A modern IO religion

[juantoo3]

The guy that sees the other side is empathetic, and can at least see where the other guy is coming from, even if he disagrees. Because he can see, there is no need for labels.

 

[wil]

Aren't labels beneficial? In our beginnings and some places today knowing the difference between a carnivore that will eat you ...labeling was imperative for survival...

Discerning between a con and a viable opportunity....labeling is worthy, no?

 

[juantoo3]

I'm not following...

Are you suggesting that those who agree with the right are cons by default, and those who agree with the left are providing a viable opportunity by default?

 

[wil]

Con as in con artist...not conservative.

I dislike the word conservative politically

I am in favor of conserving energy, of conservation of land and resources...

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Would you say you are tolerant of less-than equal minded people? That would be the true test of tolerance in my view, at least until someone who doesn't agree with you wishes to forcibly convince you, either by death or threat of harm to yourself, family or property - at which point one may invoke self-defense. At least on the philosophical level, I would say that being *only* surrounded by like-minded people would be quite intolerant, by definition.

I never said I was tolerant, only that me and my views are accepted on principle.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

In any other context this conduct would be a crime against humanity.

Isn't this a bit dramatic? Since when is hypocrisy a crime against humanity?

 

[juantoo3]

Con as in con artist...not conservative.

I understood what you meant, it is the same thing I meant. So do I take that as a "yes?"

 

[juantoo3]

Isn't this a bit dramatic? Since when is hypocrisy a crime against humanity?

Since when is denying someone freedom to speak their minds about legitimate political concerns, and having their name impugned to the point of slander simply hypocrisy? If it were simply hypocrisy, I would not have written what I did. Hypocrisy (to a certain extent) and politics are almost a given...this goes WAY beyond that.

 

[juantoo3]

I never said I was tolerant, only that me and my views are accepted on principle.

...among likeminded individuals. Are you also accepted among those whose views differ from yours?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Since when is denying someone freedom to speak their minds about legitimate political concerns, and having their name impugned to the point of slander simply hypocrisy? If it were simply hypocrisy, I would not have written what I did. Hypocrisy (to a certain extent) and politics are almost a given...this goes WAY beyond that.

It sounds the same to me. I think it's funny to that it must be different because you said so, are you God? I have so many questions!

...among likeminded individuals. Are you also accepted among those whose views differ from yours?

I wouldn't know. I don't know if you're missing the point I was making or if you're trying to make another one.

 

[Ahanu]

OK, but it is quite evident, glaringly, how in practice *anything* that comes from the left is "freedom of expression," and *anything* that comes from the right is "hate speech" or "misogyny" or "discrimination" or some other derogatory or inflammatory

allegation, and the person is tried, convicted and hung in the court of public opinion by the lefty lynch mob without benefit of evidence or council. Just having a right leaning opinion is sufficient to be denuded of any human dignity...the evidence happens time and again...but that's OK! In any other context this conduct would be a crime against humanity.

On the *rare* occasions where the left is forced to recant, their apology appears as some tiny little postscript hidden away where people seldom find it.

There is clearly a blatant double standard that is being conducted. Seriously...who carries the bullhorns these days? It isn't the fascists.

Yes, who carries the bullhorns? That's the danger.

I've been reading a lot of articles online about these issues. "The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online" is a fascinating read from Pew Research Center. I hope you guys have the time to check it out and read this excerpt:

Events and discussions unfolding over the past year highlight the struggles ahead. Among them:

• Respected internet pundit John Naughton asked in The Guardian, “Has the internet become a failed state?” and mostly answered in the affirmative.
• The U.S. Senate heard testimony on the increasingly effective use of social media for the advancement of extremist causes, and there was growing attention to how social media are becoming weaponized by terrorists, creating newly effective kinds of propaganda.
• Scholars provided evidence showing that social bots were implemented in acts aimed at disrupting the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And news organizations documented how foreign trolls bombarded U.S. social media with fake news. A December 2016 Pew Research Center study found that about two-in-three U.S. adults (64%) say fabricated news stories cause a great deal of confusion about the basic facts of current issues and events.
• A May 2016 Pew Research Center report showed that 62% of Americans get their news from social media. Farhad Manjoo of The New York Times argued that the “internet is loosening our grip on the truth.” And his colleague Thomas B. Edsall curated a lengthy list of scholarly articles after the election that painted a picture of how the internet was jeopardizing democracy.
• 2016 was the first year that an internet meme made its way into the Anti-Defamation League’s database of hate symbols.
• Time magazine devoted a 2016 cover story to explaining “why we’re losing the internet to the culture of hate.”
• Celebrity social media mobbing intensified. One example: “Ghostbusters” actor and Saturday Night Live cast member Leslie Jones was publicly harassed on Twitter and had her personal website hacked.
• An industry report revealed how former Facebook workers suppressed conservative news content.
• Multiple news stories indicated that state actors and governments increased their efforts to monitor users of instant messaging and social media
• The Center on the Future of War started the Weaponized Narrative Initiative.
• Many experts documented the ways in which “fake news” and online harassment might be more than social media “byproducts” because they help to drive revenue.
• #Pizzagate, a case study, revealed how disparate sets of rumors can combine to shape public discourse and, at times, potentially lead to dangerous behavior.
• Scientific American carried a nine-author analysis of the influencing of discourse by artificial intelligence (AI) tools, noting, “We are being remotely controlled ever more successfully in this manner. … The trend goes from programming computers to programming people … a sort of digital scepter that allows one to govern the masses efficiently without having to involve citizens in democratic processes.”
• Google (with its Perspective API), Twitter and Facebook are experimenting with new ways to filter out or label negative or misleading discourse.
• Researchers are exploring why people troll.
• And a drumbeat of stories out of Europe covered how governments are attempting to curb fake news and hate speech but struggling to reconcile their concerns with sweeping free speech rules that apply in America.

