Post #384,824
1/1/14 10:01:04 PM
|
For those who deem it a duty to talk to RWNJs
(Dunno how universal is: right-wing-nut-jobs?)
Was curious er, how that goes; Daily Kos seems to have a few (who give their reasons, even for trying.)
This excerpt might enlighten as to the current zeitgeist--which seems ~ below-0 for any slightest prospects of communication 'twixt the stark-polarities.
This opening tale is re an event at FBook, but much of thread refs many venues. Intarweb archeology?
If the Kochs are involved to the extent speculated-upon by one poster, that is: if there be super-organized, maybe paid activity on newspaper comments columns..
throughout the US This 'granular' [?]
and there is no resistance similarly engaged ('funded' or not) ?? I See Bad Things accelerating.
[If this isn't even on your radar--interacting with the intransigent? Skip this post; it's fucking-depressing: per this group.]
(Link to an example of a try.. at start of this thread, which prompted these excerpts further down):
http://www.dailykos....book-Comment-Ever
* [new] We should all plunge in those waters now and then. (11+ / 0-)
It's a test of bravery.
It's a great reminder of what we are dealing with.
It's good practice talking with people who talk like idiots. (Some of them are quite bright, actually. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.)
You also see a lot of this in the comment sections on mainstream news websites - the bottom feeders just come in a foul the waters, reasonable people don't want to take part.
Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.
by RhodeIslandAspie on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 12:05:05 PM PST
* [new] Stupid is a choice. (7+ / 0-)
"Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes
by raptavio on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 12:07:37 PM PST
[ Parent ]
* [new] So is trolling (12+ / 0-)
a lot of the bottom feeders on the comments sections of mainstream news websites are there only to foul the discussion--this is done simply so that reasonable people don't stick around and try to talk things through with others.
Exactly why mapamp's way of responding with hit-and-run fact links is often effective. It may not stop trolling, but it makes it so the bottom feeders have to keep starting new threads to troll ;)
This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".
by lunachickie on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 12:12:18 PM PST
[ Parent ]
* [new] Comment sections on news sites (3+ / 0-)
are just one step removed from the cesspool of all comment threads - YouTube. This way, there be dragons.
"Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes
by raptavio on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 12:27:13 PM PST
[ Parent ]
* [new] YouTube is tame (1+ / 0-)
compared to news sites that farm out to Disquis anymore. Have you been to Rolling Stone's website lately? I think Mother Jones uses Disquis as well. Unbelievable...
This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".
by lunachickie on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 12:30:54 PM PST
[ Parent ]
* [new] The Hearst papers "comments" software recently changed to something produced by a company named "viafoura." Though the previous comment section was previously a model of incivility, now the comments have plummeted from the cesspool to the "cess." The level of vulgarity and vitriol has increased by several magnitudes of hate. (These days I need a scale to measure hate, evidently.)
As it's my town, I spend some time at the Hearst's Houston Chronicle site. Most of the time there are about half a dozen of us that attempt to answer the barrage of hate and ignorance in the comments following nearly every story. We're outnumbered 100:1 by fascists ...at least. Numerous posters enter comments 24/7/365, and appear to never sleep. We're assuming we're up against a Koch bankrolled boiler-room.
by travelerxxx on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 06:15:14 PM PST
[ Parent ]
* [new] For me (2+ / 0-)
I am finding it is time better spent trying to sway those who are sitting on the fence, than to try and bring back to reality, those who have followed Rush off the cliff.
by micwazoo on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 12:06:05 PM PST
* [new] This is interesting. I learned that convincing (0+ / 0-)
the politically independent person was the goal in letters to the editor or in tabling, canvassing, etc. and so to direct one's points to those people at all times. The independent is by definition a fence sitter.
by cuphalffull on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 04:36:19 AM PST
[ Parent ]
* [new] This is why I don't waste my time (6+ / 0-)
with full-tilt neocon fundie chuckleheads anymore. If they can't (or won't) expand their understanding of their beliefs beyond a third grade mentality, anything you present to them will be regarded as an insult instead of a challenge and they immediately declare you to be an enemy of their "state". It's like trying to persuade birthers that Hawaii is actually a part of the United States - it just ain't gonna happen. You can even try asking them to count the stars on the flag... they'll get up to 10 or 11 then quit because they get bored and don't see the point.
Heinlein said it best:
Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
by Anakai on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 12:06:08 PM PST
Bolded: a mention of Koch $$ being spent [??] in premeditated/specific actions of the sort discussed--thus both a strategy and refined-tactics,
IF there's any truthiness in this being the case: then the whole US is being blanketed by raving lunatics/directly subsidized. This is pure-Göbbels brainwashing, approaching The Manchurian Candidate degree of scurrility and sophistication. Bought by $Bs
How would one ferret-out a smoking gun?
(This is merely tossed out.. as a possible Source of a trend suggested here by the varied comments.)
And nobody is 'paying' the atheist/commie/homosexual Opposition--leaving a [void], save for amateurs.
|
Post #384,829
1/2/14 7:10:03 AM
|
Re: For those who deem it a duty to talk to RWNJs
Those on the Right are in trouble, and they know it. It's a well-known trope that "reality has a liberal bias" and, if you look around the world, the most functional societies - where people are happiest, best educated, live longest, and have the best quality of life - are the most liberal places on earth. Scandinavia. Western Europe. New Zealand. Socialist atheist secular dystopias all! Oh the humanity!
The problem with the "I got mine" right-wing agenda is that it just doesn't scale. It worked fine for a pioneer society with a small population for whom actual literal survival was a very real issue.
But for today's teeming millions, who live cheek by jowl and amongst whom everyone simply can't be a winner, and where there are those for whom it is sadly true that no matter how hard they work, they will never have much of anything? Busted flush.
Thankfully the US is the only country that's really still going balls-out for it, and look where it's getting you. The wealth is stacking up with a tiny percentage of people, poor people are getting poorer, and most ominously of all, The American Dream - that if you just work really hard and smart, you can have everything you want - is, for a large segment of US society, The American Pipe Dream.
I know "socialism" and "liberal" are dirty words in America, and regrettably amongst certain elements of UK society, the negative connotations of both words are being adopted. But by and large, we generally hold a belief that if you've done well, a reasonable chunk of that is enabled by the societal infrastructure that we have built, and therefore it's entirely sensible that you pay to maintain that infrastructure - which includes helping those who can't help themselves. Yes, we have people who game the system, and yes, we should do everything reasonable to deal with them, but if there's a system, people will game it. Fact of life. Not a reason not to have the system in the first place.
I don't know what it will take to rouse the slumbering giant that is the US public, three-quarters of whom don't have much and are on course to have progressively less and less. But if it wakes, it'll be...
...interesting.
|
Post #384,875
1/3/14 12:25:32 AM
|
Thanks.
I do appreciate your lucid posts.
At same time, that mix of brevity, with clarity is an instant reminder of its rarity in the US: from the very-top on down to the inarticulate disgruntled, Doubtless you have your share of similar, truculent opining, but it has always been clear to me that--any random Brit spoken with in my travels: speaks English (whatever accent) quite more accurately than is the case here. (But my experience is hardly a bankable statistic.)
Don't know if you check-in at any of the the rowdier sites/'yellow-rag' tabloids and such: I wonder if many of the literate do engage (try to) with the borderline-loonies? with any regularity-as opposed to rarely. I fancy that there might be a few base-Rules tending to limit mere sound&fury, as are generally followed, whereas here: ad-hominem with scatological variations is about a few phrases away. Not just on the Intarweb, btw.
Maybe there are some hints that are transmissible from culture-->kultur, despite the fact of so many Muricans never acquiring more than a reduced-set of English words, of that assortment needed for any useful communication. Ex: the recognition vocabulary is always quite larger than anyone's speaking vocabulary [seems to have been pretty-well tested, that.]
Via that factoid and just listening/watching: I conclude a deterioration in both vocabularies--at least compared over decades (and allowing for slang ~replacing some of the unfamiliar words, for many.)
In brief, then: to me it seems that, on average--many -simply- lack the sufficient vocabularies to speak accurately about anything (beyond some specialty-'interest'.)
Is there any similar phenom on the Sceptered? That is: notable deterioration in capability to understand and be understood?
(Screw MAN Unix==we need a crash-course in MAN English, Remedial.)
|
Post #384,878
1/3/14 4:03:38 AM
|
Re: Thanks.
There is a depressing tendency over here, for the right-wing tendency on web forums to require that any given issue, irrespective of its complexity, be boiled down to a pair of opposing positions.
They are then designated as the "left" and "right" positions, and thus the battle lines are drawn. Usually the "right" position is the one that means less government expenditure, or a tax cut, or something like that.
There is also another depressing tendency, on the specific subject of government finance, to fail to understand that government debt and spending is actually not at all like your household budgeting, and therefore simply "reducing the deficit and/or the debt" is not necessarily a good or even necessary thing, and certainly not at the cost of the failed and failing austerity measures currently in place.
These have led me to abandon attempts to engage and reason with our home-grown RWNJ (who aren't as nutty as yours, but it's all relative)
There's a familiar list of things they don't believe in, and no amount of evidence will sway them:
* Social justice (except for them, of course, they deserve their benefits)
* MMGW (it's junk science, but their science is magically not junk)
* The Arts (except when it's their local community theatre being closed)
* A criminal justice system based on dignity and rehabilitation, with reducing recidivism and protecting the public being higher priority than punishment and vengeance (they're all "hang 'em and flog 'em and lock 'em up and chuck away the key" until it's one of theirs caught in the wheels of the justice machine)
* You get the idea. Basically if it's not a tax cut or deregulation of an activity they personally enjoy, they simplistically oppose it irrespective of the wider perspective
You may have read my railings against The Daily Mail, a publication I regard as nothing short of wicked. it's an effective summary of all that is bad about mainstream right-wing thinking in the UK.
|
Post #384,907
1/3/14 6:05:40 PM
|
Wretched.. that the homogenization (all issues) has spread
Thanks--clear-enough. The Bad-seeds are sown--will *Your* body-politic Immune-system activate soon enough?
Reducing the manifestly-complex to the simplistic appears to be the root-key to the methodical destruction of first, intelligibility--next:
[see Confucius as to 'why Language Must-be correct!']
Surely then, whatever deterioration is already noted: some of the extreme patois Has come via digital instant-transmission: from these parts.
Murdoch comes from 'Kingdom' roots (so we could already discern that Muricans were not the only cynical manipulators, merely #1 and Proud of it)
(Fucking over Language-itself is not much removed from the basic (and base) tenets of vulture-capitalism, when one notes the parallel strategies and tactics.)
I have little idea how recondite Information is to be preserved amidst such a mass of premeditated dis-Info, inculcated-in so large a % who cannot tell the difference.
Can imagine no 'plan' by which the phenom is attacked Head-on--via any of the usual means: which always do require that the Words be Understood [!!]
It seems left to One-on-One patient, repetitive, cool demonstrations (while self is purged of the rage) at oft deliberate obtuseness--of an entire mindset, set-in-concrete.
This intransigence is now a Badge of Belonging to like-mindless cohorts. Powerful incentive for the suicidal, I wot.
(So encapsulating of.. the mediocre stubborn-Shrub/evil-Cheney and our 8 Years of The Shogunate.) Antidotes..? Any?
Nevertheless, Let Us Prey.. on those, wherever a pregnant opportunity arises--or we're All Fucked (in any 'next.')
Are we shortly to learn IF $Trillions-fueled, premeditated arrant knownothingism IS capable of nullifying everything meant by 'civilization' (worth preserving) ??
We may squeak-by this formidable Idiocy; all I know ~fershure is: the more ominous it gets, the further I withdraw from a maya-gone-Insane ... and attend a few more..
of a species free of such deadly virii. Will attempt to preserve My sanity -vs- crocodile-tears over a doomed species--even 'my own'. (There's no joy in 'helping' cowards.)
Luck, to all.
|
Post #384,923
1/4/14 5:45:36 AM
|
I am less pessimistic
Although the RWNJ tendency over here is loud, it's also not all that popular.
True, in the affluent South East corner (i.e. London and the M25 sphere, reaching out to Surrey and Kent) it's particularly noticeable, but the other 45(ish) million people don't live there.
There's a significant difference between what you see on the web and what you see at the ballot box. The only reason Labour lost the last election was because they fucked things up spectacularly and, in particular, Gordon Brown was revealed to be an utterly incompetent megalomaniac, clinging onto power long past the point at which he should have conceded.
His handing of the poisoned chalice to Alistair Darling, who got the unenviable job of cleaning up Brown's fuckups (long story short: Brown borrowed and spent like a mofo (not necessarily bad), but didn't tip it into as much capital investment as he should (definitely bad), flogged the gold reserves off in a monumentally stupid way, and then deregulated the banks and looked on aghast as the banks did what banks do when you don't regulate the shit out of them) was also particularly disgraceful.
The Cameron/Clegg ConLib coalition is not particularly compelling. Their best asset - Vince Cable - oscillates between being laser-accurate and correct, and saying really fucking stupid things. Osborne is out of his depth. Cameron has a significant gravitas shortfall. Clegg will say anything to stay elected. And the cabinet is a bunch of nobodies.
We will elect a Labour government in 2015, because reality tends to the liberal, and British people, despite being a pack of arses quite a lot of the time, are fundamentally in tune with this. We have this gestalt of "fairness" (an ill-defined concept, but we know it when we see it and vice versa) and backing the underdog, which I think counterbalances nicely with our willingness to be selfish wankers.
|
Post #384,928
1/4/14 9:58:27 AM
|
Do you have periodic "redistricting" to scramble the deck?
Over here, national congressional districts are redrawn after the decennial census. Unfortunately, even though the districts end up having the same number of people, usually the incumbents (of both parties) determine where the boundaries are. What that means is there's usually bargaining to keep most of the minority incumbents in office (to gain their support), while the majority draws the lines so that they win a few more marginal districts to increase their majorities. Sometimes, though, the majority simply rams through the changes they want and the ones they think they can get away with (see Texas and DeLay).
This means they have a larger majority in the House of Representatives than they "should", but it makes the majority fragile to demographic change or relatively small changes in views of the electorate. It makes "wave" elections more likely.
So while over here the Republican's have a ~ 33 seat majority in the House (when they should be in the minority) - 17 needed to flip the majority, by 2016 or 2020 or 2024 they risk having a ~ 40+ seat minority and having a tough time getting it back. Especially if their attempts at disenfrancisement are slapped down... Non-partisan redistricting in California changed the game there - it would be nice if something similar became a universal system.
I don't recall hearing about "redistricting" in the UK. Do similar things happen there, or is the population so stable that it's not needed? How are House districts done there?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,930
1/4/14 10:25:44 AM
|
Not really
There are boundary changes, of course, but they're not a big deal - evolution, not revolution.
We have a separate commission that looks after this process.
Example of their work:
http://consultation....proposed/eastern/
|
Post #384,945
1/4/14 2:52:57 PM
|
That map is entirely too reasonable
--
Drew
|
Post #384,962
1/5/14 2:45:07 AM
|
Same thing happens in Oz, too.
Our electoral commission is also federal and independent. It also has teeth and can't be bought by politicians.
I know it would be "un-American" to centralize all the election stuff like the UK and Aus does, but it sure would solve a lot of problems. :-/
Wade.
|
Post #384,937
1/4/14 11:21:18 AM
|
ya ever stop to think that it is anger at party in power
that flips the seating? It was the anger against the democrats that put the repos in charge not redistricting
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|
Post #384,941
1/4/14 12:00:14 PM
|
It wasn't one thing.
