Ukraine conflict

Quote: RonC

We have become a pile of disagreeable people instead of a group of people that disagree with each other.

Most of the political tv I grew up with was fairly congenial among opposing views. Ironically perhaps, I think public TV with "The Mclaughlin Group" was the first one that started being more extreme in views or even as entertainment.

SNL exaggerated their format in this parody.

Although I'm all for tv doing whatever political show it wants, I do think it's not exactly a good thing that they're are as likely to bring on a commentator because it's someone who makes controversial statements. Or inflames the discussion. That's not enlightening or informing, that's just pure Barnum & Bailey appeal to the masses.

Quote: rxwine

Although I'm all for tv doing whatever political show it wants, I do think it's not exactly a good thing that they're are as likely to bring on a commentator because it's someone who makes controversial statements. Or inflames the discussion. That's not enlightening or informing, that's just pure Barnum & Bailey appeal to the masses.

With each network and cable channel taking a side, the idea of “fair and balanced” is out the door. While I have heard hard news reporters call out people about things said on these types of shows, it is rare. Most of the time, the closest they come to fair is someone from the other side who really doesn’t present too strong of a case. The Five has four conservatives and the other three rotating liberals (sort of). Of those, Harold Ford does the best job. I love him. I flip by other shows and it seems they are all in for their side with every guest, but I may miss a couple because I don’t watch any of them all that long on any given day.

It isn’t like the old network and local news with a few hours to fill. The cable networks have to fill 24 hours a day, or at least a lot of it.

Quote: RonC

I have heard both Gabbard and Carlson say that Russia’s invasion is wrong.

I did not mention censorship; do you think that is an issue?

I am fine with people opposing their points of view; I don’t have an opinion other than throwing around words like “treason” is a simpleton’s way of not wanting to counter an argument with a more persuasive one.

We have become a pile of disagreeable people instead of a group of people that disagree with each other.

Well that is an absurd view. You are mentioning (or implying) censorship in a round about way (implying that everyone not Pro-Ukraine gets attacked).

What people attack are when people say blatant twists of the truth and get push back. Nobody is attacking moderate Jimmy who think U.S. should just try to avoid war. People do attack when iditiots like Tulsi and Tucker (both have said this btw) that Ukraine had bioweapons on the border of Russia. This is being a mouth of Russia.

It's like in Lord of the Rings, the Mouth of Sauron who lost his name and identity and just spoke for Mordor. That is what Tucker is becoming.

I don't think there is a pile of disagreeable people, plenty of debate programs show this to not be the case. It's just that the most disagreeable (far left and far right) get the most air time (and generally the most views).

In any case treason is used very rarely. And, it's usually an extreme case (and even then I disagree). Treason can be used correctly in domestic cases when certain leaders encourage people to use force to take the capital.

Quote: Gandler

Well that is an absurd view. You are mentioning (or implying) censorship in a round about way (implying that everyone not Pro-Ukraine gets attacked).

What people attack are when people say blatant twists of the truth and get push back. Nobody is attacking moderate Jimmy who think U.S. should just try to avoid war. People do attack when iditiots like Tulsi and Tucker (both have said this btw) that Ukraine had bioweapons on the border of Russia. This is being a mouth of Russia.

It's like in Lord of the Rings, the Mouth of Sauron who lost his name and identity and just spoke for Mordor. That is what Tucker is becoming.

I don't think there is a pile of disagreeable people, plenty of debate programs show this to not be the case. It's just that the most disagreeable (far left and far right) get the most air time (and generally the most views).

In any case treason is used very rarely. And, it's usually an extreme case (and even then I disagree). Treason can be used correctly in domestic cases when certain leaders encourage people to use force to take the capital.

What I consider treason is a President withholding Ukraine aid till they produce fake dirt on a US Presidential candidate.

Quote: Gandler

Well that is an absurd view. You are mentioning (or implying) censorship in a round about way (implying that everyone not Pro-Ukraine gets attacked).

What people attack are when people say blatant twists of the truth and get push back. Nobody is attacking moderate Jimmy who think U.S. should just try to avoid war. People do attack when iditiots like Tulsi and Tucker (both have said this btw) that Ukraine had bioweapons on the border of Russia. This is being a mouth of Russia.

