Why do we allow the media to lie to us?

Oct 24, 2017
5,316
3,923
315
#53
Y
I'm not sure I agree with 'the media are lying to us', but that's from my German point of view.

However, what annoys me to no end is how manipulative and influential the media are.
So many times, whenever there's something even slightly controversial, the media will do whatever they can to blow it out of proportion, and will often time create a narrative on their own.
They fo this by saying 'people think that ...' or 'the general public thinks that ...' and similar, but prior to the media spreading whatever 'thoughts', it wasn't noticeable at all. That then influences public opinion and forces politicians to react to nonsense.

That's what frustrates me about the media the most.
yeah Germany ist stil pretty good in this regard. Of course there is Bild or focus bu the majority is pretty good. For the rest my basic rule is to not trust any new site who uses a tweet as basis of a whole article.
 
Jan 20, 2018
1,068
554
285
Pittsburgh
#55
Disclaimer: I did not read the entire topic.

I think people who think the media outright lies to you are offbase. The question is why do stories get spun the way they do and why is the news posted the news they wish to report.


As far as some of that, I recommend the movie Nightcrawler. It helps break down how the news presented is the ones that gives them the best traffic and shock to it's userbase for ratings.

Ever wonder why CNN is always pumping up African Americans being shot by police and not so much when White Americans are? There is a reason for that.

Seriously, watch Nightcrawler. Super underrated movie.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
2,095
2,052
295
your mind
#57
Quoting Julian Assange? LOL

Nice bullet points but you're credibility went out the window. The ONLY fact that should matter is that Russians are still interfering with your democratic rights.
You like bullet points? So, to summarize:

- You mock Julian Assange for doing nothing but informing you and the rest of the world of the nefarious and clandestine actions which the U.S. government carries out, often illegally. Like spying on it’s own citizens and leaders and high ranking staff of supposedly ally nations.

- You believe “the Russians are still interfering with your democratic rights”. You believe this because what? These same U.S. politicians told you so? Because you heard it on CNN? What evidence have you personally seen to claim a foreign country is attacking the U.S.A.?

Honestly can’t help but LOL.
 
Mar 20, 2017
412
139
185
#58
You like bullet points? So, to summarize:

- What evidence have you personally seen to claim a foreign country is attacking the U.S.A.?
The US just indicted 13 Russians and a couple of companies over it. Quite a lot of detailed information in the indictments if you would like to educate yourself and read up on it.
 
Last edited:
Mar 20, 2017
412
139
185
#59
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...e-only-beginning-americans-could-be-next.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/mueller-russia-indictments-election-interference/index.html

You can actually read the indictment in full here, if you like:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ussian-nationals-election-meddling/346688002/

The claims that some are making in this thread that there's no evidence that our democracy is under attack are demonstrably wrong. Even the republicans will tell you that. They've now shifted to "but Trump wasn't involved" mode. Which is fine, and really isn't the point of my previous post about Facebook's & Twitter's culpability in the matter. They need to either get their shit together and take action, or the government will do it for them. This isn't cute anymore. Twitter at least appears to be doing something, though it is reactionary in nature.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,095
2,052
295
your mind
#60
The US just indicted 13 Russians and a couple of companies over it. Quite a lot of detailed information in the indictments if you would like to educate yourself and read up on it.
You are claiming evidence, but are providing none. Provide some quotes with links if you are going to claim it as fact.

Again, what evidence have you seen that a foreign country (which means a foreign government) is “attacking” the U.S.A.?

EDIT: Just saw your new post. I read your links. I see a lot of “allegedly” over and over again and, as usual, no evidence.

Is this how all American government investigations work now? “We allege this”, “we allege that”, meanwhile the world sits back and waits for the evidence to be provided, which never eventuates because of “national security concerns”.

I’ll admit, I am not American and so don’t dive deep into this shit, because I only care as so much as to when it influences the rest of the world. But, I again ask for evidence, not allegations. What have you personally seen that leads you to believe this? You provide links to headlines, but they are allegations, not proof.

Telling me a memo or indictment exists is not proof. What have you read in them that convinces you? Or do you have another source of information?
 
