J.D. Vance shouldn't open his mouth about Apple if he doesn't have a clue

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 111
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,628member
    jdw said:
    All information is biased and underneath is some basis in truth unless the source is outright lying. Hiding from sources you disagree with because you don't like the truth doesn't make you clever. It makes you ignorant and if anything, more biased. The only news sources you have left are conspiracy theorists and people willing to say anything to line their pockets.

    Whatever you believe, I wouldn't side with the ones actively trying to remove rights from its own citizens in the so-called "land of the free." White cis men with middle class or better incomes might have fared better under Trump, but no one else did. Women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and people of color's rights all suffered, and things would only get worse as Trump plans to attack child care, health care, social security, and retirement because he and his see government assistance as "socialism."

    The only ones that benefit from Trump are rich stock holders and business owners, which thanks to systemic racism, is majority white.

    I used to respect the Republican Party until it died and was replaced by the racist, hate filled MAGA extremists. There's nothing left of the old party. Just brainless sycophants that can't say anything bad about Trump on TV or else get razed on the failed Truth Social by the man on his gold toilet watching Fox News.

    If me wanting to see a better America where all of its citizens can prosper no matter their race, religion, or gender is "leftist propaganda," I'd hate to see what people think the country should be like. It's time for us to love our neighbor and mind our own damn business.

    BTW: The people talking about the pet thing, it's a proven hoax. The person initially spreading the lie said they never had firsthand knowledge of anyone doing it. The so-called secret bodycam footage is old and from an incident that didn't occur in Springfield nor did it involve an immigrant of any kind. Talk about propaganda, the pet eating stuff is classic racist nonsense meant to drive people to hate a specific group of people. It dehumanizes the group so you don't feel so bad when you drive them from their homes. But I suppose it's hard to know the facts if you ignore all the sources that report the news.
    This is my rebuttal ...
    That defensive argument, written by a journalist, saying that "all info is biased" is poppycock in that not all info is EQUALLY BIASED!  That is key.  Anyone who read and properly understood my earlier post about the bulk of American "journalism" (which is often more "entertainment" than true journalism), is so biased it falls into the category of "propaganda."  Yes, the same term we use for the government-controlled news media of North Korea.

    Next, the statement that says "hiding from sources you disagree with because you don't like the truth" is also poppycock for the same reason....

    ...most mainstream media in America has a strong Liberal Left slant to it....  the news which is on the right is also strongly biased. 

    So how do we dispense with that all that negativity and follow the sage advice of Rodney King in order to "get along"?  Well, we must first discard the bad advice which tells us to view all sources of news equally. 

    No one even implied we should view all news sources as being equal, but your retort is built around that mistaken premise.

     In my own case, I view or read dozens of different sources. If I'm curious about a cooking technique I may read an article on a BBQ blog, another on a community recipe site, and a couple of others might be professional chefs. They all have their reasons for suggesting this or that, and by understanding why I can figure out my own way.

     Closer to home, if I'm wondering about iOS compared to Android, depending on one or two blogs won't give me a very accurate picture. So I follow AppleInsider, but also may wander to 9to5Mac/Google, Android Central, The Verge, MacRumors, Daring Fireball, TechCrunch, Wired, Reddit, and sprinkled with more obscure sources from web searches.

     I handle political issues the same way. No site is 100% off limits for me.

    I've been both a Trump fan and not. I've been a lifelong independent with strong Republican leanings who voted for Reagan and also voted for Obama. To be aware of how things stand, I watch a few minutes of Fox News each day, a few minutes of CNN, MSN (less often), NewsMax here and there, CBS/ABC/NBC, and listen to NPR. I read Politico, WSJ, Reuters, various editorials both local and regional, Snopes, Politifact, and a smattering of others. I think the only way to be aware of what's actually happening or said is by seeing different sides of it.

    That does not require giving them equal weight.

