Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'1984' Sales Soar After 'Alternative Facts,' Trump Claims

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    Says you, Methuselah.

    At least I'm not channeling dead comedians...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      At least I'm not channeling dead comedians...
      Sam will never die! He's just maître d-ing in hell is all . . . .
      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
        AP - Full Article

        I wonder how many will actually read it?
        We see "alternative facts" here all the time. The Left have their's and the Right a different set. What's new?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          We see "alternative facts" here all the time. The Left have their's and the Right a different set. What's new?
          Probably because most of the time said differences were more about opinion than reality. Look at where people sit on abortion: it all still boils down to your opinion on where the appropriate termination point is in a pregnancy. Both sides have a body of "facts" they may call upon, but it's still a debate couched in subjective, ideological views.

          It would be a very different beast if the debate was not about whether or not abortion was morally justified, but whether or not abortion even existed.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            Probably because most of the time said differences were more about opinion than reality. Look at where people sit on abortion: it all still boils down to your opinion on where the appropriate termination point is in a pregnancy. Both sides have a body of "facts" they may call upon, but it's still a debate couched in subjective, ideological views.

            It would be a very different beast if the debate was not about whether or not abortion was morally justified, but whether or not abortion even existed.
            I was also thinking about "Global Warming/Climate Change". Part of the problem being lack of precise definition to begin with, not differentiating of discussing natural versus anthropogenic. Then the whole case of data~ valid or not, and the models done from same.

            But there are many cases, especially on a military history forum where details of battles and wars can be a bit sparse and far from complete or accurate, especially the further back in time.

            As you point out, selective~subjective is more likely the application most often encountered and in the interview that set off this tempest in a teapot, two selective and subjective sets of "facts" seems to be what applies. Unfortunately, some of the media and TDS crowd seem to have gone their usual hyperbolic tangent vector here.

            Comment


            • #21
              I read 1984 in the 70s, and several times since.

              It is an important book because it shows the danger in a media which ceases to be impartial, and the corruption inherent in a system which exists solely for the system's benefit.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                Probably because most of the time said differences were more about opinion than reality. Look at where people sit on abortion: it all still boils down to your opinion on where the appropriate termination point is in a pregnancy. Both sides have a body of "facts" they may call upon, but it's still a debate couched in subjective, ideological views.

                It would be a very different beast if the debate was not about whether or not abortion was morally justified, but whether or not abortion even existed.
                Communists have been doing that for a century now. Marx's proofs in Das Kapital didn't compute, and his buddy Friedrich Engels spent years trying to rewrite them -- but communists still tout their system as "scientific." How many people still believe that HIV/AIDS was invented by a US Government laboratory when we've known for years that that story was fabricated by the KGB? For how many years have those Rosenberg boys peddled the fiction that their parents were not Soviet spies -- and how many sympathetic fellow travelers still believe them? "Alternative facts" are unfortunately nothing new. The irony is that those who've been peddling them for years are now griping about someone elses.
                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  I read 1984 in the 70s, and several times since.

                  It is an important book because it shows the danger in a media which ceases to be impartial, and the corruption inherent in a system which exists solely for the system's benefit.
                  - emphasis mine

                  There are those who say the same for the War on Drugs, that it's a self-sustaining system that prosecutes and incarcerates black youth for the sole purpose of keeping the law enforcement/prison industrial complex in business.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    I was also thinking about "Global Warming/Climate Change". Part of the problem being lack of precise definition to begin with, not differentiating of discussing natural versus anthropogenic. Then the whole case of data~ valid or not, and the models done from same.

                    But there are many cases, especially on a military history forum where details of battles and wars can be a bit sparse and far from complete or accurate, especially the further back in time.

                    As you point out, selective~subjective is more likely the application most often encountered and in the interview that set off this tempest in a teapot, two selective and subjective sets of "facts" seems to be what applies. Unfortunately, some of the media and TDS crowd seem to have gone their usual hyperbolic tangent vector here.
                    Sure, but part of why these issues become so pained in their partisan nature is referenced in your last sentence: humanity has a tendency to diminish "the other" by attributing to them undesirable behaviors because humans perceive themselves to be in the right.

                    We're seeing people start to use TDS as a short-hand for "don't agree with Trump", in the same way it was ODS for "don't agree with Obama" and BDS for "don't agree with Bush" - all of which serves to impart a negative impression of their side of a disagreement. It's not enough that they're wrong - they're deranged and irrational for believing as much.

                    That is when debate about global warming goes from "let's interpret the science and see what conclusions we can draw from the data" into the realm of "everything you post is a lie because it comes from you!"

                    Sadly, this is a spreading phenomenon too: the tyranny of choice, or the tyranny of data, is something to consider. While men like George Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from the people by a strict control on information, Aldous Huxley feared that the powers that be would give the people "so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism", and the truth "would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance."

