American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MikeRPG

This must be troll bait... right? You're just trying to get me harumphed.

Or stumped. You made a statement that they lied. About what exactly? The story they had bad sources? Which they then, on their own accord, rectified, apologized and let go the 3 staff responsible? Please tell me you have others

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by MikeRPG

And this is the generally accepted definition?


Unwarranted theories do exist, obviously. So what is the term for a warranted explanation of an event or situation specifically in regards to conspiracies?

Oh for christ sakes, just stop.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Oh for christ sakes, just stop.

To be fair we keep feeding him but it's the dog days of summer. Give it a few hours, Donnie will inevitably do something stupid again for us to discuss.

[MikeRPG]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Or stumped. You made a statement that they lied. About what exactly? The story they had bad sources? Which they then, on their own accord, rectified, apologized and let go the 3 staff responsible? Please tell me you have others

I did not make that statement.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MikeRPG

I'm not putting spin on anything. So conspiracy theories are not reality. In what sense?

In pretty much every sense. While I believe in the existence of conspiracies, and routinely posit theory, the two should seldom wind up next to each other in a sentence referring to reality. Conspiracy theories are used to explain away things that do not align with our individual ability to reason, usually as a result of long standing biases and prejudices.

In the empirical use of the word theory? Is that what you're supporting?

I'm supporting using empirical evidence to support a theory, which conspiracies seldom do. Conspiracy theories exist because of predilections to cherry pick evidence or ignore evidence that does not support the theory. The vast majority of conspiracy theories do not stand up to the light of empirical evidence, so have no place in reality. When the theory can be tested and proven wrong, the conspiracy falls apart. What keeps theses conspiracy theories going is those who refuse to acknowledge the empirical evidence and live in an alternate reality. Whether that be the moon landing, the 9/11 truther movement, or the belief in a child sex ring in a freaking pizza parlor, these conspiracy theories cannot exist in reality because reality does not allow them to exist. Only an alternate reality, detached from reason, allows for this stuff to exist. Sadly, there are a lot of people out there who choose to live in an alternate reality, free of critical thought and empirical evidence.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MikeRPG

I did not make that statement.

Yes you did. You said, "So no conspiracy has ever occurred and CNN doesn't lie? Gotcha." Sorry, no Donald Trumping this and claiming it didn't happen. We have your own words. While you will try and argue that you never explicitly stated that CNN lies, your words here clearly communicate intent and meaning of you saying they do.

Time to move on dude.

[MikeRPG]

Originally Posted by New Era

Conspiracy theories are used to explain away things that do not align with our individual ability to reason, usually as a result of long standing biases and prejudices.



I'm supporting using empirical evidence to support a theory.

A mongrelization of the term for rhetorical purposes. The only defining feature is the delineating factor between theory and law/fact; a scientific fact or law must be true for all cases with no exception. Which means there can be no contradicting evidence, if there is the theory requires revision.

Your use of the word destroys the meaning of theory. Scientific law dictates all theories are inherently invalid and once proven true become fact and are no longer theory. To describe any one area of theory as more real than another shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the prime delineating factor.

[MarchHare]

Go home, Peter.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MikeRPG

A mongrelization of the term for rhetorical purposes. The only defining feature is the delineating factor between theory and law/fact; a scientific fact or law must be true for all cases with no exception. Which means there can be no contradicting evidence, if there is the theory requires revision.

Your use of the word destroys the meaning of theory. Scientific law dictates all theories are inherently invalid and once proven true become fact and are no longer theory. To describe any one area of theory as more real than another shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the prime delineating factor.

Sure thing Peter.

The bolded part. Scientific theory is always under test, which is why theory and law are many times interchangeable. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Even thought both have been proven to be demonstrably consistent in outcomes, they still remain theory. Undetermination of scientific theory suggests that there are no laws because we don't know what we don't know. Einstein's theory of special relativity determines the laws of physics as they pertain to objects, but those laws could be broken if the theory proves to be wrong, meaning those laws are really nothing more than theory based on what we accept we know about our universe.

