South Carolina Flag Debate

[DrZoidberg]

When did I say it isn't persuasion? The post was touching on whether they find the arguments persuasive versus other forms of persuasion.

To wit: Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired...

I was having a discussion with Crazy Eddie on this topic. I suggest going back and reading that separate thread. He argued that the the big bucks elites have managed to use their big bucks to give the appearance that the American public have lots of opinions they don´t really have. That was what I was arguing against. I think they have the opinions they have because they actually believe it... for whatever reason.

 

[RavenSky]

#FreeBree

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr-mt1P94cQ[/YOUTUBE]

They've been charged with "defacing a monument"

 

[Mumbles]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr-mt1P94cQ[/YOUTUBE]

They've been charged with "defacing a monument"

She knew exactly what she was doing. And good for her for doing it.

 

[RavenSky]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr-mt1P94cQ[/YOUTUBE]

They've been charged with "defacing a monument"

She knew exactly what she was doing. And good for her for doing it.

I fully agree, and she was prepared/expecting to be arrested. I'm just curious about the charge. Trespassing would make sense, but she didn't deface anything - not to mention calling a confederate battle flag a "monument" seems quite a stretch too

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Trouble is, you can also buy the APPEARANCE of persuasive power. Just plant story after story in news reports about, say, Americans still being skeptical of climate change or about how most Americans believe we live in a trans-racial society. People have an unfortunate tendency to question their own convictions when they are lead to believe their convictions are unpopular.

I have no idea what you mean by that? Americans don´t just look like they reject climate change. About 50% of them actually do. They actually find the arguments against climate change persuasive.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The reason the "average" American questions climate change is because there's an invested lobby of climate change deniers that plants hundreds of "news" stories and editorials questioning climate change. Most of the articles and reports are just rightist propaganda, but they're reported AS IF they were news and then repeated uncritically by other news outlets that should know better.

Most Americans would probably swing the other way if they were presented with real information about the subject and would have that "ah hah!" moment when they realize 90% of what they've been hearing is actually bullshit. IOW, it's not so much that they "actually believe it," it's that for a lot of people the very little information they've been exposed to it says "Some say yes, but here's why it's really no." Someone who has spent no time at all researching climate change and isn't even aware of the issue at all is more likely to stumble onto a FOX News editorial than a scientific report on the human impact of climate change.

I take it you do not have this problem in Sweden? You have journalists who actually ask questions of politicians, actually look into the veracity of their claims, and are willing to call them out when they spout a bunch of meaningless bullshit with no basis in fact? American journalists don't do that.

 

[ronburgundy]

When did I say it isn't persuasion? The post was touching on whether they find the arguments persuasive versus other forms of persuasion.

To wit: Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired...

I was having a discussion with Crazy Eddie on this topic. I suggest going back and reading that separate thread. He argued that the the big bucks elites have managed to use their big bucks to give the appearance that the American public have lots of opinions they don´t really have. That was what I was arguing against. I think they have the opinions they have because they actually believe it... for whatever reason.

There are 2 separate issues. Do Americans have the claimed beliefs? IF so, how did they come to those beliefs? Deepak's objection relates to the latter and your claim those beliefs were the result of being persuaded by arguments against climate change. Most beliefs against climate change are rooted in blind faith and emotion and not a response to anyone's arguments. The idea of humans economic activity harming global climate to a degree that threatens the viability of modern civilization in makes them feel afraid, or guilty (for contributing to it), or threatened due to the implications for either their religious or economic faiths.
Its analogous to a parents' irrational belief that their child is a genius despite all evidence to the contrary. We would say that such parents beliefs are the result of being persuaded by an argument in favor of their child being a genius.


As to the first issue of whether Americans really have those beliefs, I think that is also questionable. Some deniers do sincerely disbelieve in climate change, but these are mostly scientifically illiterate morons and the religiously motivated (large overlap in those groups). Many of the leaders of the political efforts to spread denial probably do not believe most of what they say, just like they don't believe that gay marriage threatens civilization or most of their other rhetoric. They say whatever they think is in their own political and economic interests for the mindless masses to believe. This also applies to non-leaders seeking to profit off of the very activities causing the problem. They parrot crap they don't believe to try and impede any efforts they think might diminish those profits.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have no idea what you mean by that? Americans don´t just look like they reject climate change. About 50% of them actually do. They actually find the arguments against climate change persuasive.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The reason the "average" American questions climate change is because there's an invested lobby of climate change deniers that plants hundreds of "news" stories and editorials questioning climate change. Most of the articles and reports are just rightist propaganda, but they're reported AS IF they were news and then repeated uncritically by other news outlets that should know better.