Last edited:
Mar 20, 2017
412
139
185
#61
You are claiming evidence, but are providing none. Provide some quotes with links if you are going to claim it as fact.

Again, what evidence have you seen that a foreign country (which means a foreign government) is “attacking” the U.S.A.?

EDIT: Just saw your new post. I read your links. I see a lot of “allegedly” over and over again and, as usual, no evidence.

Is this how all American government investigations work now? “We allege this”, “we allege that”, meanwhile the world sits back and waits for the evidence to be provided, which never eventuates because of “national security concerns”.

I’ll admit, I am not American and so don’t dive deep into this shit, because I only care as so much as to when it influences the rest of the world. But, I again ask for evidence, not allegations. What have you personally seen that leads you to believe this? You provide links to headlines, but they are allegations, not proof.

Telling me a memo or indictment exists is not proof. What have you read in them that convinces you? Or do you have another source of information?
It looks like we aren't going to be able to have a serious conversation about this. You know damned well that an indictment would not be filed without evidence to back it up. If you really read the indictment and the specific allegations you would realize that the names, organizations, organizational structures, financial records, travel records, interviews with Americans that PHYSICALLY SPOKE WITH THE ACCUSED, quotes from interviews and descriptions of their activities on social media platforms (example: "Woke Blacks" group on Instagram) are all based on real evidence. If you were serious about having this conversation, you would have done your own research and read the reports on people that were actually duped by the Russians, what was said and what was done.

Do you honestly think all of that is fabricated? If so then we should be having a different conversation about government conspiracies.
 
Likes: rokkerkory
Oct 27, 2017
2,095
2,052
295
your mind
#62
It looks like we aren't going to be able to have a serious conversation about this. You know damned well that an indictment would not be filed without evidence to back it up. If you really read the indictment and the specific allegations you would realize that the names, organizations, organizational structures, financial records, travel records, interviews with Americans that PHYSICALLY SPOKE WITH THE ACCUSED, quotes from interviews and descriptions of their activities on social media platforms (example: "Woke Blacks" group on Instagram) are all based on real evidence. If you were serious about having this conversation, you would have done your own research and read the reports on people that were actually duped by the Russians, what was said and what was done.

Do you honestly think all of that is fabricated? If so then we should be having a different conversation about government conspiracies.
Have you read the indictment? I stated I only care so much about this subject, so I admit, I haven’t. You are the one providing it as proof. I asked you to provide specifics from within it, not allegations. You are still not providing those links. Without that, I assume you are just regurgitating stuff you read/saw in the news.

We can agree to disagree, but I don’t base my beliefs on news headlines and articles.

Don’t get me wrong either, when presented with strong evidence, I will be the first one to put my hand up and admit I am wrong. But, excuse me if I don’t have the greatest faith in allegations coming from the American political sector. I need proof.
 
Nov 23, 2010
4,113
97
625
#63
I don't think the fake news media is a major issue. The problem seems to be the dismissal of people who are being left behind, killed, oppressed, or struggling in absolute and/or relative terms. Telling Americans or the world this is the greatest time in history is like posting that viral Fox News image that 99% of poor US households have a refrigerator. Sad case of denial.

The lengths some people go to spin and contort the truth is shocking to me sometimes. The reality is despite what you may have heard or seen online on YouTube this isn't the golden age of capitalism by any stretch of the imagination. And that's the system many countries leverage to try and make people's lives better simply put. The fraud, rent-seeking, inequality...in other words the gap between haves and have nots is completely out of control. Donald Trump isn't POTUS because of the media lying to you. He's POTUS because it's true that America is no longer as great as it used to be and you've been lying to yourself.

I mean when you have kids in one of the richest countries (USA) taking the streets because they don't want to get shot while they're at their high school....

I don't know about anyone else, but back in my day my childhood was better than that.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
968
3,506
445
#64
Do you honestly think all of that is fabricated? If so then we should be having a different conversation about government conspiracies.
I'm not American and quite frankly, after decades of the U.S. intervening in foreign elections and considering the sorry state of affairs of the U.S. election process in general, I'm sorry for not immediately jumping on the hate train. I neither like Hillary/Trump, nor Putin. Most people outside the U.S., myself included, worry mostly about the decaying diplomatic relations between two superpowers with enough WMD to nuke us all to hell. So yeah, I'd rather remain skeptical instead of hyping myself into some political hate spree only because you found 13 crazy Russian hackers peddling shit on social-media that nobody really cared about in the greater scheme of things.



