Please comment?


sry folks I had an eyelid surgery to take something out and was under compression bandage for the last day, couldn't even look at the screen with my other eye... have just a regular eyepatch bandage now so it's a bit easier to read but shouldn't strain my eyes yet... I'll probably read and respond to most of the messages here with time, thank you all for posting.

4 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

This is definitely a question where you should go first to show what you mean and to set the tone. And also because you're asking people to tell about when they were wrong in a big way. Go first! Show some vulnerability yourself.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

... I think someone is having a shitty day?

View attached image.
4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 1 year ago.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You might be right :)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

View attached image.
4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I didn't really get your question

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sorry. Now there's bunch of examples by other peopleif you wanna revisit the topic.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

For example, I used to think the Earth was round

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

View attached image.
4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

An example: "I thought that the planet was flat but science proved me wrong and then I was shocked!"

Is that kind of question?

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I assumed my mom was telling the truth when she said she didn't know who my father was. The day I found out the sordid details was an interesting one...

It was a nice Dr. House moment: everybody lies. Which, you know, is still a bit of a kick in the pants when you find out about someone you've trusted all your life.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The suspence is killing me. Who was it?

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

A friend of the family that I'd known my whole life, but not as my father.

Sorry, nothing as exciting as discovering that he was George Clooney, but still.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Did he know the entire time, or was he in the dark as well? Sorry if it's too personal, just wondering.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh, he knew. They all knew, except us kids.

I'm not going any deeper into how and why this was arranged, as that's not really relevant to the experience -- it's enough to know it was definitely shocking, and not in a good way.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

wow, sorry you had to go through that.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"Shocking, not in a good way." Good story. Still, in hindsight, are you glad to know the truth? Or would you be happier stewing with the concept that mom had relations with 3 different guys in the same week, so she cannot really know herself without a DNA study?

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Or would you be happier stewing with the concept that mom had relations with 3 different guys in the same week

That wasn't the concept, so no stewing necessary. We were told an anonymous sperm donor was used. Which I suppose is technically true if you leave off the "anonymous" part.

And no. I'm not glad to know the truth. The truth about who my biological father is didn't matter to me one bit, and it still doesn't. Had he been my actual father, as in, raised me, it might have been different. The thing that mattered to me is that the only person in my life that I'd trusted unconditionally up to then turned out to be a liar.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ah. I see.The origin of the sperm donor did not matter at all. The trust in your own mom was shattered because of the lie.

To a lesser extent, a friend of mine went through a similar disenchantment with his own mom when discovering the "Santa Claus" lie. When I finally figured it out as a kid, I could understand the hidden fun and mythology and did not think it was a big deal. My mom hid behind the evasive, "well, what do you think about Santa?" Though at a basic level, there was a lie there.

His mom smoothed out the betrayal by explaining the benefits of the Santa myth: it encourages people to be generous to others (if you can extricate that from the commercialism of every store prodding you to do you 'duty'.)

In your case, I see the betrayal of the lie. What were her motivations to lie? Perhaps, it was to hide the complicated social structure that could confuse you when young, when you met this friend of the family. Or, to placate the friend of the family who did not want to get further involved in your mom's family structure.

But without going into too much rationalization of the breach of trust, I hope that she was able to see your perspective and give you a heartfelt apology for how she chose to handle it (dishonestly).

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I assumed the world wasn't total shit.
...Wish I was still able to assume that... :/

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Look at the bright side: today's probably a relatively good day, tomorrow things might be so much worse! 😊

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

world is shit and good shit. like, made of both!

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

There's a saying "Life is a bi... and then you die". There's also another "added" part that says "Then it's still a bi...". But there are nice things in life, even in this world, whatever it might be otherwise.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That money grows on trees. 💲🤑💲

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Dammit Charlie Brown! You steered so many kids wrong with that potato chips episode!

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I really wanted to consider cynicism, as being pointless. Reality proved me wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpp55Iyq4L0

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

my thought is kinda Gothemasticator's one.
i also shamelessly admit i've slowly read title three times :D

thing is, i don't have -yet- a meaningful answer for you, but it still looks to me you have something to say about false assumptions... :P

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Not really, I just wanted another serious community bonding thread to put a giveaway in (because if I used cooking or another one, people wouldn't see it anymore) before I leave for the eye doctor office.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

hey, noticed just now that "eye doctor office".
hope you'll get better very soon, man.

also, turn off all these lights! :P

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I was shocked by how electricity works.
...
Figuratively.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Been there. Done that. Got spanked as a bonus.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No spanking in my case.
Only because nobody knows that It was me. But all people in my block were pissed off. Couple of hours without electricity can be irritating :)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Actually that is interesting one...

