Windy wrote:The real question is why is Milo advocating for himself to be shot?
To go from famous to infamous?
Windy wrote:The real question is why is Milo advocating for himself to be shot?
Deathclaw_Puncher wrote:Regardless of Marlowe Yarnysarcophagus's influence, Ramos was reportedly a fan of Michael Petrouka, an alt-right City Councilman in Maryland who funded Roy Moore ad has ties to the Neo-Confederate group League of the South..
Windy wrote:The real question is why is Milo advocating for himself to be shot?
The whole of a person's personal and political views can make them more prone to pulling that trigger, especially if they're violently-charged. I don't think its unreasonable to examine the ideology of a man who decided to murder 5 people.
You are right in that it's unhelpful to start trying to string together a narrative or conclusion out of disconnected facts at this stage, though. It would be presumptive and premature.
But they mustn't be totally ignored.
gisambards wrote:The whole of a person's personal and political views can make them more prone to pulling that trigger, especially if they're violently-charged. I don't think its unreasonable to examine the ideology of a man who decided to murder 5 people.
You are right in that it's unhelpful to start trying to string together a narrative or conclusion out of disconnected facts at this stage, though. It would be presumptive and premature.
But they mustn't be totally ignored.
Reading DP's linked article, it is made more clear from that that Peroutka's membership in the League of the South might be relevant to what Ramos decided to do, because the League of the South's supports paramilitary action and its leader has spoken openly about killing journalists. The article - baiting headline notwithstanding - offers a more interesting glimpse into the possible motives of Ramos. What I find unnecessary, however, is on bringing up Peroutka's connections to the alt-right and Roy Moore, who don't have anything to do with anything - I feel like his connections to a pro-killing journalists paramilitary are all that really need to be mentioned.
It may overlap with politics, but my focus is primarily on their off the wall stances, which isn't necessarily tied to party. They're not exactly standard-bearers. You've one guy who's drawn to the other guy who's drawn to another guy. It cases like that, the guy who both follows and is followed would have a larger influence, if that makes any sense.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:a) It can't be objective
Totalitarianism proved that press as an independent body cannot work without the support of people and government.
All journalists have biases, and their cultural refusal to recuse themselves from political stories in the service of the greater good is absolutely harmful.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:c) People don't read the comments, ever
e) Expert opinions are walking appeals to authority
Experts should be believed when they repeat facts. Experts need not be believed when they repeat conclusions. That's fundamental to science. Doubting conclusions is how the Particle-Wave idea was created.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:The world's in the grip of Asimov's sciencism and it's sorta disturbing. Stuff like questions of personhood, always the job of philosophers and priests, get shot down by the opinions of doctors.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:So when media whines about the Paris Climate stuff, it's by default accepting the argument that it's ok for China and India to pollute, something Trump and Trumpists vehemently disagree with. To shore this up, they bring in experts to talk about how important it is to "handle" climate change. Happily ignoring the fact that Trump doesn't think it's handling Climate Change. As long as the media think it's handling climate change, it's handling climate change, and we don't need to have any deeper argument about the why and how of the matter.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:Obviously none of this would happen if people were actually allowed to reasonably disagree with experts, which would happen if the experts weren't a gigantic club being wielded against them by our friends in the media. But then icky people like Flat Earthers and anti-vaccers would have their views heard.
thedogknows wrote:I'm gonna echo some of the other commentors here and say this isn't so much a media problem as much as it is a humanity problem.
thedogknows wrote:Even if there was some mechanism that miraculously caused that to happen, I bet you all my money that it would immediately be replaced by an even more shortsighted and biased system of local politics, gossip, and Facebook status updates.
thedogknows wrote:...Doesn't the history of the very forum you're arguing this in contradict this point at least a smidge?
A Combustible Lemon wrote:d) People don't read retractions and corrections and apologies, ever
thedogknows wrote:While I agree that the question of personhood and consciousness are difficult to answer and far from resolved, I would contest the idea that somehow priests and philosophers are any more qualified to answer it. In fact, this sentence seems to directly contradict your previous sentence about facts trumping conclusions, because those professions rely almost exclusively on the latter.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:abortion should be decided at a fundamental level through dialogue, compromise and popular support.
thedogknows wrote:But if you actively want to refute the words of experts, I better see you crunching the data yourself and finding the flaws in their proofs.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:UKIP has its own problems in that they don't provide any answer to the expert opinions, and they should if they were being intellectually honest.
But it's a sovereignty question. Sovereignty isn't decided by experts, it's decided democratically. Experts aren't the end-all. They're a compounding factor.
thedogknows wrote:I think you're missing the point about why the Paris Climate stuff frustrates people. I would understand your point if it was just a disagreement over how to best deal with climate change, but Trump has on multiple occasions explicitly said that he doesn't believe climate change is real. I have a friend who works on environmental research at a national lab and is not allowed to even mention the term "climate change" on any business correspondence! I don't know about you, but to me that's incredibly ridiculous.
thedogknows wrote:I somewhat agree with you on this, in that people should definitely be able to reasonably disagree with experts. However, I would like to point out that if you disagree with something that has incredibly strong consensus and lots of evidence backing it, you better come up with some even better evidence in favor of your idea if you don't want to be refuted. So far anti-vaxxers and Flat-Earthers have not cleared this standard, hence their dismissal.
To me, it really seems like you're throwing around a lot of very subjective opinions while acting like a paragon of objectivity and logic. And you know what? It's not a problem that you aren't 100% objective, because we're humans and none of us are! The thing I see people taking issue with is the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge you have biases in the first place, which is the exact type of mindset that leads to the type of media behavior you hate so much.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:This doesn't explain anything about why the Paris Climate Stuff frustrates people. If the media story was that it was indicative, you'd have a point.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:Write things that are true, point out what bits might not be, explain the relevance of the article, recuse yourself if you think you cannot be objective, offer sources a chance to deny their citation if they disagree with how it is used".
thedogknows wrote:For better and for worse, we're humans, not a bunch of robots.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests