PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[driveway]

I'll just leave this here:

Originally Posted by AcGold

I'm asking, how the frack do I start a career with a geoscience degree when nobody is hiring and I can't get any experience?

[AcGold]

First I've got multiple degrees

Second it's creepy that you're digging through my history. Real freaking creepy, I'm out for good. For shame CP, for shame.

[PepsiFree]

It all just seems like rhetoric to me.

[Izzle]

Likely a fake leave. Unfortunately.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by AcGold

It is not the same, there is a psychological effect that buzz words have. When you have to consider the confounding variables in each situation it forces you to see things more clearly, when you apply a catch all to situations that mildly resemble each other you effectively stop critical thought. Placing everything into a template ends things before the cyclical nature of critical thought can begin.

It has nothing to do with appearance on a superficial level, it is psychological manipulation applied on a mass scale that divides, entrenches and dumbs down the population. A method that is employed using scientific analysis.

This is where you jump the shark. There is no mastermind scheme to dumb down and placate the population 1984 style.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Wait wait wait. Are you specifically saying that this statement itself racist and thus Trump is racist, or that he's generally racist?

I'll add that I don't think that tweet specifically is racist, though there's more than enough in Trump's Twitter history to suggest he is racist if one wishes to prove that.

Realistically, Obama would have to have done an absolutely horrific job for any logical person to definitively say that a black man will not be president again for "generations", especially given the direction the demographic of the US is heading. It's not a racist tweet, just a dumb exaggeration because he hates Obama.

[photon]

I don't understand, how are we supposed to talk about a group of issues or events without words that refer to the group of issues or events? If a number of people latch onto a word or phrase to refer to it, it becomes a "buzzword", does that instantly mean we suddenly cannot discuss that thing anymore for fear that our perceptions will be altered by using a buzzword? Or does it mean we suddenly cannot use the word anymore, we must use another word, which will become a buzzword, so must use another word, being caught in an infinite loop of ever increasing obscure references to something?

What's the alternative to calling fake news "fake news"?

It seems to me that the problem is in the usage. One can be incorrectly dismissive of news with or without calling it fake news. One can give a specific news item thoughtful evaluation after thinking it first looks like fake news.

Sometimes it's very easy... if a news website is for a city newspaper that has no record of existing outside of itself, is mostly empty, and exists on a domain that was registered two days before the news item was posted, it's probably fine to classify it as fake news until shown otherwise.

[photon]

Didn't see that Trump's also claiming that there was 'serious voter fraud' in 3 states, probably with the same source as the millions of illegal voters, Infowars or some such. He can't make time to attend presidential daily briefings on issues of national security, but he has time to listen to David Jones.

This will all become really fun when the stuff he makes up is about things like results of armed conflicts, or consequences of trade policies, or economic reports. "Lying liberal economists say unemployment is 12% to make me look bad. Everyone has a job. MAGA."

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Acey

I'll add that I don't think that tweet specifically is racist, though there's more than enough in Trump's Twitter history to suggest he is racist if one wishes to prove that.

Realistically, Obama would have to have done an absolutely horrific job for any logical person to definitively say that a black man will not be president again for "generations", especially given the direction the demographic of the US is heading. It's not a racist tweet, just a dumb exaggeration because he hates Obama.

Agreed on all points.

[driveway]

RE: Fake news.

The Broadcasting Distribution Regulations of Canada prohibit the following:

8 (1) No licensee shall distribute a programming service that the licensee originates and that contains

(d) any false or misleading news.

This does not apply to an online service such as Facebook, but I would argue that anything which would violate this law, were it produced and broadcast by a CRTC licensee, can be accurately referred to as "fakenews" and derided.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Second it's creepy that you're digging through my history.

Searching CP for user ACGOLD and the keyword DEGREE found your claim to have a geoscience degree on the 8th hit. Maybe you should have gotten a degree in The Google, searching on someone's dubious claims isn't creepy, it's routine.

I suppose it's possible you have two different degrees in utterly unrelated fields. Is it likely - well, I don't see any evidence you understand psychology at all. Psychology teaches that all communication is manipulation, so it can't invalidate certain words due to those words being overly manipulative, that's like a chemist arguing the sea can't be salty because there's too much salt in it. Which would make him a pretty dubious chemist.

Lastly, the meaning of words and how we arrive at understanding are semantics and epistemology, respectively - not psychology. Which you would think someone of your claimed erudition would know.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Acey

I'll add that I don't think that tweet specifically is racist, though there's more than enough in Trump's Twitter history to suggest he is racist if one wishes to prove that.

Realistically, Obama would have to have done an absolutely horrific job for any logical person to definitively say that a black man will not be president again for "generations", especially given the direction the demographic of the US is heading. It's not a racist tweet, just a dumb exaggeration because he hates Obama.

Maybe just my own dislike for the man sneaking in, but the sentiment sounds like him projecting his own feelings onto the voting population. It's how he operates. He tells his followers how they should feel and then protects himself by saying that it was joke or "that is what people are saying, I dunno...", and things of that nature.

At the very least, he has no issue planting those ideas in people heads.

[CaramonLS]

This whole accusing stuff of being fake news is getting out of hand. I think the "Fake News" stuff has become somewhat exaggerated to lump anything not "mainstream". It is more akin to Yellow Journalism as opposed to being fake.

It is used to try to discredit just about anything that doesn't fall into the spectrum of discourse in by some of the larger media organizations.

The richest part about this whole thing is that it really has started with the MSM outlets and now others are following suit thinking they can do half assed research and throw it out there for anyone to digest. See stuff like this from a "mainsteam" source: Link. Which basically cites random facebook posts and tweets in order to push an agenda.

When you start promoting low effort content and opinion based punditry non-stop, people are going to start to imitate that too, because they want a piece of the action ($$$) or deliberately want to mislead you and because it is so easy to do. There are no barriers to entry because everyone has an opinion which they can type out and do a few minutes of internet research, just like that high priced pundit.

If you want this to stop, Investigative reporting needs to start to make a comeback. Otherwise people are going to be lost in the sea of clickbait and low-effort content. Do something to distinguish your product and make it worthy of being read again.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by AcGold

So you're not interested? Too bad, I'm going to share anyways as your profound arrogance is unsettling.

Profound arrogance? I’m not the one going off the deep end because someone used an accurate descriptor to define a current phenomenon, telling people they are being played like fiddles.

This use of labeling began with Brill and Bernays breaking down Skinner, Pavlov, Jung and Freud. The first successful application of buzzwords to my knowledge was "torches of freedom" effectively changing the public consciousness as it was viewed as socially unacceptable for women to smoke.

I was going to be polite about this and let you skate, but since you’re being an obnoxious dick about the subject matter allow me to deconstruct the faulty reality you’ve built around this issue.

First off, I’ll address some anachronisms in your little tirade. The term buzzword didn’t exist until the late 1940’s and did not become part of the general lexicon until the 1970’s. So it is impossible for any work done in 1929 to reference the concept.

Next, BF Skinner, a behaviorist, was still in school working on completing his PhD from Harvard when the torches campaign was introduced. His work on operant conditioning was in its infancy and would not be mentioned in publication until 1938, and then finally the whole theory and research published in 1948, making this work unknown to either Bernays or Brill at the time. In fact, Brill was dead before Skinner published his work on the Skinner Box. So Skinner’s work had no impact on either Brill or Bernay’s work.

Abraham Brill, like Karl Jung and Sigmund Freud, was a psychoanalyst. Brill was best known for translating the works of Freud and Jung into English, more than anything else. Freud and Jung were clinicians and laid the ground work in psychotherapy, developing theories to explain our subconscious development, which Brill leveraged his whole career. He was not involved in research, but was the driving force behind the establishment of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Brill was a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. Full stop.

Bernays was not a psychologist. Bernays was a marketer, considered the father of Public Relations, and is most famous for the 1928 publication of Propaganda. Bernays work on the torches campaign was pure marketing. He was hired by Lucky Strike to find a way to make women smoking become socially acceptable. He did “consult” Brill, but Brill’s impact on the campaign was marginal. This was not Brill’s field of expertise, as the field was still in its infancy, so he helped Bernays from a clinical perspective.

The only relationship between Bernays and the field of psychoanalysis is the fact that Freud was his uncle. Bernays was not trained in psychology and had no formal education in this regard. Bernays had an agriculture degree (farmacy if you will) and used that to find work as a journalist. It was his work in journalism that led to him working in marketing. His thoughts on Propaganda were established while he worked in the Woodrow Wilson administration during WWI, in the role of Public Relations. Much of Propaganda was established in conversations between Bernays and Walter Lippman, a prominent journalist at the time. Bernays views were more politically oriented, which you quickly pick up if you ever read Propaganda.

Now, onto the concept of labeling, you are again introducing an anachronism. Labeling theory is the work of sociologist from the 1960’s, focusing on self-identify. So you’re either confused, or using the wrong buzzword.

What I think you are talking about is the concept of framing, which is a mass communications theory first forwarded by Erving Goffman in 1974. It is a fairly modern approach in leveraging structures to influence people’s perceptions about subject matter. Through the use of metaphor and cultural tradition you can influence how a person thinks about objects. It was Goffman who proposed the use of slogans or catchphrases to reinforce a particular frame. So maybe that is more in line with your argument of the application of buzzwords.

Then again, there is some Linguistics involved here as well. Semantics enters into the development of buzzwords. The work of George Lakoff, Drew Westen, and Frank Luntz certainly come into play when it comes to buzzwords, especially Luntz. But I digress.

Empirical methodologies applied to changing human behavior on a mass scale, successfully in 1929. Garbage I made up though right? I'm certain my crappy degree from clown college is directly correlated to how I made this up, I'm a frikin trime traveller than can go back in time and fabricate things just to troll you. World leaders saw leading psychiatrists from government think tanks effectively manipulating the public and they thought... nah, let's never do this again, definitely not useful.

Bernays did not employ empirical methods. He used a shot gun approach based on his inferences from observation of the market. If you look at Bernays’ work you’ll find that there is no consistent method to how he did his marketing, which was ground breaking. He worked without a net because he was the first to journey down this path. There was no other work to observe or methods to employ in this field.

Also have to jump on the think tank angle. Think tank is another anachronism. The term didn’t exist until the late 1950’s. Policy or research institutes were developed to study very specific questions of governance, and didn’t employ psychiatrists. Psychiatrists are clinicians and would be useless to a think tank, unless the staff were really stressed out and needed someone to talk to, and prescribe some lithium. For a guy that hates the use of buzzwords, you sure seem apt to throw the wrong ones around.

So yes, it appears you do have a time machine, but with a broken chronograph. You’re referencing people that had no involvement or interest of each other’s work. You’re bringing into the mix information that is decades into the future and claiming some level of attribution to the results of others. When all is said and done, you’re either extremely confused, or trying to lead us astray.

So dude, please stop. You're embarrassing yourself. You're engaging in the use of psychobabble (look it up) and you aren't making any sense. Stringing together a series of conflicting theorists, that studied very different subject matter, doesn't establish that you know what you are talking about. It speaks to the contrary actually.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Given that this is what happens when Trump says something obviously false, it's really not that surprising that so many people end up being misled by his nonsense.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

This whole accusing stuff of being fake news is getting out of hand. I think the "Fake News" stuff has become somewhat exaggerated to lump anything not "mainstream". It is more akin to Yellow Journalism as opposed to being fake.

It is used to try to discredit just about anything that doesn't fall into the spectrum of discourse in by some of the larger media organizations.

The richest part about this whole thing is that it really has started with the MSM outlets and now others are following suit thinking they can do half assed research and throw it out there for anyone to digest. See stuff like this from a "mainsteam" source: Link. Which basically cites random facebook posts and tweets in order to push an agenda.

When you start promoting low effort content and opinion based punditry non-stop, people are going to start to imitate that too, because they want a piece of the action ($$$) or deliberately want to mislead you and because it is so easy to do. There are no barriers to entry because everyone has an opinion which they can type out and do a few minutes of internet research, just like that high priced pundit.

If you want this to stop, Investigative reporting needs to start to make a comeback. Otherwise people are going to be lost in the sea of clickbait and low-effort content. Do something to distinguish your product and make it worthy of being read again.

Two things:

1) fake news is fake news. It's made up news. This isn't MSM vs other media. It's fake news. It's infowars and Breitbart and others. It's made up news. It's fictional news. You can't legitimize it by saying it's just not MSM

2) The reason for it's rise isn't MSM's fault. If there's one irritating thing out of all of this is the concerted effort from conspiracy theorists to lump hundreds of thousands of journalists as a single GROUP. People click on interesting stories. Real life grey complex stories aren't as attention grabbing as the Clinton's had people killed. You cannot compete with that. It's made up, but far more interesting. The rise of fake news is on the people. You cannot give idiocy of the general populace a pass all the time and scream "IF ONLY THE MSM COVETED THE CLINTON'S MURDERS AS WELL AS INFOWARS!" because that's the opposite of what they should be doing. The reason we don't have Walter Cronkite in 2016 is because people don't want that. End of story

[jammies]

I imagine I could make a lot of money making up fake news about Trump. Look at all the people that hate him! I'd just have to resist the impulse to make it ironic.

Wasn't there an article linked earlier in this thread about a guy that was quite open about his news being entirely made up? Logically, therefore, there must be such a thing as fake news: either he is telling the truth about making it all up, or he's lying about making it all up, in which case the news he was faking it, is the fake. QED.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Two things:

1) fake news is fake news. It's made up news. This isn't MSM vs other media. It's fake news. It's infowars and Breitbart and others. It's made up news.

The problem you've got here is that as much as infowars and Breitbart are obviously agenda-driven and frequently batcrap insane, and sometimes venture into conspiracy theories, they also report on real-world events, and aren't "made up". They're just highly ideological and often crazy about their particular ideology, but it's at least a genuine, earnest craziness.

In contrast, there are "news" providers that are actually inventing things that never happened anywhere, have no connection to reality whatsoever, and attempting to pass these things off as fact, despite the fact that they're the fabrications of the writer's imagination and nothing else. That's a pure snake oil business; it's not just a conspiracy theory for which the evidence is dubious or silly, it's just invented on the basis of absolutely nothing purely for the sake of being provocative. The purveyors of this content know that what they're writing is totally false, they don't believe a word of it; it's just good business. It's deliberate lies for clicks, because clicks generate revenue. It's The Onion, but without the satirical or humorous motivations.

The latter is what the term "fake news" should be used to refer to, and it shouldn't be expanded to a point where it's not absolutely clear what we're talking about. It's misleading and confuses people about what the bigger problem really is.

[Izzle]

[jammies]

I'd say Breitbart is fake news because they aren't reporting news. They are just selecting facts that support their narrative, along with lies that do the same thing. Corrupt information doesn't to be entirely made up to be fake, it just has to, for lack of a better phrase, serve falsity over reality.

If anything, the definition of fake news needs to be expanded. It's everywhere.