Electrons go from negative to positive. So the particles move in other direction than the current.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Maybe I should elaborate :) In school we never learned about anything else than bateries and direct current.
Alternating current we use everyday works in quite different way xD

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The realisation that life isn't fair was a real eye opener.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

When I was young, I had assumed that the reason the "news media" told such blatant and outrageous lies was unintentional and due to them being misinformed. I later realized they do it intentionally and with full knowledge of the truth.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ahh, but what is truth?

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

According to Giuliani, "truth isn't truth." ;P

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Truth is reality. The challenge, however, is to perceive things as they really are. When you take into account how our perceptions may be fooled, our interpretations of them flawed, and our understanding of them confused, you can see why the seeking of Truth is a never-ending process.

Meanwhile, we continue to live our lives, doing the best we can to deal with what is apparent to us.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Do you write lyrics for Trump? ;-)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I didn't know Trump was a singer. Regardless, I do not currently write lyrics for anyone.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I get it. It used to be, at least we're told, about telling news and informing people. Last few decades it's about creating a certain view of reality, with selection of news, sources, commentators, ... promoting an agenda, so to speak. Superman cartoons lied to us.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

the news was never neutral.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

At least we used to have the FCC fairness doctrine that required broadcasters to air opposing or contrasting viewpoints to controversial issues. Under Reagan they put and end to that and unleashed the current shitshow of warring media circuses that we are now subjected to.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The "Fairness Doctrine" was government intrusion on what was already a multi-faceted media. The idea was for the government to act as a referee between opposing viewpoints, but in practice it was like ensuring the fairness of a race by putting a ball and chain on every runner's ankle. In other words, while its initial intent may have been laudable, by 1987 it was clear that the Doctrine was actually impeding the presentation of contrasting viewpoints more than it was facilitating them.

As for the warring media circuses, their actual history is worthy of a full-blown discussion. I am unlikely to be able to participate in such, however, given my limited time. (I'm still sick, but I return to work, today.) That is probably just as well, seeing as how this is SteamGifts, not American History.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

For the most part, this is accurate. The majority of people who use it give honest feedback.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

For the most part, this is accurate.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I would agree that MBFC does provide some useful information, but I have serious issues with the site.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That's why I said "for the most part." There are some exceptions. I've found it to be pretty accurate though for a lot of sources. Of course, it takes visiting each one you're interested in and checking for yourself. I'm a political moderate, so I don't care for spin from either side. I'm from Ireland and I do find RTE News to be the best one in my country. That's listed in "least biased." They tend to throw us just the facts and leave the rest up to ourselves... in most cases anyway.

For Example, when it comes to America... Fox is massive right-wing bias. CNN is massive left-wing bias. Some of their stories might be more fact-based than others, but in general, both of those news sources are terrible. Anyone who disagrees might have a leaning toward one of them politically. Or so I find anyway.

Sure, I've found myself reading an article from a source and agreeing with its content... but at the same time, I'm thinking... "this is more an opinion piece than pure fact." I think that's an important thing to recognise. Just because one agrees doesn't make it entirely true. XD

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Your first paragraph I can't really comment on other than to say I lack the information necessary to forum an opinion.

With your second and third paragraphs, however, I generally agree. I long for a news source that feels it is sufficient to present the news without having to "spin" it, but I have yet to find one.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree that the Fairness Doctrine did set limits, and kept the most egregious bullshit and the nuttiest conspiracy theories off the air. On the other hand, most people don't get their news from ideologically opposed sources, and therefore aren't confronted with different viewpoints. To the point where certain segments of society think that FoxNews is left-leaning, and other people think MSNBC is too conservative for them.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What 'blatant and outrageous lies' do you remember from when you were young?

Kinda curious how tight your tin-foil hat is. Are you just am average cynic or do you subscribe to the Alex Jones school of idiocracy?

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What 'blatant and outrageous lies' do you remember from when you were young?

Plenty. Growing up, what the news media had to say was a bit more reliable than the history/garbage we were being fed in public schools, and they did a better job of pretending they were "unbiased and fair." As I grew older, more experienced, and more skeptical, I began to see how they always pushed their political and social agendas while attempting to hide that fact. However, that entire approach was thrown out the window with the election of Obama. They no longer go through the motions of "informing the public of the facts so that they might make up their own minds." Instead, today's news media simply tells you what to think and presents (mostly unreliable) evidence to back it up. Some people choose to be mushrooms, others do not.

