A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[Leemas]

I understand that perspective if it is just ideology, but facts are facts.

Unfortunately we're dealing with people who are functioning on an emotional level rather than a factual. If everyone was functioning on facts we'd all be sitting here saying 'Pauline who?'. Old Donny wouldn't be in charge either. They both aren't appealing to the logical side but the emotional. I don't think anyone can deny there is some degree of power in particular the way Donald speaks, he does have the ability to excite and inspire his supporters.

Pauline to a lesser degree but I think you get where I'm coming from now.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Unfortunately we're dealing with people who are functioning on an emotional level rather than a factual.

I think this is exactly what Caiphus was saying a few posts ago. We are seemingly entering a "post-truth" era where facts take a back seat to "feels". The way the internet has evolved certainly hasn't helped. Most people just (either willingly or accidentally) end up carving out comfortable little online echo chambers where people don't expose themselves to facts that challenge their perceptions, but rather drown themselves in junk media that confirms their pre-existing views.

No one really disagrees with the "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" approach but it's getting harder and harder these days to have an actual fact based discourse with people. Like you said, people tend to think with their emotions rather than reason and that is not a good mindset to be in to receive facts.

Somehow along the way it seems that some people were convinced that facts and opinions mean the same thing. God, the email forwards I get from one of my aunts are just mindboggling. They sent me one the other day playing the "Obama BANNED everyone from the exact same countries as Trump wants to" card. I sent them links to the actual executive orders and policy documents that objectively proved that to be false along with a pretty polite "I'm not sure that is accurate, have a read of this" response. Their reply... "well YOU would say that wouldn't you!".

 

[Skoob]

The media is predominantly controlled by the right wing. No wonder it is difficult for facts to be presented. The Courier Mail could stop Campbell Newman being voted out, but * they tried so hard.
The biggest issue is that the mainstream media does virtually nothing to question the morality or ethics of any right wing/conservative policy. Even when someone like Pauline and Malcolm Roberts tell us the reef is fine, the media merely report their statements but not challenge them. Now that the Government has installed a Murdoch lacky to head the ABC, even they are slack on presenting truth.
Scandals are largely swept under the carpet and fear campaigns given support.
Even if outlets are not owned by those directing the narrative, commercial decisions have them not wanting to buck the trend or set themselves too far apart. The left and right of politics in Australia are presented differently and held to completely different standards by the media here.
Slipper was absolutely slaughtered for stealing $954 (charges later overturned). His diaries were stolen and everything beaten up to remove him.
Dastyari let a Chinese business pay a $1670 bill for him. He was harassed and hounded as if he'd taken millions.
I'm not suggesting these two did nothing wrong, but compare to the treatment by the media of Bronny Bishop & Sussan Leay. Sure they were gotten in the end, but they had to be. Where is the intense scrutiny of Barnaby Joyce? Peter Dutton? Tucked away in a couple of columns, but not on the nightly news.

It is no wonder at all that the rise of the right continues and "facts" are not persuading the inattentive.

 

[Leemas]

The media is predominantly controlled by the right wing. No wonder it is difficult for facts to be presented. The Courier Mail could stop Campbell Newman being voted out, but **** they tried so hard.
The biggest issue is that the mainstream media does virtually nothing to question the morality or ethics of any right wing/conservative policy. Even when someone like Pauline and Malcolm Roberts tell us the reef is fine, the media merely report their statements but not challenge them. Now that the Government has installed a Murdoch lacky to head the ABC, even they are slack on presenting truth.
Scandals are largely swept under the carpet and fear campaigns given support.
Even if outlets are not owned by those directing the narrative, commercial decisions have them not wanting to buck the trend or set themselves too far apart. The left and right of politics in Australia are presented differently and held to completely different standards by the media here.
Slipper was absolutely slaughtered for stealing $954 (charges later overturned). His diaries were stolen and everything beaten up to remove him.
Dastyari let a Chinese business pay a $1670 bill for him. He was harassed and hounded as if he'd taken millions.
I'm not suggesting these two did nothing wrong, but compare to the treatment by the media of Bronny Bishop & Sussan Leay. Sure they were gotten in the end, but they had to be. Where is the intense scrutiny of Barnaby Joyce? Peter Dutton? Tucked away in a couple of columns, but not on the nightly news.

