Happy Atheist Forum

General => Politics => Topic started by: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2017, 12:36:14 PM

Title: Alternative Facts
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2017, 12:36:14 PM
Alternative Facts (Alt-Facts) is a phrase conjured up by Kellyanne Conway.  Thus we stroll further down the path of believing the lie. We can now have our own facts as well as our own opinions.  Conversation becomes more difficult.  Sigh.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Asmodean on January 23, 2017, 12:38:40 PM
Truth is democratic, unless the majority disagrees with you, or didn't you know?  ;)
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2017, 12:48:02 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 23, 2017, 12:38:40 PM
Truth is democratic, unless the majority disagrees with you, or didn't you know?  ;)

Yes, the winners make the facts, I suppose.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Dave on January 23, 2017, 12:50:20 PM
Been practiced since humanity discovered conflict. :-\

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.766775
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Dave on January 23, 2017, 12:56:10 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2017, 12:48:02 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 23, 2017, 12:38:40 PM
Truth is democratic, unless the majority disagrees with you, or didn't you know?  ;)

Yes, the winners make the facts, I suppose.

Well, the winners had command of history in the old days, currently the Internet means history gets promulgated by all sides every minute. Just a case of which version Joe and Joan Public swallow day by day.

Hard to hide evidence like the size of the crowds. Of course, some will claim, photoshopping . . .
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Dave on January 23, 2017, 01:15:33 PM
Just dicovered Politico, (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/donald-trump-campaign-habits-234014) could be a favourite for me
Quote
First, his team will be very combative, even when the facts are not on their side, trusting that their political base dislikes the news media and will believe them no matter what. Sometimes, they are likely to muddy the water or throw a hand grenade into a political debate just to change the headlines.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: solidsquid on January 23, 2017, 02:53:43 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2017, 12:36:14 PM
Alternative Facts (Alt-Facts) is a phrase conjured up by Kellyanne Conway.  Thus we stroll further down the path of believing the lie. We can now have our own facts as well as our own opinions.  Conversation becomes more difficult.  Sigh.

What are alternative facts?  Like trivia about grunge bands or something?
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 23, 2017, 03:36:57 PM
Quote from: solidsquid on January 23, 2017, 02:53:43 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2017, 12:36:14 PM
Alternative Facts (Alt-Facts) is a phrase conjured up by Kellyanne Conway.  Thus we stroll further down the path of believing the lie. We can now have our own facts as well as our own opinions.  Conversation becomes more difficult.  Sigh.

What are alternative facts?  Like trivia about grunge bands or something?
If it's anything like the Alt-right, then they are racist "facts."
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Recusant on January 23, 2017, 04:27:48 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2017, 12:36:14 PM
Alternative Facts (Alt-Facts) is a phrase conjured up by Kellyanne Conway.  Thus we stroll further down the path of believing the lie. We can now have our own facts as well as our own opinions.  Conversation becomes more difficult.  Sigh.

I don't think anybody is strolling along with Conway except the people who were willing to swallow lies from her and Trump all along. The rest of us agree with Chuck Todd's response to her: "Alternative facts are not facts, they're falsehoods."

She also issued some sort of threat (http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/315523-conway-were-going-to-have-to-rethink-our-relationship-with-press) about how the Trump administration would "revisit our relationship with the press." Constantly calling them "disgusting--the most dishonest human beings on Earth" apparently isn't enough now.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Tom62 on January 23, 2017, 05:56:51 PM
My 2cts. How factual is the press? I've noticed that the yellow press is more prominent than ever. What I find in many newspapers are opinions and insinuations instead of a real journalistic, well investigated facts. It doesn't seem to make much of a different whether the newspaper is liberal or right wing. The press has a great influence, but barely take any responsibility.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Pasta Chick on January 23, 2017, 06:01:16 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2017, 12:48:02 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 23, 2017, 12:38:40 PM
Truth is democratic, unless the majority disagrees with you, or didn't you know?  ;)

Yes, the winners make the facts, I suppose.

"History is a set of lies agreed upon"
- Napoleon
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Biggus Dickus on January 23, 2017, 06:07:02 PM
Quote from: Pasta Chick on January 23, 2017, 06:01:16 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2017, 12:48:02 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 23, 2017, 12:38:40 PM
Truth is democratic, unless the majority disagrees with you, or didn't you know?  ;)

Yes, the winners make the facts, I suppose.