Lots of people were angry that the Republicans blew up the economy. Lots of people were angry that a black man had been elected president.
Without the way that DeLay and his compatriots changed district lines in 2010, the damage would have been less.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,925
1/4/14 6:38:46 AM
|
Also, on the subject of The Right In Britain
Here's a summary from the comments section of The Independent:
http://www.independe...rupt-9037099.html
The right in Britain is conservative in thinking, wanting no change to the status quo they believe was Britain in the time of the British Empire. Of course, their view requires themselves to be wealthy capitalists with a seat in the House of Lords to prove it - certainly not one of those lazy, dirty people that have to work for them or face immediate sanctions and penury. Women in the kitchen, poor people in the workhouse (or despatched to Australia) and foreigners somewhere else.
Then we come to nationalists - patriots if you are of an American-dream type of disposition. They see the cause of their importance entirely wrapped up in the flag of the country in which their mother gave birth to them. Anyone not born in their own country is obviously inferior to them and deserving of everything that might befall them.
Next we get to fascists, who are merely nationalists that like to impose their self-importance on others by bullying or, preferably, by state (their state) sanctioned aggression and torture. Wearing of uniforms is de rigour, as are aggressive-looking flags meant to look big, butch and tough.
Then we get to what popular parlance still describes as nazi. This is someone that believes the way their country should be run/controlled is exactly the same as a fascist, but takes the whole idea of their self-importance one step further by hating and wishing harm on anyone they can see (or even just imagine) is not exactly the same as they are. Different colour, different language, different religion, different sexual persuasion, different education or different ideology all mark you out as someone that "deserves" to suffer and be thrown out, or away, especially if you are more intelligent than they fear themselves to be.
|
Post #384,833
1/2/14 9:49:49 AM
|
A microscopic fraction of people are paid for comments.
There are famous examples, like some involving Fox and/or Murdoch properties - http://www.dailykos....-Counter-Bloggers -, but most of the cranks aren't compensated. Why would someone bother to pay for that when there are so many who are happy to spend their free time doing so freely? Why risk discovery?
Cranks have been posting online since the days of BBSes and before. It goes with the territory. http://en.wikipedia....i/Troll_(Internet)
Too many strongly-held opinions are based on familiarity or culture or historical reasons - not because someone has thought about the issue and come to a logical conclusion. Bringing out the Mighty Logic Hammer and beating on them to change their mind isn't going to work. There's got to be some emotional investment to get most people to change their minds. Calling people "stupid" is almost always counter-productive. Obama understands that, King understood that, etc., etc.
If logic and evidence could convince people, most of the big problems that confront us and our future would have been addressed long ago.
Arguing with people on-line can be fun, but thinking that one is convincing more than a tiny handful of people on the other side with just logic is a path of disappointment. You bring out the logic once you've planted that seed of emotional connection and see the stirrings of doubt.
Amirite?!?! :-)
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,837
1/2/14 10:15:42 AM
|
Re: If logic and evidence could convince people, ...
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
-- B. Russell
|
Post #384,840
1/2/14 10:35:26 AM
|
I blame the wimmens.
They're the ones who made us this way (natural selection and all that).
I kid! I kid!!
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,842
1/2/14 11:46:54 AM
|
Yup, it's the women.
They talk up a stream about what they want in a man. Ignore it all and just watch - see the jerks who can get a date with them and the ones they marry. Not much similarity there. Those Paleolithic hormones still have control.
With evolution and all, it's a wonder guys aren't even worse. It's probably because once women are safely married, they cheat. Hospital DNA statistics show between 1 in 5 and 1 in 10 (depending on demographics) babies born are not related to the legal father.
Same with dung beetles. The females go for the biggest, fiercest ones with large sharp horns. Those guys stay up guarding the entrance to the digs. Meanwhile the males who couldn't get a date with any of the single females dig side tunnels into the nest and party.