It is no wonder at all that the rise of the right continues and "facts" are not persuading the inattentive.

Not really sure how accurate that was. Bronwyn bishop was all over the media for weeks. The project regularly slams Pauline and the rest of the right pretty much on a nightly basis. Same with the today show most mornings their mixed grill show constantly has left wingers slamming the right side of politics.

I really reckon that it's actually pretty even in the media if anything the left side gets portrayed a little more fairly. I mean look how much traction the Australia Day change the date movement got by the supposedly 'right wing biased media'.

I think the problem in the media is the portrayal of opinion as fact that's coming out from all sides of politics.

 

[carnthemlions]

The equivalent of brietbart and Infowars are usuncut and occupy democrats. And she it was only a buzzfeed investigation (and their hard journalism is surprisingly decent) but each of the liberal equivalents was only half as dishonest. (to me liberals are as centrist as you can get.)

http://gawker.com/5890660/andrew-breitbart-big-deal-big-coronary-big-corpse
All that needs to be said about Breitbart.

Or is the answer really as simple as I've suggested and not at all as complex as you're pointing out. You've got to remember a large proportion of the population isn't obviously as well educated or read as you.

What you're saying may or may not be correct but the way it reads with your quite rude & dismissive attitude comes off extremely snobbish and to be honest distracts completely from the point you're making as I stopped reading as soon as you started making disparaging remarks.

As I pointed out before if you want to reach people don't attack, don't pull the whole I'm right you're wrong card no one ever in history has responded positively too that.

Simplify the message, back it up with evidence and don't be a dick about it and people will understand and their viewpoints will change.

I've changed countless minds of family and friends simply by not being a dick about it.... it's really not that hard

Oh, it's definitely not simple. Anyway, I'll say this- you're right on points 2 and 4. When it comes to fear and division and 'the main stream media labeling peoples concerns as racist/bigoted/idiotic etc.', I don't agree with you. Where do you think these concerns have come from? Yes, that's right- the mainstream media. The problem isn't dismissing these concerns, it's giving them equal billing as if they are somehow valid because they're 'opinions'. This applies to any number of things- the climate debate, Islamaphobia (se: Pauline Hanson's gig on sunrise), the 'political correctness' debate, and so on. Also- the treatment of the far right by much of the media in general, 'dapper nazis', that moronic abc interview with Richard Spencer.

When you talk of division and the emergence of violent groups, you have to realise that these people have always been there. They were just less active or they had less public support. The nazis, white supremacists, and ultra-nationalists haven't suddenly disappeared over the last 30+ years, they were just less relevant. Antifascists (largely communists or anarchists) likewise, but they're only visible now because their opposition is back in a big way.

My belief is that what we've seen recently is largely a response to pandering by major parties to increasingly right wing sentiment in an attempt to retain power/wedge their opposition/distract from economic worries. If you continuously tell people that radical Islam/asylum seekers/crime are existential threats, but then fail to back up these claims with drastic action (not that what's been done in Australia and elsewhere isn't bad enough), it's no surprise that more extreme groups offering 'answers' have picked up the slack. The biggest problem with addressing these concerns now is that doing so often involves giving some credence to worries that have never had any basis in reality.

Not sure how it's bad? Do you enjoy selecting parties that never actually do what they say during elections promises? You're a strange character.

Not sure how your post was bad? Man, read that s**t again. It's flat out nuts, you shouldn't need to have that explained to you.

Not really sure how accurate that was. Bronwyn bishop was all over the media for weeks. The project regularly slams Pauline and the rest of the right pretty much on a nightly basis. Same with the today show most mornings their mixed grill show constantly has left wingers slamming the right side of politics.

I really reckon that it's actually pretty even in the media if anything the left side gets portrayed a little more fairly. I mean look how much traction the Australia Day change the date movement got by the supposedly 'right wing biased media'.

I think the problem in the media is the portrayal of opinion as fact that's coming out from all sides of politics.