Kinda curious how tight your tin-foil hat is.

I am a skeptic, not a cynic, and for that reason do not concern myself with hats, tin foil or otherwise. No matter how carefully constructed the web of lies, striking it with a single stone of truth is sufficient to shred the image of its substantiality.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but kinda wonder something.

that entire approach was thrown out the window with the election of Obama

I also agree that many Americans were not ready to have a non-white president but I think you are wrong on the timing here.

I think things changed after 9-11 and the entire country started frothing at the mouth with faux 'patriotism'.

However, the news media kinda always was like this. Think of the race riots in the 60s and 70s that no one really heard much about, how long it took the media to report on Vietnam, the sensationalist coverage of Desert Storm....

They've always been pushing an agenda, since they ran propaganda during movies in WWII to now. The problem isn't that they tell you what to think, it is that many people are not skeptical enough. They believe whatever they hear, and then they do crazy shit like shoot up pizza parlors because they heard it was a hidden sex dungeon; or they mail bombs to Democrats because Fox told them they were destroying the country etc.

The problem is the bubble and the people afraid to ever leave it and think for themselves I think.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

as soon as I see someone blame something on the election of Obama, I know exactly what their political persuasion is, and what type of tinfoil hat they wear

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It appears I was not clear in my previous response.

As you mentioned, the news media has always "been like this." This is something I mentioned in my previous reply, but perhaps not clearly enough. The point I was making is that "the masks have been cast aside," and the 'mainstream media' no longer hides their agendas. You suggest that this occurred after 9-11, yet I happen to know differently. Most Americans (and indeed, anyone who relies upon Western media) still remain ignorant of what actually happened on 9-11, the events which led up to the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the resultant fallout in multiple countries. That is a far different situation than we had with Obama's campaign, election, and implementation of his policies. Those of us with our eyes open were amazed at how many people had theirs resolutely shut to what the networks were doing. Then, as now, the news media continually strove to convince people to believe in its illusion in place of reality, but only the liars could refute that fact. Indeed, the manipulation of information conducted by the news media becomes more apparent with each passing day.

To place myself in history, my earliest memories of politics are of Watergate. (That is a long discussion in itself, but I'll skip it.) You are correct in pointing out that journalism has a long history of propaganda, one which goes back as far as journalism itself. You are also correct in pointing out the failure of today's American citizens in the area of critical thinking. This is a skill which was reliably taught to all American children from a young age, but that practice began to disappear (somewhat ironically) with the rise of Modern Liberalism post WWII. Notably, the seizure of the public schooling system by the liberals in the early 70's saw a major shift from "thinking skills" to "practical skills." In other words, kids were being taught more and more "what to think" instead of "how to think." That trend continues today and, in conjunction with major shifts in social norms, the result has been the dissolution of what were formerly pillars of societal stability. (Tradition, Religion, Respect for Elders, Critical Thinking, Objectivity, Altruism, Stoicism, and Pragmatism.) These are the very characteristics which distinguish people from "sheeple," and the current state of our nation is the predictable result.

All is not lost, however. One of the great things about human beings is our capacity to survive our mistakes, learn from them, and adapt. Those of us who are "awake" may be outnumbered by the mushrooms, but we are much more resilient. Unfortunately, too many of us have not been toughened up by Lifeâ„¢ to the point where we are willing to suffer the pain of holding onto the truth. A liar will attack someone who is honest because it shows up his own iniquity.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks for elaborating.

Could you speak a bit more about what made Obama different? I don't see his administration being treated very differently, for better or worse, than other administrations.

There was a lot of division in America before Obama was elected, I don't see it being a cause but perhaps an effect. Would Obama even have been elected if there was no Iraq war? I seem to remember the electoral map shifted quite a bit during the Bush administration, and it hasn't shifted much since.

Perhaps what you see is simply the expansion of media at large- the rise of the internet across the globe has linked more groups and people together and ironically caused a more tribal mentality. People who hate Obama get their news from specific sources they trust. People who hate Trump get their news from specific sources they trust. They rarely even check what the other sources are even saying.

The world has gotten smaller and consequentially the 'media' has gotten larger (and louder). The amazing part about that is, it can actually be completely turned off.

And the world will keep spinning, we both agree.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Could you speak a bit more about what made Obama different?

It wasn't Obama that was different. It was the way the media treated him that was different.