In your little world, a conspiracy theory exists because you allow for it to exist. You refute the existence of knowledge that would destroy the theory. You refuse to be flexible in your understanding of the world around you, allowing you to challenge the fraudulent beliefs you maintain. This is how conspiracy theories exist, and why they don't become conspiracy laws.

[Lanny_McDonald]

So Donald not only likes to follow Fox & Friends, Breitbart, and InfoWars, but he's a big reader of reddit too by the looks of it. Seems his CNN video tweet was ripped right from the threads of reddit. Sad. Bigly sad.

[MikeRPG]

So I'm not Peter but thanks for the infraction. Not much room for discourse in here I see.

[KelVarnsen]

Tff?

[MikeRPG]

Is this how you guys always handle political discussion?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^Yes.

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

Tff?

Nah. My recollection is that TFF could barely speak English. Also, I have a hard time seeing peter12 arguing for the points this dude is. Let the guessing game continue.

EDIT: Anyway, here's a fun article. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nalism/532548/

America’s uniqueness, even pre-Trump, was expressed as much through negative indicators than positive. It is more violent than other comparable societies, both one-on-one and in the gun massacres to which the country has become so habituated. It has worse health outcomes than comparably wealthy countries, and some of them most important of them are deteriorating further even as they improve almost everywhere else. America’s average levels of academic achievement lag those of other advanced countries. Fewer Americans vote—and in no other democracy does organized money count for so much in political life. A century ago, H.L. Mencken observed the American “national genius for corruption,” and (again pre-Trump) Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index ranks the U.S. in 18th place, behind Hong Kong, Belgium, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany—never mind first-place finishers Denmark and New Zealand.

As I said: pre-Trump. Now the United States has elected a president who seems much more aligned with—and comfortable in the company of—the rulers of Turkey, Hungary, Uzbekistan, and the Philippines than his counterparts in other highly developed countries.

That result forces a reshaping of the question of American exceptionalism.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by MikeRPG

Is this how you guys always handle political discussion?

Is this how you introduce yourself to a new community? You started the argument by inferring someone was lying. Don't play the "I'm just here to have a positive discussion" card.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by New Era

I know, right? I mean, when you have Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, and that Canadian staple The Rebel, why listen to organizations that actually have news bureaus around the world and employ actual journalists?

Sad times when CNN, the originator of infotainment, is being called 'journalism.' I hope you don't think that's real news.

I will say that the international feed is not bad, but most people in North America only have the US feed.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Sad times when CNN, the originator of infotainment, is being called 'journalism.' I hope you don't think that's real news.

The originator of infotainment actually goes to Fox News. CNN copied their format when they started to lose market share. Roger Ailes had incredible insight into how conservatives processed information and leveraged that to help get Nixon elected. Because of his success in television and politics Joseph Coors tapped him to breath life into the dying TVN, the original conservative news outlet. Even though that interest withered and died on the vine, the lessons he learned there helped turn Murdoch's FNC into a juggernaut with conservatives. Ailes pushed the talking head personalities and panel shows, pulling in top ratings because of the high production values. FNC became a money machine and forced the other outlets to change format and chase down the competition. CNN ended up hiring Jeff Zucker from NBC Universal and it was he who pushed CNN to what it is today. Zucker promotes the format as politics being sport, and covering it accordingly. CNN still has some of the best journalists around, just pushed into a ridiculous format and expected to perform like trained bears.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by MikeRPG

Is this how you guys always handle political discussion?

What do you mean by that?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Is this how you introduce yourself to a new community? You started the argument by inferring someone was lying. Don't play the "I'm just here to have a positive discussion" card.

yeah that's my job

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

What do you mean by that?

Looks like he is no longer available to provide a reply.
So long, Ryan Murphy