Political Discussion

[Bicks]

IF the Russians hacked the Democrats?

I didn't think any rational human still doubted that. I haven't read any credible media reports that have doubted what the CIA has briefed the government on.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/
https://www.wordfence.com/about-wordfence/

 

[Mego Red]

Just when you thought Fairfax's journalists couldn't possibly show more Political bias and publish such unhinged diatribe along comes Wendy Squires...

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-sonia-krugers-on-my-wish-list-for-2017-20161230-gtjrcj.html

Bicks.

That's a comedy column in a Sunday paper. It's printed on the glossy paper opposite a Lorna Jane as.

She says the most mild gags you'll find this side of a Christmas cracker.

C'mon mate. Take a deep breath. That column is so gently left wing that you would have to be the most fragile, sensitive right winger alive to even notice a point of view.

Comedians are almost 100% left wing, so it's hard to find a columnist to make right winger jokes about sending back the boats and making tax cuts for the rich.

(Now - if you were joking, I apologize. I looked for a sarcastic emoticon and didn't see one)

 

[Bicks]

Bicks.

That's a comedy column in a Sunday paper. It's printed on the glossy paper opposite a Lorna Jane as.

She says the most mild gags you'll find this side of a Christmas cracker.

C'mon mate. Take a deep breath. That column is so gently left wing that you would have to be the most fragile, sensitive right winger alive to even notice a point of view.

Comedians are almost 100% left wing, so it's hard to find a columnist to make right winger jokes about sending back the boats and making tax cuts for the rich.

(Now - if you were joking, I apologize. I looked for a sarcastic emoticon and didn't see one)

Must be a lot of comedians/ columnists at Fairfax I guess..

http://www.theage.com.au/comment

Wendy Squires, Writer | Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/wendysquireswriter/
Writer, author, columnist, editor and media consultant. This is my public facebook page. ... Wendy Squires, Writer shared a link. · November 11 ·. The time for ...
Missing: comedian

 

[Mego Red]

Must be a lot of comedians/ columnists at Fairfax I guess..

http://www.theage.com.au/comment

View attachment 323826Wendy Squires, Writer | Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/wendysquireswriter/
Writer, author, columnist, editor and media consultant. This is my public facebook page. ... Wendy Squires, Writer shared a link. · November 11 ·. The time for ...
Missing: comedian

No, mostly Fairfax has rigorous and balanced journalists. The SMH has always leaned slightly right in my opinion - they certainly are favourable towards developers and Sydney business interests.

The Age was our nation's best paper for a long time. It's sad to see it become under resourced the last few years. I don't think we have a decent paper left now. It's tragic what's happened to the Australian. Even the Herald Sun has finally toppled over into being a far-right hate rag.

Personally, while Andrew Bolt still walks the earth spewing hate speech and being paid by the Murdoch press to do it, I would be happy to see ANY real counter point being offered. It's sad that you think a puff piece in a Sunday paper is that.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

No, mostly Fairfax has rigorous and balanced journalists. The SMH has always leaned slightly right in my opinion - they certainly are favourable towards developers and Sydney business interests.

The Age was our nation's best paper for a long time. It's sad to see it become under resourced the last few years. I don't think we have a decent paper left now. It's tragic what's happened to the Australian. Even the Herald Sun has finally toppled over into being a far-right hate rag.

Personally, while Andrew Bolt still walks the earth spewing hate speech and being paid by the Murdoch press to do it, I would be happy to see ANY real counter point being offered. It's sad that you think a puff piece in a Sunday paper is that.

Who actually listens to Bolt?

The quality of newspapers has been decimated by the increased popularity of other media forms.

Gone are the days where I looked forward to reading my paper 1st thing in the morning.

 

[Mego Red]

Who actually listens to Bolt?

The quality of newspapers has been decimated by the increased popularity of other media forms.

Gone are the days where I looked forward to reading my paper 1st thing in the morning.

God, I hope no one listens to Bolt.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

The best thing about 2016 is we can stop hearing about how much 2016 sucked. Guess what, a shit ton of celebs are gonna die this year too.

 

[Rusty Crow]

God, I hope no one listens to Bolt.

The mad monk does...

 

[Ramify]

I'd love to see a proton and futon compounded.

And I probably do think a physicist is more intelligent than someone working in a garage. Doesn't mean the second doesn't have valuable skills, but that's not evidence of intelligence.

One of the reasons we are where we are politically is we have a system that relies on voters being able to make informed decisions.

One thing that education gives you is the ability to look at credible sources of information and draw assumptions from them. It allows you to consider evidence and facts, instead of relying on faith or feelings.