    I'd be curious what specific sources you read or listen to for your trusted news, or for forming your opinion of the current political landscape. So here is a serious question for you since you so vehemently object to what Wesley said:
    What news source(s) do YOU firmly believe in, follow, and would suggest to the rest of us. We already know you don't want to read or hear anything on mainstream, but you must have at least one or two others you would be proud to share with us. 
    edited September 18 muthuk_vanalingamsphericronnbaconstang
  • Reply 102 of 111
    mbmoore said:

    top down authoritarian rule and control is a communist attribute
    Not especially.  No more than any other system, save actual anarchy.
    watto_cobrabaconstang
  • Reply 103 of 111
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,679member
    mbmoore said:

    top down authoritarian rule and control is a communist attribute
    Not especially.  No more than any other system, save actual anarchy.
    Democracy, by definition, is government by the people, who select individuals from among peers to govern. 
    (As such, of course, making it prerequisite for any candidate to have access to hundreds of millions of dollars is a perversion of the system and, at heart, not democratic.)
    avon b7watto_cobrabaconstang
  • Reply 104 of 111
    gatorguy said:
    jdw said:
    All information is biased and underneath is some basis in truth unless the source is outright lying. Hiding from sources you disagree with because you don't like the truth doesn't make you clever. It makes you ignorant and if anything, more biased. The only news sources you have left are conspiracy theorists and people willing to say anything to line their pockets.

    Whatever you believe, I wouldn't side with the ones actively trying to remove rights from its own citizens in the so-called "land of the free." White cis men with middle class or better incomes might have fared better under Trump, but no one else did. Women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and people of color's rights all suffered, and things would only get worse as Trump plans to attack child care, health care, social security, and retirement because he and his see government assistance as "socialism."

    The only ones that benefit from Trump are rich stock holders and business owners, which thanks to systemic racism, is majority white.

    I used to respect the Republican Party until it died and was replaced by the racist, hate filled MAGA extremists. There's nothing left of the old party. Just brainless sycophants that can't say anything bad about Trump on TV or else get razed on the failed Truth Social by the man on his gold toilet watching Fox News.

    If me wanting to see a better America where all of its citizens can prosper no matter their race, religion, or gender is "leftist propaganda," I'd hate to see what people think the country should be like. It's time for us to love our neighbor and mind our own damn business.

    BTW: The people talking about the pet thing, it's a proven hoax. The person initially spreading the lie said they never had firsthand knowledge of anyone doing it. The so-called secret bodycam footage is old and from an incident that didn't occur in Springfield nor did it involve an immigrant of any kind. Talk about propaganda, the pet eating stuff is classic racist nonsense meant to drive people to hate a specific group of people. It dehumanizes the group so you don't feel so bad when you drive them from their homes. But I suppose it's hard to know the facts if you ignore all the sources that report the news.
    This is my rebuttal ...
    That defensive argument, written by a journalist, saying that "all info is biased" is poppycock in that not all info is EQUALLY BIASED!  That is key.  Anyone who read and properly understood my earlier post about the bulk of American "journalism" (which is often more "entertainment" than true journalism), is so biased it falls into the category of "propaganda."  Yes, the same term we use for the government-controlled news media of North Korea.

    Next, the statement that says "hiding from sources you disagree with because you don't like the truth" is also poppycock for the same reason....

    ...most mainstream media in America has a strong Liberal Left slant to it....  the news which is on the right is also strongly biased. 

    So how do we dispense with that all that negativity and follow the sage advice of Rodney King in order to "get along"?  Well, we must first discard the bad advice which tells us to view all sources of news equally. 

    No one even implied we should view all news sources as being equal, but your retort is built around that mistaken premise.

     In my own case, I view or read dozens of different sources. If I'm curious about a cooking technique I may read an article on a BBQ blog, another on a community recipe site, and a couple of others might be professional chefs. They all have their reasons for suggesting this or that, and by understanding why I can figure out my own way.

     Closer to home, if I'm wondering about iOS compared to Android, depending on one or two blogs won't give me a very accurate picture. So I follow AppleInsider, but also may wander to 9to5Mac/Google, Android Central, The Verge, MacRumors, Daring Fireball, TechCrunch, Wired, Reddit, and sprinkled with more obscure sources from web searches.

     I handle political issues the same way. No site is 100% off limits for me.

    I've been both a Trump fan and not. I've been a lifelong independent with strong Republican leanings who voted for Reagan and also voted for Obama. To be aware of how things stand, I watch a few minutes of Fox News each day, a few minutes of CNN, MSN (less often), NewsMax here and there, CBS/ABC/NBC, and listen to NPR. I read Politico, WSJ, Reuters, various editorials both local and regional, Snopes, Politifact, and a smattering of others. I think the only way to be aware of what's actually happening or said is by seeing different sides of it.

    That does not require giving them equal weight.

