Trump's 46 minutes....To Censor or not to Censor?...

[Walker]

Censoring bastards

“YouTube on Wednesday announced changes to how it handles videos about the 2020 presidential election, saying it would remove new videos that mislead people by claiming that widespread fraud or errors influenced the outcome of the election.”

- NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/2020- ... tion-fraud

[tillingborn]

The majority of media tend to NOT out-and-out lie or pretend that they are not pretending simply for profit.

If you have done the numbers and are confident that it is a majority, it's not for me to argue. Certainly there are many conscientious journalists who see it as their job to present 'facts'; but establishing what is a fact is time consuming and deciding which ones to present, when it isn't a professional imperative, is a matter of preference.

But the vast majority of the conservatives who intrinsically believe IN utilizing exploitation, favor media that attempts to mislead others into not being able to determine fact from fiction.

I think singling out conservatives is probably a matter of preference. Apart from the fanatics at either end, it seems to me there are people across the spectrum who sincerely believe that manipulating opinion to support their own is legitimate. That's just sophistry or rhetoric, again according to preference.

What you said about American democracy and 'checks and balances' are empty.

It was any functional state, rather than specifically America. It's a clumsy term by which I simply mean an effective opposition and a tolerance of protest.

Of coures things will either be 'good' or 'bad'. You just covered your bases like a horoscope writer might do. They are tautologies.

I think the difference is that horoscope writers aimlessly include everyone, whereas any journalist that has actual control of their future knows who their market is.

[Walker]

Obama count, almost 2000.

Trump to date, about 100.

“The Constitution gives presidents the power of executive clemency for those convicted in federal criminal cases. Executive clemency has two main powers:
• Pardons overturn federal convictions, exempt people from punishment and restore various rights such as being allowed to vote, run for public office, hold professional licenses or own a gun. They do not erase the record of the conviction.
• Commutations reduce sentences. Convictions remain intact.”

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ ... 492080002/

[Walker]

Humanity’s reaction to Doublethink

https://www.city-journal.org/self-censorship

[Scott Mayers]

The majority of media tend to NOT out-and-out lie or pretend that they are not pretending simply for profit.

If you have done the numbers and are confident that it is a majority, it's not for me to argue. Certainly there are many conscientious journalists who see it as their job to present 'facts'; but establishing what is a fact is time consuming and deciding which ones to present, when it isn't a professional imperative, is a matter of preference.

But the vast majority of the conservatives who intrinsically believe IN utilizing exploitation, favor media that attempts to mislead others into not being able to determine fact from fiction.

I think singling out conservatives is probably a matter of preference. Apart from the fanatics at either end, it seems to me there are people across the spectrum who sincerely believe that manipulating opinion to support their own is legitimate. That's just sophistry or rhetoric, again according to preference.

What you said about American democracy and 'checks and balances' are empty.

It was any functional state, rather than specifically America. It's a clumsy term by which I simply mean an effective opposition and a tolerance of protest.

Of coures things will either be 'good' or 'bad'. You just covered your bases like a horoscope writer might do. They are tautologies.

I think the difference is that horoscope writers aimlessly include everyone, whereas any journalist that has actual control of their future knows who their market is.

The right-wing media, like Fox, has adopted an intentional model that is modeled on the rag mags. It attempts to hold a straight face without ever giving in to this illusion making it impossible to determine if they are NOT being truthful. To the same KIND of programs that does this by left-leaning channels are CLEAR as entertainment. As for news, they do not feign the serious rhetoric and the REPORTING is neutral in TONE: the philosophy OF the journalists anywhere are usually to NOT 'emote' in their presentation nor to appear as though they are taking sides. Fox on the other hand, for instance, over exaggerates the extremes cartoonishly and permits (actually demands) their reporters to be emotive and partial.

I've defended the philosophy of Fox before as 'entertainment-only' and value the actual literal cartoons they have, like Family Guy, for instance, as genious forms of expression. But the fact that the caricatured news format has taken on the "Hard Copy" style that commands barraging the viewer with entertainment AS NEWS when and where it exists but without being able to be certain of the distinction. Their owner's primary interest is to PROFIT without concern to the viewer's concern for truth and they act like one who is playing a joke but never letting go of the pretense.

Although the owners themselves may not literally believe in all they present, they are not concerned about the lack of sincerity or harm the viewer may be decieved into because they DEPEND most on those who are most ill equipped to reason logically and to those most religiously open to conspiracy thinking with zero concern. So they have no qualms about crying wolf with the belief that the viewer is solely responsible to separate fact from fiction. It's a good means to profit but encourages a dumbing down of society to be MOST optimized to their profit line.

Remember the "War of the Worlds" by H.G.Wells presentation in the early days of radio? The play was presented with emergency news interruptions of all out war of alien attacks in New York. This caused a supposed panic by how those interruptions appeared as very realistic in a day society was still not adapted to being able to tell the difference. However, those like Fox 'News' do not permit a distinction. They believe in the buyer-beware kind of mentality which places the onus on the listener to an extreme. While this may not seem harmful (and may eventually lose its power of influence in time), it is precisely what leads real politicians like Trump to rise up and take on real positions of power that can no longer be treated as a joke.

[tillingborn]

The right-wing media, like Fox, has adopted an intentional model that is modeled on the rag mags. It attempts to hold a straight face without ever giving in to this illusion making it impossible to determine if they are NOT being truthful.

I think two of the most influential people in 20th century American politics are Edward Bernays and Frank Meyer. Meyer because he recognised that no single issue unites conservatives, and that for the Republican party to succeed in elections, it has to be a coalition of religious and social conservatives, as well as the diametrically opposed fiscal conservatives and free marketeers. That pretty much reflects the primary interests of the members of this forum who are the loudest Trump advocates. Bernays basically showed how to market such an unlikely product.
The fact is that the only demographic in which Trump had a majority in 2016 was white men, over 50 without a college education. In practice this means that rich old educated men have to persuade poor old uneducated men that their interests are the same and do whatever they can to make sure that other people don't get a say. That pretty much has been the pattern for at least all of recorded history. Trump and his cronies know that broadening enfranchisement has made them all but unelectable - the only time the Republicans have won the popular vote this century was 2004, and it is likely that the 9/11 attacks skewed Bush's popularity. I've already made this point in another thread:

Donald Trump is simply the GOP without the subtlety. When democrats pushed for voting reform earlier this year Trump said:“The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” The GOP has a decision to make. Either it can broaden its appeal which would involve redistributing wealth in ways that would slow down corporate funding and alienate the rabid free marketeers they have courted, or go full on totalitarian. Trump has persuaded quite a lot of people to choose option B. Probably not enough, though; at least for now.

The most consistently honest thing that Trump has said is that the elections, 2016 and 2020, were rigged. Of course they were, the Republicans know they cannot win a fair election with their current policies.

To the same KIND of programs that does this by left-leaning channels are CLEAR as entertainment. As for news, they do not feign the serious rhetoric and the REPORTING is neutral in TONE: the philosophy OF the journalists anywhere are usually to NOT 'emote' in their presentation nor to appear as though they are taking sides. Fox on the other hand, for instance, over exaggerates the extremes cartoonishly and permits (actually demands) their reporters to be emotive and partial.

I don't watch a lot of Fox, to be honest, it's not the sort of news anyone should trust for precisely the reasons you give. Hannity, Ingraham and Carlson, if they were on 'left-leaning channels' would be entertaining because they are comically emotive and partial.

I've defended the philosophy of Fox before as 'entertainment-only' and value the actual literal cartoons they have, like Family Guy, for instance, as genious forms of expression. But the fact that the caricatured news format has taken on the "Hard Copy" style that commands barraging the viewer with entertainment AS NEWS when and where it exists but without being able to be certain of the distinction. Their owner's primary interest is to PROFIT without concern to the viewer's concern for truth and they act like one who is playing a joke but never letting go of the pretense.

Although the owners themselves may not literally believe in all they present, they are not concerned about the lack of sincerity or harm the viewer may be decieved into because they DEPEND most on those who are most ill equipped to reason logically and to those most religiously open to conspiracy thinking with zero concern. So they have no qualms about crying wolf with the belief that the viewer is solely responsible to separate fact from fiction. It's a good means to profit but encourages a dumbing down of society to be MOST optimized to their profit line.

It's all textbook Edward Bernays.

Remember the "War of the Worlds" by H.G.Wells presentation in the early days of radio? The play was presented with emergency news interruptions of all out war of alien attacks in New York. This caused a supposed panic by how those interruptions appeared as very realistic in a day society was still not adapted to being able to tell the difference. However, those like Fox 'News' do not permit a distinction. They believe in the buyer-beware kind of mentality which places the onus on the listener to an extreme. While this may not seem harmful (and may eventually lose its power of influence in time), it is precisely what leads real politicians like Trump to rise up and take on real positions of power that can no longer be treated as a joke.

There's also the legend of people running from movie theatres where 'L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat' was shown. There's the rise of Spiritualism accompanied by photographs of cotton wool that shysters peddled as ectoplasm. There's the Vatican's reactionary response to the Gutenberg press. Whenever a new medium appears, there is anger and hand wringing by people worried about how other people use it. That's not to treat the current fascination with social media as a joke, but it is always the snake oil salesmen who are first out of the blocks.

[Scott Mayers]

The fucking Trump protestors have breached the White house!!!!!

Okay, NOW has anyone changed their mind about Trump? He is instigating this through Twitter now. Again, I don't like censorship; but should he not at least be stalled on Twitter if only to curb the potential rising violence that his overt and intentional lies are encouraging?

[henry quirk]

The fucking Trump protestors have breached the White house!!!!!

capital building, I believe, not the white house, and the extent of the of the breach might be a tad bit exaggerated if it's bein' reported by any of the national outlets (cuz, let's face it, the lot of them -- includin' fox -- are lyin' sacks)

[Scott Mayers]

The fucking Trump protestors have breached the Capital building!!!!!

capital building, I believe, not the white house, and the extent of the of the breach might be a tad bit exaggerated if it's bein' reported by any of the national outlets (cuz, let's face it, the lot of them -- includin' fox -- are lyin' sacks)

Yes, sorry about that. Thank you.

I'm watching it right now on CNN but am sure it is on all major news outlets.

Edit: corrected "White House" to "Capital building".