  • Past history and associates were smoothed over and covered up.
  • Verbal gaffs and politically incorrect statements by Obama were buried and attention to them deflected.
  • Vetting of him as a candidate was virtually non-existent.
  • Political machinations which substituted him for former front-runner (and better qualified) candidates were hushed, and critics were silenced.
  • Any weakness he displayed was defended.
  • Anyone criticizing him was viciously attacked.
  • Polls and opinion pieces were heavily slanted in his favor, regardless of context.
  • Interviews, debates, and public new events were "soft-balled" so as to protect him and present him favorably.
  • Stated policies and objectives of Obama were not permitted to be questioned or criticized.

And then there was that whole "Birth Certificate thing" which---while never fully addressed---the media effectively squelched.

I could go on and on, but that would be a digression. Those running the news media are the same people who ran Obama while he was in the Whitehouse (as they had controlled many presidents before him). The mainstream media effectively "blinded" all of those who did not have access to "outside" news sources. "The Media" spoke with one voice, held one opinion, and did not permit opposition or argument. Intolerance of differing opinions had been coming for some time, but it was during this period that "The Media" assumed tight control. My friends from communist countries used to remark (somewhat regretfully) that the American media had become like the old Soviet media.

Keep in mind that "The Media" now amounts to nothing more than a tool, used to further a political agenda. The same can be said of the American Democratic Party and, to a lesser extent, the American Republican party. They are used to defeat any and all political opposition to those in actual power, and anyone who is not blind can see how they have been used against Trump, one of the few people who has been able to fight against them. Despite the organized campaign of lies, smears, and disinformation, despite the combined efforts of their agents in the FBI, CIA, DOJ, IRS, DOT, and other institutions (which are populated by appointees rather than elected officials), despite the mass blackout of all news indicating what has really been going on in America (remember that CNN is the only "American news" in most parts of the world), Trump is still standing, still fighting. He has even made some progress in implementing his policies despite opposition from both political parties.

Despite all of our countless differences, most Americans still just want to live their lives in peace. It was the growing threat of a government taking full control over their lives that led to Trump's election in 2016. That threat may have been delayed, but it has not been neutralized. They still control the institutions which run our nation. Whether it is in Finance, Communication, Transportation, Education, Law and Order, Economics, or Politics, they control key people in key positions. Trump has demonstrated that those seeking to control the U.S. population do not have full power over us just yet. The thing is, Trump is not going to be President forever. What are the chances our next president will "buck the system" knowing what will happen to him and his family? There are already attempts to discard the U.S. Constitution as our governing document. If that happens, a totalitarian government is just a half-step away.

On the bright side, there are a lot of people waking up to reality, and they are not happy about being misled and misused.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You are exactly describing how Fox News is defending Trump. Nearly all of your points fit Trump.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I am not sure I would label exposure of slander and libel as "defense" of the one slandered and libeled, but I suppose that is a matter of viewpoint. Regardless, Fox News claims to present multiple sides to the issues they cover, and they seem to make an effort to do that. In doing so, sometimes they "support Trump," and sometimes they attack him. There is no question, however, that some of the people who frequent the Fox channel are avid Trump supporters. Whatever your point of view, I still advocate skepticism.

As for my bullet points, they are demonstrably not applicable to Trump. Quite the opposite, in fact.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

until recently, the claim that fox news makes an effort to represent multiple sides was laughable. Over the past several months (or possibly few years), they have made a lot more effort

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That is also my impression, but the bias of some of the people on Fox still keeps me away.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, if you exclude Fox News, as you describe below, then sure. But especially on Fox a lot of your points are very valid for Trump. Even there you can find exceptions, like Chris Wallace who seems to have actual pride as a journalist and a sense of integrity. But if you look at Hannity, Carlson or the infamous Fox&Friends - well, they seem to be nothing more than a Pro-Trump-Propaganda machine.

It's a mystery how anyone can defend Trump, to be honest. It is very obvious that he is not a smart guy. Just watch any of hes speeches. Just hear him talking. He is hardly able to formulate proper English sentences. He lies constantly. He lied to his voters countless times, before and after the election. He makes horrible political decisions. He tried to obstruct justice by firing the guy who invested him. He makes promised he can't keep. He is prone to conspiracy theories. He is obviously a racist. Sorry, but he is just an idiot. And I wouldn't mind if he were an idiot as a normal citizen. But in this position he is a dangerous idiot. Seeing a man in such a high position, openly calling climate change a chinese hoax - that's just bizarre. That a man like this could get elected honestly let's me lose hope in humanity.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, if you exclude Fox News, as you describe below, then sure.

...which is what I said.

But especially on Fox a lot of your points are very valid for Trump.