    I'd be curious what specific sources you read or listen to for your trusted news, or for forming your opinion of the current political landscape. So here is a serious question for you since you so vehemently object to what Wesley said:
    What news source(s) do YOU firmly believe in, follow, and would suggest to the rest of us. We already know you don't want to read or hear anything on mainstream, but you must have at least one or two others you would be proud to share with us. 
    You slammed JDW with "no one even implied we should view all news sources as being equal" but you later said "no site is 100% off limits for me". After I read that, I remembered what JDW said about North Korean news sources.  I think that's a strong source of pro dictator propaganda too. Stuff like that really should be off limits for any smart person, except maybe for people who just want a good laugh at how crazy it is.

    JDW, please know I was not one of the 12 who Liked Wesley's post.  But I am proud to admit that I clicked Informative on yours.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 105 of 111
    Wesley HilliardWesley Hilliard Posts: 253member, administrator, moderator, editor
    jdw said:
    This is my rebuttal to Wesley and to the 12 people who clicked Like on his post in support of what he wrote.
    Cool. Good luck with all that.

    Speaking of extremism, it's pretty extreme to compare MSNBC to North Korean propaganda. Not to mention that cisgender is literally a word with latin roots that is an antonym of transgender. But yeah, my use of the English language denotes my political affiliation just like how I held a sandwich in middle school denoted my sexual orientation.

    Sincerely, kind of worried about you. Hope you don't find my iPhone review too liberal, but I'll leave out the section on women having bodily autonomy.

    Anywho, in case Trump does win, praise the god king and may he embody the spirit of truth, manliness, large hands, and golf swings. Amen.
    sphericronnwatto_cobrabaconstang
  • Reply 106 of 111
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,679member
    RobJenk said:
    You slammed JDW with "no one even implied we should view all news sources as being equal" but you later said "no site is 100% off limits for me". After I read that, I remembered what JDW said about North Korean news sources.  I think that's a strong source of pro dictator propaganda too. Stuff like that really should be off limits for any smart person, except maybe for people who just want a good laugh at how crazy it is.

    Media literacy really needs to be part of basic school education. I never realised how lucky I was to have a major block on the subject in global studies in seventh grade. 

    It's not about not exposing yourself to particular sources; it's about knowing exactly where those sources are coming from and how they work, and using the whole variety to get an idea of what's going on. 

    I watch speeches and snippets from Marjorie Taylor Greene or Laura Loomer, and am in NO danger of becoming batshit crazy or full-on Nazi because of it, because the perspective of those sources is clear. I can read or watch Fox News without worrying about going off the deep right end, because it's clear where they stand and what they're doing. I can also watch Maddow or Colbert without assuming that they're "reporting" — they're editorialising, broadcasting opinion I can agree or disagree with, or just be amused by. 

    Knowing the slant of reporting inherent to a source, and then using various sources, allows you to get a fuller picture of any subject by reading between the lines. 

    Where it gets deeply, deeply dangerous is on social media, especially TikTok, whose entire structure is built around quick snippets completely devoid of context, but also YouTube shorts and Instagram stories, memes, etc. Something that just scrolls by without ANY context of who created it, original source, news story or study to back it up — not even a note on which office curated it (unless you break the flow and go look for it): that deliberately eliminates all the basic tenets of media literacy and teaches people (and kids) to work exactly like you suggest. 

    Interestingly, at least in Europe and in the United States, it is the extreme right who are BY FAR the most effective at utilising these new media in such a way. 

    As you can clearly see from the fact that there are grown adults in this very thread who have fallen for the Haitians/cats hoax. 

    And their obliviousness to context and history is such that they don't even hear the alarm bells clanging like hell at the parallels to the "Jews eat babies" stories of the 18th and 19th centuries… might just be the results of home schooling, I guess. 
    thtronnwatto_cobrabaconstang
  • Reply 107 of 111
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,438member
    jdw said:
    This is my rebuttal to Wesley and to the 12 people who clicked Like on his post in support of what he wrote.
    ...cisgender is literally a word with latin roots that is an antonym of transgender.
    Just as the Latin for "fetus" is "little one" or "little human" or "unborn child" (not "parasite" like leftist college kids love to proclaim).  But I doubt knowledge of the Latin would sway those who prefer to use the term "fetus" to justify certain medical procedures.