"History is a set of lies agreed upon"
- Napoleon

And..."Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell


Meanwhile the Twitter is coming up with some funny alternative fact tweets under the header: #AlternativeFacts such as, I love Mondays#AlternativeFacts
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Dave on January 23, 2017, 06:10:12 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on January 23, 2017, 05:56:51 PM
My 2cts. How factual is the press? I've noticed that the yellow press is more prominent than ever. What I find in many newspapers are opinions and insinuations instead of a real journalistic, well investigated facts. It doesn't seem to make much of a different whether the newspaper is liberal or right wing. The press has a great influence, but barely take any responsibility.

That is why I gave up buying papers decades ago. I do not give a damn what the journo or editor thinks the facts are: the reporting of things that actually happen, without frills, without opinions, is what I prefer.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Arturo on January 23, 2017, 06:44:25 PM
I saw the "Alternative Facts" headline on TV last night while at the gym. Didn't know what it referred to but all I know is that is more bullshit they are throwing down people's throats. There is no such thing as an "alternative fact"
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 23, 2017, 06:56:09 PM
Maybe it's like alternative medicine, like homeopathy. That kind of makes sense, because they take a tiny bit of truth and distill it down over and over until it has barely any truth to it at all.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Tom62 on January 23, 2017, 07:06:16 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 06:56:09 PM
Maybe it's like alternative medicine, like homeopathy. That kind of makes sense, because they take a tiny bit of truth and distill it down over and over until it has barely any truth to it at all.

ROFL ;D
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Firebird on January 23, 2017, 07:07:13 PM
For anyone who didn't see it:

Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 23, 2017, 07:21:41 PM
That is tough to watch.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Arturo on January 23, 2017, 07:55:03 PM
It's nothing certain to go off of, but she looked awfully nervous when during and around the time she said "alternative facts". Maybe she knew she was lying?

Anyway what was this "falsehood" that was supposed to be mentioned?
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 23, 2017, 08:03:35 PM
I think it was that The Press Sec lied by severely overestimating how many people showed up to Trump's inauguration.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Dave on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PM
Quote from: Firebird on January 23, 2017, 07:07:13 PM
For anyone who didn't see it:



I never cease to be amazed at the skills politicos and their minions exhibit in being able not to answer questions and to offer fantasies instead.

Never, ever, trust a politician.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Arturo on January 23, 2017, 08:22:45 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PM
Quote from: Firebird on January 23, 2017, 07:07:13 PM
For anyone who didn't see it:



I never cease to be amazed at the skills politicos and their minions exhibit in being able not to answer questions and to offer fantasies instead.

Never, ever, trust a politician.

It's nothing new, my Aunt said Trump has a lot of good ideas because politicians "forgot who they work for". But on that regard, things have gotten worse.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Tom62 on January 23, 2017, 08:24:28 PM
^Hear, hear!

Never trust a politician:

"I'm not a crook"
"I didn't have sexual relations with that woman"
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 23, 2017, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PMNever, ever, trust a politician.
I feel like that's the path the lead to Trump. We have to be able to trust them, though not blindly. They are supposed to be our representatives, we are supposed to be able to trust them with the job. There are more honest ones out there, ones we can trust. But this blanket statement of "never trust a politician" is the same thing that many Trump supporters were rallying around. they voted for Trump because he wasn't a politician.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I do think that there are politicians we can trust and we should be looking for more that we can trust.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Dave on January 23, 2017, 08:48:15 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PMNever, ever, trust a politician.
I feel like that's the path the lead to Trump. We have to be able to trust them, though not blindly. They are supposed to be our representatives, we are supposed to be able to trust them with the job. There are more honest ones out there, ones we can trust. But this blanket statement of "never trust a politician" is the same thing that many Trump supporters were rallying around. they voted for Trump because he wasn't a politician.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I do think that there are politicians we can trust and we should be looking for more that we can trust.

I agree up to a point, but actions speak louder than words!

