Trump's America

[Moiraine]

9 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If simply relaying the President's words is "going through the media", then Twitter is now also "media" in the same sense.

 

What I know or what I've been told about what happened in Washington is not the same as the reality of what actually happened in Washington. The media could report my name incorrectly, but that doesn't actually mean my name has changed.

 

 

Possibly, but I don't really see them as the same since Twitter isn't very discerning and doesn't really monitor what's being said until after the fact when they get complaints. And FDR wasn't able to talk to the public every single day in that manner, and didn't abuse it.

 

I think you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying, or I'm not saying it in a good way. We don't know the reality of what happened in Washington. The only thing we have to go off is the media, or rumors, or what the president or the senators are saying. Your name is not a good example, because you know what your name is. The only way we know reality is if the media is free and fair. I don't have absolute trust in the media but it's the only thing I have and the only reality, or "reality," I know. And having a president that is a known liar be able to go around them in ways that no president before him has been able to isn't a good thing.

 

Think of Russia as an example. The ones that trust Putin, and I believe there are a lot of them, take what the media says as reality, and it is reality in their minds. Obviously we don't have anything close to that here, but having the president be able to send direct text messages similar to his Tweets would bring us a lot closer.

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Possibly, but I don't really see them as the same since Twitter isn't very discerning and doesn't really monitor what's being said until after the fact when they get complaints.

 

I think you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying, or I'm not saying it in a good way. We don't know the reality of what happened in Washington. The only thing we have to go off is the media, or rumors, or what the president or the senators are saying. Your name is not a good example, because you know what your name is. The only way we know reality is if the media is free and fair. I don't have absolute trust in the media but it's the only thing I have and the only reality, or "reality," I know. And having a president that is a known liar be able to go around them in ways that no president before him has been able to isn't a good thing.

Are you saying the radio stations that broadcast FDR's chats were somehow discerning of the content? They'd also have to be discerning after the fact, wouldn't they?

 

But I can ask people who were there (Washington), listen to other accounts, and otherwise investigate the veracity of a media claim. What the media reports is simply NOT reality - it's perception. Otherwise things like climate change would be false as the media didn't report on them and then disbelieved them for years, but none of that changed the reality of what was happening. And whoever said perception is reality was wrong.

 

And it's the job of the American people to determine what is and isn't true. The media is a source of evidence but not one of truth or reality. We have to think about what the President or the media or any other source is claiming and use our ability to reason to decide what's probably real. Trump being able to espouse his nonsense without a filter is a good thing in my eyes.

[Moiraine]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Are you saying the radio stations that broadcast FDR's chats were somehow discerning of the content? They'd also have to be discerning after the fact, wouldn't they?

 

But I can ask people who were there (Washington), listen to other accounts, and otherwise investigate the veracity of a media claim. What the media reports is simply NOT reality - it's perception. Otherwise things like climate change would be false as the media didn't report on them and then disbelieved them for years, but none of that changed the reality of what was happening. And whoever said perception is reality was wrong.

 

And it's the job of the American people to determine what is and isn't true. The media is a source of evidence but not one of truth or reality. We have to think about what the President or the media or any other source is claiming and use our ability to reason to decide what's probably real. Trump being able to espouse his nonsense without a filter is a good thing in my eyes.

 

 

The media absolutely shapes the reality as we see it. That is what I'm saying. Who do you trust in Washington more than you trust your media sources?

[jsneb83]

Fox News

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The media absolutely shapes the reality as we see it. That is what I'm saying. Who do you trust in Washington more than you trust your media sources?

So if the media told you tomorrow that the Earth is flat, you think that shapes reality? Will the Earth actually be flat, or will you just believe them that it is flat?

 

As I said before: what you're talking about is perception. Perception doesn't change reality.

 

And I trust people I know more than "media" to tell me the truth. And even then I remain skeptical and want to see a variety of sources and evidence for some things. The media is just one facet of learning about the world, but it's far from the only or even the most important facet.

