[.::Tin Can::.]

Things seem to be flying by my head a lot lately, as well as other peoples; and it seems today, after watching more news in my Engineering Graphics Class, something hit me about how politics are discussed these days, as opposed to the past.

1) Anything seen by the person speaking is considered fact.
2) Anything seen by the person speaking that disagrees with them is disregarded.

3) Anything heard from someone else that disagrees with the speaker is a "liar" or "misinformed".
4) Anything heard from someone else that agrees with the speaker is considered "correct" and "well-educated".

5) Any news reports, stories, and statistics that disagree with the speaker are considered "false" and "biased".
6) Any news reports, stories, and statistics that agree with the speaker are considered "truth" and "factual".

7) Anything that is only rumored and cannot be confirmed that agrees with the speaker is still taken for fact, and is considered "most likely true".
8) Anything that is only rumored and cannot be confimed that disagrees with the speaker is considered "conspiracy" and "only a rumor".

9) Anything, overall, that agrees with what the speaker says is cited and taken into account in all their speeches and discussions.
10) Anything, overall, that disagrees with the speaker is disregarded and never included in any speeches or discussions, and is most likely ignored.

Right, right?

[Setekh]

I can concur to that generally. Though I wouldn't call it "new", the idea of truth has been so poorly guarded that these days I am not surprised that such a ludicrous situation has arisen around how we regard the words of our 'leaders'.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Frankly I got tired of the "this is credible, and this is not, because this agrees with me, and this doesn't."

[Setekh]

Seems to me that it's basically the logical conclusion to relativism. I could be wrong... depending on if you disagree with me.

[.::Tin Can::.]

If I knew what the first part of that sentence meant... I might be able to make some kind of accurate statement...

[Setekh]

[q]rel·a·tiv·ism (rl-t-vzm)
n. Philosophy

A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.[/q]

It's right because it's right according to me. Different right for different people. That is to say, it's all relative.

[mikhael]

You oversimplify relativism to the point of absurdity. Relativism also refers to the concept that right and wrong, good and evil (and all other binary dichotomies) are dependent not only the person holding the idea, but also on the situation in which it applies. Relativism allows for analog values in dichotomies that would otherwise be binary.

[Kazan]

yeah.. setekh you're sounding like a fundie

facts aren't relative - the perception of them is.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
something hit me about how politics are discussed these days, as opposed to the past.

No, it's always been like that. An example off the top of my head is Thomas Jefferson. He was sympathetic to the anti-federalists and was a proponent of a small, weak central government. Of course, that changed when he became president.

[Osiri]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Things seem to be flying by my head a lot lately, as well as other peoples; and it seems today, after watching more news in my Engineering Graphics Class, something hit me about how politics are discussed these days, as opposed to the past.

LIST OF STUFF


Right, right?

You know when I first read this I almost wrote a feature length article for this website talking about all the ways I agreed with his statements and about how certain politicians do this all the time(Cough George Bush) (Cough other fundamentalist conservative names).

But you know what, I suddenly realized that I was doing what he was talking about.  (I hadn't started writing but was about to)  I was citing in my head all the different times I have watched my beloved president muddle through a speech citing the most ridiculous sources and disregarding any time I have heard him cite valid sources and speak intelligibly(Okay barely but he's a chimp. What do you expect.  Yall have intelligent leaders right. )

The point is we all do this constantly because it is the way arguments are made.  You put forward your support  while citing but downplaying those sources against you.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
9) Anything, overall, that agrees with what the speaker says is cited and taken into account in all their speeches and discussions.
10) Anything, overall, that disagrees with the speaker is disregarded and never included in any speeches or discussions, and is most likely ignored.

Right, right?

By tards, yes. By rational people interested in genuine ideas and their communication, no. The trick is to only discuss with people in Group B, talking to people in Group A is a waste of time. Though it's never as clear cut as all that, and I'll be the first to admit to just not being interested in debate at times, generally you can tell the difference.

[Osiri]

You know though we can all be tards and we can all be interested in genuine ideas and communications of them.  There is no brightline rule.  

For example, aldo and I got into such a argument we were acting like tards trying not to see each others POV until we finally got sore fingers and realized we had lives and just agreed to look at the others POV and agree to let live.  

I think the best rule of thumb is to look for the following cues to see if someone is being a tard or genuine.
___________


TARD:  You're wrong.  My view is

Genuine:  That is an valid view, I see it like this because.

___________

TARD:  That is an interesting fantasy life you are living...

Genuine:  I would say that you are looking at it with a different BLANK in mind (insert goal, value, point)

_______


TARD:  STFU, your ideas are wrong, your family is going to die.

Genuine: I respect your opinion and we are obviously not going to agree.
__________

We have all been guilty of being TARDS.  It is when we close our minds to other views.


Osiri <-- Has to learn not to talk so much.  He has sore fingers again.

[Kosh]

This is an age of suspicion and paranoia. The media over there seems to try its best to make people afraid of everything, and it is succeeding.



EDIT: But Fox has also gone out of its way to discredit extremely reliable news sources like NPR and the BBC. If those two sources are so bad, then why are they blocked by the government here and not Fox?

[Osiri]

It is not so much fear that the media sows.  It is hatred.  Hatred is a much better seller than anything else.  The media forces divisions in society.  Where there is a difference of opinion the media wants more.  You see a difference of opinion is something you can walk away from but force a anger and hatred into that difference and you can sell air time.  

The recent legislation about gays is perfect example.  The reality is that no one cares what gays do in their own homes if they don't actually try to think about it.  But if you publicize the hell out of it and make sure that the things on the TV are the most one sided things (for both sides though) people inevitably take sides.  

If you drive division deep enough you get a hatred there of the othersides belief.  At that point you can sell any story on that topic to both sides.  

Essentially hatred sells.  This is also why Bush and his fundamentalist regime are so popular.  They drive divisions and sow hatred among the citizens.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Right, right?

Just because you act that way doesn't mean that the rest of us do.

*Bookmarks thread to point Tin Can at it later*

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Things seem to be flying by my head a lot lately, as well as other peoples; and it seems today, after watching more news in my Engineering Graphics Class, something hit me about how politics are discussed these days, as opposed to the past.

1) Anything seen by the person speaking is considered fact.
2) Anything seen by the person speaking that disagrees with them is disregarded.

3) Anything heard from someone else that disagrees with the speaker is a "liar" or "misinformed".
4) Anything heard from someone else that agrees with the speaker is considered "correct" and "well-educated".

5) Any news reports, stories, and statistics that disagree with the speaker are considered "false" and "biased".
6) Any news reports, stories, and statistics that agree with the speaker are considered "truth" and "factual".

7) Anything that is only rumored and cannot be confirmed that agrees with the speaker is still taken for fact, and is considered "most likely true".
8) Anything that is only rumored and cannot be confimed that disagrees with the speaker is considered "conspiracy" and "only a rumor".

9) Anything, overall, that agrees with what the speaker says is cited and taken into account in all their speeches and discussions.
10) Anything, overall, that disagrees with the speaker is disregarded and never included in any speeches or discussions, and is most likely ignored.

Right, right?

Not right.

[Descenterace]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Right, right?

Not right. Everyone knows the Ministry of Truth is always right and everything they say is truth.

[ToecrusherHammerjaw]

You know, this may be why some people here in the U.S. don't vote:  because every politician is like Tin Can's description (though Bush is certainly taking it over the top).  The people could be too disgusted with all of them to vote for any of them. Anyone ever heard "Land of Confusion" by Genesis? That song pretty much sums up what America is like right now. Just my opinion.

[aldo_14]

I though Jesus he knows me was the more accurate song.

At least in terms of the current government................

Spoiler:

You'd probably have to have seen the end of Bremner, Bird & Fortune on C4 last week to get that, granted.

[ToecrusherHammerjaw]

Good Gravy.  You speak the truth.  This song does sound a lot like our idiot president.  I must now get this one, too.

I just know he has the hidden agenda of abolition of separation of church and state, and turning this place into a theocracy.  If that ever happens, I'm starting the revolution.  You are all welcome to join me.  Don't get me wrong, I am religious, but only to a point.  There has be a balance of secular humanism and Jesus to keep me sane one way or the other.