I've had this conversation a lot with people who talk about the 'left wing media' in Australia. I always ask what they're talking about. For me, it's pretty tenuous to claim that such a thing really exists. People will point to fairfax, but when it come to politics they're more often than not on the 'give the liberals a chance' side of things. The Guardian perhaps, but their politics coverage is actually extremely status-quo oriented most of the time. The project (which is sorta current affairs entertainment, to be charitable), is hardly an example of the left being influential in the media either. People seem to think that Waleed is some sort of raging lefty, but trust me, he isn't. It's classifying positions by where they sit relative to those of others. In reality, political discussions in much of the Australian media that are portrayed as between people who might represent the old left/right/centre divisions are more likely to be centre/centre-right/far right.

 

[MacMum]

No matter what we or anyone thinks, particularly the American people, Trump is now the POTUS..voted in by the people (sensible or not)..

They need to accept it......it is done, it is how a Democracy works. Perhaps next time, those protesting people might get themselves out of their chairs to go and vote..

All the demonstrating/violence isn't going to change a thing now.

 

[SizeMatters]

http://gawker.com/5890660/andrew-breitbart-big-deal-big-coronary-big-corpse
All that needs to be said about Breitbart.

Oh, it's definitely not simple. Anyway, I'll say this- you're right on points 2 and 4. When it comes to fear and division and 'the main stream media labeling peoples concerns as racist/bigoted/idiotic etc.', I don't agree with you. Where do you think these concerns have come from? Yes, that's right- the mainstream media. The problem isn't dismissing these concerns, it's giving them equal billing as if they are somehow valid because they're 'opinions'. This applies to any number of things- the climate debate, Islamaphobia (se: Pauline Hanson's gig on sunrise), the 'political correctness' debate, and so on. Also- the treatment of the far right by much of the media in general, 'dapper nazis', that moronic abc interview with Richard Spencer.

When you talk of division and the emergence of violent groups, you have to realise that these people have always been there. They were just less active or they had less public support. The nazis, white supremacists, and ultra-nationalists haven't suddenly disappeared over the last 30+ years, they were just less relevant. Antifascists (largely communists or anarchists) likewise, but they're only visible now because their opposition is back in a big way.

My belief is that what we've seen recently is largely a response to pandering by major parties to increasingly right wing sentiment in an attempt to retain power/wedge their opposition/distract from economic worries. If you continuously tell people that radical Islam/asylum seekers/crime are existential threats, but then fail to back up these claims with drastic action (not that what's been done in Australia and elsewhere isn't bad enough), it's no surprise that more extreme groups offering 'answers' have picked up the slack. The biggest problem with addressing these concerns now is that doing so often involves giving some credence to worries that have never had any basis in reality.

Not sure how your post was bad? Man, read that s**t again. It's flat out nuts, you shouldn't need to have that explained to you.

I've had this conversation a lot with people who talk about the 'left wing media' in Australia. I always ask what they're talking about. For me, it's pretty tenuous to claim that such a thing really exists. People will point to fairfax, but when it come to politics they're more often than not on the 'give the liberals a chance' side of things. The Guardian perhaps, but their politics coverage is actually extremely status-quo oriented most of the time. The project (which is sorta current affairs entertainment, to be charitable), is hardly an example of the left being influential in the media either. People seem to think that Waleed is some sort of raging lefty, but trust me, he isn't. It's classifying positions by where they sit relative to those of others. In reality, political discussions in much of the Australian media that are portrayed as between people who might represent the old left/right/centre divisions are more likely to be centre/centre-right/far right.

A politician sets out his policies and follows through with them is nuts? Geez, I would love if our politicians actually passed through half of what they promised when we voted for them. Like I said whether you agree or not with his policies, he was voted in on the back of his election promises and the fact that he is actually following through with them (at a huge personal loss here - boycotting his products etc. and being further alienated by the media and general populous) and it actually surprises people says more about modern politics than anything else.

 

[Hollow Knight]

No matter what we or anyone thinks, particularly the American people, Trump is now the POTUS..voted in by the people (sensible or not)..

They need to accept it......it is done, it is how a Democracy works. Perhaps next time, those protesting people might get themselves out of their chairs to go and vote..

All the demonstrating/violence isn't going to change a thing now.

Disagree with pretty much all of this. People always have the right to protest peacefully. An election doesn't mean you all have to shut up for four years.

Suggesting that everyone that is protesting are lazy people who didn't vote is a bit harsh too, especially considering how the voting system works over there. Let's not forget Clinton won the popular vote by a fair margin.