Nothing speaks of living in a time when intelligence isn't valued than the amount we discount expert opinions when they don't match what we want them to be. We don't care about truth or facts or research.

What a pompous and insulting load of crap.

You are suggesting that "education" is responsible for a Physicst level of intelligence?
Would this mean that anyone could become a physicist so long as they undertake the formal education required to become one?

I think your correlation is way off kilter here. Im sure most Physicists are rather intelligent long before deciding on what degree they will undertake.

Plenty of uneducated geniuses in this world and conversely,plenty of highly educated morons(often found trying to equate level of education with intelligence).

A mechanic is simply educated to be a mechanic. Surely you realise that university education is not some magical avenue to intelligence, but rather a different form of education to that which a Motor Mechanic must undertake, furnishing a different skill-set/s.
Surely you are not so arrogant to suggest that there exist no mechanics with MENSA level I.Qs out there?
Please tell me which class you took at Uni which made you so intelligent? Because I don't remember there ever being one on offer when I had a crack.

I suggest you educate yourself on the definition of intelligence.

 

[Mego Red]

What a pompous and insulting load of crap.

You are suggesting that "education" is responsible for a Physicst level of intelligence?
Would this mean that anyone could become a physicist so long as they undertake the formal education required to become one?

I think your correlation is way off kilter here. Im sure most Physicists are rather intelligent long before deciding on what degree they will undertake.

Plenty of uneducated geniuses in this world and conversely,plenty of highly educated morons(often found trying to equate level of education with intelligence).

A mechanic is simply educated to be a mechanic. Surely you realise that university education is not some magical avenue to intelligence, but rather a different form of education to that which a Motor Mechanic must undertake, furnishing a different skill-set/s.
Surely you are not so arrogant to suggest that there exist no mechanics with MENSA level I.Qs out there?
Please tell me which class you took at Uni which made you so intelligent? Because I don't remember there ever being one on offer when I had a crack.

I suggest you educate yourself on the definition of intelligence.

What a ludicrous post.

Are you suggesting that someone unintelligent could just wander in and complete the university study required to become a physicist?

You call me pompous and you barrel in with this foolish post.

Can't you see your obvious error in logic? "Would this mean that anyone could become a physicist so long as they undertake the formal education required to become one?"

If you have the intelligence to complete that level of education, then obviously yes. The challenge of successfully completing that study is an obvious indicator of intelligence. You're speaking as if any fool could just do it.

Education gives you tools of analysis and understanding that help you become a smarter person. It improves you.

Frankly, there AREN'T plenty of uneducated geniuses in the world. That demeans the level of perspiration and effort that it takes. There's some smart people who didn't have the commitment to work hard, but they ain't no uneducated genius.

There are some very intelligent mechanics, no doubt. Is your argument that the number of very intelligent labourers is the same as the number of very intelligent doctors of physics?

I feel like this whole discussion belongs in the "everyone is a winner and deserves a ribbon" culture of today. Everyone is NOT equal. Our blindness to that has become a sickness. We don't value experts anymore because everyone feels their opinion is as important as anyone else's.

It's not. People EARN becoming experts. They start with talent and commitment and work incredibly hard.

"Oh, I could have been that smart, but I just didn't like books." No, that's why you COULDN'T be that smart.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

IF the Russians hacked the Democrats?

I didn't think any rational human still doubted that. I haven't read any credible media reports that have doubted what the CIA has briefed the government on.

Hang on, I haven't been keeping on top of this because my first thoughts were that it was poor losing nonsense. Has it been proven that the Russkies did hack the election? If so, surely 1. They'll need to redo the election, and 2. Have some more serious repercussions than sending a few diplomats home.

Edit:
Hmm ... seems I'm right

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

I must be an irrational human to doubt this still. What were the Clinton supporters saying about false news?

 

[Mego Red]

Hang on, I haven't been keeping on top of this because my first thoughts were that it was poor losing nonsense. Has it been proven that the Russkies did hack the election? If so, surely 1. They'll need to redo the election, and 2. Have some more serious repercussions than sending a few diplomats home.

Edit:
Hmm ... seems I'm right

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

I must be an irrational human to doubt this still. What were the Clinton supporters saying about false news?

Matt Tiabbi is a great journalist. It's good that we're raising his analysis on this.

The CIA and NRA have detailed intelligence that they believe proves the Russians are responsible for the Democrat hack.

The report they've released publicly is vague and lacking detail.

The public deserves better.

The Republicans and Democrats that have been given the full report seem to agree that stronger action should be taken.

Straight from Tiabbi's article: Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is "insufficient" as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

Of course, that won't happen now. Trump and his cabinet have extraordinary conflicts of interest regarding Russia, with billions of dollars of business investment.

Still, the public deserves to know more, especially as there seems to be bipartisan concern about the evidence the intelligence services have.

 

[Mego Red]

And fake news?

"According to Silverman, 17 out of the 20 fake news stories had information favoring Donald Trump. In contrast, a lot of the mainstream stories were pro-Clinton: pieces like “Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling” from the Washington Post and “I ran the CIA. Now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton” from the New York Times.

The difference, of course, is that the latter stories are about things that really happened. A former CIA director really did endorse Hillary Clinton. You can argue with the analysis in the Washington Post’s story about Trump corruption, of course, but at least it discussed real events — like Trump’s donation to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who dropped an investigation of Trump University shortly afterward."

 

[Mego Red]

Can we also just decide that journalism that disagrees with you is NOT fake news???

Is it a credible news source? Is it sourced? Are there external linked sources and ratified quotes? Is there evidence offered in the article that can be proven?

FFS, I'm sick of people saying "the Washington Post is fake news" or "the NY Times is fake news". They can have partisan columnists or editorials. But they have a century or more of credentialled reporting.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Can we also just decide that journalism that disagrees with you is NOT fake news???

Is it a credible news source? Is it sourced? Are there external linked sources and ratified quotes? Is there evidence offered in the article that can be proven?

FFS, I'm sick of people saying "the Washington Post is fake news" or "the NY Times is fake news". They can have partisan columnists or editorials. But they have a century or more of credentialled reporting.

Which makes their poorly sourced and biased news all the more dangerous.

If I read News of the World say that Trump is a lizard person, I'm pretty certain it's fake.

If The NY Times says Russia hacked the election, well Russia better have hacked the election. Otherwise their credibility is shot.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Can we also just decide that journalism that disagrees with you is NOT fake news???

Is it a credible news source? Is it sourced? Are there external linked sources and ratified quotes? Is there evidence offered in the article that can be proven?

FFS, I'm sick of people saying "the Washington Post is fake news" or "the NY Times is fake news". They can have partisan columnists or editorials. But they have a century or more of credentialled reporting.

Sometimes the Washington Post IS fake news:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...ssian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#596d28df291e

 

[Mego Red]

Sometimes the Washington Post IS fake news:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...ssian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#596d28df291e

No, that wasn't fake.

It was as you said - badly researched. That was a story of Russian hacking malware on a laptop at an electrical provider. They presented it as if that was evidence of the Russians hacking the grid. It wasn't that, and it was a bad error.

But an error isn't fake.

They intended to uncover the truth. Fake news are stories about Obama's birth certificate or the Pope supporting Trump. Things with no basis in fact.

 

[Mego Red]

This is an excellent article from Politifact. They are impartial and apolitical.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/13/2016-lie-year-fake-news/

Fake news is the boldest sign of a post-truth society. When we can’t agree on basic facts -- or even that there are such things as facts -- how do we talk to each other?

It’s a media ecosystem where "everything is true and nothing is true," said President Barack Obama in an postelection interview with the New Yorker. "And the capacity to disseminate misinformation, wild conspiracy theories, to paint the opposition in wildly negative light without any rebuttal — that has accelerated in ways that much more sharply polarize the electorate and make it very difficult to have a common conversation," he said.

 

[Deaneus!]

Fake news are stories about Obama's birth certificate

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

No, that wasn't fake.

It was as you said - badly researched. That was a story of Russian hacking malware on a laptop at an electrical provider. They presented it as if that was evidence of the Russians hacking the grid. It wasn't that, and it was a bad error.

But an error isn't fake.

They intended to uncover the truth. Fake news are stories about Obama's birth certificate or the Pope supporting Trump. Things with no basis in fact.

What's worse?

A clearly fake news story from a dodgy site that can be easily discredited?

Or a poorly researched article from a reputable publication that draws an incorrect and dangerous conclusion?

 

[Bicks]

No, mostly Fairfax has rigorous and balanced journalists. The SMH has always leaned slightly right in my opinion - they certainly are favourable towards developers and Sydney business interests.

I'm glad you put the IMO re the SMH because IMO you are 100% wrong, IMO it leans strongly to the left and always has as long as I've had an interest in Australian Politics.

 

[Mego Red]

What's worse?

A clearly fake news story from a dodgy site that can be easily discredited?

Or a poorly researched article from a reputable publication that draws an incorrect and dangerous conclusion?

I think the US election results show us that fake news is far worse.

"The Pew Research Center found that 44% of Americans get their news from Facebook. An analysis by BuzzFeed found that 38% of posts shared from three large rightwing politics pages on Facebook included “false or misleading information” and that three large leftwing pages did the same 19% of the time."

Plus you had a Presidential candidate amplifying that with blatant falsehoods.

You can't compare that level of spreading consciously misleading and untrue reports with the article you linked.

There, in the effort to uncover the truth they leapt to the wrong conclusion. It wasn't as big a deal as they first thought. There was no attempt to lie - if anything, it's the exact opposite.

They should be slapped around for it, but it's not the same as fraud.

 

[Ramify]

What a ludicrous post.

Are you suggesting that someone unintelligent could just wander in and complete the university study required to become a physicist?

You call me pompous and you barrel in with this foolish post.

Can't you see your obvious error in logic? "Would this mean that anyone could become a physicist so long as they undertake the formal education required to become one?"

If you have the intelligence to complete that level of education, then obviously yes. The challenge of successfully completing that study is an obvious indicator of intelligence. You're speaking as if any fool could just do it.

Education gives you tools of analysis and understanding that help you become a smarter person. It improves you.

Frankly, there AREN'T plenty of uneducated geniuses in the world. That demeans the level of perspiration and effort that it takes. There's some smart people who didn't have the commitment to work hard, but they ain't no uneducated genius.

There are some very intelligent mechanics, no doubt. Is your argument that the number of very intelligent labourers is the same as the number of very intelligent doctors of physics?

I feel like this whole discussion belongs in the "everyone is a winner and deserves a ribbon" culture of today. Everyone is NOT equal. Our blindness to that has become a sickness. We don't value experts anymore because everyone feels their opinion is as important as anyone else's.

It's not. People EARN becoming experts. They start with talent and commitment and work incredibly hard.

"Oh, I could have been that smart, but I just didn't like books." No, that's why you COULDN'T be that smart.

No, it is your logic that is suggesting that "education",or level thereof, correlates to intelligence.
It is you that suggests the education pathway is what makes these physicists intelligent.
Just because the majority of Physicists are intelligent doesn't prove that their chosen field,or the way in which they acquire their qualification is the reason they are smart.

Frankly, I doubt you would have any idea as to how many uneducated Geniuses there are in this world as you seem to have only lived life in a bubble of academic privilege.
Of the billions of people on this rock, what percentage do you suggest have access to the level of education you espouse as being prerequisite to intelligence?

You are confusing exposure to Knowledge with Intelligence.
I very much doubt that you would find a single Professor on the face of the planet that would back you highly unscientific argument.

Whatever floats your boat mate. IM sure you are very proud of you certificates and if that gives you some sense of Intellectual superiority then all the best to you and your philosophical viewpoint regardless of how flawed it may be.

 

[Bicks]

Old Jay seriously losing the plot.

 

[Mego Red]

No, it is your logic that is suggesting that "education",or level thereof, correlates to intelligence.
It is you that suggests the education pathway is what makes these physicists intelligent.
Just because the majority of Physicists are intelligent doesn't prove that their chosen field,or the way in which they acquire their qualification is the reason they are smart.

Frankly, I doubt you would have any idea as to how many uneducated Geniuses there are in this world as you seem to have only lived life in a bubble of academic privilege.
Of the billions of people on this rock, what percentage do you suggest have access to the level of education you espouse as being prerequisite to intelligence?

You are confusing exposure to Knowledge with Intelligence.
I very much doubt that you would find a single Professor on the face of the planet that would back you highly unscientific argument.

Whatever floats your boat mate. IM sure you are very proud of you certificates and if that gives you some sense of Intellectual superiority then all the best to you and your philosophical viewpoint regardless of how flawed it may be.

Mate, your argument is completely flawed.

Education is about the pursuit of knowledge. If you cannot see any connection between measurable intelligence and the pursuit of knowledge, then I don't know what to say.

I don't know why you think I have "certificates" on my wall - the last time I studied at Uni, Keating was Prime Minister.

I hardly live in the bubble of academic privilege. But I'm starting to wonder why you're so suspicious of the idea that people who have made a commitment to study and have shown the intellectual rigor to complete a challenging degree would be more intelligent than a random person on a street corner. Why does such a common sense observation bother you?

This conversation started because of the fact that Trump had a massive vote advantage amongst white uneducated males. If you want to make the argument that white male factory workers in Alabama with a non-high school education are more intelligent than university educated professionals in Boston, then go your hardest.

At the end of the day, I don't really give a shit. Everyone's vote has the same value, no matter your education, intelligence or background. You don't have to pass an intelligence test to be allowed to vote.