                    In the past, there was often a dearth of data, and sides quibbled over what was there. Now, with data (or just "creative interpretations") easy to produce from a half-reputable sounding organization, and the information being difficult for the average citizen to even understand or double-check on their own, the truth can become buried, and quickly.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                      Communists have been doing that for a century now. Marx's proofs in Das Kapital didn't compute, and his buddy Friedrich Engels spent years trying to rewrite them -- but communists still tout their system as "scientific." How many people still believe that HIV/AIDS was invented by a US Government laboratory when we've known for years that that story was fabricated by the KGB? For how many years have those Rosenberg boys peddled the fiction that their parents were not Soviet spies -- and how many sympathetic fellow travelers still believe them? "Alternative facts" are unfortunately nothing new. The irony is that those who've been peddling them for years are now griping about someone elses.
                      The fact that Marxists and their successors still hold true to the idea that their ideology is more "scientific" than other political thought is one of those deeply (and darkly) humorous relics of a bygone era.

                      The best thing Marxism does is offer a pretty good critique of capitalism - but only within that limited frame of a critique. It's the difference between a man noting an errant paint-stroke on a Monet, and a man noting an errant paint-stroke on a Monet and then claiming his own bar-napkin sketch is objectively superior.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        The fact that Marxists and their successors still hold true to the idea that their ideology is more "scientific" than other political thought is one of those deeply (and darkly) humorous relics of a bygone era.
                        Hardly bygone. They're still here. Just go to Yale's campus in New Haven for confirmation of that.

                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        The best thing Marxism does is offer a pretty good critique of capitalism - but only within that limited frame of a critique. It's the difference between a man noting an errant paint-stroke on a Monet, and a man noting an errant paint-stroke on a Monet and then claiming his own bar-napkin sketch is objectively superior.
                        Marxism offered a good critique of feudalism. They never could figure out capitalism. In Marx's lifetime capitalism was still rather in its infancy, especially industrial capitalism. Before that all economics were either predicated upon the good graces of the king, the lord, etc, or the vagaries of weather, ie agriculture. In the post-industrial age, Marx is even more out of its element. The only constant is the critique of wealth from a moral standpoint -- which is something that even Marx himself didn't attempt. Now we have "enviro-marxists" -- yeah, that's the right term -- telling us that toilet paper consumes too much of the planet's resources. Of this I sh*t you not. They're not pro-poor people, nor are they really anti-capital: they're anti-people.
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                          Hardly bygone. They're still here. Just go to Yale's campus in New Haven for confirmation of that.
                          Sorry, I meant bygone in the "nations have generally abandoned it as a realistic option" sense. Even China is hardly a model of Marxist (or even Maoist) thought these days.

                          Marxism offered a good critique of feudalism. They never could figure out capitalism. In Marx's lifetime capitalism was still rather in its infancy, especially industrial capitalism. Before that all economics were either predicated upon the good graces of the king, the lord, etc, or the vagaries of weather, ie agriculture. In the post-industrial age, Marx is even more out of its element. The only constant is the critique of wealth from a moral standpoint -- which is something that even Marx himself didn't attempt. Now we have "enviro-marxists" -- yeah, that's the right term -- telling us that toilet paper consumes too much of the planet's resources. Of this I sh*t you not. They're not pro-poor people, nor are they really anti-capital: they're anti-people.
                          Oh sure, it's a product of its times. That is also why Marxists and Communists have such a bitter hatred of Social Democrats - they see them as traitors because they basically undercut the revolution by keeping capitalism intact while appeasing the proletariat with social programs.

                          As to the abuse of the term... hoo-boy. It's almost as bad as those kids who consider themselves Anarchists while protesting against cutting funding to social programs.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            Sorry, I meant bygone in the "nations have generally abandoned it as a realistic option" sense. Even China is hardly a model of Marxist (or even Maoist) thought these days.
                            I take it that you've not visited the People's Republic of Berkeley recently . . . .

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            Oh sure, it's a product of its times.
                            Tell ya the truth Marxism has always struck me as the product of the times before its times, kinda like the French army always preparing for the last war.

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            That is also why Marxists and Communists have such a bitter hatred of Social Democrats - they see them as traitors because they basically undercut the revolution by keeping capitalism intact while appeasing the proletariat with social programs.
                            Communists are essentially millenarians: they're preparing themselves for the end of times. After all, "communism" is supposed to be the heavenly state that comes after socialism. As millenarians, they resent no one more than one of their own who is willing to compromise with Satan. That's apostasy.

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            As to the abuse of the term... hoo-boy. It's almost as bad as those kids who consider themselves Anarchists while protesting against cutting funding to social programs.
                            Yeah, I know that Obama is really a milquetoast corporatist at heart, but he sure talks like a ComSymp.
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X