For example, nearly twice as many people voted for Clinton than Trump in California. I don't think a Liberal Californian should have to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves because of what happened in Wisconsin and Montana.

Also, Trump was only elected President, not Supreme Dictator with the keys to the kingdom. He is just one part of the government, there is also congress and the judiciary. People have the right to protest always, and to let their congressman/senators know when they aren't happy about things. That is the essence of a democratic republic... the people are the boss, and we elect people to represent us... how do they know what we want if we don't tell constantly them? The powerful lobby and interest groups certainly don't shut up for four years and are constantly exerting influence on the political process... why should everyday people be any different?

I get Orwellian shudders when I hear people criticise the right to protest. Political free speech is utterly essential in a Democracy. I don't want another Joh Bjelke-Petersen regime in Queensland ever again.

 

[MacMum]

That is my view.....and I don't like him anymore than anyone else.

Can't see any point in making a huge fuss and carry on about something that cannot be changed.

 

[Hollow Knight]

That is my view.....and I don't like him anymore than anyone else.

Can't see any point in making a huge fuss and carry on about something that cannot be changed.

But my point is that it can be changed. Congressmen/MPs lose their jobs if they don't do a good enough job of representing their constituents. That directly affects policy, and also filters up through the party machine all the way to the president.

Elections are for choosing our representatives, but they aren't the only time for people to have a say and influence how things are going.

 

[Viceregal]

Disagree with pretty much all of this. People always have the right to protest peacefully. An election doesn't mean you all have to shut up for four years.

Hey something we agree on!!

Of course I don't consider the throwing of Molotov cocktails, beating up of people, trashing cars, breaking windows, blocking public highways, chasing down people etc to be 'peaceful protests' I consider them more along the lines of riots and those have other rules ...

Suggesting that everyone that is protesting are lazy people who didn't vote is a bit harsh too, especially considering how the voting system works over there. Let's not forget Clinton won the popular vote by a fair margin.

It is utterly irrelevant who 'won' the popular vote. Leaving aside the shenanigans in voter fraud and illegal voting the election was fought and won on the basis of the electoral college system. If it was purely on popular vote then both candidates would have campaigned differently, various people on both sides who knew they were the minority for their state might have voted to add the body count for their side etc. In Australia the same concept is why marginal electorates are so important.

For example, nearly twice as many people voted for Clinton than Trump in California. I don't think a Liberal Californian should have to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves because of what happened in Wisconsin and Montana.

Again agree - but see point 1. Speak, debate, seek to convert, convince, and realign ... show why your way is better, fill the streets and cities with people showing the're unified ... and allow others the privilege of doing the same.

I get Orwellian shudders when I hear people criticise the right to protest. Political free speech is utterly essential in a Democracy. I don't want another Joh Bjelke-Petersen regime in Queensland ever again.

And I get Orwellian shudders when Truthspeak turns violent riots into peaceful protests and 'only the authorised opinion allowed' into tolerance, the destruction of one culture into multiculturalism, and legitimate questioning into hate speech etc

Where do you yourself draw the line between a 'peaceful protest' and illegal behaviour?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Hey something we agree on!!

Of course I don't consider the throwing of Molotov cocktails, beating up of people, trashing cars, breaking windows, blocking public highways, chasing down people etc to be 'peaceful protests' I consider them more along the lines of riots and those have other rules ...




It is utterly irrelevant who 'won' the popular vote. Leaving aside the shenanigans in voter fraud and illegal voting the election was fought and won on the basis of the electoral college system. If it was purely on popular vote then both candidates would have campaigned differently, various people on both sides who knew they were the minority for their state might have voted to add the body count for their side etc. In Australia the same concept is why marginal electorates are so important.



Again agree - but see point 1. Speak, debate, seek to convert, convince, and realign ... show why your way is better, fill the streets and cities with people showing the're unified ... and allow others the privilege of doing the same.



And I get Orwellian shudders when Truthspeak turns violent riots into peaceful protests and 'only the authorised opinion allowed' into tolerance, the destruction of one culture into multiculturalism, and legitimate questioning into hate speech etc

Where do you yourself draw the line between a 'peaceful protest' and illegal behaviour?