Most Americans would probably swing the other way if they were presented with real information about the subject and would have that "ah hah!" moment when they realize 90% of what they've been hearing is actually bullshit. IOW, it's not so much that they "actually believe it," it's that for a lot of people the very little information they've been exposed to it says "Some say yes, but here's why it's really no." Someone who has spent no time at all researching climate change and isn't even aware of the issue at all is more likely to stumble onto a FOX News editorial than a scientific report on the human impact of climate change.

I take it you do not have this problem in Sweden? You have journalists who actually ask questions of politicians, actually look into the veracity of their claims, and are willing to call them out when they spout a bunch of meaningless bullshit with no basis in fact? American journalists don't do that.

Of course we have the same bullshit happening in Sweden. Our media bullshit is just another type of media bullshit than yours. The philosopher Foucault argued that every culture needs one (or several) "great Satan" that it blames all ills on. I shtrr. So in America it´s anything that threatens the survival of the church. Them Americans really like their Jesus. And for social historical reasons conservatism and capitalism are joined at the hip. If it threatens big business is threatens Jesus. In Sweden it´s all about the war on drugs and the war on the sex trade. While the rest of the world is slowly but steadily working toward a decriminalisation of all drugs and liberalisation of buying sex, Sweden i sliding in the opposite direction. All of these projects are just as retarded and when it comes to them Americans and Swedes do not think rationally. But when it comes to most other things we´re both as sensible.

I don´t think the problem is a conspiracy to plant fake news. I think it´s more a question of people love having their beliefs validated. Media companies have an incentive to write things that people want to read. Anything that validates peoples pet beliefs will be written and read. People are fooled because they want to be fooled.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don´t think the problem is a conspiracy to plant fake news. I think it´s more a question of people love having their beliefs validated. Media companies have an incentive to write things that people want to read. Anything that validates peoples pet beliefs will be written and read. People are fooled because they want to be fooled.

Bingo. This is why you can argue and show people facts and it only entrenches them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don´t think the problem is a conspiracy to plant fake news. I think it´s more a question of people love having their beliefs validated. Media companies have an incentive to write things that people want to read. Anything that validates peoples pet beliefs will be written and read. People are fooled because they want to be fooled.

While I agree with your assessment of what's going on (and note the corollary--a news outfit will be biased in the direction of the majority of it's readers) that doesn't mean there aren't also those who plant fake news.

 

[ronburgundy]

BTW, in case their is any doubt about the interchangability of the Nazi and Confederate flags in terms of what they convey and the racism of those that fly them, this picture is of a gardening hut owned by a overt NAZI in Germany. The banning of the Nazi flag there has led many Nazis to use the Confederate flag as a substitute.

This simple pic supports several points:

1. Displaying the Confederate flag supports the most extreme forms of state-sponsored racism in history.
2. Due to #1, no government should be allowed to display either flag, and doing so should be a swift and aggressive response.
3. Banning private individuals from displaying these flags is largely pointless. To borrow from Jeff Goldblum "Racists find a way."

Obviously, if the Confed flag were banned in the US, then the Nazi flag would be too. However, those bent of skirting the law would just create a version that is just on the other side of the law and doesn't count as a Confed but all people know immediately that it is a reference to it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Fraternal order to rally for the non-racist "heritage" flag.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kkk-rally-july-over-confederate-flag

he most notorious hate group in America will rally in support of the Confederate Flag in July, amid a national debate about flag’s place in modern society and racially-motivated violence.

A North Carolina chapter of the Klu Klux Klan reserved space on the State House grounds in Columbia, South Carolina on July 18th, the state confirmed to msnbc on Tuesday – 31 days after a man with ties to white supremacist groups killed nine at a historically black Charleston church in a racially-motivated massacre.

“We will be at the state house in Columbia, South Carolina standing up for our confederate history,” an answering machine tied to the KKK’s Loyal White Knights chapter said Tuesday morning. The group claims to be the largest Klan group in the country.

