If you previously registered on VGF XenForo boards, you will need to use the forgot password feature in order to be able to post here. If you do not receive a password reset by e-mail, use the contact page or post in registration/login help.

The State of the Mainstream Press

Moderators: Deku Tree, I am nobody

Post Reply
User avatar
The Amazing Tazy Ten
Posts: 28677
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2000 1:00 am
Location: In limbo playing Tactics A2 for eternity.
Contact:

Post by The Amazing Tazy Ten » Thu Mar 02, 2017 7:50 pm

My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller, post: 1623649, member: 25415 wrote:No. "Minimizing crimes of the far right" is about your ignoring that they endorse the proliferation of weapons so they can stroke their rebel fantasies some more.
Meanwhile
They villify minorities and use extensive thought-traps to rationalize the maligning of anyone who does not fit the archetype of the fictional nuclear family unit.
Meanwhile
They claim that by reducing taxes on the wealthy, a class defined by their economy rigging and profit skimming, that they are creating economic growth, even while their mainline philosophy is the reduction of spending which decreases economic activity.
All politicians do that if you're not looking.
They attack, reduce, and dismantle the public health care systems.
Because it was made by a Democrat. Let's not pretend there's some malicious intent beyond that or that the Democrats wouldn't be doing the same thing to a Republican Medicare Bill.
They promote distrust and separatist ideals through media, including racial and nationalist segregation-ism.
Meanwhile
The result of policies is that you have an impoverished, unhappy bottom class with wholesale access to weapons and growth in mental disorders which go untreated both because they cannot afford to and because their social discordance is now the only conflict over which they have control. Conservative American politics foster an environment which causes psychotic breaks. Psychotic breaks result in public violence. Some people run out of choice and decide to mug someone or hold up a store. Some feel trapped and maligned and attack the public as they perceive it. This results in school shootings, workplace shootings, all manner of terror attacks, etc. Conservatism then promotes hostile response, which sustains the hostile environment.
This is a worldwide problem not exclusive to the United States or conservative beliefs. It's just observing what people do in desperation which happens everywhere and not just because the political party you like isn't in power.
This is not an indictment of people who identify as conservatives. It is a big-picture assessment. Conservatism as it appears now in the US is narrowly focused, it is tunnel-vision, it is blinders-on. You cannot solve big picture problems like hostility by throwing hostility at it. A person cannot draw lines and say they are promoting peacefulness when all they are doing is stating their intent to attack someone who crosses it. Your assessment, while attempting to illustrate your lack of subjective bias, only makes your bias more obvious. American Liberalism is not a perfect philosophy. It's not even the opposite of Conservatism, save for it actually being based in some semblance of sympathy for the human condition. Conservatism says we must prepare for war at any moment. Liberalism says we must engage in peace at every opportunity or peace is already lost. These are not just differing philosophies, one has meta concessions for the very notions of philosophy and humanity. The people you consider 'Liberals' are often centrists with a skew toward conservatism. The Democratic party has become the centrist party.
They've been rather public in demanding punishment against Russia for something they have very little proof on.
I do not expect you to conduct large scale studies. I expect you to actually have evidence. I ask you to realise that your condemnation of the media as a whole is based on a false equivalence and a simplified notion of rights. You are being very very conservative with your application of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is not just a matter of press being honest or dishonest, that is ignoring the larger issue, and that is why I say it is about your feelings. I do not disagree that press is now, thanks to the internet, visibly dishonest and requires verification if we are to believe. It is a matter of the state department literally sponsoring the dishonest establishment they prefer, one which appeals to and panders to outright push a party agenda. A board founder is in the White House. This isn't something of which I'm exaggerating the urgency. Is it 'technically' legal? We can't even know until it's actually gone to the highest courts and the decision was upheld. I would argue that there is a huge precedence that it is not, but that is a whole essay for which I have no time.
I gave proof and you ignored it for some reason to call me a whiner. Glad to see we're on the same page otherwise though.
And you would be hard-pressed to find a major nation without some criminal activity in it, yes 'something' which the super-in-the-loop-but-playing-golf-and-bannon-will-take-care-of-it-anyway President of the U.S. won't even take the time to actually cite any bloody actual events. Yes, somebody fact-checked it. Yes he was lying. Yes, you don't like the media and they are an abstract entity known as 'the media' instead of accountable individuals in your head. Journalists can write in bias, but are they holding office? Do they dictate state policy? Understand the difference. I am sorry to have offended you if I did, but this is an important matter and I cannot allow myself to remain silent.

