I'm leaving The Swarm Lounge

[AE 87]

I wasn’t implying anything. I pointed out very plainly that you contradicted yourself and most of your posts are drenched in arrogance. Thanks for demonstrating the latter once again.

As to your most recent post, why would people be trying to sway others to think in a certain way? Can people really be swayed by a nameless, faceless entity? I sure hope not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People should be able to be swayed by facts and reason, even when delivered by a nameless, faceless entity, imo.

 

[GT_05]

People should be able to be swayed by facts and reason, even when delivered by a nameless, faceless entity, imo.

Maybe it’s just me then and maybe the Russians really did influence the election. Pretty sad, imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AE 87]

Maybe it’s just me then and maybe the Russians really did influence the election. Pretty sad, imo.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What?

 

[forensicbuzz]

I don't think there's a problem with trying to persuade others, or sway their opinion. I also agree that it requires also "listening" or taking seriously posts from an alternative perspective.

However, I think it is a pretty broad brush to lump together those who respond to another's post after taking it seriously with those who just attack the source of the other's data like breitbart or foxnews.

I agree. I'm fairly moderate in my political leanings, and tend to take each issue as I see it. Sometimes I fall a little to the Left, but mostly I fall a little to the right. I don't know which sources to believe, as I think most media sources have an agenda they're pushing. If the media cloud that's been posted is accurate, that is actually a very helpful tool for me. The problem is I don't know if it's accurate.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I wasn’t implying anything. I pointed out very plainly that you contradicted yourself and most of your posts are drenched in arrogance. Thanks for demonstrating the latter once again.

As to your most recent post, why would people be trying to sway others to think in a certain way? Can people really be swayed by a nameless, faceless entity? I sure hope not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can people be swayed by nameless, faceless entities? Maybe, maybe not. That's not really the point, is it. It certainly doesn't stop people from trying. As for me personally, I actually learn a lot about current events listening (re: reading) the back and forth between the conservative and progressive fonts on this forum. There's nothing wrong with supporting your views, my comment was that we should also hear what the other side is saying too. With broad strokes acknowledged, we don't do that often enough here.

Can you show me where I contradicted myself?

 

[RonJohn]

I have thought about doing the same thing with the entire forum. It is entirely possible that at some point before the football season starts that I am going to stop coming to the entire site. I want to be able to enjoy football without the snippy attitudes.

 

[AE 87]

I agree. I'm fairly moderate in my political leanings, and tend to take each issue as I see it. Sometimes I fall a little to the Left, but mostly I fall a little to the right. I don't know which sources to believe, as I think most media sources have an agenda they're pushing. If the media cloud that's been posted is accurate, that is actually a very helpful tool for me. The problem is I don't know if it's accurate.

I greatly appreciate your posts here with the caveat that I don't know what the "media cloud" is.

I also suspect that you may be more open to friendly dialogue with me when some new guy speaks to you like you have spoken to me.

Maybe not.

 

[Technut1990]

Ok folks I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot. We do have a problem with compromise therefore I’m going to suggest that if everyone simply agrees with everything I say this will be an exceptional website, not that it isn’t already of course. I stand ready to accept your acolades

 

[AE 87]

 

[AE 87]

OK, I would like discussion over the last post and this one.

 

[TampaBuzz]

It’s also difficult to have discussions with people who post information or believe information in charts like this:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The person that authored this cloud clearly states that it likely is influenced by her personal opinions and bias, and she explains how she tries to remove the bias. It certainly isn't perfect, but I find it useful. I tend to avoid sources that show up on the far left and far right in this graphic. I fact check many things I read trying to determine if those things presented as fact are actually opinion. Sometimes, it is hard to tell the difference. Based on my own research and fact checking, I tend to think that Breitbart's placement (and many of the sources on the bottom row, both left and right) is pretty accurate. And yes, I tend to trust the sources at the top of this chart as being factual, even if sometimes slanted a little one way or another. I also try to read things from sources across the political spectrum to better understand the conflicting points of view.

Just out of curiosity, where would you place breitbart in this scheme of things?

 

[GT_05]

The person that authored this cloud clearly states that it likely is influenced by her personal opinions and bias, and she explains how she tries to remove the bias. It certainly isn't perfect, but I find it useful. I tend to avoid sources that show up on the far left and far right in this graphic. I fact check many things I read trying to determine if those things presented as fact are actually opinion. Sometimes, it is hard to tell the difference. Based on my own research and fact checking, I tend to think that Breitbart's placement (and many of the sources on the bottom row, both left and right) is pretty accurate. And yes, I tend to trust the sources at the top of this chart as being factual, even if sometimes slanted a little one way or another. I also try to read things from sources across the political spectrum to better understand the conflicting points of view.

Just out of curiosity, where would you place breitbart in this scheme of things?

I don’t know much of anything about Breitbart. However, I am familiar with several of those sources and I believe their placement is questionable at best. So, if I believe some to be in error then I’m skeptical of the rest.

So Real Clear Politics takes the average of many polls and the result is usually a fairly decent representation of reality. I try to do that with my news sources. I get some from the respected sources on the left and some from the respected sources on the right and I usually feel that I have a pretty good understanding of what is really going on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The person that authored this cloud clearly states that it likely is influenced by her personal opinions and bias, and she explains how she tries to remove the bias. It certainly isn't perfect, but I find it useful. I tend to avoid sources that show up on the far left and far right in this graphic. I fact check many things I read trying to determine if those things presented as fact are actually opinion. Sometimes, it is hard to tell the difference. Based on my own research and fact checking, I tend to think that Breitbart's placement (and many of the sources on the bottom row, both left and right) is pretty accurate. And yes, I tend to trust the sources at the top of this chart as being factual, even if sometimes slanted a little one way or another. I also try to read things from sources across the political spectrum to better understand the conflicting points of view.

Just out of curiosity, where would you place breitbart in this scheme of things?

A reasonable and enlightened philosophy. But that graph is garbage. For every placement I might agree with there are probably over a dozen I’d disagree with. The placements are pretty laughable to my eyes.

At least the creater admits it’s based on opinion rather than fact based analysis. Imo I’m not sure I could list a single organization in this graph that’s truly neutral in bias. They all lean one way or another.

As for my own biased opinion. WSJ might be closest to that neutral line currently but I haven’t been subscribed for years, only catch a few of its articles here and there so that is also not a thoroughly informed opinion.

 

[MWBATL]

Just out of curiosity, where would you place breitbart in this scheme of things?

I actually don't ever read Breitbart of InfoWars of that ilk. I do find Washington Examiner to be as reliable as the Washington Post (if not more so). I get most of my news form the WSJ and will also look or listen to NPR (despite their obvious bias, they at least make an effort ot be more in depth and add some context to their news reporting).

My biggest complaint about most so-called news organizations is their obvious lack of perspective when reporting news. By which I mean that you can publish just about any sensational headline and it might be technically true but highly misleading. For example, you could scream about the discrimination against trans-gendered or gender neutral people but fail to mention they are only 1% of the population (if that much). While people who were screwed by ObamaCare were 17% of Americans. You can scream about family separations by, my goodness, it wha less than 3,000 kids and is something that has not been done in a vacuum (Obama did it), yet that sort of thing is rarely reported. You would have thought we had replicated the holocaust based on the screams of outrage (and some even went so far as to make hideous comparisons to Nazis own their criticism). Those sites that never mention those facts or that falsely deny the context are to me ultra-partisan, and I would shove that whole chart to the left based on that. (I would shove Fox further right too).

It is exceptionally hard to get in depth, quality, factual reporting these days.

 

[Old South Stands]

I actually don't ever read Breitbart of InfoWars of that ilk. I do find Washington Examiner to be as reliable as the Washington Post (if not more so). I get most of my news form the WSJ and will also look or listen to NPR (despite their obvious bias, they at least make an effort ot be more in depth and add some context to their news reporting).

My biggest complaint about most so-called news organizations is their obvious lack of perspective when reporting news. By which I mean that you can publish just about any sensational headline and it might be technically true but highly misleading. For example, you could scream about the discrimination against trans-gendered or gender neutral people but fail to mention they are only 1% of the population (if that much). While people who were screwed by ObamaCare were 17% of Americans. You can scream about family separations by, my goodness, it wha less than 3,000 kids and is something that has not been done in a vacuum (Obama did it), yet that sort of thing is rarely reported. You would have thought we had replicated the holocaust based on the screams of outrage (and some even went so far as to make hideous comparisons to Nazis own their criticism). Those sites that never mention those facts or that falsely deny the context are to me ultra-partisan, and I would shove that whole chart to the left based on that. (I would shove Fox further right too).

It is exceptionally hard to get in depth, quality, factual reporting these days.

Most mainstream news in this country and around the world is intended (I believe) as propaganda so that the 99.99% of the public don't know what's really going on in the world. People are starting to see through it for the Pravda that it is. I remember Tom Brokaw, and I think Dan Rather, mentioning that the news media should be there to shape public opinion, not merely to inform. And that's the predicament we find ourselves in today.

Some news outlets (CNN, ABC, CBS, Reuters, BBC) purport to be "neutral" and mainstream; others like Fox and MSNBC throw some red meat to the "right" and the "left"... just enough info to keep the intended audiences outraged, but never enough to uncover the actual goings-on behind the scenes so that people are held responsible. Even some of the alternative pajama news seems like disinformation. What used to win a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism many years ago wouldn't even see the light of day in any mainstream editorial desk today.

None of this is totally new. Back in the 1920s, Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and some others got together and figured out how many newspapers they could purchase in order to influence the opinions of the majority of Americans. The answer, they figured, was 26. They bought these papers and had their own lackey editors installed. These same folks went on to form the C. F. R., which still exists today and is America's most powerful think-tank. It has its people at the top of every major American news outlet. It effectively controls both political parties and has also formed the core of most presidential cabinets since about the time of FDR. So, if anyone wonders how a Jeb Bush or a Hillary Clinton can be declared the presumptive nominees of their respective parties -- before either is officially a candidate for presidential office -- this is why. If you've ever wondered why US foreign policy never really changed significantly between Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama, this is why. [Rant Over ]

** In 2013, right before their candidacies became official, Jeb Bush awarded Hillary Clinton a medal for lifetime patriotic service in his capacity as chairman of the National Constitution Center!

 

[Technut1990]

We learned more than how to make the A Bomb from Hitlers time on earth. He was a master at propaganda, how else did he convince an entire nation to follow his logic ( rhetorical ).

Evil can be defeated but once harnessed it’s attractiveness to the winner can be mesmerizing.

Like Dr. Frankenstein harnessing lighting, it’s all about POWER.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@Old South Stands You’re dead on about the CFR. You’re either very well read or have spent a bunch of time in the swamp, probably both I’m guessing.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

CFR = establishment tripe. Are they really so offended by Trump....or offended that they had no influence on the outcome of the last election.

Leftists in positions of power + these establishment RINO Republicans innpower = a corrupt FBI / DOJ.

I think they and we have all lost sight that the next revolution is always just a generation away. Corrupt our government, lose our trust in it, anarchy will follow. The times we are living in are astounding.

 

[grandpa jacket]

After much deliberation and thought I will no longer participate in any thread posted in the swarm lounge. My peace of mind is worth more to me that engaging with some of the folks in here. I will not respond to any comments on this thread, I simply wanted to let y'all know why I have refrained from any further activity in this section of The Swarm.

I am another old fan and i understand your decision, politics is very toxic now more than ever.

 

[Cam]

After much deliberation and thought I will no longer participate in any thread posted in the swarm lounge. My peace of mind is worth more to me that engaging with some of the folks in here. I will not respond to any comments on this thread, I simply wanted to let y'all know why I have refrained from any further activity in this section of The Swarm.

I did the same a long time ago. I make it a point to always open-mindedly pay attention to the other side of things (articles, videos, forums) to keep myself grounded, which is why I first participated in this side of The Swarm. But eventually I felt it wasn't worth the aggravation to continually engage in discussions with select people who had no intention of even listening to my point of view. The amount of time I spent triple checking any facts/statistics or writing thought-out posts just for them to be dismissed like the poster hadn't even read it was not worth it anymore. I was met with enough condescension and thinly-veiled insults over time that it just wasn't fun anymore. It seems the Swarm Lounge is just continually shrinking into a smaller and smaller echo chamber at this point.