Disclaimer - this information is statistical and may not apply to any specific individual situation.
|
Post #384,843
1/2/14 11:49:08 AM
|
What are they guarding it *from*?
If the smaller guys get in via side tunnels, it seems guarding the front door is only protecting them from other big males and predators too stupid to go around.
--
Drew
|
Post #384,866
1/2/14 9:30:11 PM
|
Yup, you got it.
The gals aren't exactly looking for brains - not until after they're married.
|
Post #384,856
1/2/14 4:19:26 PM
|
I always preferred Yates' formulation of that:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
|
Post #384,873
1/2/14 11:23:41 PM
|
Proving a negative..
is harder; as to 'microscopic', as estimate--all here are aware that it isn't just the NSA who collects data--for biz, politics and ... whatever Anyone will finance.
And next massage, fabricate-from etc.
I hope you Are right re μ
But the problem isn't just.. that always there have been cranks, nor that many people don't know how to 'argue' with the people-who-are-Certain!!ONE11
(Certainty I deem a pretty reliable litmus for: emotional-based view to the exclusion of all rational discourse.)
My concern is, simply: whether much more/of peripheral nature? might be becoming 'organized' quite beneath usual radars.
When biz or Pols, (both aware that an emotional contact must precede any serious swaying of POVs)--begin (began??) any move to mechanize, for all obvious reasons of Efficiency..
Then methinks that there are no Experts in creating huge extrapolations from say, the '30s Mastery-level' of the Nazi machine.
Nor, necessarily Experts at divining: "How's it Going?"
One need not go all Chicken Little, but as always:
the ostrich's position is both vulgar and vulnerable.
|
Post #384,874
1/2/14 11:44:44 PM
|
Good point. But...
The folks hoovering up all the information are (unless they're governments) are trying to figure out a way to make money with it in a reasonably short period of time. That usually means, for the moment, getting the information to advertisers who figure that they can somehow make us buy something if only they know more about us...
People yelling online about the atheist muslim Kenyan usurper aren't a big demographic, I don't think. I don't see ads for power chairs and cruises and vacations in Davos and so forth in places I frequent that talk politics. Glenn Beck's big advertiser seemed to be GoldLine (and gold has tanked recently, so I assume they're lying low). Advertising still seems targeted to get people to buy stuff (or contribute during election seasons).
Online arguing is small beer compared to being a party insider and a big donor. I don't think the Koch Brothers would bother, unless it was to throw a few pennies around to try to reward the true believers in the trenches. They want to use their money to install people who will vote the way they want, not to win online arguments. People arguing online are usually already in a camp.
How would we know? Given the lack of disclosure these days, I assume the only way would be if someone inside squealed (as in Folkenflik's book on Murdoch's empire).
But we'll see. :-)
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #384,876
1/3/14 1:00:52 AM
1/3/14 1:05:06 AM
|
Think you're right about the Kochs
and maybe many others--they live for more Power thus $$ and care little about hearts/minds.
But some billionaires do make noises that suggest they Can think/act long-term (especially for having seen how Ronnie's homilies galvanized then and in successive generations)
After Power.. and gold-plated toilets, what's next? Immortality. er, Win.. Big!
I do 'worry' about these surplus-billions (Rmoney spent a pittance of his absconded Net Worth for that try..)
We are on the verge of highly-automated transmutations from 'data' to tests of algorithms for persuasion; increasing (finally useful) brain comprehension is happening.
As 1984 was a 'Tocsin' for (one assortment of predictable dangers, synthesized half a century ago) I think we had better pay Attention to: the now inchoate
Means.. (and Ends) looming. Some people Will Be paying that attention/with more $B to implement--than were dreamt of in our popular ..aging dystopian works.
Bread and Circuses 2020 style? it's not that far away.
(Maybe we'll both 'See' ?)
Ed: oTyp
Edited by Ashton
Jan. 3, 2014, 01:05:06 AM EST
|