[Moiraine]

51 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

So if the media told you tomorrow that the Earth is flat, you think that shapes reality? Will the Earth actually be flat, or will you just believe them that it is flat?

 

As I said before: what you're talking about is perception. Perception doesn't change reality.

 

And I trust people I know more than "media" to tell me the truth. And even then I remain skeptical and want to see a variety of sources and evidence for some things. The media is just one facet of learning about the world, but it's far from the only or even the most important facet.

 

 

How is it not clear that by "the media absolutely shapes the reality as we see it" I was talking about perception, and that that's what I've been talking about the whole time? I already posted "I'm not saying it in a good way." It seems to me that it should have been clear by my subsequent posts, especially when I put reality in quotes and talked about Putin and Russian media and the trust those people put into what they're hearing, even though a lot of it is false. No one would actually think hearing someone talk about something changes the true reality of that something, so I didn't think my phrasing would be that controversial.

The earth is flat example has nothing to do with anything in this conversation. I'm talking about current events, particularly ones that aren't corroborated by video. There are lots of ways lots of different people can prove the earth isn't flat. I'm talking about things that can't be proven one way or another by people not there and that we have no way of knowing in Nebraska when they happen in Washington D.C. or somewhere far away. Mueller's investigation is a good example of what I'm talking about. We only know what's going on based off of what the media or Trump and his people or other politicians tell us. And we are completely ignorant without the media if the rest are lying to us, and maybe still ignorant. Eventually when we start getting guilty pleas from people, we can in hindsight see who was telling the truth about something. It doesn't matter that you trust your friends/family/people you know more than the media, because those people aren't in Washington D.C. or in a position to know about this stuff. The media is the most important way to learn about current events, especially politics. They control what they cover and how they cover it. I think people really underestimate how important it is, and how important it is to have free press.

The internet has had a negative effect when it comes to this because anyone can post anything and make it look like news and people can easily confirm their own biases. It increases hyper partisanship, IMO.

That is what I was saying with my post, and for some reason you're nitpicking a word I used when I think you know the point I was trying to make.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

How is it not clear that by "the media absolutely shapes the reality as we see it" I was talking about perception, and that that's what I've been talking about the whole time? I already posted "I'm not saying it in a good way." It seems to me that it should have been clear by my subsequent posts, especially when I put reality in quotes and talked about Putin and Russian media and the trust those people put into what they're hearing, even though a lot of it is false. No one would actually think hearing someone talk about something changes the true reality of that something, so I didn't think my phrasing would be that controversial.

The earth is flat example has nothing to do with anything in this conversation. I'm talking about current events, particularly ones that aren't corroborated by video. There are lots of ways lots of different people can prove the earth isn't flat. I'm talking about things that can't be proven one way or another by people not there and that we have no way of knowing in Nebraska when they happen in Washington D.C. or somewhere far away. Mueller's investigation is a good example of what I'm talking about. We only know what's going on based off of what the media or Trump and his people or other politicians tell us. And we are completely ignorant without the media if the rest are lying to us, and maybe still ignorant. Eventually when we start getting guilty pleas from people, we can in hindsight see who was telling the truth about something. It doesn't matter that you trust your friends/family/people you know more than the media, because those people aren't in Washington D.C. or in a position to know about this stuff. The media is the most important way to learn about current events, especially politics. They control what they cover and how they cover it. I think people really underestimate how important it is, and how important it is to have free press.

The internet has had a negative effect when it comes to this because anyone can post anything and make it look like news and people can easily confirm their own biases. It increases hyper partisanship, IMO.

That is what I was saying with my post, and for some reason you're nitpicking a word I used when I think you know the point I was trying to make.

You keep using the word "reality" when that isn't what you mean. Even after I said you really mean perception. Twice. 

 

Moving beyond the semantics, I stand by my earlier post: "I'm not saying that media isn't necessary, but rather that the President being able to communicate directly with the citizens is ok and we don't need a media filter. For example, FDR's fireside chats would have been a lot less meaningful and useful if they all had to go through the media first."