Do you want to know what my political bias is? Anti-authoritarianism. I even believe in Exceptionalism, but I do not agree with how it is employed. When I see authoritarian action becoming the prime policy of office, when I see nationalism being pushed as a solution, when I see the government being sold off, I am involved. Shane does not want to acknowledge that I do not care when an administration behaves in a vaguely dishonest way inherently, because I am not a bi-partisan and like most Americans he expects me to behave as though one dishonesty equals another. Let me tell you, if someone tells a lie because they do not want Walmart to destroy a local forest, I sympathize. When someone tells a lie because they want to destroy a forest to promote the growth of businesses which can be exploited, I take offense. When that someone is in office, I hold them to higher standards than the average citizen. They represent, by vote, an entire range of persons. If there is a faction of society that is against my interests, I take note. I am an immigrant. I intend to hold dual citizenship. I live in a high-density, peaceful, muslim neighborhood. I am no fool. What do you think is next after blacklisting countries? What information do you believe the US border control should rightly possess? There is an authoritarian political body stepping dangerously close to issues which directly and unjustly may affect me. You damn well better believe I'm interested in whether or not Islam poses a threat to me, in whether or not the government is going to wholesale write me off for interrogation for having sat in the wrong seat. Get numbers first, form ideas second.

Besides, if anything, the administration is so dishonest that its sponsorship of any media entity should actually prove that entity disreputable.
Fair enough. You're allowed your opinions and deeply held beliefs even if I do not. If it affects you directly you have every right to side with a political party so long as you take everything they do into account. I can't stop you anyway. But I can't do that. Both sides (and I'm not making some lazy generalization when I say this) disgust me with their actions and their inability to negotiate when it comes to the people and how much you have to twist their arms to limit their power even a tiny bit. They can't work together even on the simplest task and the amount of people on both sides that openly speak of genocide and harming people then hide behind party lines is why I keep my distance. If there's a good candidate I vote for them. Simple as that. Everyone is going to have different beliefs and needs and I would rather they all have some amount of appeasement. That not only includes the poor barely making it by, but anyone with a legitimate issue that needs resolving.

I'd keep going but I don't have all the time in the world. I'm just gonna post this now. If anything needs clarifying I'll be more than willing to speak further.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8649
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia

Post by Bad Dragonite » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:30 pm

My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller, post: 1623703, member: 25415 wrote:The wealthiest Americans are among the wealthiest persons in the world. The divide in wealth equality in the West has grown to exceed that of feudalism. The wealthy possess riches to the excess of all practical reasoning, and it is once again on par with the type of inequality which lead to the rise of totalitarian socialism in the early 1900s. The American middle class is a concept which has hung around since the post-war 50s era. The industries are not just absent, the top is 'legally' fleecing the bottom class. Between the late 70's and now, with inflation accounted for, the average CEO's pay has grown 1000% - that's ten times - to the average worker's having risen 11%. That's not a typo. CEO pay increased by one-thousand percent. Worker pay increased by eleven percent. Since 1965, the ratio has changed from 20:1 to in excess of 300:1, with a peak in the early 2000's. Is the job market depressed? Are Americans broke? Yes and yes, although they should not be. Yet back in May of last year, when the tax rate on the highest income bracket was 39.6%, Trump said he wanted it dropped to 25%. Does tax actually help recirculate wealth? It can, but not if you're destroying all government services designed to help the bottom class. So yes, it's much more nuanced than simply saying 'lower taxes on the rich' is not just something conservatives call for, it's that they both are only paying as much as the wealthy in other leading nations already, and that the wealthiest are actually people who typically prevent recirculation intentionally, people who buy goods priced far beyond the worth of their materials and construction for the appearance of social prestige. Can the top afford heavier taxes? Don't ask the Republican President, apparently he doesn't pay them anyway.
Aside from the fact that CEOs generally take on more risk than the average worker and that their job is arguably more important and the amount of effort it takes to run a company, according to Forbes the gap is shrinking and the pay for workers has actually been increasing faster than for CEOs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydor ... 9c210345f1

But even then, most of the higher taxes and other penalties also affect small business owners as well, like the provisions of Obamacare that forced any company that employs more than 50 people to buy insurance for all their workers. It not only takes away incentive to succeed, but actually punishes you for it.