I've read the indictment and so far it seems like their political campaigning was all over the place. Also there is nothing in there even hinting at to what extend those 13 Russians impacted the election results. Also where are the ties to the Trump administration or the Russian government? As it stands, those Russians were promoting political interest groups for their own financial gains.



Meanwhile we have the following happening during the elections:

> the DNC rigs their primaries in order to sabotage Sander's campaign
> the DNC presents a shitty candidate to an equally shitty opponent
> DNC and Clinton e-mails are leaked, revealing that their candidate is even shittier than assumed
> millions of Americans live in abject poverty, no jobs, no homes, no decent healthcare, no functioning social system, crippling social and economic divides
> Trump says stupid things while making stupid promises
> Hillary calls half of the country deplorable
> Brazile is fired for colluding with the Clinton campaign
> both campaigns devolve into a mud slinging contest of the lowest order
> ???
> one of the shitty candidates wins
> Americans flip their shit, protests, violence, lots of shrieking, growing divide, hysteria, gay frogs, Pepe, stupid memes
> meanwhile the rest of the world watches in disbelief

But yeah, it was probably the Russians...
 
Last edited:
Sep 2, 2013
16,513
614
490
#65
Just limit yourself to add the user to the ignore list. What you are doing is quite contradictoryactually.
You like bullet points? So, to summarize:

- You mock Julian Assange for doing nothing but informing you and the rest of the world of the nefarious and clandestine actions which the U.S. government carries out, often illegally. Like spying on it’s own citizens and leaders and high ranking staff of supposedly ally nations.

- You believe “the Russians are still interfering with your democratic rights”. You believe this because what? These same U.S. politicians told you so? Because you heard it on CNN? What evidence have you personally seen to claim a foreign country is attacking the U.S.A.?

Honestly can’t help but LOL.
+ Ignore List :)
 
May 9, 2012
979
76
0
#67
Lol, you wound me deeply. If you want to continue ignoring reality, go right ahead.
There is more then enough info to know for a fact Russia attempted to screw with the election, how much we think it affected the election outcome isn't really important. What does matter is if they feel like they were successfull in anyway then next time they may try with a lot more resources. And I as an American would prefer that not to happen.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,001
1,041
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
#71
Quoting Julian Assange? LOL

Nice bullet points but you're credibility went out the window. The ONLY fact that should matter is that Russians are still interfering with your democratic rights.
1) Back up your disparagement of Julian Assange.

2) What evidence do you have that the Russians are actively interfering with American politics? *edit* An indictment is not evidence, just a quick FYI.
 
Last edited:

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,001
1,041
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
#73
That's in my opinion the biggest problem, not necessarily the question if news are fake or not and who knows what, but that folks just refuse to listen to anyone who might have a differing opinion based on present facts, and are unable to have an open dialogue.
I'm against ignore options on forums generally.

We have moderators to prevent public harassment and attacks. "ignore users" is just a way to ignore ideas.
 
Feb 17, 2018
246
108
190
#74
What I find ironic is when journos especially CNN and co get all salty when Trump calls them fake news.

In trump's context it is BS, but cnn and the mainstream media are fake news and do a lot of harm to peddle lies and bullshit.

Trump is a dick, but I can't help but love when he roasts the media.
 
Likes: pramod
Oct 26, 2006
2,347
95
980
The Highway to Hell
#75
I'm against ignore options on forums generally.

We have moderators to prevent public harassment and attacks. "ignore users" is just a way to ignore ideas.
Some people just won't listen to reason, and continue to plaster their "ideas" all over, while still keeping within the TOS.

Seems like a good way to keep a little more peace to me.
 
May 9, 2012
979
76
0
#76
What I find ironic is when journos especially CNN and co get all salty when Trump calls them fake news.

In trump's context it is BS, but cnn and the mainstream media are fake news and do a lot of harm to peddle lies and bullshit.

