Happy Columbus Day

[Equilibrium31]

Easy there fella, don't kink your britches. I didn't post the article to back up any of my theories or even assume the numbers were correct.

YOU LEAVE MY KINKY BRITCHES OUT OF THIS!

=P

I do know that there are those out there that think "hate speech" should be banned. Just tossing this topic into the gumbo cause God knows we have enough other things just floating around. I didn't want to have to derail yet another thread with you since we already got this one FUBAR.

Haha, no worries. Freedom of speech has definitely gotten complicated. With all the information out there on the interwebs, it's easier than ever for people to get a skewed view of reality and a lot of social media platforms allow this to really run wild. I don't think I like the idea of a world where Facebook is in charge of policing that, but I don't know that I have any better ideas either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Bofa-Deez]

Haha, no worries. Freedom of speech has definitely gotten complicated. With all the information out there on the interwebs, it's easier than ever for people to get a skewed view of reality and a lot of social media platforms allow this to really run wild. I don't think I like the idea of a world where Facebook is in charge of policing that, but I don't know that I have any better ideas either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have one. Encourage the public to doubt everything that they have not sufficiently researched. Lets face it, with the current ease of access to the internet, information is cheap and easy to come by. This thread pretty much establishes that there are no known entities that are completely unbiased and therefore, giving the authority to anyone (including me) to control free speech is extremely foolish and dangerous.

In other words, don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.

 

[Equilibrium31]

I have one. Encourage the public to doubt everything that they have not sufficiently researched. Lets face it, with the current ease of access to the internet, information is cheap and easy to come by. This thread pretty much establishes that there are no known entities that are completely unbiased and therefore, giving the authority to anyone (including me) to control free speech is extremely foolish and dangerous.

In other words, don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.

I still think the whole "all news is biased and untrustworthy" perspective is b.s., but that's become a more common view as the recent wave of partisanship has become so prevalent in the era of Trump crying "fake news" at everything. Honestly, that perspective works to his advantage because Trump doesn't work off facts. He works off of feelings.

And yea, you have similar effects on the left too (AOC and the squad, for example).

But facts and reason are still readily available. There are plenty of trustworthy news sites. If you nitpick at everything, you will always find some degree of bias somewhere in some of it, but that doesn't mean it's worthy dismissing everything entirely.

Babies and bathwater.

News doesn't need to be completely unbiased. It just needs to be fair. That's why I still follow NPR. I know that it tends to have a liberal bias, but it doesn't *only* report stories that are favorable towards liberal perspectives and it has a good record of getting the facts right and admitting if it gets something wrong.

And more than anything, following news should always be like investing: Diversify.

 

[jjvw]

I still think the whole "all news is biased and untrustworthy" perspective is b.s., but that's become a more common view as the recent wave of partisanship has become so prevalent in the era of Trump crying "fake news" at everything. Honestly, that perspective works to his advantage because Trump doesn't work off facts. He works off of feelings.

And yea, you have similar effects on the left too (AOC and the squad, for example).

But facts and reason are still readily available. There are plenty of trustworthy news sites. If you nitpick at everything, you will always find some degree of bias somewhere in some of it, but that doesn't mean it's worthy dismissing everything entirely.

Babies and bathwater.

News doesn't need to be completely unbiased. It just needs to be fair. That's why I still follow NPR. I know that it tends to have a liberal bias, but it doesn't *only* report stories that are favorable towards liberal perspectives and it has a good record of getting the facts right and admitting if it gets something wrong.

And more than anything, following news should always be like investing: Diversify.

That is my sense as well. Everything is biased. If something doesn't feel biased, then it likely meshes with your own bias. If that is happening, you are running the risk of creating an echo chamber.

At the same time, just because a media outlet presents a topic that is uncomfortable does not necessarily mean it is necessarily biased. This debate on Columbus is an example. I do feel like a lot of people confuse uncomfortable feelings with a political bias.

However, I do suspect that those with less socially conservative leanings are more willing to explore less comfortable subject matter. And that willingness to be uncomfortable often gets confused with being politically liberal by the socially conservative.

 

[Equilibrium31]

However, I do suspect that those with less socially conservative leanings are more willing to explore less comfortable subject matter. And that willingness to be uncomfortable often gets confused with being politically liberal by the socially conservative.

Definitely agreed on this.

I think this is why you so often get conversations about racial bias confused with people being called racist. Acknowledging the role of racial bias and how it creeps into society to create inequality is a very uncomfortable topic. However, the topic of "racism" is still seen by many through the lens of what racism was in the 50s/60s where people were seen as either "racist" (i.e. outwardly hating people of color) or not.

Nowadays, racist stuff is subtle and it's much less common for those biases to be outwardly malicious, especially when you start talking about unconscious bias.

Exploring that sort of stuff is very uncomfortable and requires looking at racism as being beyond either being an evil racist or a perfect egalitarian. It also requires acknowledging our own faults. I mean, hell, I know I have plenty of bias. When I think of the word "thug", the knee-jerk response in my head is a mean-looking black man and when I think of "doctor", the same thought makes me think of a white guy in a white coat.

