[jonottawa]

PassedOut, on 2016-November-27, 12:48, said:

How does that square with the constant use of fake news as evidence?

I'm not sure what you mean, I hardly ever cite the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC or the partisan hacks at NYT or Washington Post as evidence.

But seriously, the ENTIRE mainstream media was pushing for Hillary to win. Their coverage was skewed to be more favorable to her. Their talking points, their framing of the arguments, their choice of which stories to cover & how much to cover them. That, to me, is the epitome of FAKE NEWS.

On a personal level, I condemn the use of fake stories (or bogus arguments) on EITHER side. And Hillary's supporters were far more guilty of that than Trump's. Because the common attacks against Hillary were fundamentally HONEST (if somewhat exaggerated in some instances.)

[mikeh]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-27, 12:38, said:

. Generally what folks on my side stress is intellectual honesty & consistency.

Orwell predicted your newspeak.

[jonottawa]

re: "Fake News"

I'll give some examples.

Trump believes that a nation has the right to enforce its borders.

MSM: "That's racist!"

Trump believes that a nation should serve the interests of its CITIZENS first and foremost.

MSM: "That's racist!"

Trump believes that a nation should enforce its laws, including its immigration laws.

MSM: "That's racist!"

Trump believes that a nation's immigration policy should be crafted so as to maximize the benefit of that policy to that nation's citizens.

MSM: "That's racist!"

Trump believes that people who choose to migrate to a country should do so with a willingness to assimilate to the culture of that country, not with the expectation that the citizens of that country conform to their beliefs.

MSM: "That's racist!"

Trump believes that the Constitution means what it says and that that's why the founding fathers explicitly set up an AMENDMENT PROCESS.

MSM: "It's the current year!"

As for scandals:

Trump hires lawyers and accountants to legally minimize his tax liability like EVERY OTHER WEALTHY PERSON ON EARTH and the NYT tries to make that a scandal. The only scandal there is the behavior of the former 'newspaper of record.'

Trump's hiring history proves he's not a racist or a misogynist. He's the most gay-friendly President-Elect in US History. Like many successful men (and past presidents,) was he a womanizer in his younger days? Yes. Does his conduct towards women come CLOSE to as awful as Bill Clinton's? No, not close.

As for Hillary, the 2 main charges against her are true.

1. If anyone else had set up a private server and had done what she did with it, they'd have been charged and convicted of (or pled to) a felony for endangering US national security.

2. She sold access and influence for tens of millions of dollars. She's corrupt. Giving a 'speech' doesn't magically turn a huge bribe into a legitimate source of income. If it did, we might as well legalize bribery.

That's leaving aside the health issues, the rigged primary (colluding with the DNC against Bernie,) the collusion with the MSM, the disgusting list of her top donors, and the policy disasters like amnesty that she pledged. Leaving aside the shenanigans on Facebook, Twitter and Google where they shut down anti-Hillary voices & messed with trending topics and search results to favor Hillary.

So tell me about this fake news.

[jonottawa]

Oh maybe you mean THIS fake news. Where we let incredibly biased and shameful companies like Google and Facebook (who deliberately distort the information their users receive) tell us what news stories are worth reading?

It's sad, but in order to learn anything from a Canadian Press story these days, you have to skip the story and read the comments:

"Canadian propaganda from Canadian media and Canadian government institutions are the GREATEST threat to Canadian democracy. It starts in kindergarten and never stops."

Couldn't agree more!

"Spread fake news like Saddam had WMD, Clinton dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, Assad gas his own people, Clinton had 50 points lead over Trump.
Putin is responsible for my missing socks in the dryer."

Snopes said this is false (because they don't recognize obvious attempts at humor.)

"Fake news? You mean Yahoo!, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Google, etc.?"

Precisely!

"Oh please. Hillary is a hated woman in America. It wouldn't have mattered what stories came out, people who were planning to vote for Trump weren't all of a sudden going to vote for her. She says she is for the women ... yet her past says otherwise when she called the women who her husband raped and sexually assaulted liars and w(ho)res. Oh right, she's only for women until her power is at stake then the claws come out. LOL And since she flip flops on stances more than a fish out of water (as evidenced by her time in the senate), the voters who saw her for who she truly is, a power hungry corrupt global elitist and lapdog of George Soros,"

Correctamundo!

"American liberal media spreads nothing but fake anti-Trump news."

Well, to be fair, they also spread fake pro-Globalist news.

