The New Age of shamelessness

[DrZoidberg]

I think the old political elites and pre-Internet journalism was a conspiracy. They both liked having a simple world with simple narratives. Hitler = bad. Inspirational (and bullshit) stories of how someone, against all odds, made it = Good. That was basically the, forever repeated, story. The span of opinions was vanishingly thin. All players in the conspiracy belonged to the uppe middle class. All went to the same schools. All were friends.

Talk about conspiracy theories. You believe some weird shit.

I clearly don't think it's weird. Its about incentives and how to gain wealth and power. The middle class has always been about maximising wealth and power.

Also about signalling status and belonging into the group while frantically coming up with ever increasingly convoluted ways to exclude the working class.

This btw is a Marxist analysis

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think the old political elites and pre-Internet journalism was a conspiracy. They both liked having a simple world with simple narratives. Hitler = bad. Inspirational (and bullshit) stories of how someone, against all odds, made it = Good. That was basically the, forever repeated, story. The span of opinions was vanishingly thin. All players in the conspiracy belonged to the uppe middle class. All went to the same schools. All were friends.

‘
Beliaeving in bullshit like this would probably make you a successful social media “influencer”

Its funny how the left today don't read Marx and couldn't do a Marxist analysis even if it bit them in the ass

 

[pood]

I think the old political elites and pre-Internet journalism was a conspiracy. They both liked having a simple world with simple narratives. Hitler = bad. Inspirational (and bullshit) stories of how someone, against all odds, made it = Good. That was basically the, forever repeated, story. The span of opinions was vanishingly thin. All players in the conspiracy belonged to the uppe middle class. All went to the same schools. All were friends.

‘
Beliaeving in bullshit like this would probably make you a successful social media “influencer”

Its funny how the left today don't read Marx and couldn't do a Marxist analysis even if it bit them in the ass

Am I supposed to care what Marx said?

You claims about how pre-internet journalism and politics worked are wrong.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think the old political elites and pre-Internet journalism was a conspiracy. They both liked having a simple world with simple narratives. Hitler = bad. Inspirational (and bullshit) stories of how someone, against all odds, made it = Good. That was basically the, forever repeated, story. The span of opinions was vanishingly thin. All players in the conspiracy belonged to the uppe middle class. All went to the same schools. All were friends.

‘
Beliaeving in bullshit like this would probably make you a successful social media “influencer”

Its funny how the left today don't read Marx and couldn't do a Marxist analysis even if it bit them in the ass

Am I supposed to care what Marx said?

Yes. He's pretty much the foundation of modern western civilisation right now. We almost exclusively use Marxist analysis today to analyse world events. We're just rarely aware that we are doing it.

Marx is pretty kick ass. Yes, he was also wrong about some stuff.

 

[pood]

Isn’t it funny how Marx, who died in 1883, is supposed to have known something about pre-internet 20th century journalism?

Well I do know something about it, and Zoidberg’s Marx-inspired claims are a crock.

 

[southernhybrid]

Isn’t it funny how Marx, who died in 1883, is supposed to have known something about pre-internet 20th century journalism?

Well I do know something about it, and Zoidberg’s Marx-inspired claims are a crock.

I'm beginning to think that Zoidberg is using AI for his posts.

 

[pood]

During much of the 20th century, most journalists came from working-class backgrounds and many did not attend college at all. They worked their way up in the trade as apprentices, typically staring out as copy boys.

By the late 20th century, changing demographics and rise of journalism schools attracted more middle-class and upper-class candidates for jobs. However, there were and are J schools all over the country, so, no, they did not “all go to the same schools,” and they were not “all friends.”

The number of daily newspapers in the country has declined by about a third since 1970. The percentage of people in the U.S. who read a daily paper is about 10 percent. These are the real reasons for any disconnect between journalists and ordinary working people — the decline of actual newspapers, and the fact that people of every class increasingly seek “news” on the internet and social media. Many places throughout the U.S. today are “news deserts” that are not served by any newspaper. This is because of local dailies being bought up, consolidated or closed to serve the bottom lines of their corporate owners.