And the nails are in the coffin.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don´t think the problem is a conspiracy to plant fake news. I think it´s more a question of people love having their beliefs validated. Media companies have an incentive to write things that people want to read. Anything that validates peoples pet beliefs will be written and read. People are fooled because they want to be fooled.

I think both things are true; people love validation, and the media responds by inventing stories. Which happens to be consistent with the corporate needs of the media parent company.

It's nothing new or unique to America. Hobsbawm argues that American public opinion has been manipulated since the days of Andrew Jackson. But since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed and ownership of media deregulated, it's gotten worse.

 

[fromderinside]

I don´t think the problem is a conspiracy to plant fake news. I think it´s more a question of people love having their beliefs validated. Media companies have an incentive to write things that people want to read. Anything that validates peoples pet beliefs will be written and read. People are fooled because they want to be fooled.

I think both things are true; people love validation, and the media responds by inventing stories. Which happens to be consistent with the corporate needs of the media parent company.

It's nothing new or unique to America. Hobsbawm argues that American public opinion has been manipulated since the days of Andrew Jackson. But since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed and ownership of media deregulated, it's gotten worse.

Wow. JP Morgan was right./stupidstatement

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The reason the "average" American questions climate change is because there's an invested lobby of climate change deniers that plants hundreds of "news" stories and editorials questioning climate change. Most of the articles and reports are just rightist propaganda, but they're reported AS IF they were news and then repeated uncritically by other news outlets that should know better.

Most Americans would probably swing the other way if they were presented with real information about the subject and would have that "ah hah!" moment when they realize 90% of what they've been hearing is actually bullshit. IOW, it's not so much that they "actually believe it," it's that for a lot of people the very little information they've been exposed to it says "Some say yes, but here's why it's really no." Someone who has spent no time at all researching climate change and isn't even aware of the issue at all is more likely to stumble onto a FOX News editorial than a scientific report on the human impact of climate change.

I take it you do not have this problem in Sweden? You have journalists who actually ask questions of politicians, actually look into the veracity of their claims, and are willing to call them out when they spout a bunch of meaningless bullshit with no basis in fact? American journalists don't do that.

Of course we have the same bullshit happening in Sweden. Our media bullshit is just another type of media bullshit than yours. The philosopher Foucault argued that every culture needs one (or several) "great Satan" that it blames all ills on. I shtrr. So in America it´s anything that threatens the survival of the church. Them Americans really like their Jesus. And for social historical reasons conservatism and capitalism are joined at the hip. If it threatens big business is threatens Jesus. In Sweden it´s all about the war on drugs and the war on the sex trade. While the rest of the world is slowly but steadily working toward a decriminalisation of all drugs and liberalisation of buying sex, Sweden i sliding in the opposite direction. All of these projects are just as retarded and when it comes to them Americans and Swedes do not think rationally. But when it comes to most other things we´re both as sensible.

Fine. Now suppose that the anti-drug/anti-sex movement in Sweden had an actual cottage industry behind it, with millions if not billions of dollars worth of investments on the line, plus a political party that made "End prostitution and punish drug dealers!" their number one campaign issue every single election. And suppose that any attempt to discuss openly whether or not the war on drugs/prostitution was really such a good idea somehow managed to be ignored by the major Swedish news outlets, papers, magazines and TV programs. And suppose, furthermore, that the puritanical party of Sweden became sufficiently vast -- garnering influence with banks, regulatory agencies, judges and law enforcement -- that anyone who deviated from "acceptable" political discourse coincidentally found it much harder than usual to run a business.

Even less dire than that; suppose that one's career as a journalist could be brought to a sudden and abrupt end simply by questioning the prevailing political narrative on the importance of ending drug and sex trade; that the safe thing to do is to simply repeat the talking points of the Puritan party and insert no commentary that might put those talking points into question, as doing so will result in your boss getting a phone call and you being reassigned to some meaningless human interest fluff piece.

I don´t think the problem is a conspiracy to plant fake news.

It's not a conspiracy at all. It's just a massive campaign of information control. Spit out as much propaganda as you can and bully and terrorize anyone who questions you. People play along because they want to avoid trouble, not because they're in on it.

I think it´s more a question of people love having their beliefs validated. Media companies have an incentive to write things that people want to read. Anything that validates peoples pet beliefs will be written and read. People are fooled because they want to be fooled.