"The election is over. Move on!"

What? Over? Did you say 'Over'? Nothing is over until WE decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain't over now.

"Give it up yahoo. You lost!"

Hey now, they've still got to try to rig the recounts in 3 states first. Stay tuned!

"The organizations trying their hardest to push us into a war with Russia are not participating in propaganda though. LOL As soon as the MSM realizes what a joke they have become and just die, the better off the planet will be."

If only it were that simple.

"Americans are being played."

Only the ones who still give the slightest credence to the MSM.

"More Democrat National Corruption Party Propaganda a la Goebbels"

Bingo!

And this wasn't a carefully selected sample of comments, these were ALL of the most popular comments.

[Winstonm]

The Deluded-in-Chief spoke again:(emphasis added)

Quote

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
2:30 PM - 27 Nov 2016

And this guy will have the launch codes. Makes me wonder what the Trump voters would have said had this been an Obama tweet from 2012?

[jonottawa]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-27, 17:32, said:

The Deluded-in-Chief spoke again:(emphasis added)



And this guy will have the launch codes. Makes me wonder what the Trump voters would have said had this been an Obama tweet from 2012?

Non-citizens living in the US illegally wouldn't have voted for Mitt Romney, so it would have been a VERY strange tweet in that case.

[mike777]

Fake news has been around since the news was invented, not sure what the big deal is here. People enjoy reading fake news, sometimes more than the real or true news. What is sad and dangerous is when people threaten violence based on fake news such as how Hillary runs a kids sex ring out of real pizza place.

http://www.oxygen.co...d-this-pizzeria

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2016-November-27, 19:25, said:

Fake news has been around since the news was invented, not sure what the big deal is here. People enjoy reading fake news, sometimes more than the real or true news. What is sad and dangerous is when people threaten violence based on fake news such as how Hillary runs a kids sex ring out of real pizza place.

http://www.oxygen.co...d-this-pizzeria

That's disturbing for sure, but to have the president-elect make the ridiculous claim that millions of illegal votes were cast is disturbing too. I hope he's not that stupid himself, but in that case his dishonesty is shameful and embarrassing for the country.

I think that the recounts will show that the election was fair in both Wisconsin and Michigan, and that will quiet the suspicions of those who suspect that the Russians stole the election for their puppet. In Pennsylvania, there's no way to audit the results anyway, so I'm not sure what the recount will accomplish. So it seems to me that the fuss being raised by Trump and his people must be intended to distract attention from other news.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2016-November-27, 20:53, said:

That's disturbing for sure, but to have the president-elect make the ridiculous claim that millions of illegal votes were cast is disturbing too. I hope he's not that stupid himself, but in that case his dishonesty is shameful and embarrassing for the country.

I think that the recounts will show that the election was fair in both Wisconsin and Michigan, and that will quiet the suspicions of those who suspect that the Russians stole the election for their puppet. In Pennsylvania, there's no way to audit the results anyway, so I'm not sure what the recount will accomplish. So it seems to me that the fuss being raised by Trump and his people must be intended to distract attention from other news.

Ya


talk about people, many people, not accepting the results, now this. Can you imagine the uproar if Trump pulled this if Hillary won. typical double standard, nothing new here,move along.


btw you make a good point about trumps response...

[hrothgar]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-27, 13:17, said:

I'm not sure what you mean, I hardly ever cite the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC or the partisan hacks at NYT or Washington Post as evidence.

But seriously, the ENTIRE mainstream media was pushing for Hillary to win. Their coverage was skewed to be more favorable to her. Their talking points, their framing of the arguments, their choice of which stories to cover & how much to cover them. That, to me, is the epitome of FAKE NEWS.

Alternative explanation

1. Trump is an idiot as are his supporters
2. There's a lot of idiots in North America

[hrothgar]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-27, 13:17, said:

I'm not sure what you mean, I hardly ever cite the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC or the partisan hacks at NYT or Washington Post as evidence.

But seriously, the ENTIRE mainstream media was pushing for Hillary to win. Their coverage was skewed to be more favorable to her. Their talking points, their framing of the arguments, their choice of which stories to cover & how much to cover them. That, to me, is the epitome of FAKE NEWS.

Alternative explanation

1. Trump is an idiot as are his supporters
2. There's a lot of idiots in North America

Judging from the qualities of the vocal Trump supporters on these forums, I'm running with my explanation...

[cherdano]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-27, 14:33, said:

re: "Fake News"

I'll give some examples.

Trump believes that a nation has the right to enforce its borders.

MSM: "That's racist!"

That's not correct. Maybe you should go back and look at precisely what was considered racist, or "racially charged", by the media.

[kenberg]

I think that the frequent charges of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and God only knows what other isms and phobias make calm rational conversation very difficult. The earlier piece about Derek Black illustrates my point. His thinking evolved through discussion. I have seen this happen many times. My own thinking evolves, or at least I hope that it does. But if the discussion begins with name calling, it usually evolves to more name calling, and then discussion ends, hopefully peacefully with both walking away.

I'll use myself as an example. I am no longer working for pay at any job. I am 77, soon to be 78 and so most people find this acceptable. I am concerned about the future of Medicare of course. A friend has been i n and out of hospitals with very serious problems since February. This costs money. A lot of money. My friend is neither broke nor wealthy, and Medicare/Insurance covers a lot (obviously I have not inquired about the details). The point is this. If someone expresses concern over how to finance the medical needs of our increasingly aging society, I do not label him (added: oops, make that him/her of course) an ageist. Realist might be closer to the truth. The columnist Paul Samuelson talks about this often. Maybe too often, I get the idea that his solution is we all die from boredom from reading his repeated description of the problem. But it is a problem. Raising questions of the "How are we going to do this?" sort does not make one an ageist here, and similar questions in other contexts does not automatically make one an ist or a phobe of some other sort.

How to apply this to Police/Race? I have said before that I think the starting point should be that everyone acknowledge that the young black male wishes to go out in the evening without being hassled or shot, the cop wants to do the job he is paid to do without being shot, and the community wants crime controlled. Too obvious to need stating? Not at all, I think. If everyone started from that position they might very well find sensible solutions to their shared problem. If they start by calling each other names, then it probably won't go well.

[andrei]

hrothgar, on 2016-November-07, 04:23, said:

3. I understand the relationship between Donald Trump's polling numbers and share prices.

Spoiler alert: There is a strong negative correlation between the two...
(If you don't believe me, take a look at market prices in the US after Comey made his announcement last Friday)

If Soros was really trying to tank the market, he'd be trying to get Trump elected

LOL at this...
Any more predictions, while we are at it?

[andrei]

PassedOut, on 2016-November-27, 20:53, said:

I think that the recounts will show that the election was fair in both Wisconsin and Michigan, and that will quiet the suspicions of those who suspect that the Russians stole the election for their puppet.

PassedOut, on 2016-November-27, 20:53, said:

In Pennsylvania, there's no way to audit the results anyway, so I'm not sure what the recount will accomplish.

PassedOut, on 2016-November-27, 20:53, said:

So it seems to me that the fuss being raised by Trump and his people must be intended to distract attention from other news.

Priceless.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2016-November-28, 08:33, said:

I think that the frequent charges of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and God only knows what other isms and phobias make calm rational conversation very difficult.

Ken, give it a break, and make your point when it fits.
If a major presidential candidate says something that "fits the textbook definition of a racist comment", then one should stop and point out he made a racist comment. Go look up the quote if you don't believe Speaker Ryan!

I dream of the day when the Ken Berg's of the world (who have nothing to lose from racism) stop worrying about "racism" (the word) and start worrying about racism (the actual, living thing). Maybe we'd need to use the word a little less frequent.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on 2016-November-28, 09:28, said:

If a major presidential candidate says something that "fits the textbook definition of a racist comment", then one should stop and point out he made a racist comment. Go look up the quote if you don't believe Speaker Ryan!

Maybe Clinton was spot on with her estimate that half of the Trump supporters are deplorable. In that case, we could still give our Trump-supporting friends the benefit of the doubt, especially if they say they would have preferred a different R candidate. After all, they may belong to the non-deplorable 50%.

[y66]

From Fake News and the Internet Shell Game by Michael P. Lynch:

Quote

Only a few days after the presidential election, the Oxford English Dictionary crowned its international word of the year: post-truth. The dictionary defined it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” To say that the term captured the zeitgeist of 2016 is a lexigraphical understatement. The word, the dictionary’s editors explained, had “gone from being a peripheral term to being a mainstay in political commentary.”

Not coincidentally, it was also the year of “fake news,” in which pure fiction masquerading as truth (like posts that claimed Hillary Clinton used a body double and that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump) may have spread wide enough to influence the outcome of the election. Some were certainly deliberate lies spread by right-wing Clinton opponents and all-out profiteers, many in countries outside the United States (and possibly even the Russian government). But framing the issue solely in terms of lying actually underplays and mischaracterizes the grand deception being perpetuated inside the internet’s fun house of mirrors.