It's like in Lord of the Rings, the Mouth of Sauron who lost his name and identity and just spoke for Mordor. That is what Tucker is becoming.

I don't think there is a pile of disagreeable people, plenty of debate programs show this to not be the case. It's just that the most disagreeable (far left and far right) get the most air time (and generally the most views).

In any case treason is used very rarely. And, it's usually an extreme case (and even then I disagree). Treason can be used correctly in domestic cases when certain leaders encourage people to use force to take the capital.

No, I am talking about our inability to have sane conversations without name calling. Look at social media. Look here much of the time. Look at our political leaders.

Yes, there are people trying to "cancel"--censor--others. I just didn't talk about that but it is part of the problem.

Quote: RonC

No, I am talking about our inability to have sane conversations without name calling. Look at social media. Look here much of the time. Look at our political leaders.

Yes, there are people trying to "cancel"--censor--others. I just didn't talk about that but it is part of the problem.

I approve canceling
People have freedom and canceling is freedom
Take OAN
They are being canceled due to economic freedom
I don't see anybody being censored for free speech on public property
Who is being censored Ronc???????????????????????
Bear in mind you are posting on private property here
On this peice of private property, the Wizard can nuke for any reason and that persons free speech rights are not violated. There is no free speech right on private property

Quote: RonC

No, I am talking about our inability to have sane conversations without name calling. Look at social media. Look here much of the time. Look at our political leaders.

Yes, there are people trying to "cancel"--censor--others. I just didn't talk about that but it is part of the problem.

I think that you have a glossy view of history name calling and encouraging boycotts in public forum are nothing new in America, look at old newspapers from the 1700s.

The only difference is there is social media amd the internet (and television) so we see it more often (as opposed to reading opinion pamphlets once a day).

I think people overestimate discourse in the past, there were plenty of trolls and people who talked extreme. I guess it could be argued that social media rewards this behavior (by views, even if negative views), but there was a similiar process with pamphlet distribution even if less instant rewards. (Also, treason was a word often used).

None of this is new, the internet just makes it more accessible.

Name calling is not inherently good or bad (depends on the name and the context). Social shaming has done a lot to change behavior (smoking in public is an easy example).

As for name calling from political leaders, the right has zero ground to stand on....


However, on this issue all of these points are moot. If somebody sides with Russia, they deserve to be mocked by sane people because they are either a sellout or an idiot (or both), so I am not sure where you are going with this. If you brought this up in a thread about trans rights in sports or some social issue where there is legitimate debate and both sodes are dug in, sure. But, this is a black and white issue, Russia is wrong, and everyone who sides with then is wrong. Anyone who defends Russia does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Yellow journalism started the Spanish American War
Not much has changed

Quote: Gandler

I think that you have a glossy view of history name calling and encouraging boycotts in public forum are nothing new in America, look at old newspapers from the 1700s.

The only difference is there is social media amd the internet (and television) so we see it more often (as opposed to reading opinion pamphlets once a day).

I think people overestimate discourse in the past, there were plenty of trolls and people who talked extreme. I guess it could be argued that social media rewards this behavior (by views, even if negative views), but there was a similiar process with pamphlet distribution even if less instant rewards. (Also, treason was a word often used).

None of this is new, the internet just makes it more accessible.

Name calling is not inherently good or bad (depends on the name and the context). Social shaming has done a lot to change behavior (smoking in public is an easy example).

As for name calling from political leaders, the right has zero ground to stand on....


However, on this issue all of these points are moot. If somebody sides with Russia, they deserve to be mocked by sane people because they are either a sellout or an idiot (or both), so I am not sure where you are going with this. If you brought this up in a thread about trans rights in sports or some social issue where there is legitimate debate and both sodes are dug in, sure. But, this is a black and white issue, Russia is wrong, and everyone who sides with then is wrong. Anyone who defends Russia does not deserve to be taken seriously.

The personal level of the attacks is much higher than it was in the past. People of opposite view could be friends and have intelligent debate over the issues. That to a large extent is not possible today. Everyone thinks in absolutes now, you are wrong and I am right. That is seldom correct and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle but reasoned debate is rarely possible.