The situation with Fox is more complex and therefore requires its own, separate analysis. I have somewhat alluded to that in previous responses.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I seem to remember the media being very harsh on Obama, especially Fox news. "King Obama wants Socialism" was basically the right wing talking point for 8 years. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly were certainly not 'soft-balling' anything in regards to Obama's policy.
The rise of the Tea Party is a prime example of how the right wing media used disinformation to bring about political change.

I'm surprised you bring up conspiracy theories like the Birther movement and 9-11. It really detracts from your argument. What's next? Russian pee tapes and Qanon?

It feels like you might have blinders on and only want to criticize one side, which is very tribal. How was the government trying to take 'full control over' lives of everyday Americans?

Nearly every member of Trump's cabinet is filled with a lobbyist. Secretary of Interior- oil lobbyist. Health and Human Services- pharmaceutical lobbyist. Environmental Protection Agency - coal lobbyist. It doesn't seem like government is taking control of people's lives, it seems that corporations are and honestly that has been in progress for 20 years now.

It's troubling because many people don't even realize their own bias. You think the media treat Obama easy, but I fear that is just your dislike and political slant showing. Even right wing media reports how often Trump lies, which is a historical amount compared to previous presidents.

It sounds like you live in your own tribal bubble, not trying to be disrespectful of your opinion but I fear you've shut out any information that conflicts with your already established opinions.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I seem to remember the media being very harsh on Obama, especially Fox news.

I do not consider Fox News to be part of the "mainstream media" about which I had been writing. Fox News is not one of the networks that parrots the "message of the day" as the "mainstream media" do. The three people you cite, above, are not even considered news reporters. They are pundits.

I'm surprised you bring up conspiracy theories like the Birther movement and 9-11.

I brought up those two subjects because I was discussing the way the mainstream media suppresses information. I did not bother to delve into the various conspiracy theories floating around out there because that would have been a digression. (It would also have required me to research something about which I have no interest.) Nor was I presenting an argument. I made a claim (that the mainstream media has become nothing more than a political tool used to control and limit information), and then I presented some evidence to back up my claim. You are free to disagree with me if you wish. While I am willing to explain what I believe and the reasons for it, I have no interest in "changing minds."

It doesn't seem like government is taking control of people's lives, it seems that corporations are and honestly that has been in progress for 20 years now.

You seem to be "missing the forest for the trees," here. Lobbyists are everywhere, and have been around for much longer than 20 years. You blame the corporations, but ask yourself who controls the corporations? And who, in turn, is pulling the strings of those people?

Anyway, my original goal was to encourage skepticism. I may or may not have done that effectively, but you seem to have drifted into argumentation which is something else entirely. I'll leave you to it, then.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

  • did not bother to delve into the various conspiracy theories floating around out there because that would have been a digression.

Neither did the Media, because it would have been a digression. Real news doesn't delve into unfounded conspiracy theories. There was nothing hidden, Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother. Anyone who bothered looking for the records could find them. It was also published in the local newspaper. see this article for a nice explanation of how easy it was to look up

So yeah, real news organizations don't bother reporting on bullshit conspiracy theories that are easily disproven.

  • Anyway, my original goal was to encourage skepticism.

Pro-tip: For that, you need to present credible issues, not stuff from the lunatic fringe, because if you're going with the nuttiest BS, then you're only presenting yourself as not being credible.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Anyway, my original goal was to encourage skepticism. I may or may not have done that effectively, but you seem to have drifted into argumentation which is something else entirely. I'll leave you to it, then.

I wish you would take your own advice, because you seem to dislike Obama for the very reasons you like Trump, and it just comes across as illogical. Pretty much every bullet point you mentioned could be applied to Trump, a relative unknown in the realm of politics who has already had shady dealings in the past.

If you take a step back you might be able to see it:

Past history and associates were smoothed over and covered up.

Easily applied to Trump. No tax returns, shady dealings, lawsuits and bankruptcies. Multiple contacts of his arrested. Can the same be said of Obama?

Verbal gaffs and politically incorrect statements by Obama were buried and attention to them deflected.

Trump as well. The media bent over backwards to call outright lies as 'misconceptions of truth', and it brushed hateful and racist messaging under the rug. It made light of misspellings and gaffes. Just look at Biden, he makes a gaffe and the media jumps all over him (and Biden does it often lol), but 'covfefe' becomes a meme.

Vetting of him as a candidate was virtually non-existent.

How was Trump vetted? He obviously wasn't if it took a multi-year investigation which did not even clear him of wrongdoing.

Political machinations which substituted him for former front-runner (and better qualified) candidates were hushed, and critics were silenced.