If you think I endorse the violent or destructive behaviour of a number of the protesters at Berkeley or other similar protests since the election you are wrong. Again, I'm not sure why you insist on making me answerable for the behaviour of some other people who also identify as liberal. The constant generalisations are exhausting.

There are some pretty nasty people who would probably place themselves on the same side of the political spectrum as you Viceregal. I am giving you enough credit to confidently assume you don't advocate a lot of the KKK's extracurricular activities and aren't answerable for them.

So yeah, can you assume in return I don't approve of people throwing Molotov cocktails or violently assaulting people merely for them holding a different view?

 

[James North]

A politician sets out his policies and follows through with them is nuts? Geez, I would love if our politicians actually passed through half of what they promised when we voted for them. Like I said whether you agree or not with his policies, he was voted in on the back of his election promises and the fact that he is actually following through with them (at a huge personal loss here - boycotting his products etc. and being further alienated by the media and general populous) and it actually surprises people says more about modern politics than anything else.

I don't think it's shocking that he's going ahead with policies he promised - I'm shocked at the policies he promised.

Someone here who promised to dig a moat around Australia to prevent South-East Asians from coming to our country would illicit some revolt at the time of their campaigning and I'd expect that again if that was implemented, protests would occur and people would be quite outraged, because it's an outrageous policy. It is proven to not work (just like walls).

If you (not aimed at you at all Sizey - just 'one') think the Mexican drug lords and people smugglers haven't stated investing in digging materials, you are Donald Trump levels of intelligent.

 

[Skoob]

Not really sure how accurate that was. Bronwyn bishop was all over the media for weeks. The project regularly slams Pauline and the rest of the right pretty much on a nightly basis. Same with the today show most mornings their mixed grill show constantly has left wingers slamming the right side of politics.

I really reckon that it's actually pretty even in the media if anything the left side gets portrayed a little more fairly. I mean look how much traction the Australia Day change the date movement got by the supposedly 'right wing biased media'.

I think the problem in the media is the portrayal of opinion as fact that's coming out from all sides of politics.

Of course Bishop was reported on, it was kind of a big deal. But the tone was incredibly soft. The general facts were reported on as "The opposition wants..." and "Bishop is accused of...", but there was no scathing attack. So many reporters ad their own condescending or nonchalant tone to what they're reporting.
The Project is a stand out as fair, but even they think having Steve Price on adds something.
Not familiar with The Today Show's work but if it is anything like Sunrise, who gives a soapbox to the likes of Hanson, I can't say I see that as helpful to presenting balanced 'grownup' political debate. Sunrise may not support her ideas, but they get the radicals on for the sake of ratings, not presenting "both sides" of politics.
I thought most of the reporting on changing the date of Australia Day was pretty negative, portraying protesters as 'lefty ratbags' or 'rowdy flag burning blacks', rather than any empathetic analysis of why.

 

[Leemas]

Of course Bishop was reported on, it was kind of a big deal. But the tone was incredibly soft. The general facts were reported on as "The opposition wants..." and "Bishop is accused of...", but there was no scathing attack. So many reporters ad their own condescending or nonchalant tone to what they're reporting.
The Project is a stand out as fair, but even they think having Steve Price on adds something.
Not familiar with The Today Show's work but if it is anything like Sunrise, who gives a soapbox to the likes of Hanson, I can't say I see that as helpful to presenting balanced 'grownup' political debate. Sunrise may not support her ideas, but they get the radicals on for the sake of ratings, not presenting "both sides" of politics.
I thought most of the reporting on changing the date of Australia Day was pretty negative, portraying protesters as 'lefty ratbags' or 'rowdy flag burning blacks', rather than any empathetic analysis of why.

Oh we must be watching/listening to different media. All the stuff I was hearing was quite positive in regard to change the date in fact I heard an incredible argument for on the ABC which completely changed my father and I's opinion on the matter. We were both staunchly against changing it before rhat

 

[Crimso]

No matter what we or anyone thinks, particularly the American people, Trump is now the POTUS..voted in by the people (sensible or not)..

They need to accept it......it is done, it is how a Democracy works. Perhaps next time, those protesting people might get themselves out of their chairs to go and vote..

All the demonstrating/violence isn't going to change a thing now.

How was the Vietnam war stopped?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Super Deluxe delivers again. So good.