Trump is a dick, but I can't help but love when he roasts the media.
CNN is no more fake news then any other..What is very dangerous is when trump calls them fake news and says only fox is real. For one it's total bullshit and for 2 it makes for easy steering of his narrative, which I for one don't believe at all. He lies more then any president ever.
 
May 2, 2006
11,909
281
1,035
#78
CNN is no more fake news then any other..What is very dangerous is when trump calls them fake news and says only fox is real. For one it's total bullshit and for 2 it makes for easy steering of his narrative, which I for one don't believe at all. He lies more then any president ever.
If CNN doesn't want to be called fake news then they should vet their stories better: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/08/cnn-trump-error-journalism-287914

They're helping Trump with this shit.
 
May 9, 2012
979
76
0
#79
Feb 17, 2018
246
108
190
#80
CNN is no more fake news then any other..What is very dangerous is when trump calls them fake news and says only fox is real. For one it's total bullshit and for 2 it makes for easy steering of his narrative, which I for one don't believe at all. He lies more then any president ever.
I agree Trump is one of the biggest bare faced liars I've ever witnessed. The best lie is based on an element of truth.

The truth is all mainstream news and a lot of indie news is dishonest and fake news. So when Trump says that CNN is fake news, he's both lying and telling the truth.

CNN etc are a disgrace and are not on your side. If you want to blame anyone for Trump/BREXIT, then blame the MSM for brain washing and lying to people for so long.
 
May 9, 2012
979
76
0
#81
I agree Trump is one of the biggest bare faced liars I've ever witnessed. The best lie is based on an element of truth.

The truth is all mainstream news and a lot of indie news is dishonest and fake news. So when Trump says that CNN is fake news, he's both lying and telling the truth.

CNN etc are a disgrace and are not on your side. If you want to blame anyone for Trump/BREXIT, then blame the MSM for brain washing and lying to people for so long.
I don't even watch CNN, and I agree all news is slanted to spin their agenda. I have always assumed everyone knew that. More dangerous then that is our man child president bashing media on an almost daily basis and then turning around and retweeting fox news bullshit conspiracy stuff all the time. Hypocrisy at its finest. Unfortunately my whole family has fallen for it though, it is impossible to talk politics with them cause they say FAKE NEWS! And then turn around and push their equally or usually morseo bullshit slant.
 

Kadayi

Deliciously Evil
Oct 10, 2012
5,462
2,589
680
theconclave.net
#82
That's in my opinion the biggest problem, not necessarily the question if news are fake or not and who knows what, but that folks just refuse to listen to anyone who might have a differing opinion based on present facts, and are unable to have an open dialogue.
I'm against ignore options on forums generally.

We have moderators to prevent public harassment and attacks. "ignore users" is just a way to ignore ideas.
I don't disagree, however, I do occasionally use the ignore feature to tune out posters whose opinions just aren't worth reading. Time is a precious commodity and there's not much point wading through relentless posts by people who've demonstrated time and again that what they write is top tier garbage that doesn't hold up to even a whiff of scrutiny, and they fundamentally won't acknowledge its deficiencies . That's not to say I don't read them (I like the see ignored content option in threads), but that it shows I have them on ignore is a reminder to not engage.
 
May 16, 2012
5,277
0
0
bay area
www.instagram.com
#83
most mainstream media exists to protect capitalism and capital interests. once you are aware of this it becomes easier and easier to discount or dismiss lies and bullshit

the world is not "getting better", that's the neoliberal narrative. it's not getting better if you're a coal miner. it's not getting better if you're a single mother.

violence is a tool to be employed to demolish paradigms and gain power OR enforce the status quo. do you think all the people in history have willingly engaged in violence because they couldn't conceive anything better?

the idea that the media (or "reality") is separate from politics is laughable. nothing in society is separate from politics.

the fact that you feel like you have a better grasp on reality than others is fucking funny
 
Last edited:
Nov 14, 2009
2,585
53
695
#84
the world is not "getting better", that's the neoliberal narrative. it's not getting better if you're a coal miner. it's not getting better if you're a single mother.
To add, it's not getting better if you want to remain a small farmer.

Disclaimer: I did not read the entire topic.

I think people who think the media outright lies to you are offbase. The question is why do stories get spun the way they do and why is the news posted the news they wish to report.