 

[pood]

Years ago I worked for a small daily in Antioch, Calif, about 40 miles outside San Francisco. It was affiliated with a weekly newspaper that covered the nearby community of Brentwood. Both were later bought up and shut down by the larger Contra Costa Times, which then offered little when any coverage of Antioch and Brentwood. This pattern has been repeated all over the country. So it may be true that today journalists are often out of touch with the concerns of many rural and working-class people, but that is because the papers in those communities have been systematically downsized or eliminated in the relentless search for corporate profits.

 

[pood]

The idea that there ever was a “conspiracy” among journalists, or indeed among journalists and politicians, is of course daft, and does indeed sound like an AI-generated hallucination.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It's not about having access to information, it's about which information you access and which information you trust. I could give plenty of examples, but I think you all get the point. Ok. I'll give one example.

There are plenty of sites that give false information about medical conditions, medications, supplements etc. You have to know which sources of information are fairly reliable and which are nothing but scams. If I'm looking for information regarding medical conditions, I only visit sites like the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, Emory or Harvard Medical school etc. Then I compare what I've read to see if there is a lot of agreement and research to back up the claims and information. It's great to have such easy access to such information, but what if someone only gets medical information from people like Dr. Oz and other scam artists? There's another one who sells lots of supplements, but I can't think of his name right now. People are gullible and they want to believe what they read, even if there is no scientific evidence to support the trash these people sell.

Yup. I found it particularly disheartening when I learned that most young people eschew mainstream news media and prefer social media to get their news.

You sound like a dinasaur. Yes, that's how people get news today. That doesn't mean quality of news is lower. It's just the channel upon which we get links to that which we then read.

I don't know if you've looked at the news on TV lately. It's packaged for retards. I think it always was. Why would anyone with any brains put up with that? Isn't it better to get it packaged via the many news packaging services?

I have friends who work as investment bankers. Correctly understanding the effect of world events on markets is their job. They primarily get their news from social media. The problem isn't that it's social media. But what type of social media.

While I’m sure that the internet is their primary source, “social media” almost certainly is not. Here’s a reasonably good definition of “social media”:

“websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.”

The Wall Street Journal’s website is NOT “social media”. Same for NY Times, Washington Post, etc.

“Social media” is X, Facebook, TikTok, etc. An unacceptably large % of what appears on these sites as “news” is utter bullshit. How many of your “investment banker friends” use them as their primary source?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not about having access to information, it's about which information you access and which information you trust. I could give plenty of examples, but I think you all get the point. Ok. I'll give one example.

There are plenty of sites that give false information about medical conditions, medications, supplements etc. You have to know which sources of information are fairly reliable and which are nothing but scams. If I'm looking for information regarding medical conditions, I only visit sites like the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, Emory or Harvard Medical school etc. Then I compare what I've read to see if there is a lot of agreement and research to back up the claims and information. It's great to have such easy access to such information, but what if someone only gets medical information from people like Dr. Oz and other scam artists? There's another one who sells lots of supplements, but I can't think of his name right now. People are gullible and they want to believe what they read, even if there is no scientific evidence to support the trash these people sell.

Yup. I found it particularly disheartening when I learned that most young people eschew mainstream news media and prefer social media to get their news.

You sound like a dinasaur. Yes, that's how people get news today. That doesn't mean quality of news is lower. It's just the channel upon which we get links to that which we then read.

I don't know if you've looked at the news on TV lately. It's packaged for retards. I think it always was. Why would anyone with any brains put up with that? Isn't it better to get it packaged via the many news packaging services?

I have friends who work as investment bankers. Correctly understanding the effect of world events on markets is their job. They primarily get their news from social media. The problem isn't that it's social media. But what type of social media.

While I’m sure that the internet is their primary source, “social media” almost certainly is not. Here’s a reasonably good definition of “social media”:

“websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.”

The Wall Street Journal’s website is NOT “social media”. Same for NY Times, Washington Post, etc.

“Social media” is X, Facebook, TikTok, etc. An unacceptably large % of what appears on these sites as “news” is utter bullshit. How many of your “investment banker friends” use them as their primary source?

They didn’t say social media as "primary source". You just added that.

Today we see links to interesting stuff on our social media. I think that's how most people get their news today

 

[laughing dog]

It is the math carefully calculated by billionaire hedge fund manager Ray Dalio. Taking all the governments throughout history with debt to GDP over 130% and still surviving without civil unrest. The 2% is incredibly rare but this amount deleveraging without civil unrest did actually happen with the US right after WW2.