Again, look at how Trump was nominated. The media loved Trump during the primaries and gave him hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free coverage compared to the other candidates. Actual candidates that had devoted lifetimes of service to the country were pushed aside for a man born into money with no record of public service.

Any weakness he displayed was defended.

Anyone criticizing him was viciously attacked.

Not sure what circles you are in but I see this with Trump all the time. When Trump told 4 congresswomen to 'go back where you come from' so many supporters bent over backwards to double talk and explain that he actually meant something other than the obvious implication. When he called Mexicans rapists people changed the subject to MS-13 and tried to prove the claim. Anyone who pointed out this demagoguery was attacked.

Polls and opinion pieces were heavily slanted in his favor, regardless of context.

This is conjecture. The same people are making the same polls, they were lying then but aren't now? Or is it the opposite?

Interviews, debates, and public new events were "soft-balled" so as to protect him and present him favorably.

Same can be said of Trump, who rarely holds interviews or press conferences compared to any previous president. Trump even ejects journalists who ask questions he doesn't want to answer.

Stated policies and objectives of Obama were not permitted to be questioned or criticized.

Says who? It sure didn't stop people from questioning or criticizing Obama and his policies. You really can't just make up things and present them as fact. I was very critical of Obama and no one stopped me. Like I mentioned before, entire political movements sprang up to counter Obama, like the Tea Party. A congressman even interrupted Obama's state of the union speech to boldly criticize him, which was unprecedented and flat out rude.

You only seem to be skeptical of one side. Like you said no one is going to change anyone's mind but in the end I hope you can see the hypocrisy.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I wish you would take your own advice, because you seem to dislike Obama for the very reasons you like Trump, and it just comes across as illogical.

To you, anyway.

I am not surprised to find you unaware of the knowledge I have acquired over many years. After all, you do not live in my head, just as I do not live in yours. We have had different experiences and gathered different information. One notable difference between us, however, is that I do not take things at face value and try to avoid assumptions. I analyze, look for flaws, research sources, form hypotheses, test those hypotheses, draw a conclusion, and then keep in mind that my conclusion may be wrong. Judging from what your responses, that does not seem to be your approach. Just look at the single sentence I quoted above.

  • You claim that I do not practice what I preach. What grounds you have to make that claim are unknown to me, but I am pretty sure you do not know me personally and are not familiar with my behavior. Beyond that, it seems reasonable to suppose that you know nothing of what I think---nor why I think it---without disclosure on my part. (One of my behavioral quirks is my insistence on practicing what I preach.)
  • You state that I seem to dislike Obama. How would you even know? Granted, you have qualified your statement, but I have not related to you my opinion of the man. In actuality, I have little to no interest in Obama. I do not know him, nor do I have any compelling reason to get to know him, and any opinion I may form of him out of ignorance would be pointless. He has, thus far, continued to act in a manner which matches my first impression of him, so I can manage to feel mild disappointment, but that's about it.
  • You state that I seem to like Trump. Again, I do not even know the man and so have no basis on which to like or dislike him. He does seem somewhat interesting, but he and I are opposites in many ways.
  • You talk about "reasons," but my side of the conversation has previously only touched on either man indirectly. I have been talking about social manipulation and informational control rather than individual people, yet none of that seems to have reached you. It could be that I am utterly incompetent at presenting my message. It could also be that you are unwilling or unable to process what I have been saying. As you have not approached me with polite inquisitiveness, I suspect the latter is more likely than the former.

Perhaps, after having read this response, you will understand why I have lost interest in pursuing this conversation.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I do appreciate this conversation, for what it is worth. I'm sorry you feel as though we've come to an impasse. It's all good, I really do thank you for your input.

I do understand more where you are coming from, thanks for that. I do understand the ideal of thumbing your nose at the aspect of large government, and honestly I even agree with the ideal; but I don't think the Trump method was the best idea for any positive change.

Who knows though, really. The guy is still a wild card.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Who knows though, really. The guy is still a wild card.

It seems we both agree on that. )

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thinking more on it, I definitely remember Obama getting much harsher treatment than Bush for sure.

Obama the Muslim Kenyan; Obama the socialist who wants to take your guns and doctor away; Obama the racist who sides with 'thugs' instead of police officers; Obama the Anti-American lazy golf playing elitist; the list goes on and on.
In reality, Obama was just another lame-duck president with some moderately progressive views who spoke eloquently. Oh yea, he also was not white.

Does the media treat Trump more harshly than it did for Obama? Perhaps. But one must wonder how much of that would be self-inflicted, as Obama never called the media the 'Enemy of the People', or bash networks and journalists publicly.