As far as some of that, I recommend the movie Nightcrawler. It helps break down how the news presented is the ones that gives them the best traffic and shock to it's userbase for ratings.

Ever wonder why CNN is always pumping up African Americans being shot by police and not so much when White Americans are? There is a reason for that.

Seriously, watch Nightcrawler. Super underrated movie.
Haven't seen the movie. I have to wonder if what they do is not all that different than what YouTubers seem to have to do?
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2007
9,115
96
925
#85
I agree Trump is one of the biggest bare faced liars I've ever witnessed. The best lie is based on an element of truth.

The truth is all mainstream news and a lot of indie news is dishonest and fake news. So when Trump says that CNN is fake news, he's both lying and telling the truth.

CNN etc are a disgrace and are not on your side. If you want to blame anyone for Trump/BREXIT, then blame the MSM for brain washing and lying to people for so long.

This is a good video that sums up my thoughts on CNN:


Trump is a total liar and clusterfuck of bad policy ideas, but by and large the mainstream media has no interest in covering the actual policy issues, they are much more interested in the salacious details of Trump's personality and conspiracy theories about Russia.

IMO cable news of all alignments is completely unusable because the economic model of cable news leads to such a degree of bias and spin that it makes it impossible to correct for it after the fact(which is what I really care about anyway, not that the news meet some unrealistic standard of objectivity). Newspapers are not far behind for similar reasons.

News magazines that rely and publishing detailed nuanced long form articles are my favorite news source, because even if they are purely partisan there is enough detail to un-spin the facts.

Trying to un-spin a newspaper article without access to primary sources is a nightmare, and a cable news piece is impossible.

most mainstream media exists to protect capitalism and capital interests. once you are aware of this it becomes easier and easier to discount or dismiss lies and bullshit

the world is not "getting better", that's the neoliberal narrative. it's not getting better if you're a coal miner. it's not getting better if you're a single mother.

violence is a tool to be employed to demolish paradigms and gain power OR enforce the status quo. do you think all the people in history have willingly engaged in violence because they couldn't conceive anything better?

the idea that the media (or "reality") is separate from politics is laughable. nothing in society is separate from politics.

the fact that you feel like you have a better grasp on reality than others is fucking funny
Except yes it is. Maybe not at the same rate, but living standards have improved for basically everyone. The poor in rich countries have certainly had the smallest gains from globalization, and much of their gains have been eaten up by rising healthcare costs, but they have at least gained(as a group, I'm certain there are plenty of individuals who have been displaced and been unable to recover from it, which is a problem we should fix, not a sign we need to abandon the entire global economic order).

But beyond just economics, we can look at basically any other standard of well being, and the trend is positive for most people on the planet since the fall of communism. Violence of all types is down, global inequality is down. Infant mortality, extreme poverty, epidemic diseases etc are on their way to being entirely eliminated.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2, 2013
3,385
325
390
32
Austria
#86
Isnt it more a thing of “bad news spreads faster and wieder” than lying?
Essentially all the bad news are overflowing the media and a new only-bad reality is formed by the human brain due to being fead with constant negativity waves.
 
Jan 7, 2018
1,964
727
310
#87
What I find ironic is when journos especially CNN and co get all salty when Trump calls them fake news.

In trump's context it is BS, but cnn and the mainstream media are fake news and do a lot of harm to peddle lies and bullshit.

Trump is a dick, but I can't help but love when he roasts the media.
Does fox news fall under mainstream media? Because Trump has never talk shit them and I'm sure they put out as much as fake news as the as CNN or MSNBC
 
Apr 4, 2014
194
7
260
#88
I see many who condemn MSM tend to follow the fake news trail or quack half arsed propaghanda editorials in shitrags like brietbart.

It's a sad world to be a progressive when you actually have to try put some credibility back in the ruling class backed MSM media.
 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2018
834
729
290
#89
MSM is beyond redemption at this point. Polarized on partisan grounds to such an extent that they can't function impartially anymore. But the alternative rags are just as useless, milking MSM's incompetence to make temporary gains is not a viable long term strategy when the alternatives are just as biased.