 

I don't need the media to have control over what gets to me and what doesn't. That goes to the bolded part of your post. The media is useful to provide commentary and viewpoint about what's happening, but not as a filter to block me from what's happening. In other words, the President should be able to communicate directly with the people and the media should be able to comment on his communication but not be a filter to present only certain aspects of what he's saying.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

You keep using the word "reality" when that isn't what you mean. Even after I said you really mean perception. Twice. 

 

Moving beyond the semantics, I stand by my earlier post: "I'm not saying that media isn't necessary, but rather that the President being able to communicate directly with the citizens is ok and we don't need a media filter. For example, FDR's fireside chats would have been a lot less meaningful and useful if they all had to go through the media first."

 

I don't need the media to have control over what gets to me and what doesn't. That goes to the bolded part of your post. The media is useful to provide commentary and viewpoint about what's happening, but not as a filter to block me from what's happening. In other words, the President should be able to communicate directly with the people and the media should be able to comment on his communication but not be a filter to present only certain aspects of what he's saying.

 

 

If you knew what I meant, why did you keep saying what I meant, even after I put reality in quotes and said “the reality as we see it.” You kept harping on it after it was obvious.

 

I see the media as a check on someone like Trump. A free media is one of, if not the most, important things necessary for a Democracy to exist.

 

You misunderstand my use of the word filter if you think I meant they should block us from knowing what’s happening. I basically meant, when Trump lies, they need to be there to tell us exactly what really happened and when he's lying. Filter was not a great word to use. But I do think when a president lies constantly it gets to the point where it's dangerous, and it would be especially dangerous if he could do it directly to our cell phones. And previously, presidents didn't have as much ability to have this much direct access to the public. Previously they had to work with the media to get their messages out.

 

In the end, the media decides what they do and don’t report on, which is what I meant by control it, and unless you personally know people who you can trust who live in Washington D.C. or wherever these things are happening, you are relying on media or politicians to tell you what’s happening.

 

I think we’ve gotten pretty far from my point, which is that having a president who can text his viewpoints directly to our cellphones unsolicited when he lies constantly would be a very bad thing and could signal the end of our Democracy. He could say after he loses the election that the media is all lying to us and that he actually won, and he would have access to more of us than anyone else does. We need the media to exist and for one person like Trump not to be allowed that much power. 

[schriznoeder]

I realize McAfee is a little, shall we say, eccentric. But he does have legit knowledge when it comes to stuff like this.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

27 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

I realize McAfee is a little, shall we say, eccentric. But he does have legit knowledge when it comes to stuff like this.

 

 

Wow....wow...wow....

 

I'm extremely uncomfortable with this....even before seeing this tweet.

[BigRedBuster]

OK....I find this.....I don't even know what the word is.....

 

 

 

Most people that I know that I believe would say something like this are people that can't stand being around people who disagree with them or are different from them.  This obviously comes from both sides.

 

People need to understand that America is made up of an enormous amount of diversity and...also...America isn't perfect.  Also.....change doesn't mean that it's not "your country" anymore.

[BigRedBuster]

So, according to FiveThirtyEight website on the popularity of Trump, there are 52.4% disapprove and 42.1% approve of Trump.  Now, if there are 245,000,000 adults in America, that means 105,722,400 people in America think they are strangers in their own country.

 

 

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK....I find this.....I don't even know what the word is.....

 

 

 

Most people that I know that I believe would say something like this are people that can't stand being around people who disagree with them or are different from them.  This obviously comes from both sides.

 

People need to understand that America is made up of an enormous amount of diversity and...also...America isn't perfect.  Also.....change doesn't mean that it's not "your country" anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

These numbers make sense more or less, and the biggest reason for it is because of the urban/rural cultural barrier and the over-representation of rural voices and perspectives in our government. 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

9 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

 

 

These numbers make sense more or less, and the biggest reason for it is because of the urban/rural cultural barrier and the over-representation of rural voices and perspectives in our government. 

 

 

 

Just because there are people not like you or the government doesn’t do exactly what you want is a teficulous reason to think you’re a stranger in your world. 

[schriznoeder]