It is ironic to state that the media never vetted Obama, when we have Trump in office and still never saw his tax returns. We know Trump was born rich, but he went bankrupt more than once and had a huge influx of unsubstantiated money come in over the past 15 years.

Your bullet points read like cognitive dissonance and conspiracy theory to me. Most of your points are not your own, they are the talking points of right wing pundits over the past 8 years.
When Obama was in office, I wonder if you were indignant at the amount of golf he played while in office? Were you angry about the debt? Were you upset at all the racial division in America during the Obama administration? Were you mad at all the vacation time the Obama family took, and the amount it cost the taxpayers? Were you worried about all of the executive orders that Obama signed while in office, or the appointments he made that might have seemed cronyistic?

There are already attempts to discard the U.S. Constitution as our governing document. If that happens, a totalitarian government is just a half-step away.

Oh? What attempts? Like forcing prayer in school? Banning certain religions? Removing discrimination laws? Removing due process for certain populations? Suppressing the right to vote?

On the bright side, there are a lot of people waking up to reality, and they are not happy about being misled and misused.

Kinda reads like the closing statement of a manifesto. Liberals are Americans same as Conservatives. If someone only wants to hear one side, only one point of view, then who is it really that is pushing toward totalitarianism?

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Most Americans (and indeed, anyone who relies upon Western media) still remain ignorant of what actually happened on 9-11

I am curious on this. What actually happened?

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

To this day, there are a great many unanswered questions and unexplained facts about 9-11, and those have been buried and forgotten by much of the public. Many of the original news stories which leaked important information are nowhere to be seen, and key eye-witnesses are no longer to be found. It would seem we are more likely to learn the truth about Jimmy Hoffa than we are 9-11 (and Afghanistan).

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

There was a massive amount of uncensored, boots on the ground coverage of the Vietnam war. It caused a lot of headaches for the military and others most interested in waging that war. In fact, it's the reason that the military exerts so much control over media access in war zones since that time. They learned their lesson.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

There was, and up until the tide of public opinion shifted (from some of the reporting), one could surmise that 90% of all the media coverage of the war before that was nothing more than mere propaganda.

One of the interesting things about the media coverage of the Vietnam War in my opinion was how the actual form of the media basically changed the form of acceptable media coverage. For example, the use of color imagery that showed brutality in the region shifted public opinion faster than the printed word and occasionally black and white newspaper photo of the era, in a time when most Americans got their news from reading the newspaper. At the time, many called the coverage of the conflict sensationalist journalism.

You are right about war zone coverage now for sure. Who knows anymore.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That 90% may actually have been 100% up until the battle of Ap Bac, where the first real disconnect occurred between official US sources and the press, who had previously relied on government news releases and press conferences as sources of information.

No denying that the television coverage changed perceptions forever, but I'd argue that print media led the charge and television followed after public interest in and support for dissenting information grew. American and international press did a thorough job of blowing the lid off of official "facts" concerning the war (though not without bias of their own in many instances) and some of the black and white photos that emerged from their reporting were published world wide and were extraordinarily influential.

Who knows indeed, these days I just wait a few years for a decent documentary to find out even part of what actually happened. If you know any reliable news sources, I'd be grateful. (I did rely on Vice for a bit, until Disney bought them.)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I read a magazine called The Week, they don't really write articles of their own but they basically compile news articles throughout the world and then present them as various viewpoints from different angles so there really isn't much slant. I'm not sure how much their website differs though from the magazine tbh.

I like how it will have one article and it will basically go like this: It says what happened, and then it says what the different news media outlets said about it. So basically multiple political views are presented but none are put forth as ultimate truth.

The website seems a different format though altogether.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you. I'll look into that.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"that entire approach was thrown out the window with the election of Obama."

TIMING: I believe that the timing mostly lined up with the devastating effect that the internet's free flow of information had on the journalism industry (selling print on paper).

It became much harder to get a reader to pay to read a story. Telling the audience what they wanted to hear would grab a more enthusiastic crowd who wanted to read that story. We no longer have an attempt at unbiased journalism; we are left with biased punditry.

It is not all bad, I try to read stories from different political angles. Read the opposition's spin on a story.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Exactly. Sadly though there are many people who only rely on a few sources to get their information which only boosts their own confirmation bias. There are people all across the political spectrum who do this.

Cesar Sayoc watched Fox news all day and ended up mailing bombs to people because he felt Democrats were destroying the country based on the biased reporting. The recent El Paso shooting was motivated by anti-immigrant rhetoric that you often hear from Trump and the right wing media. James Hodgkinson shot Republican congressmen because he believed that "Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy".