Listening to our British politicians I notice that the idealists and those with a vocation rarely get out of the middle ranks.  Theresa May spent a long time and a lot of words not answering a question about the dodgy missile launch from a Royal Navy sub. Rather than make a bold "Not in the national interest..." reply and stickink to it she kept trying different diversions. Gained no respect from me.

The oppostion were obviously asking makicious questions that would serve no real purpose.

Only one MP i trust, in a limited way, and that is a Conservative who is a GP and who tells it how it is.

And, yes, the media play politics far too often.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Firebird on January 23, 2017, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PMNever, ever, trust a politician.
I feel like that's the path the lead to Trump. We have to be able to trust them, though not blindly. They are supposed to be our representatives, we are supposed to be able to trust them with the job. There are more honest ones out there, ones we can trust. But this blanket statement of "never trust a politician" is the same thing that many Trump supporters were rallying around. they voted for Trump because he wasn't a politician.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I do think that there are politicians we can trust and we should be looking for more that we can trust.

Agreed. Before Reagan, the electorate generally trusted the government to do the right thing. Reagan ushered in a period of cynicism towards government and its ability to help, and that mentality has persisted ever since. It's done enormous damage already. You can see Trump et al trying to do the same to the media now too with stunts like this. And unfortunately, it might still work, as you can see by people's attitudes towards the "mainstream media" .
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Arturo on January 23, 2017, 09:09:17 PM
Quote from: Firebird on January 23, 2017, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PMNever, ever, trust a politician.
I feel like that's the path the lead to Trump. We have to be able to trust them, though not blindly. They are supposed to be our representatives, we are supposed to be able to trust them with the job. There are more honest ones out there, ones we can trust. But this blanket statement of "never trust a politician" is the same thing that many Trump supporters were rallying around. they voted for Trump because he wasn't a politician.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I do think that there are politicians we can trust and we should be looking for more that we can trust.

Agreed. Before Reagan, the electorate generally trusted the government to do the right thing. Reagan ushered in a period of cynicism towards government and its ability to help, and that mentality has persisted ever since. It's done enormous damage already. You can see Trump et al trying to do the same to the media now too with stunts like this. And unfortunately, it might still work, as you can see by people's attitudes towards the "mainstream media" .
This is why critical thinking is such a requirement in every lives. Instead of just going off what is shown to us, we need to dive deeper into the sources of what is being told. And we need to know how to use critical thinking to filter good information from bad. The problem is, people don't want or know how to do that.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 23, 2017, 09:20:49 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:48:15 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PMNever, ever, trust a politician.
I feel like that's the path the lead to Trump. We have to be able to trust them, though not blindly. They are supposed to be our representatives, we are supposed to be able to trust them with the job. There are more honest ones out there, ones we can trust. But this blanket statement of "never trust a politician" is the same thing that many Trump supporters were rallying around. they voted for Trump because he wasn't a politician.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I do think that there are politicians we can trust and we should be looking for more that we can trust.

I agree up to a point, but actions speak louder than words!

Listening to our British politicians I notice that the idealists and those with a vocation rarely get out of the middle ranks.  Theresa May spent a long time and a lot of words not answering a question about the dodgy missile launch from a Royal Navy sub. Rather than make a bold "Not in the national interest..." reply and stickink to it she kept trying different diversions. Gained no respect from me.

The oppostion were obviously asking makicious questions that would serve no real purpose.

Only one MP i trust, in a limited way, and that is a Conservative who is a GP and who tells it how it is.

And, yes, the media play politics far too often.
We as the people need to be careful not let our views get skewed by a few points of data. I think the mentality is what I have a problem with.

If people go around with the idea of, "never trust a politician," and a politician does something shitty, then they just go, "yep, never trust a politician," and shrug it off with a, "what are you going to do?" Generally.

But if people go around thinking, "we should be able to trust our representatives," and a politician does something shitty, then the response is more likely to be, "fuck that one politician in particular and get him/her out of the office that we entrusted him/her with."

I agree that actions used to speak louder than words, but now even when a politician does something shitty, people shrug it off and do little. How can you hold someone responsible if you never trusted them in the first place? Then they just keep doing what they're doing, maybe issue a non-apology, or in the case of Trump, evade and make more propaganda.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 23, 2017, 09:25:36 PM
Quote from: Firebird on January 23, 2017, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PMNever, ever, trust a politician.
I feel like that's the path the lead to Trump. We have to be able to trust them, though not blindly. They are supposed to be our representatives, we are supposed to be able to trust them with the job. There are more honest ones out there, ones we can trust. But this blanket statement of "never trust a politician" is the same thing that many Trump supporters were rallying around. they voted for Trump because he wasn't a politician.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I do think that there are politicians we can trust and we should be looking for more that we can trust.

Agreed. Before Reagan, the electorate generally trusted the government to do the right thing. Reagan ushered in a period of cynicism towards government and its ability to help, and that mentality has persisted ever since. It's done enormous damage already. You can see Trump et al trying to do the same to the media now too with stunts like this. And unfortunately, it might still work, as you can see by people's attitudes towards the "mainstream media" .
Yeah, my parents repeat that shit way too often even though my mother was anti-Reagan the slogan still stuck.

Like I mentioned in replying to Gloucester, I think we need to entrust them, even the bad ones, because we need to hold them responsible for their actions and not shrug off bad behavior like, "well, he is a politician, they all do that."
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Arturo on January 23, 2017, 10:02:47 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 09:25:36 PM
Quote from: Firebird on January 23, 2017, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PMNever, ever, trust a politician.
I feel like that's the path the lead to Trump. We have to be able to trust them, though not blindly. They are supposed to be our representatives, we are supposed to be able to trust them with the job. There are more honest ones out there, ones we can trust. But this blanket statement of "never trust a politician" is the same thing that many Trump supporters were rallying around. they voted for Trump because he wasn't a politician.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I do think that there are politicians we can trust and we should be looking for more that we can trust.

Agreed. Before Reagan, the electorate generally trusted the government to do the right thing. Reagan ushered in a period of cynicism towards government and its ability to help, and that mentality has persisted ever since. It's done enormous damage already. You can see Trump et al trying to do the same to the media now too with stunts like this. And unfortunately, it might still work, as you can see by people's attitudes towards the "mainstream media" .
Yeah, my parents repeat that shit way too often even though my mother was anti-Reagan the slogan still stuck.

Like I mentioned in replying to Gloucester, I think we need to entrust them, even the bad ones, because we need to hold them responsible for their actions and not shrug off bad behavior like, "well, he is a politician, they all do that."
That is a good point. We sort of turned the politician into a descriminated second class, even though they are still the ruling class. Interesting.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Dave on January 23, 2017, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 09:25:36 PM
Quote from: Firebird on January 23, 2017, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PMNever, ever, trust a politician.
I feel like that's the path the lead to Trump. We have to be able to trust them, though not blindly. They are supposed to be our representatives, we are supposed to be able to trust them with the job. There are more honest ones out there, ones we can trust. But this blanket statement of "never trust a politician" is the same thing that many Trump supporters were rallying around. they voted for Trump because he wasn't a politician.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I do think that there are politicians we can trust and we should be looking for more that we can trust.

Agreed. Before Reagan, the electorate generally trusted the government to do the right thing. Reagan ushered in a period of cynicism towards government and its ability to help, and that mentality has persisted ever since. It's done enormous damage already. You can see Trump et al trying to do the same to the media now too with stunts like this. And unfortunately, it might still work, as you can see by people's attitudes towards the "mainstream media" .
Yeah, my parents repeat that shit way too often even though my mother was anti-Reagan the slogan still stuck.

Like I mentioned in replying to Gloucester, I think we need to entrust them, even the bad ones, because we need to hold them responsible for their actions and not shrug off bad behavior like, "well, he is a politician, they all do that."

There is something of a difference between how your systems works and ours. The biggest difference is that we do not have an elected and representative upper house - just a bunch of people we hope are more experienced, wiser and less partisan than the lower house. And it includes clergy . . .

Our lower house votes mainly on the party line on important stuff, not really that representative except in minor stuff.

America looks more like an alliance of "states" in tge old histirocal sense, a federation of almost separate countries sharing a few common laws and services. A far stronger history of their politicians fighting for the local industries and jobs.

Here it is blanket policies, the political parties try to put together a package that seems attractive to all, but almost always hurts a large slice of the population, usually the lower classes and the disabled with the Tories. I have heard MPs telling terrible stories from the results of some policies, premature death and suicide - but it rarely makes much difference.

More and more contactors in the health and benefit areas are proving themselves incompetent and money wasters, but they keep giving them the contracts. That is the policy, no amount of local representation short of a general election will change it. And Labour are a failed party at the moment IMHO.

Pardon any typos I may have missed please.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Arturo on January 23, 2017, 10:59:12 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 09:25:36 PM
Quote from: Firebird on January 23, 2017, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 08:12:06 PMNever, ever, trust a politician.
I feel like that's the path the lead to Trump. We have to be able to trust them, though not blindly. They are supposed to be our representatives, we are supposed to be able to trust them with the job. There are more honest ones out there, ones we can trust. But this blanket statement of "never trust a politician" is the same thing that many Trump supporters were rallying around. they voted for Trump because he wasn't a politician.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I do think that there are politicians we can trust and we should be looking for more that we can trust.

Agreed. Before Reagan, the electorate generally trusted the government to do the right thing. Reagan ushered in a period of cynicism towards government and its ability to help, and that mentality has persisted ever since. It's done enormous damage already. You can see Trump et al trying to do the same to the media now too with stunts like this. And unfortunately, it might still work, as you can see by people's attitudes towards the "mainstream media" .
Yeah, my parents repeat that shit way too often even though my mother was anti-Reagan the slogan still stuck.

Like I mentioned in replying to Gloucester, I think we need to entrust them, even the bad ones, because we need to hold them responsible for their actions and not shrug off bad behavior like, "well, he is a politician, they all do that."

There is something of a difference between how your systems works and ours. The biggest difference is that we do not have an elected and representative upper house - just a bunch of people we hope are more experienced, wiser and less partisan than the lower house. And it includes clergy . . .

Our lower house votes mainly on the party line on important stuff, not really that representative except in minor stuff.

America looks more like an alliance of "states" in tge old histirocal sense, a federation of almost separate countries sharing a few common laws and services. A far stronger history of their politicians fighting for the local industries and jobs.

Here it is blanket policies, the political parties try to put together a package that seems attractive to all, but almost always hurts a large slice of the population, usually the lower classes and the disabled with the Tories. I have heard MPs telling terrible stories from the results of some policies, premature death and suicide - but it rarely makes much difference.

More and more contactors in the health and benefit areas are proving themselves incompetent and money wasters, but they keep giving them the contracts. That is the policy, no amount of local representation short of a general election will change it. And Labour are a failed party at the moment IMHO.

Pardon any typos I may have missed please.

We still get blanket policies and it's what gets most public attention. We rarely hear about state laws and never hear about city laws. This system worked when it was 13 colonies but we are a empire now. Someone in new York has to follow the same rules as someone in Hawaii. That can leave a lot of disagreement with current laws that may not gain steam because your peers are on the other end of the country and you probably won't even know about each other. So you get what we have now, a lot of marginalised movements because they don't get the support and criticism they would normally get in the original states. And something tells me that, that situation made for movements to take power quickly or be shot down immediately.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Dave on January 24, 2017, 08:04:08 AM
I should have added that our upper house is largely a talking shop with very limited powers to change any lower house decisions, they can basically only delay them.

And they are placemen in essence, appointed/elevated by the main party leaders - the public get no say and they can be there 'til they die.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 24, 2017, 01:42:16 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2017, 09:25:36 PM
Yeah, my parents repeat that shit way too often even though my mother was anti-Reagan the slogan still stuck.

Like I mentioned in replying to Gloucester, I think we need to entrust them, even the bad ones, because we need to hold them responsible for their actions and not shrug off bad behavior like, "well, he is a politician, they all do that."

There is something of a difference between how your systems works and ours. The biggest difference is that we do not have an elected and representative upper house - just a bunch of people we hope are more experienced, wiser and less partisan than the lower house. And it includes clergy . . .

Our lower house votes mainly on the party line on important stuff, not really that representative except in minor stuff.

America looks more like an alliance of "states" in tge old histirocal sense, a federation of almost separate countries sharing a few common laws and services. A far stronger history of their politicians fighting for the local industries and jobs.

Here it is blanket policies, the political parties try to put together a package that seems attractive to all, but almost always hurts a large slice of the population, usually the lower classes and the disabled with the Tories. I have heard MPs telling terrible stories from the results of some policies, premature death and suicide - but it rarely makes much difference.

More and more contactors in the health and benefit areas are proving themselves incompetent and money wasters, but they keep giving them the contracts. That is the policy, no amount of local representation short of a general election will change it. And Labour are a failed party at the moment IMHO.

Pardon any typos I may have missed please.
Some similar things, some different things. I don't see how that makes my approach not work, but I don't think you should take the time to describe the how your whole government works to show why my mentality doesn't work. We don't have to agree to disagree, but in the interests of time vs. worth, we may not want to continue talking about it.

As for typos, they happen. The only time I attack typos, is if the person making is criticizing another person's typing, and then it's usually just a joke or a warning to not criticize writing mistakes while making them. I care more about what a person means than how they say it.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 24, 2017, 01:54:44 PM
Quote from: Apathy on January 23, 2017, 10:02:47 PM
That is a good point. We sort of turned the politician into a descriminated second class, even though they are still the ruling class. Interesting.
I think it's more than just discrimination, I think it makes people less angry when they should properly be angry. Because they are expecting a politician to do something bad and when a politician does, instead of getting properly angry, they just get a little angry and then accept it without much of a fight. Alternatively, even if a politician doesn't do something bad (so far so good for Obama), people still think they're a bad, untrustable politician. So even when there is a politician that they should trust, they don't.

Quote from: Apathy on January 23, 2017, 10:59:12 PMWe still get blanket policies and it's what gets most public attention. We rarely hear about state laws and never hear about city laws. This system worked when it was 13 colonies but we are a empire now. Someone in new York has to follow the same rules as someone in Hawaii. That can leave a lot of disagreement with current laws that may not gain steam because your peers are on the other end of the country and you probably won't even know about each other. So you get what we have now, a lot of marginalised movements because they don't get the support and criticism they would normally get in the original states. And something tells me that, that situation made for movements to take power quickly or be shot down immediately.
A bit off topic: I think a lot of the federal stuff comes from national corporations, because they want to be able to operate pretty much the same way in every state to save money and expertise. Imagine if they had to hire 50 business teams to run a national corporation. Not only would it make their businesses a nightmare to organize and plan, but it would be much more expensive too. Most companies that I am familiar with will run regions which is usually divided up by amount of business of which some include several states and some states like California might have two regions. Anyway, I like the homogenization of most laws, so I think there are some good things that come from the business sector. But I think they are currently doing more harm than good.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Arturo on January 24, 2017, 09:06:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 24, 2017, 01:54:44 PM
Quote from: Apathy on January 23, 2017, 10:02:47 PM
That is a good point. We sort of turned the politician into a descriminated second class, even though they are still the ruling class. Interesting.
I think it's more than just discrimination, I think it makes people less angry when they should properly be angry. Because they are expecting a politician to do something bad and when a politician does, instead of getting properly angry, they just get a little angry and then accept it without much of a fight. Alternatively, even if a politician doesn't do something bad (so far so good for Obama), people still think they're a bad, untrustable politician. So even when there is a politician that they should trust, they don't.
I see, so your solution is people to trust their representatives again.

I don't see that happening, people don't like being taught things and I think a lot of baby boomers like loud mouth retards with a lot of insecurities.

On the other hand, there seem to be people still protesting so maybe they don't need to be taught.

Quote from: Davin on January 24, 2017, 01:54:44 PM
Quote from: Apathy on January 23, 2017, 10:59:12 PMWe still get blanket policies and it's what gets most public attention. We rarely hear about state laws and never hear about city laws. This system worked when it was 13 colonies but we are a empire now. Someone in new York has to follow the same rules as someone in Hawaii. That can leave a lot of disagreement with current laws that may not gain steam because your peers are on the other end of the country and you probably won't even know about each other. So you get what we have now, a lot of marginalised movements because they don't get the support and criticism they would normally get in the original states. And something tells me that, that situation made for movements to take power quickly or be shot down immediately.
A bit off topic: I think a lot of the federal stuff comes from national corporations, because they want to be able to operate pretty much the same way in every state to save money and expertise. Imagine if they had to hire 50 business teams to run a national corporation. Not only would it make their businesses a nightmare to organize and plan, but it would be much more expensive too. Most companies that I am familiar with will run regions which is usually divided up by amount of business of which some include several states and some states like California might have two regions. Anyway, I like the homogenization of most laws, so I think there are some good things that come from the business sector. But I think they are currently doing more harm than good.