I'm still digesting this article.

 

[juantoo3]

I don't know if you're missing the point I was making or if you're trying to make another one.

My comment was following after:

Being a super liberal guy surrounded by equal-minded people it's a very tolerant world for me right now.

and

I never said I was tolerant, only that me and my views are accepted on principle.

These are your words, yes?

If so, then I would say I was still on the same subject. If not, then there is something amiss in this thread.

It sounds the same to me. I think it's funny to that it must be different because you said so, are you God? I have so many questions!

Ah! No better argument, so attack the messenger...that too is predictable.

 

[juantoo3]

Yes, who carries the bullhorns? That's the danger.

I've been reading a lot of articles online about these issues. "The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online" is a fascinating read from Pew Research Center. I hope you guys have the time to check it out and read this excerpt:



I'm still digesting this article.

Intriguing...

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

My comment was following after:



and



These are your words, yes?

If so, then I would say I was still on the same subject. If not, then there is something amiss in this thread.



Ah! No better argument, so attack the messenger...that too is predictable.

You and I are so not synced right now, for some reason what I'm saying is really upsetting you and I don't know why. I'm backing off because this is not why I'm here.

 

[juantoo3]

Scholars provided evidence showing that social bots were implemented in acts aimed at disrupting the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

From the article posted above.

Which I find intriguing how the left now bemoans what they were praising only 7 years ago with the Arab Spring uprisings and the role of social media at that time. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they wish to cry "foul." Not like this is the first time something the left supported came back to bite them on the hindquarters.

 

[juantoo3]

You and I are so not synced right now, for some reason what I'm saying is really upsetting you and I don't know why. I'm backing off because this is not why I'm here.

Fair enough, I thought the reason for this thread was the formation of a single, all-encompassing religion for everybody?

Turns out, it is really another ruse to usurp power from those who disagree. Once it is seen for what it is, it falls apart at the seams.

That is why a singular world religion will never work in our lifetimes, unless one is willing to expend the lives of their young men and women and national treasure in a war of worldwide conquest. <sarcasm>Good luck with that.</sarcasm>

 

[wil]

From the article posted above.

Which I find intriguing how the left now bemoans what they were praising only 7 years ago with the Arab Spring uprisings and the role of social media at that time. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they wish to cry "foul." Not like this is the first time something the left supported came back to bite them on the hindquarters.

This was interesting....these kids making money off of per click ads found that making up Alt facts (lies) about Hillary or dems were retweeted, shared, liked and clicked on more than lies about trump or GOP, so they focused on where the money was, and the conservatives gleefully clicked and shared and kids overseas raked in clickbait money

 

[juantoo3]

Capitalism at its finest!

Since I didn't see that part of the article, let me guess...the clickbait kids are in Russia, and that's what this whole stink is about?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Fair enough, I thought the reason for this thread was the formation of a single, all-encompassing religion for everybody?

Turns out, it is really another ruse to usurp power from those who disagree. Once it is seen for what it is, it falls apart at the seams.

That is why a singular world religion will never work in our lifetimes, unless one is willing to expend the lives of their young men and women and national treasure in a war of worldwide conquest. <sarcasm>Good luck with that.</sarcasm>

Or, you just misread what I was saying? Or I failed to convey my thoughts clearly, if that makes you feel any better about.

 

[Thomas]

OK, but it is quite evident, glaringly, how in practice *anything* that comes from the left is "freedom of expression," and *anything* that comes from the right is "hate speech" ...

Aargh.

We have the same thing in the UK, but different. It's been noticed that some of the tory policies in their manifesto are exactly the same as labour policies that appeared in their manifesto a few years ago. at the time, the predominately right-wing press raged at the madness of the suggestions (such as an energy price cap). Now, when the right produces the exact same policy, apparently it's a really good idea ...

Authentic journalism is dead.

Where are there 'centres' of journalism in the US, if indeed there are?

UK journalism is almost totally London-centric. It's the voice of the metropolis, and those journalists who do wander abroad discover that the rest of the country thinks London is living on a different planet. One reason why the press was so poor at registering the mood of the country prior to the Brexit vote, because they don't listen outside of their closed circles ... they exist in a kind of isolation and follow social media which of course moves so fast they can never hope to keep up with anything more than the banal.

I only ask because from here it seems the US press missed the voice of those who voted for Trump? And now he's turning the tables on them, setting up a mistrust in journalism that will take a long time to put right, because in many ways that mistrust is well-founded, in that journalists have lost touch?