    So long as the AI articles stick to the core content about Apple and its products, and don't veer off into some kind of crazed political gibberish that caters to only one ideological side, I'm perfectly fine with the content here.  I'm also perfectly fine with you, Wesley.  I may not respect your beliefs, but I respect you as a person.  And yes, that is possible.  Also...  Humanity is diverse.  There's room for people who Think Different.  

    With that said, humanity very sadly always shows bias and contempt toward those who are different.  And it's fast becoming a world where the crazy ones are those who know there are only two genders and who think a natural body with zero tattoos is somehow A-OK.  And so I shall sign off with a tribute to those crazies...

    Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.
    — Steve Jobs, 1997

  • Reply 108 of 111
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,628member
    spheric said:
    RobJenk said:
    You slammed JDW with "no one even implied we should view all news sources as being equal" but you later said "no site is 100% off limits for me". After I read that, I remembered what JDW said about North Korean news sources.  I think that's a strong source of pro dictator propaganda too. Stuff like that really should be off limits for any smart person, except maybe for people who just want a good laugh at how crazy it is.
    It's not about not exposing yourself to particular sources; it's about knowing exactly where those sources are coming from and how they work, and using the whole variety to get an idea of what's going on. 

    I watch speeches and snippets from Marjorie Taylor Greene or Laura Loomer, and am in NO danger of becoming batshit crazy or full-on Nazi because of it, because the perspective of those sources is clear. I can read or watch Fox News without worrying about going off the deep right end, because it's clear where they stand and what they're doing. I can also watch Maddow or Colbert without assuming that they're "reporting" — they're editorialising, broadcasting opinion I can agree or disagree with, or just be amused by. 

    Knowing the slant of reporting inherent to a source, and then using various sources, allows you to get a fuller picture of any subject by reading between the lines. 
    +1
    spheric
  • Reply 109 of 111
    spheric said:
    mbmoore said:

    top down authoritarian rule and control is a communist attribute
    Not especially.  No more than any other system, save actual anarchy.
    Democracy, by definition, is government by the people, who select individuals from among peers to govern.
    And? Democracies have behaved in authoritarian ways many times in recent and not-so-recent history, especially towards those who don't form a powerful voting bloc.
  • Reply 110 of 111
    XedXed Posts: 2,855member
    spheric said:
    RobJenk said:
    You slammed JDW with "no one even implied we should view all news sources as being equal" but you later said "no site is 100% off limits for me". After I read that, I remembered what JDW said about North Korean news sources.  I think that's a strong source of pro dictator propaganda too. Stuff like that really should be off limits for any smart person, except maybe for people who just want a good laugh at how crazy it is.

    Media literacy really needs to be part of basic school education. I never realised how lucky I was to have a major block on the subject in global studies in seventh grade. 

    It's not about not exposing yourself to particular sources; it's about knowing exactly where those sources are coming from and how they work, and using the whole variety to get an idea of what's going on. 

    I watch speeches and snippets from Marjorie Taylor Greene or Laura Loomer, and am in NO danger of becoming batshit crazy or full-on Nazi because of it, because the perspective of those sources is clear.
    I agree with the first two paragraphs but the third one not so much. I don't think there's a perspective without you being aware of other perspectives -and- questioning the perspective of the material.

    I listen to and read FOX News and  (including the comments section) because I'm curious about what crazy and hateful agenda will be pushed on their mainstream media sheep. And, yes, FOX News is the mainstream media. Just look at their numbers compared to anyone else. They sell fear and they're great at it.

    That said, if I ONLY listened to FOX News and anything else was considered inherently wrong because FOX News told me constantly for decades that they're only place to get the "real" news then I'm sure my perspective would be altered. We are all susceptible to being brainwashed. Fortunately I'm not ruled by fear and hate and have many other news sources in which to form a well rounded opinion. Unfortunately I have relatives that have the FOX News logo and chyron burned into their TV screen... and into their brains.


    edited September 22 baconstang
  • Reply 111 of 111
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,679member
    @Xed , we’re not disagreeing, at all. 

    My point about MTG and Loomer was that we’re not susceptible to falling for their insane bullshit because of the comparative perspective from actual sane sources. 

    The fact that this election could even be a close call — and I am completely dumbfounded how it could possibly be — shows that a terrifying number of people do NOT access a variety of sources with a variety of perspectives. 
    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingamronnbaconstang
Sign In or Register to comment.