That's interesting. I will have to think about it for awhile.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 25, 2017, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: Apathy on January 24, 2017, 09:06:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 24, 2017, 01:54:44 PM
Quote from: Apathy on January 23, 2017, 10:02:47 PM
That is a good point. We sort of turned the politician into a descriminated second class, even though they are still the ruling class. Interesting.
I think it's more than just discrimination, I think it makes people less angry when they should properly be angry. Because they are expecting a politician to do something bad and when a politician does, instead of getting properly angry, they just get a little angry and then accept it without much of a fight. Alternatively, even if a politician doesn't do something bad (so far so good for Obama), people still think they're a bad, untrustable politician. So even when there is a politician that they should trust, they don't.
I see, so your solution is people to trust their representatives again.

I don't see that happening, people don't like being taught things and I think a lot of baby boomers like loud mouth retards with a lot of insecurities.

On the other hand, there seem to be people still protesting so maybe they don't need to be taught.
My solution isn't necessarily to get people to trust their government again, it's to challenge the feeling that all politicians are bad. I think people should be able to trust their government representatives, but not blindly. Ideas unchallenged sometimes flourish, and this "all politicians are dishonest fuckers" one seems to be doing quite well, because most people will agree that you shouldn't blindly trust politicians. Maybe a new catchy saying will work, but I'm terrible at those. It's tough to teach people things, and impossible if they don't want to learn, but most people already know enough.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Recusant on January 25, 2017, 04:36:23 PM
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/16177469_1459262850811713_971381952189101942_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoiYiJ9&oh=84fe2ad8480ff4582fccdf763b8cb951&oe=590DF09D)
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Arturo on January 25, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 25, 2017, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: Apathy on January 24, 2017, 09:06:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 24, 2017, 01:54:44 PM
Quote from: Apathy on January 23, 2017, 10:02:47 PM
That is a good point. We sort of turned the politician into a descriminated second class, even though they are still the ruling class. Interesting.
I think it's more than just discrimination, I think it makes people less angry when they should properly be angry. Because they are expecting a politician to do something bad and when a politician does, instead of getting properly angry, they just get a little angry and then accept it without much of a fight. Alternatively, even if a politician doesn't do something bad (so far so good for Obama), people still think they're a bad, untrustable politician. So even when there is a politician that they should trust, they don't.
I see, so your solution is people to trust their representatives again.

I don't see that happening, people don't like being taught things and I think a lot of baby boomers like loud mouth retards with a lot of insecurities.

On the other hand, there seem to be people still protesting so maybe they don't need to be taught.
My solution isn't necessarily to get people to trust their government again, it's to challenge the feeling that all politicians are bad. I think people should be able to trust their government representatives, but not blindly. Ideas unchallenged sometimes flourish, and this "all politicians are dishonest fuckers" one seems to be doing quite well, because most people will agree that you shouldn't blindly trust politicians. Maybe a new catchy saying will work, but I'm terrible at those. It's tough to teach people things, and impossible if they don't want to learn, but most people already know enough.

"Be skeptical of your own skepticism" maybe? It sounds like you want people to stop judging books by their cover, or probably more suiting, the pages they haven't even read.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 26, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
I like, "think for yourself, question authority." But then a lot of people that also like that tend to not listen to the answers to the questions. Asking questions isn't very useful if you never get any answers and less so if you ignore the answers. Of course I'm not good at this. Obviously.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Dave on January 26, 2017, 09:00:24 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 26, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
I like, "think for yourself, question authority." But then a lot of people that also like that tend to not listen to the answers to the questions. Asking questions isn't very useful if you never get any answers and less so if you ignore the answers. Of course I'm not good at this. Obviously.

Also useful to be able to differentiate between false/irrelevant answers and true/relevant. Hmm, how fo you judge the veracity of the answer unless it is either obviously logically correct or blindingly wrong? Nuance is a dicey thing here.

Authority does not always equate accuracy.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 26, 2017, 09:36:02 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 26, 2017, 09:00:24 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 26, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
I like, "think for yourself, question authority." But then a lot of people that also like that tend to not listen to the answers to the questions. Asking questions isn't very useful if you never get any answers and less so if you ignore the answers. Of course I'm not good at this. Obviously.

Also useful to be able to differentiate between false/irrelevant answers and true/relevant. Hmm, how fo you judge the veracity of the answer unless it is either obviously logically correct or blindingly wrong? Nuance is a dicey thing here.

Authority does not always equate accuracy.
If the answer is coming from a real authority (as opposed to a fraud), then that authority will have more than, "because I said so." And authority on the subject should be able to back their shit up to the point that you do not need to trust them because you will then have the facts.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Dave on January 26, 2017, 10:07:17 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 26, 2017, 09:36:02 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 26, 2017, 09:00:24 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 26, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
I like, "think for yourself, question authority." But then a lot of people that also like that tend to not listen to the answers to the questions. Asking questions isn't very useful if you never get any answers and less so if you ignore the answers. Of course I'm not good at this. Obviously.

Also useful to be able to differentiate between false/irrelevant answers and true/relevant. Hmm, how fo you judge the veracity of the answer unless it is either obviously logically correct or blindingly wrong? Nuance is a dicey thing here.

Authority does not always equate accuracy.
If the answer is coming from a real authority (as opposed to a fraud), then that authority will have more than, "because I said so." And authority on the subject should be able to back their shit up to the point that you do not need to trust them because you will then have the facts.

I'll go for "genuine authority" rather than "real authority", just feels better. ;)

"Authority" is too often used as a "rank" rather than a "qualification", the little old illiterate lady down the road might be an "authority" in growing some exotic plant, say. I wonder how may authorities have proved to be wrong by history?

I used to tell my nieces and nephews, "If you have trouble understanfing or accepting something a teacher [authority figure] challenge it politely. If uou are asked to accept it "for the moment" then fo do and wait for further information or explanation. There was no internet back in the 60s! I suggest the Internet might be slowly eroding the whole concept of authority in many fields. But, so easy to come to wrong conclusions without a great deal of care.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts
Post by: Davin on January 27, 2017, 03:01:42 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 26, 2017, 10:07:17 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 26, 2017, 09:36:02 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 26, 2017, 09:00:24 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 26, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
I like, "think for yourself, question authority." But then a lot of people that also like that tend to not listen to the answers to the questions. Asking questions isn't very useful if you never get any answers and less so if you ignore the answers. Of course I'm not good at this. Obviously.

Also useful to be able to differentiate between false/irrelevant answers and true/relevant. Hmm, how fo you judge the veracity of the answer unless it is either obviously logically correct or blindingly wrong? Nuance is a dicey thing here.

Authority does not always equate accuracy.
If the answer is coming from a real authority (as opposed to a fraud), then that authority will have more than, "because I said so." And authority on the subject should be able to back their shit up to the point that you do not need to trust them because you will then have the facts.

I'll go for "genuine authority" rather than "real authority", just feels better. ;)

"Authority" is too often used as a "rank" rather than a "qualification", the little old illiterate lady down the road might be an "authority" in growing some exotic plant, say. I wonder how may authorities have proved to be wrong by history?

I used to tell my nieces and nephews, "If you have trouble understanfing or accepting something a teacher [authority figure] challenge it politely. If uou are asked to accept it "for the moment" then fo do and wait for further information or explanation. There was no internet back in the 60s! I suggest the Internet might be slowly eroding the whole concept of authority in many fields. But, so easy to come to wrong conclusions without a great deal of care.
The authority problem is pretty bad I think. It doesn't make sense to me that people are trying to say that the appeal to authority doesn't apply if the authority is speaking about their field of study, and while I agree you might want to just trust them in immediate danger types of situations, but after and when you do have time, you don't just trust an authority.

There are situations where you can simply "accept" something, but put it into the unconfirmed box until you get a better answer. The internet has the possibility to fix the problem of ignorance, but with all the algorithms designed to be tailored to the people, it's not helping. Because they go, "I see you like unsubstantiated rumors being peddled as facts as long as they are anti-women, racist... etc. so here's a bunch more like it!"