 

[Caiphus]

Of course Bishop was reported on, it was kind of a big deal. But the tone was incredibly soft. The general facts were reported on as "The opposition wants..." and "Bishop is accused of...", but there was no scathing attack. So many reporters ad their own condescending or nonchalant tone to what they're reporting.
The Project is a stand out as fair, but even they think having Steve Price on adds something.
Not familiar with The Today Show's work but if it is anything like Sunrise, who gives a soapbox to the likes of Hanson, I can't say I see that as helpful to presenting balanced 'grownup' political debate. Sunrise may not support her ideas, but they get the radicals on for the sake of ratings, not presenting "both sides" of politics.
I thought most of the reporting on changing the date of Australia Day was pretty negative, portraying protesters as 'lefty ratbags' or 'rowdy flag burning blacks', rather than any empathetic analysis of why.

To be fair, a reporter isn't supposed to have their own voice in a story, they are just supposed to report on verifiable facts and the sentiments of other people. Sure they can put their own angle on it via structure and other narrative devices but they can't introduce new information without linking it to a source. It is frustrating though that a lot of editorial content is presented like news and vice versa nowadays so no one can really tell the difference.

 

[Hollow Knight]

To be fair, a reporter isn't supposed to have their own voice in a story, they are just supposed to report on verifiable facts and the sentiments of other people. Sure they can put their own angle on it via structure and other narrative devices but they can't introduce new information without linking it to a source. It is frustrating though that a lot of editorial content is presented like news and vice versa nowadays so no one can really tell the difference.

Hunter S Thompson dislikes this post.

I think the King of Gonzo gets a special exemption though

 

[Skoob]

To be fair, a reporter isn't supposed to have their own voice in a story, they are just supposed to report on verifiable facts and the sentiments of other people. Sure they can put their own angle on it via structure and other narrative devices but they can't introduce new information without linking it to a source. It is frustrating though that a lot of editorial content is presented like news and vice versa nowadays so no one can really tell the difference.

This is very true, they should report. Having watched Mark Riley, Patrick Condren, Laurie Oakes, and others over the years though, they all tend to apply a sarcastic tone or a smirk wherever they deem appropriate. Whichever side they support on an issue is pretty easy to pick. For those like Leigh Sales who conduct more interviews than straight reporting, the nature or doggedness of of the questions can force a narrative also.

What I was saying in the bold you quoted, was that some receive an easier ride than others and what is reported can be done so a certain way.

 

[Caiphus]

This is very true, they should report. Having watched Mark Riley, Patrick Condren, Laurie Oakes, and others over the years though, they all tend to apply a sarcastic tone or a smirk wherever they deem appropriate. Whichever side they support on an issue is pretty easy to pick. For those like Leigh Sales who conduct more interviews than straight reporting, the nature or doggedness of of the questions can force a narrative also.

What I was saying in the bold you quoted, was that some receive an easier ride than others and what is reported can be done so a certain way.

Absolutely agree on that. There is a bunch of "technically correct" reporting that isn't worth the time of day because it is clear that they have an agenda. Most of the time though I don't believe it is politically motivated but rather to fall in line with what is easiest to make entertaining for maintaining audiences.

 

[Viceregal]

If you think I endorse the violent or destructive behaviour of a number of the protesters at Berkeley or other similar protests since the election you are wrong. Again, I'm not sure why you insist on making me answerable for the behaviour of some other people who also identify as liberal. The constant generalisations are exhausting.

There are some pretty nasty people who would probably place themselves on the same side of the political spectrum as you Viceregal. I am giving you enough credit to confidently assume you don't advocate a lot of the KKK's extracurricular activities and aren't answerable for them.

So yeah, can you assume in return I don't approve of people throwing Molotov cocktails or violently assaulting people merely for them holding a different view?

You were quoting MM who was talking about demonstrations/violence and disagreeing with her so figured you were ok with it - if I got it wrong (which patently I did) then apologies for that.

 

[Hollow Knight]

The word "peacefully" should have been informative.

 

[Caiphus]

I don't think anyone agrees with the Black Bloc's methods, even if I personally like their ideology. They taint the 99% who do go along to peacefully protest and alienate a lot of potential allies. What are the options to stop them tagging along though?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Kellyanne Conway struggling big time in her interview with Matt Lauer.

She has the worst job in the world at the moment.