Also, he used legal loopholes that any businessperson would and admitted to it. The random character attack on him there seems pointless.
Even then though imagine if you put in a ton of work and took a ton of legal and financial risk and when you got your paycheck you had almost half of it taken by force by the government? The fact that they can afford it isn't the issue. All increasing taxes on them does is prop up crappy public systems like Obamacare and bailouts. Besides it may be anecdotal, but most of the people on the right I talk to or have listened to are okay with the idea of helping the poor with things like affordable healthcare, they just think alot of the provisions in something like an Obamacare are bad (Like forcing the average person to buy healthcare insurance or face the penalties for example.)

Those are some of the things I meant when I said it was more nuanced than your way too oversimplified version of it.

Do people want firearms for protection? Why would I be concerned about the proliferation of firearms? Do I really have to explain this again? In the 10 years between 2005 and 2015, 94 Americans died in terror attacks. Awful, unjust, disappointing, horrifying attacks. Over 301,000 Americans died by gunshot. That's right, over three hundred thousand people were killed. The country's current response? Some people want better control laws. Conservatives are asking to further deregulate weapons. 94 terror attacks, largely unrelated geographically to those targeted by the recent travel ban. Of course, previous attacks cannot be perpetrated by the same individuals any longer - they are typically dead or incarcerated. A ban which has border enforcement on edge and excessively aggressive, and world-disturbing conservative political actions which involve the very public removal of people from their homes, have chilled the world community and caused a staggering 8% drop in US tourism. A single percent drop in this industry often dictates political action and is cause for alarm. 301,000 Americans dead by gunfire in the previous year, weapons are already legal and conservatives have just declared their outright refusal to enforce a law preventing the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, current government action is creating worldwide agitation to the tune of tourism to the US drying up at an absurd rate, and you think I do not have a right to be skeptical of someone who thinks guns should be more accessible? That is some brilliant knee-jerk right there. I do not believe guns should be banned whole-sale. Anti-authoritarian does not mean I'm an anarchist, it means I am wholly against irresponsible and pointless government interference in the otherwise unobtrusive lives of residents. It'd be just the business of weapon owners if they didn't keep shooting themselves and others.
Yes they do.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/ ... op-reason/

Actually they didn't "neglect to follow the law" they actively set out to remove that law, which is much different. If you want an example of people ignoring a law, take a look at any given sanctuary city.
Also your own article sort of defeats the argument against their actions.
your article] But when they had the chance wrote:four Democrats and one independent[/URL] who are up for re-election next year — saluted the NRA and voted to kill the Social Security policy. The House did the same earlier this month, and the legislation is awaiting President Trump’s signature.

For years, failure to submit the names of people who are banned from buying guns because of certain mental illnesses has been a major gap in the background-check system.

Finding the right way to separate the mentally ill from guns isn’t easy, and going too far can wrongly stigmatize everyone who suffers from mental illness. The overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent. Nor is mental illness a predictor of gun violence.

But it is also true that many of the young men responsible for some of the worst massacres in recent years have suffered from severe mental problems, including Seung Hui Cho, who killed 32 at Virginia Tech; Jared Loughner, killer of six at a Tucson shopping mall; and James Holmes, who killed 12 in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

Certain types of mental illness are also closely associated with suicide, which accounts for six out of 10 firearm fatalities in America. Even if the Social Security policy would have done more to prevent suicide than mass murder, that’s certainly a worthwhile goal.

Joining the NRA in opposing the policy were disability and civil rights groups concerned the policy was too broad and would stereotype too many innocent people. Republican leaders latched onto that as an excuse for repeal.
The only thing is with those suicides, that made up 6/10 of gun deaths, if someone wanted to kill themselves they would find a way. Gun or no gun.

Also do you believe the mentally ill shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of the population? Just curious? Otherwise I don't see why bringing up the mentally ill is really as relevant.

And on top of that "gun related deaths " is such a broad term, especially when about 60% of them is suicide, but let's look at something else similar, Motor Vehicles account for over 398,000 deaths in the same allotted time-span in the US, should we ban cars? No because they're a useful tool, and if we banned legal guns people who break the law in the first place wouldn't care.

I mean hell, according to the CDC
  • Cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States. This is nearly one in five deaths.1,2,3
  • Smoking causes more deaths each year than the following causes combined:4
    • Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
    • Illegal drug use
    • Alcohol use
    • Motor vehicle injuries
    • Firearm-related incidents
So maybe ban cigarettes too?

And none if that's even going on statistics like with other countries where gun laws are incredibly lax and guns used for hunting and recreation is a big part of the culture like Austria, Switzerland, or the Czech Republic where gun related homicide is basically nonexistent.

In fact in Austria 2014 the number of deaths caused by a gun was only around 2.9 deaths per 100,000 people,it was 1.8 per 100,000 in the Czech Republic, and in 2013 in Switzerland it was 3.01 per 100,000.

That's also ignoring that places like Chicago have a high rate of shooting deaths, but extremely strict gun laws.

So obviously guns aren't the problem.


American politics have the word 'liberal' desperately confused with 'left-wing' on an imaginary, linear political spectrum. I am saying that the Democrats are economically centrist, not leftist, and on social issues they may skew left of center but they also often skew right-ward, but overall they do not deviate very far. It is a matter of the individual in the party. That is not an indictment of the party or any trouble-makers, liars and thieves can claim to be anyone they want - that is their nature. Democrats are not anarcho-communists, which lands largely at the far westward end of my would-be spectrum.

If the political spectrum as an overall thing remains stationary, but parties are constantly changing, it is not unrealistic to say that Republicans are moving on the spectrum. Take their recent role-reversal on Trade Globalization, for instance.
I agree it would be nice if we could keep terms straightened out, but they seem to get muddied alot regardless of how much you try.

Addition:
I am curious, though. Would you consider a Bernie Sanders to be centrist, economically speaking? Also, what specific issues would you say influence you to categorize most Democrats as centrist, conservative, or right-leaning in general?
-Bow Chika Bow Wow
-Your offense only makes me stronger.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27498
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:15 am

gunsre bad mmkay

User avatar
Shane
Administrator
Posts: 140860
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 1999 11:42 pm
Location: St. Upidtown
Contact:

Post by Shane » Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:50 pm

The CEO of McDonald's earned $7.91 million in 2015. McDonald's employs 1.9 million people. You couldn't even afford to buy each of them an extra value meal with that money.
I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27498
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:02 pm

Probably because they're overpriced.

User avatar
The Missing Link
Moderator
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

Post by The Missing Link » Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:06 pm

[QUOTE="Shane, post: 1623930, member: 1"]The CEO of McDonald's earned $7.91 million in 2015. McDonald's employs 1.9 million people. You couldn't even afford to buy each of them an extra value meal with that money.[/QUOTE]
An interesting statistic that merits sharing here because why not.

In America in 2015, the average household expenditures for the total year was about $56,000 [Source]. This includes housing and utilities. A single household earning $7.91M would fund an average household's expenditures for life (141 years).

There's no real point in saying this. I totally understand more risk/more rewards. But I like putting numbers in perspective.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
Bomby
Moderator
Posts: 22762
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Not sure
Contact:

Post by Bomby » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:42 pm

Also worth noting:
56,000 seconds = 15.556 hours
7.91m seconds = 91.551 days

But, you know, I'm not concerned about the single-digit millionaires here. Let's talk billionaires. I feel like writing put "1,000,000,000" doesn't really put into perspective how big of a number one billion really is.

One billion seconds: 31.709 years

So if you're Charles Koch, who has a net worth of $48.6 billion, you could spend a dollar every second for 1541.09 years before you went completely broke.

Something isn't right here...

User avatar
Shane
Administrator
Posts: 140860
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 1999 11:42 pm
Location: St. Upidtown
Contact:

Post by Shane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:24 pm

CEOs are making dramatically more money than the average person, which they earn by being of dramatically more value. But you can't usually do anything with that money. Even if you drop their pay to 0, it would still mean nothing to the company's bottom line or to the individual employees. Most local business owners are not rich. Comfortable maybe, after years of hard work and risk. Still, their profit margins sit in the 2-3% range. They don't have millions of dollars to go around. If you increase people's wages, you are going to do it by a) cutting their hours, b) replacing them with robots, and/or c) raising prices.

For some large financial services or technology or similar companies, which pay their employees well, perhaps there is money to go around, but the local supermarket or fast food restaurant isn't in the same category.

The average person in America makes 55 times more than the average person in Zimbabwe. I do not feel guilty or like I need to be knocked down to compensate. If they can figure out how to pull themselves ahead like the west has, more power to them.
I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away.