...

It used to be that when someone would say something outrageously false (“the moon landing was faked”) it would be ignored by most folks with the reasoning that “if that was true, I would have heard about it by now.” By that, they meant “heard about from creditable, independent sources.” Filters (primarily, editors) worked to not only weed out the bad, but to make sure the truly extraordinary real news made it to the surface.

The internet has made that reasoning moot.

Many of us are ensconced in our own information bubbles. Few people reject crazy claims based on the fact they hadn’t heard about them before now, because chances are they already have heard about them, or something close to them, from the sites that tend to confirm their biases. That makes them more susceptible to taking fake news seriously.

One reason all this matters is that it perpetuates a feedback loop of deception that is particularly useful to demagogues here and abroad. Deliberate postings invented by entrepreneurs are the manure that make the seeds of doubt and credulity grow. Take the case of Eric Tucker, who tweeted a photo of buses in Austin, Tex., that he thought were being used to bus in marchers protesting Donald Trump’s election. His tweet went viral before it could be debunked. The example is illustrative: softened up by the more outrageous postings and innuendo, ordinary citizens can find themselves ignoring obvious alternative explanations (as Mr. Tucker admits he did) in order to post and share “news” which fits a set of background suspicions and biases.

That in turn gives racist white nationalist and other fringe conspiracy sites — not to mention @realDonaldTrump — more to work with. Their subsequent posts soften more people up, and so it goes. It becomes a cycle where few are deliberately lying, but deception is spiraling ever outward.

A second reason this sort of deception matters is subtler, and concerns our attitude toward evidence and even truth itself. Faced with so much conflicting information, many people are prone to think that everything is biased, everything conflicts, that there is no way to get out of the Library of Babel we find ourselves in, so why try? As Mr. Tucker put it, “I’m also a very busy businessman and I don’t have time to fact-check everything that I put out there, especially when I don’t think it’s going out there for wide consumption.”

This attitude is hardly confined to Mr. Tucker — who among us has not shared posts without fact-checking them? Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it right. Almost everything that we encounter online is being presented to us by for-profit algorithms, and by us, post by post, tweet by tweet. That fact, even more than the spread of fake news, can be its own sort of shell game, one that we are pulling on ourselves.

As the late-19th-century mathematician W. K. Clifford noted in his famous essay, “The Ethics of Belief,” ambivalence about objective evidence is an attitude corrosive of democracy. Clifford ends the essay by imagining someone who has “no time for the long course of study” that would make him competent to judge many questions. Clifford’s response is withering: “Then he should have no time to believe.”

And we might add, tweet.

No time to study => no time to believe? My fantasy is that this will become as axiomatic for the rest of the world as it has here in the water cooler.

[Al_U_Card]

y66, on 2016-November-28, 10:11, said:

From Fake News and the Internet Shell Game by Michael P. Lynch:


No time to study => no time to believe? My fantasy is that this will become as axiomatic for the rest of the world as it has here in the water cooler.

Precisely. The two-edged blade of the internet gives us instantaneous information at our fingertips. The main caveat is discernment and remaining skeptical until persuaded by facts, reason and logic. Perhaps we need to revise the core curriculum to include these evermore important aspects of communication and deliberation.

[cherdano]

cherdano, on 2016-November-28, 09:28, said:

Ken, give it a break, and make your point when it fits.
If a major presidential candidate says something that "fits the textbook definition of a racist comment", then one should stop and point out he made a racist comment. Go look up the quote if you don't believe Speaker Ryan!

I dream of the day when the Ken Berg's of the world (who have nothing to lose from racism) stop worrying about "racism" (the word) and start worrying about racism (the actual, living thing). Maybe we'd need to use the word a little less frequent.

Maybe let me ask Ken directly. What, in your view, is the bigger problem right now in the US? That some in the US are suffering from racism? Or that some who act in a race-biased way, or say something inappropriate on race, get their actions or words labelled as "racist"?

If it is the former, then your answer is very very hard to square with what you have written on this topic in the watercooler over the last years. If it is the latter, then maybe you should seriously rethink your priorities.
Those who say or do something "racist" have an easy way out - stop doing or saying the things you did. Those who suffer from racism can't stop being black/Hispanic/Asian.