RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
It is not only true, but it is still there and available for everyone to see. You need to stop your derail before you look even sillier than you already do.
-
Features
Trump voters incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face
- Thread starter RavenSky
- Start date
It is not only true, but it is still there and available for everyone to see. You need to stop your derail before you look even sillier than you already do.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
cr:jq Good post
Elixir
Made in America
I was thinking that maybe the west coast states should secede... the roots being sick, perhaps a cutting could survive. But it may already be too deeply infected despite the relatively suppressed symptoms.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,608
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
What is scaring me is that any news story that comes out that is critical of Trump is castigated as being "false news". Reports about BS news websites have again been hijacked by the right-wing and now anything that isn't glowing about Trump is "false news". Meanwhile Trump makes BS claims like winning in an electoral landslide, won popular vote if you exclude illegals that voted, etc...
We are in a brave new world.
braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
Yes. Anything critical of Trump is automatically deemed as part of the conspiracy, and that's a problem. A big part of it as far as I can see is also the way the right demonizes the left, even as people that have noble goals, a right to exist or even basic dignity. If you're a "liberal" then that means you hate America, you want to PC police everything, and you're aim is to destroy American exceptionalism. You have no actual morals or ethics, and everything you do is suspect.
Lots of people have made a lot of money doing this, and it's come around to bite them in the ass, and a lot of them don't even realize it yet. Look at Anne Coulter and the titles of her books. GODLESS, TREASON, MUGGED, GUILTY, HIGH CRIMES, NEVER TRUST A LIBERAL, DEMONIC. It's not even considered hyperbole anymore. Anyone trying to correct your "facts" is automatically suspect, as is their motives. It's all right out of religion's playbook. Demonize your opponent. Dehumanize them. Make your followers afraid of their own shadow (the devil is everywhere).
Remember the Jade Helm conspiracy? Do you remember how the Governor reacted to that mess? He actually moved state military forces within range to "watch" federal forces because anything federal is untrustworthy and they must be up to no good. This is not how a responsible leader deals with conspiracies, it's how you fan those flames and try to take advantage. Why? Because then at least the heat is off them and no one is asking them for solutions. This is good, because they don't have any.
The real scary part is how the Republicans are rolling over for Trump, his conflicts of interest, and his clearly unconstitutional agenda so they can merely hold onto power. The only silver lining (if you can call it that) is that the GOP leaders have been at this disinformation for so long they're starting to believe their own bullshit. This is why there were so shocked when Romney lost, and why right now they actually believe they have a mandate. They are going to bite off way more than they can chew, and it's my hope they will create a backlash against them with their awful policies. They're already talking about eliminating social security in some circles. Political suicide, but some of them honestly think the people will be behind them on this. Nope.
The other, really scary part to me is this. So far, I'm not seeing too many indications that the average American cares about any of this. The apathy may just be the downfall of this nation. I wish THAT was hyperbole, but I'm really not sure it is.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,608
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Agree with everything in the *snip*. Regarding caring among typical Americans, I think there is quite the misunderstanding.
Carrier kept jobs in America. Wow! Trump isn't even President yet and that is great. They see the small picture, not much of the details, nor how this won't work for keeping lots of jobs in the US.
Taiwan call. Well, we should talk to Taiwan after all... they are an ally, who cares what China thinks.
Pro-Russia. We shouldn't be enemies with Russia, this is good.
There is a lot of gut thinking going on here, and the people really don't see the issues at this point. Add in the generally accepted Moore-Coulter regarding how the press is regarded and people are thinking Trump is anti-establishment, that is why they are reporting as such.
The amount of damage Trump can cause is still too early to tell, but the general population is thinking, 'hey, might as well give him a chance' and they are willing to give this guy a lot of leeway.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,443
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
The press, and in particular the newspaper, radio and TV station owners and executives, used to believe that the way to get an edge on their competitors was to be faster and more accurate. They used to think that if they got things wrong, their competitors would jump on that and use it to show them up to the public as worthless sources of news; and that the public would be deeply affected by such exposure, and would rapidly abandon them if they felt that their integrity and accuracy was tainted.
This belief lasted a long time - but then the 'tabloid' sector of the news media (and I include TV and Radio, not just tabloid newspapers) noticed that their less sophisticated audience actually cared more about dramatic visuals, and high emotional impact, than they did about factual accuracy. So they started supplying what the consumers wanted - 'news' that was based more and more loosely in the truth, where it was more important to push emotional buttons than to be accurate in portraying events.
And then came the internet, and suddenly the revenue streams of the quality press and the more respectable TV and radio channels collapsed. The ABC1 demographic of wealthier, middle-class consumers could be isolated using data collected by Facebook, Google, et. al; And the revenue from advertising to that more educated demographic fled to the Internet. The only parts of the traditional news media that remained profitable were the shock-jocks and tabloid 'it bleeds, it leads' purveyors of newsertainment. So to survive, the 'quality' press moved that way themselves - and discovered to their surprise that their audiences not only didn't care that the news was either vaccuous or flawed - they actively preferred it that way. Being told what is happening, and then having to think about what it all means, is HARD. Being told what your emotional responses should be to a story makes things so much easier.
"Immigrant Builders Making Your Kids Fat - A Special Investigation, Only On Channel 9!" is a far more effective way to get ratings than "The Federal Budget - A Line By Line Analysis From Our Expert Panel".
So news and facts have largely ceased to exist. Where they used to be, we now find entertainment and drama, wearing the flayed hides of the news and information that they killed and devoured - and few people have noticed.
The problem isn't false news, per se. The problem is that 'real' news has become so degraded that it no longer matters to the audience whether it is true, false, or simply vacuous. All that matters is that it is entertaining, and that it doesn't challenge the prejudices of the consumers.
We used to have news; Now we have footage of explosions, with commentary to tell us whether the people who were blown up were good guys or bad guys, so that we know whether to weep or cheer. The audience doesn't want grey areas - everything must be presented as pure goodness, or blackest evil. And everything that doesn't explode should, ideally, at least be on fire or bleeding profusely.
This belief lasted a long time - but then the 'tabloid' sector of the news media (and I include TV and Radio, not just tabloid newspapers) noticed that their less sophisticated audience actually cared more about dramatic visuals, and high emotional impact, than they did about factual accuracy. So they started supplying what the consumers wanted - 'news' that was based more and more loosely in the truth, where it was more important to push emotional buttons than to be accurate in portraying events.
And then came the internet, and suddenly the revenue streams of the quality press and the more respectable TV and radio channels collapsed. The ABC1 demographic of wealthier, middle-class consumers could be isolated using data collected by Facebook, Google, et. al; And the revenue from advertising to that more educated demographic fled to the Internet. The only parts of the traditional news media that remained profitable were the shock-jocks and tabloid 'it bleeds, it leads' purveyors of newsertainment. So to survive, the 'quality' press moved that way themselves - and discovered to their surprise that their audiences not only didn't care that the news was either vaccuous or flawed - they actively preferred it that way. Being told what is happening, and then having to think about what it all means, is HARD. Being told what your emotional responses should be to a story makes things so much easier.
"Immigrant Builders Making Your Kids Fat - A Special Investigation, Only On Channel 9!" is a far more effective way to get ratings than "The Federal Budget - A Line By Line Analysis From Our Expert Panel".
So news and facts have largely ceased to exist. Where they used to be, we now find entertainment and drama, wearing the flayed hides of the news and information that they killed and devoured - and few people have noticed.
The problem isn't false news, per se. The problem is that 'real' news has become so degraded that it no longer matters to the audience whether it is true, false, or simply vacuous. All that matters is that it is entertaining, and that it doesn't challenge the prejudices of the consumers.
We used to have news; Now we have footage of explosions, with commentary to tell us whether the people who were blown up were good guys or bad guys, so that we know whether to weep or cheer. The audience doesn't want grey areas - everything must be presented as pure goodness, or blackest evil. And everything that doesn't explode should, ideally, at least be on fire or bleeding profusely.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,543
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Why on earth would it be illogical to include people who do not want to work as part of the labor force? Huge numbers even among those with jobs don't want to work. They only work because they need the money. Perfectly sensible, since most jobs aren't much fun. It is not rational to take for granted that the average Trump voter agrees with the government that people who don't want to work don't count as unemployed.
As for those who cannot work, yes, it's logical not to include people who cannot work as part of the labor force. But Trump voters may very well not agree with the government as to which people can work and which cannot. There are a lot more Americans on disability now than there were when Obama took office. Maybe the country has really gotten a lot more crippled in eight years. Maybe there are a lot of people on disability now who the government eight years ago would not have defined as "cannot work". It is not rational to take for granted that the average Trump voter agrees with the government's constantly evolving opinion of who doesn't count as unemployed because he "cannot work".
In the first place, Obama took office in January 2009. Unemployment rose between then and 2010.
And in the second place, to call those "facts" is to take for granted that in English "unemployment" and "labor force" mean whatever the hell you decide they mean, rather than what they mean in the minds of the people being accused of being incapable of acknowledging facts staring them in the face. Whether your artificial definitions are right isn't a fact staring anyone in the face; it's a matter of opinion.
Your opinion that it's illogical to count some jobless person as "unemployed" is not evidence that my argument relies on the premise that people who count him are illogical.
Thank you, that was very helpful. (The U6 graph you posted isn't relevant since Ravensky wasn't talking about underemployment, but the same site has a useful U5 graph.) It looks like you're probably correct that, by a reasonable measure, unemployment has gone down during the Obama administration. Unfortunately my graph from post #5 ends at 2014, so it's hard to tell. If we combine the data in the two graphs, it looks like* unemployment was still up as of the end of 2014. How long it stays up beyond that depends on how we extrapolate the 25-54 participation rate. If we assume the participation rate stayed constant after 2014 then unemployment dropped below Jan. 2009 levels in mid-2015; if we assume it kept dropping as fast as it did before 2014 then the crossover point is Nov. 2016. If the participation rate fell faster than before then unemployment is still above the Jan. 2009 level. So yeah, the Trump voters are probably wrong on the facts -- their information is a few months out of date. That certainly qualifies as evidence that they're incapable of acknowledging facts staring them in the face.[/sarcasm]
(* According to the site you linked, "To measure the unemployment rate, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) surveys 60,000 households—about 110,000 individuals—which serve as a representative sample of the U.S. population." I.e., they are not counting unemployment among the homeless. So the accuracy is dubious.)
No, that is not my argument. You are reversing burden of proof. Ravensky's OP argument depended on the premise that Trump supporters are equating unemployment with government definitions of it. I merely point out that Trump supporters might be equating joblessness with unemployment. That's all it takes to show her argument is fallacious.
Will that canard never die? How many times do I have to point out that my graph in post #5 does not count retired people? The posters who keep claiming I'm counting the retired are ignoring a fact staring them in the face.
True, I didn't; but the proposition that the rate of crippling medical problems skyrocketed and the 2.5% of the 2009 prime-working-age labor force that had withdrawn themselves by 2014 mostly did so because they were no longer able to work does not qualify as "a fact staring Trump voters in the face." Once again you are reversing burden of proof.
So what? I made no claims one way or the other either about the fairness of that part of Ravensky's accusation or about whether the Trump voters really are ignoring facts. When somebody offers two arguments for a contention, and one argument is plausible and the other is asinine, people get to point out that she made an asinine argument. We get to do that even if she makes ninety-nine plausible arguments and one asinine argument.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Trump doesnt use U-anything for unemployment but instead looks at total adults not working divided by total adults. All of your U5 and U6 stuff, he calls "fictitious."
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,369
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
We spend a lot of time complaining about FOX news and it's influence on conservative voters, but I have been in the homes of conservative voters in the south and they don't usually have FOX news on the TV. They tend to have
Amazing Facts Television (AFTV)
Calvary Chapel
Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)
Christian Television Network (CTN)
Daystar
Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN); founded by Mother Angelica
Familyland Television Network
Fundamental Broadcasting Network
GOD TV
God's Learning Channel (GLC)
Golden Eagle Broadcasting
Lester Sumrall Evangelistic Association (LeSea Broadcasting)
Living Faith Television (LFTv)
Salem Media Group
Sky Angel
The TCT Network
The Hope Channel
INSP
The Old Path (TOP)
The Worship Network
Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)
Victory Television Network (VTN)
on their TVs. Fundamentalist Christianity teaches one to live by faith and not by sight. Such thinking is bound to spill over into other parts of life, such as how to think about politics, society, and economics.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” -- Voltaire
Until we are prepared to deal with how what passes for "the religion of love and forgiveness" (what most people call christianity) is antithetical to critical thought and emphatic emotion, we will a whole lot of Trumps in our future.
Amazing Facts Television (AFTV)
Calvary Chapel
Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)
Christian Television Network (CTN)
Daystar
Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN); founded by Mother Angelica
Familyland Television Network
Fundamental Broadcasting Network
GOD TV
God's Learning Channel (GLC)
Golden Eagle Broadcasting
Lester Sumrall Evangelistic Association (LeSea Broadcasting)
Living Faith Television (LFTv)
Salem Media Group
Sky Angel
The TCT Network
The Hope Channel
INSP
The Old Path (TOP)
The Worship Network
Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)
Victory Television Network (VTN)
on their TVs. Fundamentalist Christianity teaches one to live by faith and not by sight. Such thinking is bound to spill over into other parts of life, such as how to think about politics, society, and economics.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” -- Voltaire
Until we are prepared to deal with how what passes for "the religion of love and forgiveness" (what most people call christianity) is antithetical to critical thought and emphatic emotion, we will a whole lot of Trumps in our future.
laughing dog
Contributor
Because the labor force is usually considered to be people who either are working or wish to work. It is not rational to include people who do not want to work as part of the labor force.
I fail to see why you continue to bring up the unsubstantiated claim that Trump voters define unemployment differently. As of this moment the claim has no basis in evidence whatsoever.
It is evidence. You simply are unwillingly to accept it.
Your definition of joblessness includes the retired. That is a fact. I am not referring to whatever data you present.
Your argument that the OP argument is fallacious is faulty on points. First, it ignores the stock market point. Second, according to your own argument, the OP may or may not be fallacious, since it depends on whether Trump voters are taking unemployment in its official and generally accepted use or something else. So, you are actually pointing out that the unemployment rate part may or may not support the OP thesis.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,608
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
They actually do, in the underemployment number. There are several stats reported by the Government, unemployment and underemployment are both numbers that are both report. Underemployment includes people not seeking jobs but would ultimately like one.
The trouble we have here is that there is a partisan attempt to make conditions seem worse by comparing the underemployment rate now with the unemployment rate of the past, where as the actual task should be looking at the underemployment in at its peak in 2010 (17%) with the underemployment rate today (10%).
prideandfall
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,118
- Location
- a drawer of inappropriate starches
- Basic Beliefs
- highly anti-religious agnostic
1. there's a very big difference between tarring people for voting differently than you, and tarring people for voting stupidly.
people who voted for trump are idiots, because trump is a ridiculous farce of a political candidate and to actually think for one second that trump being president is in any way a good idea requires severe brain damage.
2. i don't vote, so this has nothing to do with voting differently than me, this is a completely politically neutral acknowledgment of cold reality.
Thanks!
prideandfall
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,118
- Location
- a drawer of inappropriate starches
- Basic Beliefs
- highly anti-religious agnostic
it never ceases to amaze me the extent to which you clowns will shove your thumb up your ass and dance around in a circle, and then preen at everyone else in eyeshot about clever you think you are for having done so.
Your projection is off the charts.
prideandfall
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,118
- Location
- a drawer of inappropriate starches
- Basic Beliefs
- highly anti-religious agnostic
what exactly do you think this proves?
i don't give a shit about democrats or republicans as political parties, i care about liberalism vs. conservatism.
since the democrats are ostensibly a party that promotes a progressive and liberal political structure (emphasis on ostensibly) they're more or less neutral to me, while republicans being slathering neocon magic-believers are abhorrent to me.
i don't give any fucks about news channels or this theatrical idiocy you people seem to find so important, so you're substantially wasting your time (and looking like a complete jackass to boot) with this nonsense.
i don't give a shit about democrats or republicans as political parties, i care about liberalism vs. conservatism.
since the democrats are ostensibly a party that promotes a progressive and liberal political structure (emphasis on ostensibly) they're more or less neutral to me, while republicans being slathering neocon magic-believers are abhorrent to me.
i don't give any fucks about news channels or this theatrical idiocy you people seem to find so important, so you're substantially wasting your time (and looking like a complete jackass to boot) with this nonsense.
Elixir
Made in America
Majority of Republicans Mistakenly Think Trump Won the Popular Vote
The Republican apologists on this thread seem to ignore the fact that most Republicans subscribe to that false belief, and ignore it as assiduously as possible. None have tried to explain it; rather, they focus on what they consider "softer" facts, i.e. data etc. that are more open to interpretation and therefore contortion. But this is just a plain cold, in-your-face fact.
Yeah - confirmation bias is real, and effects all of us. But most of us don't have the single loudest voice on the national stage shouting lies that support our biases. The fact that said voice emanates from a giant orange cocksucker seems not to be germane.
The Republican apologists on this thread seem to ignore the fact that most Republicans subscribe to that false belief, and ignore it as assiduously as possible. None have tried to explain it; rather, they focus on what they consider "softer" facts, i.e. data etc. that are more open to interpretation and therefore contortion. But this is just a plain cold, in-your-face fact.
Yeah - confirmation bias is real, and effects all of us. But most of us don't have the single loudest voice on the national stage shouting lies that support our biases. The fact that said voice emanates from a giant orange cocksucker seems not to be germane.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,608
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
But but but... California and illegals.
Landslide EC win for Trump.
The sun rises in the west, it only appears to rise in the east.
2 + 2 = 0 if you round by 10's.
Landslide EC win for Trump.
The sun rises in the west, it only appears to rise in the east.
2 + 2 = 0 if you round by 10's.