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 12646
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Contact:

Post by Random User » Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:41 pm

Everyone's going to be replaced with robots eventually. No reason to delay the inevitable.

User avatar
The Amazing Tazy Ten
Posts: 28677
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2000 1:00 am
Location: In limbo playing Tactics A2 for eternity.
Contact:

Post by The Amazing Tazy Ten » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:10 pm

I'm fairly certain there's gonna be some regulation limiting the use of robots before we get to that point. Not to mention there's hurdles the size of a moon crater we'd have to jump over before robots can replace anyone.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27498
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:13 pm

CEOs aren't really special. They get replaced due to incompetence often enough or even drive companies into the ground or hold them back. It's kind of like being the president, anyone can do it and some do it better than others. It doesn't warrant making astronomical amounts in my opinion, CEOs are only in their position in the first place thanks to those below them. It wouldn't kill them to forgo one of their yachts to trickle down some more.

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 22956
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃

Post by X-3 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:39 pm

If the rise of automation isn't dealt or controlled with as it happens, the consequences to human civilization will be immense.

User avatar
Deku Tree
Moderator
Posts: 11897
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Texas

Post by Deku Tree » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:22 pm

[QUOTE="X-3, post: 1624222, member: 27765"]If the rise of automation isn't dealt or controlled with as it happens, the consequences to human civilization will be immense.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you probably have you start at something like basic income to deal with it.

User avatar
Bomby
Moderator
Posts: 22762
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Not sure
Contact:

Post by Bomby » Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:06 pm

We're headed toward a post-work society. Automation will essentially change our economic model into something barely recognizable. Don't be surprised if we end up resorting to something like universal basic income within 50 years. Assuming we haven't made our entire species go extinct by then.

User avatar
Shane
Administrator
Posts: 140860
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 1999 11:42 pm
Location: St. Upidtown
Contact:

Post by Shane » Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:32 pm

In such a scenario, communism begins to make sense. Mass unsustainable population growth will only contribute to it until the water wars begin.
I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8649
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia

Post by Bad Dragonite » Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:11 am

I don't think we'll be in a post work era anytime soon tbh. I figure you've always got to have some sort of human interaction for jobs like teaching and such, and with machines you've always got to have the guy to press the button so to speak. Tbh I think the reason some people (not all) are pushing for things like a $15 minimum wage is because they want to push us closer to a more automated economy, but that's just my personal speculation.
-Bow Chika Bow Wow
-Your offense only makes me stronger.

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 12646
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Contact:

Post by Random User » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:46 am

[QUOTE="Bad Dragonite, post: 1624369, member: 32425"]I don't think we'll be in a post work era anytime soon tbh. I figure you've always got to have some sort of human interaction for jobs like teaching and such, and with machines you've always got to have the guy to press the button so to speak. Tbh I think the reason some people (not all) are pushing for things like a $15 minimum wage is because they want to push us closer to a more automated economy, but that's just my personal speculation.[/QUOTE]
Makes no sense. People pushing for a higher minimum wage have the jobs that would be the first to get replaced.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27498
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:26 pm

I can't see a correlation there. Minimum wage increase is just for fairness.

User avatar
The Amazing Tazy Ten
Posts: 28677
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2000 1:00 am
Location: In limbo playing Tactics A2 for eternity.
Contact:

Post by The Amazing Tazy Ten » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:50 pm

That doesn't make any sense. Companies would rather keep the status quo than spend money on machines that have the possibility of breaking or getting hacked. They have no reason to spread this if they don't like it because they're profitable at this moment.

I'd need proof of that sort of gambit before I believe that's possible.

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 12646
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Contact:

Post by Random User » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:46 pm

[QUOTE="The Amazing Tazy Ten, post: 1624396, member: 19345"]That doesn't make any sense. Companies would rather keep the status quo than spend money on machines that have the possibility of breaking or getting hacked. They have no reason to spread this if they don't like it because they're profitable at this moment.

I'd need proof of that sort of gambit before I believe that's possible.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's a somewhat expensive endeavor as things are now, but it won't be long before it's cheap enough that the one-time cost and then pennies of electricity rather than paying employees an hourly wage. Grocery stores are moving in this direction already if you look at self checkout. Why have one person per one register when you can have one person manning almost ten of them?

Post Reply

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”