That's part of it in a way, depending on your target audience. Journalists, however, generally try to reveal some great truth that the public isn't aware of yet. That's actually the main appeal of news reporting: people want to know what's going on, which doesn't always (or usually) conform to their expectations of what they THINK is going on. The only thing a consumer of news media likes more than validation is learning something unexpected; a "scoop" or a "scandal" or sometimes just a breaking story is really just the reveal of something that used to be hidden and is now uncovered for all to see.

The problem is, when you unleash an army of spin doctors to tailor every news article about a particular subject to carry a specific narrative, the story the people are getting isn't necessarily telling them anything true. And again, this isn't really a "conspiracy" as much as a PR campaign on a massive scale.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Fraternal order to rally for the non-racist "heritage" flag.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kkk-rally-july-over-confederate-flag

he most notorious hate group in America will rally in support of the Confederate Flag in July, amid a national debate about flag’s place in modern society and racially-motivated violence.

A North Carolina chapter of the Klu Klux Klan reserved space on the State House grounds in Columbia, South Carolina on July 18th, the state confirmed to msnbc on Tuesday – 31 days after a man with ties to white supremacist groups killed nine at a historically black Charleston church in a racially-motivated massacre.

“We will be at the state house in Columbia, South Carolina standing up for our confederate history,” an answering machine tied to the KKK’s Loyal White Knights chapter said Tuesday morning. The group claims to be the largest Klan group in the country.

And the nails are in the coffin.

I had a shop teacher in high school, very close to retirement and adopting a "don't give a shit anymore" attitude who told me something I will never forget.

He said he took part in a march that opposed desegregation in Alabama once, sort of an attempt to counter the Selma Marches in a peaceful protest. His rationale, at the time, was legitimate "states rights" and "we should work out our own issues locally" sort of angle. Classic conservative outlook. He had actually assumed that that was the nature of the opposition to desegregation in the first place... until a bunch of yahoos carrying pipes and chains and nooses showed up and started marching with them, shouting some slogans that bordered on crazy. Which would have been bad enough until the Ku Klux Klan showed up and started marching with them as well and the chants turned into "White Power! White power!"

The very next march he attended was the Million Man March at Washington. The reason, as he put it: "When you find yourself on the same side with the Ku Klux Klan, you're on the wrong side."

I had a lot of respect for the old guy because as I understand it he learned most of his lessons the hard way (and had the missing fingers to prove it). Personally, I think Republicans have learned their lesson and aren't looking to repeat their mistakes.

Which sort of leads me to wonder when we're going to get a serious investigation of the church burnings...

 

[DrZoidberg]

Of course we have the same bullshit happening in Sweden. Our media bullshit is just another type of media bullshit than yours. The philosopher Foucault argued that every culture needs one (or several) "great Satan" that it blames all ills on. I shtrr. So in America it´s anything that threatens the survival of the church. Them Americans really like their Jesus. And for social historical reasons conservatism and capitalism are joined at the hip. If it threatens big business is threatens Jesus. In Sweden it´s all about the war on drugs and the war on the sex trade. While the rest of the world is slowly but steadily working toward a decriminalisation of all drugs and liberalisation of buying sex, Sweden i sliding in the opposite direction. All of these projects are just as retarded and when it comes to them Americans and Swedes do not think rationally. But when it comes to most other things we´re both as sensible.

Fine. Now suppose that the anti-drug/anti-sex movement in Sweden had an actual cottage industry behind it, with millions if not billions of dollars worth of investments on the line, plus a political party that made "End prostitution and punish drug dealers!" their number one campaign issue every single election. And suppose that any attempt to discuss openly whether or not the war on drugs/prostitution was really such a good idea somehow managed to be ignored by the major Swedish news outlets, papers, magazines and TV programs. And suppose, furthermore, that the puritanical party of Sweden became sufficiently vast -- garnering influence with banks, regulatory agencies, judges and law enforcement -- that anyone who deviated from "acceptable" political discourse coincidentally found it much harder than usual to run a business.

Which we have. We have this exact cottage industry. And they keep spewing their bullshit, because now they´re fighting for their survival. We have those political parties in power. It´s the exact same situation!

Even less dire than that; suppose that one's career as a journalist could be brought to a sudden and abrupt end simply by questioning the prevailing political narrative on the importance of ending drug and sex trade; that the safe thing to do is to simply repeat the talking points of the Puritan party and insert no commentary that might put those talking points into question, as doing so will result in your boss getting a phone call and you being reassigned to some meaningless human interest fluff piece.