Thank you.

Do you have a link to those calculations or a citation? I ask, because that frequency of 2% seems awfully low for post - gold standard times,

 

[laughing dog]

Isn’t it funny how Marx, who died in 1883, is supposed to have known something about pre-internet 20th century journalism?

Well I do know something about it, and Zoidberg’s Marx-inspired claims are a crock.

I'm beginning to think that Zoidberg is using AI for his posts.

The posts would make more sense if he did.

 

[bilby]

I think the old political elites and pre-Internet journalism was a conspiracy. They both liked having a simple world with simple narratives. Hitler = bad. Inspirational (and bullshit) stories of how someone, against all odds, made it = Good. That was basically the, forever repeated, story. The span of opinions was vanishingly thin. All players in the conspiracy belonged to the uppe middle class. All went to the same schools. All were friends.

Talk about conspiracy theories. You believe some weird shit.

I clearly don't think it's weird.

Of course you don't. But the flaw in your analysis, that you appear to have overlooked here, is fairly simple and obvious:

Show

You are wrong.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It's not about having access to information, it's about which information you access and which information you trust. I could give plenty of examples, but I think you all get the point. Ok. I'll give one example.

There are plenty of sites that give false information about medical conditions, medications, supplements etc. You have to know which sources of information are fairly reliable and which are nothing but scams. If I'm looking for information regarding medical conditions, I only visit sites like the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, Emory or Harvard Medical school etc. Then I compare what I've read to see if there is a lot of agreement and research to back up the claims and information. It's great to have such easy access to such information, but what if someone only gets medical information from people like Dr. Oz and other scam artists? There's another one who sells lots of supplements, but I can't think of his name right now. People are gullible and they want to believe what they read, even if there is no scientific evidence to support the trash these people sell.

Yup. I found it particularly disheartening when I learned that most young people eschew mainstream news media and prefer social media to get their news.

You sound like a dinasaur. Yes, that's how people get news today. That doesn't mean quality of news is lower. It's just the channel upon which we get links to that which we then read.

I don't know if you've looked at the news on TV lately. It's packaged for retards. I think it always was. Why would anyone with any brains put up with that? Isn't it better to get it packaged via the many news packaging services?

I have friends who work as investment bankers. Correctly understanding the effect of world events on markets is their job. They primarily get their news from social media. The problem isn't that it's social media. But what type of social media.

While I’m sure that the internet is their primary source, “social media” almost certainly is not. Here’s a reasonably good definition of “social media”:

“websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.”

The Wall Street Journal’s website is NOT “social media”. Same for NY Times, Washington Post, etc.

“Social media” is X, Facebook, TikTok, etc. An unacceptably large % of what appears on these sites as “news” is utter bullshit. How many of your “investment banker friends” use them as their primary source?

They didn’t say social media as "primary source". You just added that.

Today we see links to interesting stuff on our social media. I think that's how most people get their news today

You literally said,

“They primarily get their news from social media.”

And yes, there’s a lot of interesting stuff on social media. Very little of it that could be considered news is reliable. Your investment banker friends would be better off watching cartoons.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not about having access to information, it's about which information you access and which information you trust. I could give plenty of examples, but I think you all get the point. Ok. I'll give one example.

There are plenty of sites that give false information about medical conditions, medications, supplements etc. You have to know which sources of information are fairly reliable and which are nothing but scams. If I'm looking for information regarding medical conditions, I only visit sites like the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, Emory or Harvard Medical school etc. Then I compare what I've read to see if there is a lot of agreement and research to back up the claims and information. It's great to have such easy access to such information, but what if someone only gets medical information from people like Dr. Oz and other scam artists? There's another one who sells lots of supplements, but I can't think of his name right now. People are gullible and they want to believe what they read, even if there is no scientific evidence to support the trash these people sell.

Yup. I found it particularly disheartening when I learned that most young people eschew mainstream news media and prefer social media to get their news.

You sound like a dinasaur. Yes, that's how people get news today. That doesn't mean quality of news is lower. It's just the channel upon which we get links to that which we then read.