We will have to find our own news. Compare and contrast all the propaganda, somewhere between the lines will exist some kind of representation of reality. We will all have to become our own journalists. Even if you fail, you're still no longer susceptible to anyone's propaganda but your own. And if you're dilligent and succeed, well, you've dug yourself out of the fake news rabbit hole at least on some issues.

Stay frosty!
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2010
4,113
97
625
#90
This is a good video that sums up my thoughts on CNN:

Except yes it is. Maybe not at the same rate, but living standards have improved for basically everyone. The poor in rich countries have certainly had the smallest gains from globalization, and much of their gains have been eaten up by rising healthcare costs, but they have at least gained(as a group, I'm certain there are plenty of individuals who have been displaced and been unable to recover from it, which is a problem we should fix, not a sign we need to abandon the entire global economic order).

But beyond just economics, we can look at basically any other standard of well being, and the trend is positive for most people on the planet since the fall of communism. Violence of all types is down, global inequality is down. Infant mortality, extreme poverty, epidemic diseases etc are on their way to being entirely eliminated.
Even intellectuals and scholars on the left know that your spin is too much to handle. https://fair.org/home/the-radical-dishonesty-of-david-brooks/

Dean Baker said:
We would usually expect that a 12-year-old kid would be taller than a 6-year-old kid. However, if a 12-year-old had only grown one inch over their last six years, we would probably be somewhat worried.

David Brooks devotes his most recent column, "the virtue of radical honesty" to presenting data from Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, which purports to show that things are better than ever. Most of the data has the character of boasting over our 12-year-old's one inch of growth over the last six years.

Brooks tells us:

"For example, we’re all aware of the gloomy statistics around wage stagnation and income inequality, but Pinker contends that we should not be nostalgic for the economy of the 1950s, when jobs were plentiful and unions strong. A third of American children lived in poverty. Sixty percent of seniors had incomes below $1,000 a year. Only half the population had any savings in the bank at all.​
"Between 1979 and 2014, meanwhile, the percentage of poor Americans dropped to 20 percent from 24 percent. The percentage of lower-middle-class Americans dropped to 17 from 24. The percentage of Americans who were upper middle class (earning $100,000 to $350,000) shot upward to 30 percent from 13 percent."​
The problem with the Brooks–Pinker story is that we expect the economy/people to get richer through time. After all, technology and education improve. In the fifties, we didn't have the Internet, cell phones, and all sorts of other goodies. In fact, at the start of the fifties, we didn't even have the polio vaccine.

The question is not whether we are better off today than we were sixty years ago. It would be incredible if we were not better off. The question is by how much. In the fifties, wages and incomes for ordinary families were rising at a rate of close to two percent annually. In the last forty-five years, they have barely risen at all.
It's truly strange that despite all of the anger, political instability, and unhappiness you're still trying to sell a narrative that everything is great. It's not accurate and no matter how much you all lash out it won't change the fact that the unrest is justified. It's not just hot air or people's imagination.
 
Last edited:
Likes: olympia
Mar 5, 2007
9,115
96
925
#91
Even intellectuals and scholars on the left know that your spin is too much to handle. https://fair.org/home/the-radical-dishonesty-of-david-brooks/



It's truly strange that despite all of the anger, political instability, and unhappiness you're still trying to sell a narrative that everything is great. It's not accurate and no matter how much you all lash out it won't change the fact that the unrest is justified. It's not just hot air or people's imagination.
I don't know what gave you the impression that I would care at all about what intellectuals and scholars on the left think, but that's beside the point.

The article you link is factually incorrect about the reality of the 1950s. There were 4 fairly major recessions during the 1950s, and the decade had an average of less than 2% real gdp growth. The 60s was a bit better, but it was a bubble inflated by increasing government spending that resulted in the stagflation of the 70s. In fact the US has never really had much higher than 2% gdp growth for any substantial length of time, but it has done so more or less consistently for 150+ years following the Civil War. I like what Peter Zeihan said about the US being the only place in the world where everyone has always said is in decline, yet for 15 consecutive decades it has ended up in a stronger position in relative and absolute terms.

I'm not trying to sell anything, and I certainly didn't 'lash out', but the facts do not support the argument that the average american's economic situation is worse today than in the past. Economic growth is lower today largely in relation to the degree to which population growth is lower.

