyway. What likely did have an effect is the WikiLeaks dumps, but those were actually true facts.

 

[Cavatt]

Just as the History channel has focused on aliens and bigfoot to drive ratings instead of actual history, so does Fox news chase rating with outlandish ideas.

Liberals have their own myths like anti-vaxers and crystal worshipers, but the difference is that the educated among us call that shit out. You will get no refutation of supply side economics from a conservative despite the fact Kansas said,"This is a controlled experiment" and it failed completely. No matter how many times they cut taxes, the revenue created does not make up for the cut. I don't believe that you can cut taxes and generate more revenue and I don't think a 90% tax on the super rich will give us everything we need.

 

[David.]

Just as the History channel has focused on aliens and bigfoot to drive ratings instead of actual history, so does Fox news chase rating with outlandish ideas.

Liberals have their own myths like anti-vaxers and crystal worshipers, but the difference is that the educated among us call that shit out. You will get no refutation of supply side economics from a conservative despite the fact Kansas said,"This is a controlled experiment" and it failed completely. No matter how many times they cut taxes, the revenue created does not make up for the cut. I don't believe that you can cut taxes and generate more revenue and I don't think a 90% tax on the super rich will give us everything we need.

Its going to be difficult to write this without potentially starting a huge thing, and id like to point out again that im libertarian/classic liberal if anything (so im hopefully unbiased on these sentiments, is my point) but there is an incredible amount of stuff that the left believes that isnt grounded in reality, is antiscience, and policies they have and hope to put in place have been and would be completely counterproductive. But their belief system which roughly translates to "be kind" disallows them to properly address those facts.

Being kind isnt something im using as a pejorative, it just isnt always the right answer and sometimes its the wrong way to find solutions. Im just pointing out that its the equivalent of similar issues on the religious right, if that helps. The left is secular, but they incorporate certain things such as being kind and equity as their moral compass and belief system, and its practically blasphemous to imply anything different. And in many cases, that restricts them from seeing truth.

 

[AZ_]

Can you explain how it isn't? She is not a U.S. government employee. She's a private citizen, and there are beaucoup NGO's that get money from all sorts of governments. Heck, the Clinton Foundation got money from foreign governments while Hillary was Secretary of State.

This is what I'm talking about, youre okay with her accepting foreign donations as a member of the first family?

This was a railing point for conservatives in their argument against the Clinton Foundation practices, and rightfully so.

 

[Huber.]

This is what I'm talking about, youre okay with her accepting foreign donations as a member of the first family?

This was a railing point for conservatives in their argument against the Clinton Foundation practices, and rightfully so.

She might as well not be included in the first family grouping. She 35 years old, has her own life, businesses and own family. She hasn't lived with Trump Daddy for years.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is what I'm talking about, youre okay with her accepting foreign donations as a member of the first family?

You asked "how is this not illegal", and I answered you. Do you have a response to that point, or not?

As far as the morality of it, it would depend on whether or not her father was ever actively a part of it. But otherwise, I fail to see how it would be any different from a member of the family who is in business, and deals internationally. I see nothing inherently wrong with that, as I don't think a politician's entire family, including adult children, should be required to sever all international ties . They have to earn a living as well.

This was a railing point for conservatives in their argument against the Clinton Foundation practices, and rightfully so.

If you would like to me to explain why the Clinton Foundation was much worse, I could do so. Although it should be self-evident based on my comments above.

 

[AZ_]

She might as well not be included in the first family grouping. She 35 years old, has her own life, businesses and own family. She hasn't lived with Trump Daddy for years.

So since Hillary's marriage is a sham, and Bill runs the Clinton Foundation...no big deal.

Cool, saved us all some possible corruption.

 

[AZ_]

You asked "how is this not illegal", and I answered you. Do you have a response to that point, or not?

As far as the morality of it, it would depend on whether or not her father was ever actively a part of it. But otherwise, I fail to see how it would be any different from a member of the family who is in business, and deals internationally. I see nothing inherently wrong with that, as I don't think a politician's entire family, including adult children, should be required to sever all international ties . They have to earn a living as well.

If you would like to me to explain why the Clinton Foundation was much worse, I could do so. Although it should be self-evident based on my comments above.

Ivanka Trump is an adviser to the President of the United States, playing a role in foreign affairs, and you're okay with her accepting donations from a foreign corporation on behalf of her "foundation."

I don't understand how you could be okay with a someone doing this.