Free Press/Fake Press

The Human Q-Tip said:

I've argued with French, Swedes, Canadians, etc., regarding U.S. politics.

Click to expand...

The only Swede I know is super pretentious about Sweden's socialist policies and refuses to acknowledge that America does anything right whatsoever and the only Canadians I know have big flappy heads. The French people I know are a bunch of pussies.

Anti intellectualism: paradoxical or vehicle of fascism?

Vehicle of facism.

The Oi said:

The only Swede I know is super pretentious about Sweden's socialist policies and refuses to acknowledge that America does anything right whatsoever and the only Canadians I know have big flappy heads. The French people I know are a bunch of pussies.

Click to expand...

You need to get to know more Swedes.. mostly a laid back crowd.. I know lots of Canadians, French, English and immigrants. They are pretty open minded on the whole, but have a goofy sense of humor. I have never met a French guy who is a pussy, but I had one freind over there who explained their national aversion to violence..

"We know what war means." His mother was a young girl in occupied Paris during ww2..

CleveRocks said:

"We know what war means." His mother was a young girl in occupied Paris during ww2..

Click to expand...

The only reason Paris was occupied and his mother had to suffer through that was because the French lost a war. Had they actually had the balls to stand up when Hitler occupied the Rhineland, we all likely would have been spared WWII.

Highly recommend "all the president's men"

The fairness doctrine was revoked in 1987.. until then, it was required for the media to show the opposing view point.

It was removed partially under the idea that it was in place because there weren't alternative news sources, but since there where now.. it was somehow OK to throw out propaganda?

I think the doctrine was good. It could still be manipulated, but it should be brought back(it won't be) and adjusted a little

The Human Q-Tip said:

The only reason Paris was occupied and his mother had to suffer through that was because the French lost a war. Had they actually had the balls to stand up when Hitler occupied the Rhineland, we all likely would have been spared WWII.

Click to expand...

I think that ignores entirely the military equipment and strategic lead of Germany going into WWII.. Tanks and Stukas mattered a lot. You could also argue that not imposing punitive reparations after WWI could have avoided WWII..

Does not invalidate their point of view.

I am for a strong volunteer military, and when we use it, I think we take the gloves off.

David. said:

The fairness doctrine was revoked in 1987.. until then, it was required for the media to show the opposing view point.

It was removed partially under the idea that it was in place because there weren't alternative news sources, but since there where now.. it was somehow OK to throw out propaganda?

I think the doctrine was good. It could still be manipulated, but it should be brought back(it won't be) and adjusted a little

Click to expand...

I think it was terrible, and should have been struck down as an unconstitutional content-based restriction on free speech.

Three of the major flaws were 1) when applied, it shoehorned issue discussion into only two views, and forced out alternative viewpoints, 2) the general desire on the part of broacast stations to avoid it had the practical effect of discouraging political talk shows period (no accident that Rush Limbaugh's show went national in 1988), and 3) it handed to the government the ability to steer/silence political discussion.

The net effect was to encourage broadcasting of only a single POV by each of the Establishment, "respected" media outlets that didn't require equal time because their POV's were supposedly "neutral".

Fuck Walter Concrite and one dude in a suit telling us all what to think. Hammers, pitchforks, and firearms if they try that fascist shit again.

CleveRocks said:

I think that ignores entirely the military equipment and strategic lead of Germany going into WWII.. Tanks and Stukas mattered a lot. You could also argue that not imposing punitive reparations after WWI could have avoided WWII..

Does not invalidate their point of view.

I am for a strong volunteer military, and when we use it, I think we take the gloves off.

Click to expand...

Germany didn't have squat in 1936. They'd have folded like a cheap suit had the French decided to oppose their reoccupation of the Rhineland.

The Human Q-Tip said:

I think it was terrible, and should have been struck down as an unconstitutional content-based restriction on free speech.

Three of the major flaws were 1) when applied, it shoehorned issue discussion into only two views, and forced out alternative viewpoints, 2) the general desire on the part of broacast stations to avoid it had the practical effect of discouraging political talk shows period (no accident that Rush Limbaugh's show went national in 1988), and 3) it handed to the government the ability to steer/silence political discussion.

The net effect was to encourage broadcasting of only a single POV by each of the Establishment, "respected" media outlets that didn't require equal time because their POV's were supposedly "neutral".

Fuck Walter Concrite and one dude in a suit telling us all what to think. Hammers, pitchforks, and firearms if they try that fascist shit again.

Click to expand...

Can you think of any legislation that would give a fair and balanced view and restrict propagation we see now or do you feel the free market of information will sort itself out?

David. said:

Can you think of any legislation that would give a fair and balanced view and restrict propagation we see now or do you feel the free market of information will sort itself out?

Click to expand...

No, factual information is a thing of the past. Any and all news can be spun as being fake news from a source biased to one side or the other, therefore no-one has to accept anything as fact if it takes them out of their safety bubble.

In other words, we're fucked.

David. said:

Can you think of any legislation that would give a fair and balanced view and restrict propagation we see now....

Click to expand...

No. And anything that might do that in the short term would be too susceptible to abuse.

or do you feel the free market of information will sort itself out?

Click to expand...

Well, it's not that I expect the free flow of information to fix the problem of fake/biased news, or magically create properly informed voters. It's just that I think the "cure" of any government regulation of political speech has the potential to cause far worse harms, and there is no reliable way to prevent that.

Just look at the antipathy that exists right now on the part of so many on the left towards Trump and those who voted for him. The speech codes that exist on college campuses, etc.. At some point, those people will be in power. Do we really want to have a mechanism for letting them determine what speech should be heard?

The Human Q-Tip said:

No. And anything that might do that in the short term would be too susceptible to abuse.



Well, it's not that I expect the free flow of information to fix the problem of fake/biased news, or magically create properly informed voters. It's just that I think the "cure" of any government regulation of political speech has the potential to cause far worse harms, and there is no reliable way to prevent that.

Just look at the antipathy that exists right now on the part of so many on the left towards Trump and those who voted for him. The speech codes that exist on college campuses, etc.. At some point, those people will be in power. Do we really want to have a mechanism for letting them determine what speech should be heard?

Click to expand...

The Human Q-Tip said:

No. And anything that might do that in the short term would be too susceptible to abuse.



Well, it's not that I expect the free flow of information to fix the problem of fake/biased news, or magically create properly informed voters. It's just that I think the "cure" of any government regulation of political speech has the potential to cause far worse harms, and there is no reliable way to prevent that.

Just look at the antipathy that exists right now on the part of so many on the left towards Trump and those who voted for him. The speech codes that exist on college campuses, etc.. At some point, those people will be in power. Do we really want to have a mechanism for letting them determine what speech should be heard?

Click to expand...

I don't think any of it should be censored away, I still see things like the fairness doctrine and same time as things that could help, but I can see how both could be abused.

I can see how a network or show that attempts, genuinely, to apply the principles can be corrupted or fail to gain traction on the first place by not receiving funding or even the possibility of existing, because, what network are they gonna get on?

Trends are showing a stronger polarization of consistent left and consistent right voters in the last 20 years (20% vote one way or the other). I don't know if this is media or identity politics playing out, or something else.

The left sure has young votes locked up, practically all media is controlled by them, and 95% of celebrities, and university professors, and there's more and more young people every election cycle.. and other voters they pimp out too.

I saw an interesting debate yesterday.. some want felons to be able to vote now.

David. said:

Trends are showing a stronger polarization of consistent left and consistent right voters in the last 20 years (20% vote one way or the other). I don't know if this is media or identity politics playing out, or something else.

Click to expand...

I'd say that is a good thing.