Going through all of that stuff though is seen as hippy-dippy liberal, socialist talk. =/

 

[Bofa-Deez]

I still think the whole "all news is biased and untrustworthy" perspective is b.s., but that's become a more common view as the recent wave of partisanship has become so prevalent in the era of Trump crying "fake news" at everything. Honestly, that perspective works to his advantage because Trump doesn't work off facts. He works off of feelings.

Agreed here. The problem with Trump is that even when the facts are in his favor (and sometimes they are, like a broken clock being right 2 times per day,) he still reverts to feelings, which is detrimental when attempting a fact based discussion.

News doesn't need to be completely unbiased. It just needs to be fair. That's why I still follow NPR. I know that it tends to have a liberal bias, but it doesn't *only* report stories that are favorable towards liberal perspectives and it has a good record of getting the facts right and admitting if it gets something wrong.

And more than anything, following news should always be like investing: Diversify.

Very wise comment here.

That is my sense as well. Everything is biased. If something doesn't feel biased, then it likely meshes with your own bias. If that is happening, you are running the risk of creating an echo chamber.

At the same time, just because a media outlet presents a topic that is uncomfortable does not necessarily mean it is necessarily biased. This debate on Columbus is an example. I do feel like a lot of people confuse uncomfortable feelings with a political bias.

However, I do suspect that those with less socially conservative leanings are more willing to explore less comfortable subject matter. And that willingness to be uncomfortable often gets confused with being politically liberal by the socially conservative.

Agreed here. I personally identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which is why I can often find common ground on both sides.

Definitely agreed on this.

I think this is why you so often get conversations about racial bias confused with people being called racist. Acknowledging the role of racial bias and how it creeps into society to create inequality is a very uncomfortable topic. However, the topic of "racism" is still seen by many through the lens of what racism was in the 50s/60s where people were seen as either "racist" (i.e. outwardly hating people of color) or not.

Nowadays, racist stuff is subtle and it's much less common for those biases to be outwardly malicious, especially when you start talking about unconscious bias.

Exploring that sort of stuff is very uncomfortable and requires looking at racism as being beyond either being an evil racist or a perfect egalitarian. It also requires acknowledging our own faults. I mean, hell, I know I have plenty of bias. When I think of the word "thug", the knee-jerk response in my head is a mean-looking black man and when I think of "doctor", the same thought makes me think of a white guy in a white coat.

Going through all of that stuff though is seen as hippy-dippy liberal, socialist talk. =/

With respect to racism, if you do look at the era of the 50s/60s, its clear we have made progress as a society but there are still individual holdouts. I will also admit that there is still systematic racism in the justice department.

I totally agree with the sentiment that there is more of a dynamic than a person being a hateful sheet wearing racist and a perfect "egalitarian" (good job, you made me look that one up even though your context was self explanatory.) I strongly disagree with the notion that if a non-black person has ever said the "N" word in their life that they are a hateful racist and should be immediately fired or outcast from society. I personally hate the word and wish it would just go away, but some still think it's an acceptable form of greeting an acquaintance or that it can be acceptably used nonchalantly in song lyrics. And there is racism on both sides because I have been accused of being a racist for disagreeing or condemning the actions of a person that happened to have a different skin color than I do.

I must admit that in this day and age, the notion that a person cannot succeed in society because of the color of their skin is holding less weight as the years go by. One would be hard pressed to name another place in the world that black people currently have a better shot at success than in the good old U S of A. I have to often remind others that equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome and income inequality often reflects effort and drive inequality.

 

[Equilibrium31]

I strongly disagree with the notion that if a non-black person has ever said the "N" word in their life that they are a hateful racist and should be immediately fired or outcast from society. I personally hate the word and wish it would just go away, but some still think it's an acceptable form of greeting an acquaintance or that it can be acceptably used nonchalantly in song lyrics.

Yea, when I made comment about how it's important to diversify your news, I really wanted to reference Wutang Financial skit from the Chappelle Show with an image from when GZA says to diversify your bonds, but just didn't feel comfortable enough with the use of the "N" word in that quote. I'm a white guy who came from a family that fought for the Confederacy and owned slaves, so the relation between me and that word is complicated, lol.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

Yea, when I made comment about how it's important to diversify your news, I really wanted to reference Wutang Financial skit from the Chappelle Show with an image from when GZA says to diversify your bonds, but just didn't feel comfortable enough with the use of the "N" word in that quote. I'm a white guy who came from a family that fought for the Confederacy and owned slaves, so the relation between me and that word is complicated, lol.

I get that. Also, Dave Chappelle was one of the geniuses that had a way of using that word to invoke thought in his skits along with making fun of the way the world is. I instantly thought of that same skit along with the one where he is in jury selection especially talking about Mark Furman. The sketch about black George Bush was hilarious and an insight into what most people thought our first black president would act like. Swing and a miss there.

Malibu's Most Wanted and Blazing Saddles are two more examples of media that used it in a thought provoking manner although remaining to convey satire.

By the way, have you seen the newest Chappelle standup specials? The dude still got it.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

This one too

I removed it cause it did use the word a couple of times, but just search youtube for Chappelle Smollet

 

[Equilibrium31]

By the way, have you seen the newest Chappelle standup specials? The dude still got it.

I saw a little of his stuff from when he returned, but wasn't a big fan. I might not have given it enough of a chance though.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

I saw a little of his stuff from when he returned, but wasn't a big fan. I might not have given it enough of a chance though.

yeah, search Chappelle Smollet on youtube for a 5 minute clip. I cant stop laughing, but probably a little inappropriate to post here

 

[Deuxdiesel]

You guys are having a great debate. Bofa, you forgot to list:
1. cargo plane with pallets of cash (euros so it could not be traced) sent to our enemy.
2. Abandoning and leaving to die, American diplomats and soldiers to terrorists over running an American embassy (American soil).
3. Allowing his secretary of state to sell majority uranium holdings to Russia.
4. Smuggling small arms to known criminals in southern countries that get used to kill American border agents.

The list can just go on forever. Dont get started on FISA warrants issued to undermine political opposition based on false information from foreign operatives....

I put it all aside and just look at my own wellbeing over the years.

Regan years. Started working, jobs were plentyful.

George H. Work was going great. Making advancements. No cares.

Slick Willy. Company I was with for years went bankrupt. Found work. Lower wages. Struggled a bit.

George W. Work picked up. Many offers. Regular raises and bonuses. Bought toys, bought house, increased savings.

Barry O. Work crashed. Struggled. Bounced around taking jobs I could get. Wages dropped severely. Drew unemployment a few times.

Trump. Back in the game. Jump to 6 digit salary range.

If I ignore all political bickering and just look at my personal gains in life, it is an easy choice of how to vote.

My experience is almost the exact opposite. Good that it is working out for you though- make sure you put away as much as you can because things will undoubtedly change in the future.

 

[Equilibrium31]

You guys are having a great debate. Bofa, you forgot to list:
1. cargo plane with pallets of cash (euros so it could not be traced) sent to our enemy.
2. Abandoning and leaving to die, American diplomats and soldiers to terrorists over running an American embassy (American soil).
3. Allowing his secretary of state to sell majority uranium holdings to Russia.
4. Smuggling small arms to known criminals in southern countries that get used to kill American border agents.

The list can just go on forever. Dont get started on FISA warrants issued to undermine political opposition based on false information from foreign operatives....

I put it all aside and just look at my own wellbeing over the years.

Regan years. Started working, jobs were plentyful.

George H. Work was going great. Making advancements. No cares.

Slick Willy. Company I was with for years went bankrupt. Found work. Lower wages. Struggled a bit.

George W. Work picked up. Many offers. Regular raises and bonuses. Bought toys, bought house, increased savings.

Barry O. Work crashed. Struggled. Bounced around taking jobs I could get. Wages dropped severely. Drew unemployment a few times.

Trump. Back in the game. Jump to 6 digit salary range.

If I ignore all political bickering and just look at my personal gains in life, it is an easy choice of how to vote.

You do realize that that's now how the office of the presidency works right? They don't control jobs in any one sector and the federal reserve often has more power over the economy than the president does.

You could look at some of these things at a macro level:

https://historyinpieces.com/research/us-unemployment-rates-president
But even then, there are often massive changes that have nothing to do with the president, such as the 2008 recession.

I don't mean to tell you how to vote, but I would encourage you to explore finding a better method to determine the value of a candidate.

 

[Hound Dog]

make sure you put away as much as you can because things will undoubtedly change in the future.

Yes, if things turn blue, it certainly will.

 

[Hound Dog]

I don't mean to tell you how to vote, but I would encourage you to explore finding a better method to determine the value of a candidate.

I do. Emphasis on less government control over my personal freedoms. Fewer taxes coming from my check going to others benefits. Pride in America and care for our own people above those of other nations that cannot govern themselves.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

You do realize that that's now how the office of the presidency works right? They don't control jobs in any one sector and the federal reserve often has more power over the economy than the president does.

You could look at some of these things at a macro level:

https://historyinpieces.com/research/us-unemployment-rates-president
But even then, there are often massive changes that have nothing to do with the president, such as the 2008 recession.

I don't mean to tell you how to vote, but I would encourage you to explore finding a better method to determine the value of a candidate.

Right, mostly. A president that signals a willingness to roll back BS regulations and give manufacturers a tax break does give companies the confidence to expand, start new projects and generally reinvest more of their profits; while an incoming president vowing to raise taxes and add regulations will cause manufacturers to be less likely to do so. Feel free to debate me here, but I have inside knowledge of this and have seen it time and time again to the point where slated projects were cancelled or "delayed."

Conversely, I always hear about how good the economy was under Slick Willie, but that was just the dot com bubble. The bubble burst as Bush 43 was entering office.

My best earning years were one under Obama and two under Trump, yet these men really had little to do with it.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

I do. Emphasis on less government control over my personal freedoms. Fewer taxes coming from my check going to others benefits. Pride in America and care for our own people above those of other nations that cannot govern themselves.

This is exactly how I choose a candidate. I don't think some of the liberal leaning friends I have made here will agree though.

I do fear that we are quickly becoming good company to those other nations that cannot govern themselves.