I don't know if you've looked at the news on TV lately. It's packaged for retards. I think it always was. Why would anyone with any brains put up with that? Isn't it better to get it packaged via the many news packaging services?

I have friends who work as investment bankers. Correctly understanding the effect of world events on markets is their job. They primarily get their news from social media. The problem isn't that it's social media. But what type of social media.

While I’m sure that the internet is their primary source, “social media” almost certainly is not. Here’s a reasonably good definition of “social media”:

“websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.”

The Wall Street Journal’s website is NOT “social media”. Same for NY Times, Washington Post, etc.

“Social media” is X, Facebook, TikTok, etc. An unacceptably large % of what appears on these sites as “news” is utter bullshit. How many of your “investment banker friends” use them as their primary source?

They didn’t say social media as "primary source". You just added that.

Today we see links to interesting stuff on our social media. I think that's how most people get their news today

You literally said,

“They primarily get their news from social media.”

And yes, there’s a lot of interesting stuff on social media. Very little of it that could be considered news is reliable. Your investment banker friends would be better off watching cartoons.

That doesn't mean that social media is the primary source. You just made that up

And neither does the study posted earlier imply that social media is the primary source

 

[DrZoidberg]

The idea that there ever was a “conspiracy” among journalists, or indeed among journalists and politicians, is of course daft, and does indeed sound like an AI-generated hallucination.

People can be part of a conspiracy without knowing they are. All members of the conspiracy need is shared incentives.

This is the stuff Karl Marx was talking about. He didn't mean that the classes are literally at war. What he meant is that the upper classes like having power over the working class, so will consciously or subconsciously, conspire to exclude the working class. Someone can say one thing and do another. That's pretty common in the middle class. People obsessed with image rather than substance. This disconnect seems to come naturally to the middle class.

All the conspiracy needs to work is that rich people like hanging out together and make an effort to try to impress eachother

 

[TV and credit cards]

This can't end well.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It's not about having access to information, it's about which information you access and which information you trust. I could give plenty of examples, but I think you all get the point. Ok. I'll give one example.

There are plenty of sites that give false information about medical conditions, medications, supplements etc. You have to know which sources of information are fairly reliable and which are nothing but scams. If I'm looking for information regarding medical conditions, I only visit sites like the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, Emory or Harvard Medical school etc. Then I compare what I've read to see if there is a lot of agreement and research to back up the claims and information. It's great to have such easy access to such information, but what if someone only gets medical information from people like Dr. Oz and other scam artists? There's another one who sells lots of supplements, but I can't think of his name right now. People are gullible and they want to believe what they read, even if there is no scientific evidence to support the trash these people sell.

Yup. I found it particularly disheartening when I learned that most young people eschew mainstream news media and prefer social media to get their news.

You sound like a dinasaur. Yes, that's how people get news today. That doesn't mean quality of news is lower. It's just the channel upon which we get links to that which we then read.

I don't know if you've looked at the news on TV lately. It's packaged for retards. I think it always was. Why would anyone with any brains put up with that? Isn't it better to get it packaged via the many news packaging services?

I have friends who work as investment bankers. Correctly understanding the effect of world events on markets is their job. They primarily get their news from social media. The problem isn't that it's social media. But what type of social media.

While I’m sure that the internet is their primary source, “social media” almost certainly is not. Here’s a reasonably good definition of “social media”:

“websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.”

The Wall Street Journal’s website is NOT “social media”. Same for NY Times, Washington Post, etc.

“Social media” is X, Facebook, TikTok, etc. An unacceptably large % of what appears on these sites as “news” is utter bullshit. How many of your “investment banker friends” use them as their primary source?

They didn’t say social media as "primary source". You just added that.

Today we see links to interesting stuff on our social media. I think that's how most people get their news today

You literally said,

“They primarily get their news from social media.”

And yes, there’s a lot of interesting stuff on social media. Very little of it that could be considered news is reliable. Your investment banker friends would be better off watching cartoons.

That doesn't mean that social media is the primary source. You just made that up

And neither does the study posted earlier imply that social media is the primary source

For the love of Christ, if you’re going to make up your own meaning for words, I see no reason to have any interest in what you say.

To think you had the gall to start a conversation about shamelessness. UFB.

 

[Gospel]

The call Is coming from inside the house.