Again, none of this is to say there aren't issues, especially related to smaller cities and towns being unable to compete in the modern economy, but there never was some economic golden age, and if there were, it ain't coming back with the levels of debt we have currently..

Also in the US at least, those issues have very little to do with globalism. The US economy is the most isolated economy outside of North Korea. International trade(especially outside of NAFTA) makes up such a small percentage of the US GDP that it is absurd to blame the problems of the working class on international trade.
 
Last edited:
Feb 17, 2018
246
108
190
#93
To clarify, I think fox news is just MSM taken to its logical extreme.

I'd say there is just 5% in it between CNN and Fox News.

CNN just seems nicer as it has a left slant but it's just as damaging as fox news.

Infowars is what the MSM will be in another 20 years. I guess the only way to get news is from lots of sources and then you decide what the truth was.

Insert MGS2 quotes.
 
Nov 23, 2010
4,113
97
625
#97
I don't know what gave you the impression that I would care at all about what intellectuals and scholars on the left think, but that's beside the point.

The article you link is factually incorrect about the reality of the 1950s. There were 4 fairly major recessions during the 1950s, and the decade had an average of less than 2% real gdp growth. The 60s was a bit better, but it was a bubble inflated by increasing government spending that resulted in the stagflation of the 70s. In fact the US has never really had much higher than 2% gdp growth for any substantial length of time, but it has done so more or less consistently for 150+ years following the Civil War. I like what Peter Zeihan said about the US being the only place in the world where everyone has always said is in decline, yet for 15 consecutive decades it has ended up in a stronger position in relative and absolute terms.
What's factually incorrect about:
In the ’50s, wages and incomes for ordinary families were rising at a rate of close to 2 percent annually. In the last 45 years, they have barely risen at all.
Or:
The problem with the Brooks/Pinker story is that we expect the economy/people to get richer through time. After all, technology and education improve. In the ’50s, we didn’t have the Internet, cell phones and all sorts of other goodies. In fact, at the start of the ’50s, we didn’t even have the polio vaccine.
In addition, whether you care or not about the left is irrelevant. The point is to highlight your spin and that Pres. Trump profitted off the implications of various trends and statistical facts. Even the scholars and intellectuals on the left know that if they're being honest. He's not some simple product of an overly negative fake news media that isn't informing the public about all the things going right. Moreover, my intent was to present an alternative view so that people are aware folks like Steve Pinker and his parrots here are spreading garbage and misinformation online in an attempt to dismiss and downplay legitimate concerns. The concerns from many of the people who don't like the way things are. As the article suggests, the story he's trying to paint doesn't stand up to scrutiny or any serious analysis.

With respect to what you said about the US's economic performance in the 1950s, debt and US gov't spending causing stagflation lol. Where do you pick this stuff up? From Mr. Steve Pinker or this Mr. Zeihan?
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2007
9,115
96
925
#98
What's factually incorrect about:


Or:


In addition, whether you care or not about the left is irrelevant. The point is to highlight your spin and that Pres. Trump profitted off the implications of various trends and statistical facts. Even the scholars and intellectuals on the left know that if they're being honest. He's not some simple product of an overly negative fake news media that isn't informing the public about all the things going right. Moreover, my intent was to present an alternative view so that people are aware folks like Steve Pinker and his parrots here are spreading garbage and misinformation online in an attempt to dismiss and downplay legitimate concerns. The concerns from many of the people who don't like the way things are. As the article suggests, the story he's trying to paint doesn't stand up to scrutiny or any serious analysis.

With respect to what you said about the US's economic performance in the 1950s, debt and US gov't spending causing stagflation lol. Where do you pick this stuff up? From Mr. Steve Pinker or this Mr. Zeihan?
You can look up the numbers and count the recessions pretty easily. Technically the issues in the 70s were caused by Nixon ending the policies that fueled the growth of the 60s(among other things) but that's aside from the point.

Pinker's book is interesting, but I didn't really need his book when there is plenty of hard data to back up the general point.

Zeihan has a pretty interesting, if grim, take on future geopolitics, you'd probably enjoy his take on Trump's foreign policy: