Society/Culture Why has political discussion become an utter shambles?

[Procrastinator35]

would the republicans or democrats cut the ABCs budget if elected?

As of now they both would, given they are both in the business of lining their pockets from their corporate masters.....But once the 'right-people' were put in place, where all content is ratified & given the thumbs-up, they'd both laud it (Expect a s**t-load of advertising though)....Kick-backs baby....Silence & loyalty can be bought & have a price.

The very reasons for why the ABC is currently in the gun of establishment hacks like Andy Bolt the Dolt.....Doing Rupert & his corporate mates bidding for him.

 

[Bradesmaen]

nah

you can see a pattern when ever their budget is in question

When was the last time you read/watched the ABC? I'm guessing years ago. Ill informed opinion.

 

[Power Raid]

When was the last time you read/watched the ABC? I'm guessing years ago. Ill informed opinion.

I guess you're wrong

 

[Bradesmaen]

I guess you're wrong

Maybe I am, but your opinion is still ill informed. If you'd read the ABC consistently you'd realise that.

 

[Power Raid]

Maybe I am, but your opinion is still ill informed. If you'd read the ABC consistently you'd realise that.

No doubt it's better than the guardian or Murdoch but it is no longer a trustworthy unbiased organisation it once was

 

[RupieDupie]

The ABC has reported that a plaque erected by the Catholic Church is going to be pulled down in Tasmania

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...o-remove-plaque-featuring-sex-offender-priest

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

What have the last few pages had to do with the OP?

Were they an illustration of how crap online discussion can be? I think we've all seen enough of that to not need any more evidence.

I know it's hard for some people to discuss things where they don't have ready-made talking points passed on to them by an alt-right meme or mail-out from their preferred political party, but I assure you it can be rather enjoyable to engage your eyes and brain before deciding what comes out your mouth.

 

[Power Raid]

What have the last few pages had to do with the OP?

Were they an illustration of how crap online discussion can be? I think we've all seen enough of that to not need any more evidence.

I know it's hard for some people to discuss things where they don't have ready-made talking points passed on to them by an alt-right meme or mail-out from their preferred political party, but I assure you it can be rather enjoyable to engage your eyes and brain before deciding what comes out your mouth.

I would have thought how the media communicates politics and policy has everything to do with why political discussion is an utter shambles.

Rather than the media holding politicians to account by proper journalism, the media creates hype and emotion to sell papers. Often with this hype and emotion, they to sell lies, or fail to report policy failings, as business is worth more than integrity.

 

[Pie eyed]

I wanted to reply to a quote from Fryman below, but it's in the right-wing safe space and I'm too centrist for that so I decided I might make a thread on the more general issue of why discussion between people of differing politics seems so toxic now.

I think revelations about how Russia intervenes in foreign politics via social media has been an insight into why everything is so anger-fueled. Using bots and paid users to artificially boost certain opinions quickly leads to distortion when so many online hierarchies are based on how much engagement a post gets. The Russians targeted the hard right & hard left. By boosting opinions that promoted division, you can quickly see how people who are looking to follow the crowd can take on those opinions. Online is often where people look for a community, so paid online influence can then take hold in 'real world' ways.

Inequality is a big pusher of the current politics, but politics has always been frustrating, and people (including in the third world), are experiencing a higher standard of living than ever. The Middle-East is obviously going through big changes, which is creating a lot of refugees, but we also can't claim that as something particularly new in terms of geo-political dynamics. I don't think there's a reason for people to be especially furious now.

And A LOT of these political flashpoints refer to US politics. It's all about what is happening at Berkley or how unfair the th USA health, education or tax system is. The USA is a unique experiment unlike most of the western world. Identity politics also feels very much an American animal, but with the Russians' ongoing boosting of hard-right groups in Europe we can observe that they see value in promoting identity politics everywhere.

Why do you think everything is so heated these days?

Things like #GamerGate, which is so closely linked to the alt-right, show how basic and brutal online interference can be. Abuse people and that will make them angry. Those angry people are then more likely to think abuse is a valid tactic. All the abuse will also make a lot of normal people leave online communities, leaving the ones behind who are passionately divisive. So that emotion/tactic dominates. Plus of course there are the echo chambers, which everyone should be well across by now. What else could be effecting it, or is that enough?

--

Fryman's input on this, that I wanted to reply to initially:

Interesting take. I certainly agree that authority and sanctity would score low. To me they sound like the same thing, authority of the church being sanctity? Is that a wrong take? I'm guessing the difference is the providence: One is respecting authority of what's in place; the other is a far more long-reaching idea about God's ideas? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that, because from what I can find online religion seemed quite central to his book.

Loyalty too may need a bit more explanation. Loyalty can go to all sorts of things. I think it has grown hugely in left circles - think of the idea of safe spaces and 'allies'. It's not necessarily about an aversion to questioning, (which would be my worry about valuing loyalty, sanctity and authority - indeed sanctity and sanctuary have similar allusions, and the idea of a sanctuary is an even more enhanced version of a safe space), but about everyone having a similar intent - what they want to achieve. Some see loyalty as being unquestioning, but I think within safe spaces you can have questioning, so long as it isn't from a perspective of devaluing the entire intent of the shared issue.

The Australian Liberal Party.
Inbred cnts.

 

[medusala]

That's an insufficient explanation for why things are any different now than in the past, because people have always separated into "tribes" on the basis of their political-social attitudes and allegiances.

Possibly so but demographics have changed markedly in many western countries. That has consequences for inequality, social attitudes etc

 

[douglyzia]

A bit late to the thread, but to answer the question ...

Because a bunch of losers who lack the ability to make a success of their lives in the modern era want to blame those who do and refuse to listen to facts which prove otherwise.

In extreme cases, these losers decide to kill themselves believing they will be in paradise with 72 virgins by doing so.

"Whose the loser now?! I got my 72 virgins, what do you have? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!"

 

[Power Raid]

There is a more dangerous group than morons who want 72 virgins. At least this group appreciate their destruction.

The magic pudding utopia group, who fear hard work, are leading the next generation into a history of no hope and suffering.

 

[Chief]

I'll find the link, but there was a quote a few years ago comparing the cost of advertising vs hiring a bunch of students to visit news sites and post agreement with any article supporting a particular view.

It was something like 5-10% of the price for the same effect.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Chief]

Here is a more recent one:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/13/fake-news-manipulate-elections-paid-propaganda


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Chief]

A bit late to the thread, but to answer the question ...

Because a bunch of losers who lack the ability to make a success of their lives in the modern era want to blame those who do and refuse to listen to facts which prove otherwise.

In extreme cases, these losers decide to kill themselves believing they will be in paradise with 72 virgins by doing so.

"Whose the loser now?! I got my 72 virgins, what do you have? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!"

Huh?

I sort of get what you mean but I hope you see the irony of posting this in a thread about discussion being a shambles.

 

[Moshie The Mook]

There is a more dangerous group than morons who want 72 virgins. At least this group appreciate their destruction.

The magic pudding utopia group, who fear hard work, are leading the next generation into a history of no hope and suffering.

As long as capitalism and competition stay strong, these types will never have an influence on the marketplace. However, their influence in our schools and university campuses is a worry.

My fear is this neo-marxist equality rhetoric will result in job candidates coming out of our education system with a strong persecution complex, but less than ideal levels of conscientiousness.

Any discussion on improving the latter is met with hostility.

 

[douglyzia]

Lacking any athleticism or natural sporting ability, suffice to say I was never born to play AFL.

Now imagine if, rather than acknowledging my limitations, I chose instead to resent and constantly blame AFL players for "oppressing" me and denying me the opportunities afforded to them to play AFL.

Imagine if I dedicated my life to being an activist for the unathletic. "Unathletic Lives Matter!" Maybe asking for reparations from the likes of Gary Ablett and Lance Franklin.

Imagine if my only response to anyone pointing out the reality that the AFL was generally not meant for slow, short, uncoordinated people, "You're a bigot! Stop saying all that hateful stuff against the unathletics! Think of their feelings!!!!"

Imagine if I had the power to get people fired or to ruin their lives for pointing out the fact that I'm just not good enough for the AFL.

Imagine if I was backed by a group called "Antiath" or "Anti-Athletics" willing to physically assault anyone who refuses to give unathletics the opportunity to play AFL because, well they're obviously Nazis.

 

[awaremind]

There is a more dangerous group than morons who want 72 virgins. At least this group appreciate their destruction.

The magic pudding utopia group, who fear hard work, are leading the next generation into a history of no hope and suffering.

It's anybody who wants to be holding power over other people, but doesn't want to work hard over many years to get there if you ask me....

 

[Power Raid]

It's anybody who wants to be holding power over other people, but doesn't want to work hard over many years to get there if you ask me....

Yep

They want centralised economies for control that's why they subsidise big business. As subsidised big business can crush small businesses and centralise the workers. the unions are then free to prey on the workers.


It is quite scary how the left operate.

 

[medusala]

No doubt it's better than the guardian or Murdoch but it is no longer a trustworthy unbiased organisation it once was

Comparing the ABC to the Times, WSJ and the Australian is like comparing the Oodnadatta thirds to Hawthorn.

Its high point was bananas in pyjamas.

 

[medusala]

Here is a more recent one:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/13/fake-news-manipulate-elections-paid-propaganda

There have been a few academic studies on the ability of the media to sway elections. IIRC it was far less than commonly thought.

However, that was pre social media days and given the % of people that get news from facebook etc rather than the MSM I guess that allows more manipulation?

NB Guardian banging on about fake news is amusing.

I'll find the link, but there was a quote a few years ago comparing the cost of advertising vs hiring a bunch of students to visit news sites and post agreement with any article supporting a particular view.

It was something like 5-10% of the price for the same effect.

Chief, you are destroying my faith in humanity. Next thing you will tell me that there are fake reviews on Amazon.

 

[Chief]

There have been a few academic studies on the ability of the media to sway elections. IIRC it was far less than commonly thought.

However, that was pre social media days and given the % of people that get news from facebook etc rather than the MSM I guess that allows more manipulation?

NB Guardian banging on about fake news is amusing.



Chief, you are destroying my faith in humanity. Next thing you will tell me that there are fake reviews on Amazon.

They make it sound simpler than it would be. You'd still need to be skilful in crafting a message. But you can drop these bombs more cheaply, get lucky and have it picked up by idiots on 4chan, some hero of losers like Yiannopolis can run with it, and so on.

Or the message can disappear without trace and the money disappear into Indian spam networks.

The point is that people do this and it sometimes works well. Sometimes really well.

Put the resources of a government behind a campaign like that and you get a lot of rolls of the dice.

We saw heaps of shitty memes coming from the Trump campaign. They were generated and modified daily, hourly by cheap freelancers and then by idiot kids "for lols".

 

[medusala]

They make it sound simpler than it would be. You'd still need to be skilful in crafting a message. But you can drop these bombs more cheaply, get lucky and have it picked up by idiots on 4chan, some hero of losers like Yiannopolis can run with it, and so on.

I never understood the Milo phenomenon. Then again I cant believe anyone could give a stuff about what Kim Kardashian has to say either.

 

[Chief]

I never understood the Milo phenomenon. Then again I cant believe anyone could give a stuff about what Kim Kardashian has to say either.

Try to - its outrage marketing in the process of being refined.

Milo says something s**t, someone is disgusted and shows their friends on Facebook. That person's nephew sitting in his darkened room actually thinks it is a good laugh, them shares it with HIS friends for lols. Some of his friends take it seriously.

The target market is a couple of steps away from the initial reaction, via social media.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I think part of Milo's appeal is he is cruel to women. Lonely men online like that. It gives them an excuse for the loneliness in a world where they might stupidly be getting their tips about women from pr0n, pick-up artists and 4chan.

Lacking any athleticism or natural sporting ability, suffice to say I was never born to play AFL.

Now imagine if, rather than acknowledging my limitations, I chose instead to resent and constantly blame AFL players for "oppressing" me and denying me the opportunities afforded to them to play AFL.

Imagine if I dedicated my life to being an activist for the unathletic. "Unathletic Lives Matter!" Maybe asking for reparations from the likes of Gary Ablett and Lance Franklin.

Imagine if my only response to anyone pointing out the reality that the AFL was generally not meant for slow, short, uncoordinated people, "You're a bigot! Stop saying all that hateful stuff against the unathletics! Think of their feelings!!!!"

Imagine if I had the power to get people fired or to ruin their lives for pointing out the fact that I'm just not good enough for the AFL.

Imagine if I was backed by a group called "Antiath" or "Anti-Athletics" willing to physically assault anyone who refuses to give unathletics the opportunity to play AFL because, well they're obviously Nazis.

Weird that you invent a scenario where you are trying to play AFL, and otherwise use examples entirely from real life. Almost like you don't want to engage with reality when putting forward your position.

And if people in your echo chamber don't tell you, the point you have just made above is that you're suggesting black people naturally deserve to be killed by police for doing nothing wrong. No wonder you think people are quick to say "you're a bigot". You are one.