You are spot on about the timing, the rise of the internet made disinformation flow easier, it made it easier for people to connect with each other and further reinforce their own beliefs. It made people more tribal and the media panders to it for $$$.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Realizing that god doesn't care/affect what happens on the earth. It is only people. There is a game i love, The Pillars of the Earth. Watch this (2.5 min), it is a part of the game that i reaaaaly love. I think it gives the feeling just right. (great game btw, play it if you love story-heavy games)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I haven't played that yet or read the book it is based on but the miniseries is excellent, as is its sequel, World Without End.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That makes sense :D

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Realizing that god doesn't care/affect what happens on the earth. It is only people.

As you already know, people see what they want to see. And, as each of us is free to believe what he or she wishes, and you have not asked me for advice or explanation, I will limit myself to that reminder.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think it is impossible to view matters without including your experiences, which explains why everyone sees different. If you want to say something to me, you don't need to limit yourself :) It is the best side of the internet after all

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think it is impossible to view matters without including your experiences, which explains why everyone sees different.

Yes, that is exactly why I gave you the reminder that I did. It is something I believe you already know from your own experience, and it is of direct importance to your original statement. My goal was to provoke your thought and consideration of what you stated. You may or may not achieve any new realizations, but the mental exercise would likely be beneficial.

If you want to say something to me, you don't need to limit yourself :)

I find that advice is best given when people ask for it. You are welcome to contact me on Steam if you desire, but SteamGifts isn't really the place for a deep discussion of Philosophy and/or Religion.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I will gladly add you, but i don't think my English is enough to discuss those deep topics :D

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

When I learned that certain people prefer "Truth" over facts. ;)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that education actually doesnt help you in getting good jobs?
even when you get the job, what you learn doesnt mean anything (ie learn again)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I believed in atoms, then I found out they make up stuff.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ha!

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm glad someone got it! The original saying is "Never trust an Atom, they make up stuff"

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Umm, so when I was in primary school I've been reading a lot of Donald Duck comics, and because I live in Poland, they were translated to Polish, including names of places.
Suffice to say, I did a Pikachu face upon seeing Duckburg marked on a in-comic map in North America instead of Eastern Europe. ^^

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah, when you're a kid you think comics are local, then you realize they are mostly imported and translated. Still, good times.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

how well antidepressants work

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Adults mostly know what they're doing.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This. Also happy cake day :)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Happy cake day :D

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Heheh.

What's interesting to me is that most of generations in history actually did know, as they were "learning at home by example, in the field, army" wherever, what their duties are and how to perform them... if they survive by the 19th birthday they'd know very well what to do. Only in the recent history we have, for the first time maybe, people who learn more about the world around them, than their own life. If you don't know you'll be a farmer because you come from the family of farmers, and you learn to be anything you end up being, then you don't really prepare yourself for farming that much. Which is good if you end up being a clerk, or a doctor. Not good when you try to plant some wheat grain.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Things get better with time...

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I was talking about mostly personal life or life on an individual scale.
Unfortunately child mortality rate changes in Africa from 1960 to 1990 doesn't help your life a lot or it doesn't make it "better". Even in Africa if you know about this most likely you survived as a child already.

You grow older, dumber, uglier, slower with time. People around you get old, sick or some die. The vast amount of opportunities once you had are not there anymore. You notice things don't get easier by just giving it some time or waiting itself was a big mistake.
Depending on where you live; economy, income inequality, unemployment rate, education quality, population, democracy, general quality of life can get worse.

Again unfortunately finding the best counter example to that (China) and showing its stats from 1960s to 2000s doesn't change anything. If you witnessed the changes from 1960s to now you must be very old today anyway and I bet life isn't getting any better for you compared to the 1960s when you were presumably in your youth.

And one more thing, time alone doesn't make those changes you linked here. It requires a lot of hard work and effort from great minds. I bet you can find data and stats about how things went for the worse as well. Like the quality of education didn't get any better but it got a lot more expensive in the last 20 years. World population doubled in the last 40 years, 10% increase in the last 8 years! Or how the quality of music went from iron maiden to Justin Bieber in 30 years. I don't know how this is any "better".

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This thread got better with time.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I used to think that there was hope for the human race. Oh man was I ever wrong.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yup. Chimps are smarter than the average Human. Doesn't surprise me.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That's one way to look at it, but in the context of this thread I was aiming more for an example of how humanity is surprisingly doing better than most people assume. :)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Reading too much (optimistic) science fiction as a kid, I see.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wasn't much else to read 30 years ago.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.