Hmm... I think you´ve confused what a journalists job description is. it´s their job to write things that sell. Their job isn´t to tell the Truth. It´s your job as a reader to buy media that promotes Truth-writing. Yes, it is circular. But that is the situation we have. Putting this on the journalistic trade as their duty is ignoring economic realities of running a media house.

Yes, a journalists career will come to an abrupt end if their readers don´t agree with what they write. I would have thought that was elementary? That is what separates the professional journalists (those who have something to lose) and random bloggers (who don´t).

I don´t think the problem is a conspiracy to plant fake news.

It's not a conspiracy at all. It's just a massive campaign of information control. Spit out as much propaganda as you can and bully and terrorize anyone who questions you. People play along because they want to avoid trouble, not because they're in on it.

Don´t all sides do this?

I think it´s more a question of people love having their beliefs validated. Media companies have an incentive to write things that people want to read. Anything that validates peoples pet beliefs will be written and read. People are fooled because they want to be fooled.

That's part of it in a way, depending on your target audience. Journalists, however, generally try to reveal some great truth that the public isn't aware of yet. That's actually the main appeal of news reporting: people want to know what's going on, which doesn't always (or usually) conform to their expectations of what they THINK is going on. The only thing a consumer of news media likes more than validation is learning something unexpected; a "scoop" or a "scandal" or sometimes just a breaking story is really just the reveal of something that used to be hidden and is now uncovered for all to see.

The problem is, when you unleash an army of spin doctors to tailor every news article about a particular subject to carry a specific narrative, the story the people are getting isn't necessarily telling them anything true. And again, this isn't really a "conspiracy" as much as a PR campaign on a massive scale.

I think you´re just wrong. Nobody wants their beliefs challenged. You don´t. I don´t. It´s human. We don´t like news that doesn´t play along with the acceptable narrative we have playing in our heads. Nobody does. We only love scandals which fit in. I think you´ve created a specific category for yourself where you can see the truth, in a way other can´t. And I think it is self deception on your part. There are spin doctors on every side. But we have a tendency to ignore the spin doctors on our side. After all... they´re the only ones being honest. And then it´s ok, isn´t it?

 

[maxparrish]

BTW, in case their is any doubt about the interchangability of the Nazi and Confederate flags in terms of what they convey and the racism of those that fly them, this picture is of a gardening hut owned by a overt NAZI in Germany. The banning of the Nazi flag there has led many Nazis to use the Confederate flag as a substitute.

This simple pic supports several points:

1. Displaying the Confederate flag supports the most extreme forms of state-sponsored racism in history.
2. Due to #1, no government should be allowed to display either flag, and doing so should be a swift and aggressive response.
3. Banning private individuals from displaying these flags is largely pointless. To borrow from Jeff Goldblum "Racists find a way."

Obviously, if the Confed flag were banned in the US, then the Nazi flag would be too. However, those bent of skirting the law would just create a version that is just on the other side of the law and doesn't count as a Confed but all people know immediately that it is a reference to it.

Your simple picture supports no important point other than saying that symbols don't have a copyright and people adopt them for whatever purpose they choose. I find it ironic that folks like you would grant a smattering of racist folk the power to dictate the meaning of symbols for the rest of society. Ironically, you do your enemies bidding.

In case you still don't comprehend your error, here's other educative pics:

So when are we going to haul the American Flag down - being that it is clearly associated with racism?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So when are we going to haul the American Flag down - being that it is clearly associated with racism?

It's being hauled down three weeks from Tuesday. Not because of its associations with racism, of course, but because Obama and Hillary's plan to destroy America and turn it into a homosexual Islamic caliphate under the control of ISIS will come to fruition then.

 

[laughing dog]

Max, you are out spinning a centrifuge but to no avail. The Confederacy rallied about its support of slavery of blacks (not white) which is a form of racism. Which makes its flag a symbol of racism. The fact they may be people who fly the flag who are not racists is irrelevant to that historical fact.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Snip

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Current_developments

The modern KKK is not one organization; rather it is composed of small independent chapters across the U.S. The formation of independent chapters has made KKK groups more difficult to infiltrate, and researchers find it hard to estimate their numbers. Estimates are that about two-thirds of KKK members are concentrated in the Southern United States, with another third situated primarily in the lower Midwest

And in searching for a symbol they took up the Confederate Battle Flag.