Talk politics.

*crickets*

From:

Its not that anyone was willfully ignoring this post, it's that people with lives were doing something else on a Saturday night in the five or so hours between the OP and your comment.

From:

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

For the record, you don't owe an explanation to troll attempts.

From:

So addictive....

From:

I didn't say they were willfully ignoring then, but since they've continued to ignore it....

From:

rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com

Emanuel Cleaver was spit on, not John Lewis...
And the sources the video uses directly warn against making direct cross country comparisons because of differences in law and reporting methods. He's making exactly the same type of error that he accuses Cenk of.

What does this have to do with Syria?

From:

mrbogey.livejournal.com

Sorry, I was in a rush and swapped the two men's names.

'What does this have to do with Syria? '

Like I said, I was kinda in a rush. I whipped the whole post together in about 5 minutes of time between cooking and caring for my kid.

With Syria we have some pretty big issues. We can have people argue over the facts but it'll take time and effort to sort through the sources on them as there's little in the way of primary evidence we will be provided. As such, any claim of what is absolutely true is at best suspect. What the ultimate truth of the situation is, we'll probably never find out because the way people process info and make their version the truth.

From:

We can have people argue over the facts but it'll take time and effort to sort through the sources on them as there's little in the way of primary evidence we will be provided. As such, any claim of what is absolutely true is at best suspect.

And given our track record of lying our way of every war been in, people feel helplessly suspicious of any information.
Those who are willing to kill are willing to lie.

From:

I was kinda in a rush. I whipped the whole post together in about 5 minutes of time between cooking and caring for my kid.

That rush often causes us to gloss over poor data, or it happens to me at least.

From:

And the sources the video uses directly warn against making direct cross country comparisons because of differences in law and reporting methods. He's making exactly the same type of error that he accuses Cenk of.

Yes. It doesn't wholey negate his criticisms of course, but it does show its easier to honor standards when our biases are confirmed than it is when our biases are challenged.

From:

rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com

Ironic given the op

From:

This topic is something I was looking to post about anyway, too, given that the complete and utter lack of honesty about Bush supposedly "lying us into war" is now making it difficult for Obama to intervene in Syria as well.

From:

Killing and lying are family.

Edited Date: 1/9/13 19:10 (UTC)

From:

yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com

the complete and utter lack of honesty about Bush supposedly "lying us into war"

Do please post about this.

From:

Bogey handled it more than adequately. I've discussed ad nauseum about how the claim that Bush lied us into war doesn't pass the smell test, never mind the evidence test, over the last decade.

From:

(http://www.leadingtowar.com/claims_facts_aluminum.php)

From:

It's a fair retort by the gun guy, based on the 4-5 commenters and the skirting of their comments below.

Let us go meta and pretend the subject is not guns, but x. Claim A has a bias and selectively uses data for argument of x. Claim B uses the same data to some up with a more detailed analysis and strips away the fallacies of the connect-the-dots from Claim B.

For this sometimes biased environment known as t_p, this particular Claim A is more preferred position to accept than Claim B, by our vocal majority. To hear that the very data that is accepted as gospel has been correctly refocused causes something I have seen here before - cognitive dissonance. [cue: where this conversation now becomes about me personally]

y-j said it best: "It doesn't wholey [sic.] negate his criticisms of course, but it does show its easier to honor standards when our biases are confirmed than it is when our biases are challenged." Is there one among us not guilty of such sin?

From:

mahnmut.livejournal.com

cue: where this conversation now becomes about me personally

Are you seriously expecting to be able to allege that a whole group of people are subject to cognitive dissonance, and things to still not become personal?

As an aside, I wonder what always causes at least one person to take the baton as the resident martyr. There must always be at least one whose only schtick is persecution.

From:

You are *so* predictable :)

From:

mahnmut.livejournal.com

We do share that trait, you and me, yep.

ONLY, MY SENSE OF HUMOR IS BETTER!!1!1

From:

From:

Thinking about all the feedback I get from the international cartel here, I remembered I have a fatal personality flaw - I tend to gravitate toward unpopular opinions and white knight for the few that dare speak it while balancing my own pov.

Not drawing precise parallels, but I was always the biggest kid on the schoolyard and became known somewhat as a bully buster.

From:

mahnmut.livejournal.com

"International cartel"
"Bully"

I've been called worse names, but are you sure the rest of the, ahem, "internationals" would appreciate that? Being a noble knight can be a great thing; being a dick about it would've been quite another. Wouldn't you agree?

From:

Unfortunately, someone has to play Sir Dick

From:

The inside story of how the Bush administration pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/lie-factory)

Can you provide the rebuttal?

From:

The rebuttal remains the same: to risk disinformation and bogus intelligence that they knew to be false when it would be so easily proven false makes no logical sense whatsoever and put them in serious legal and moral jeopardy. There, to this day, has been no actual evidence to support the claims that Bush and his administration lied about the evidence. We know it was wrong, we know it was bad, and the fault may be one of a lack of good skepticism worldwide, but that's the extent of it.

From:

bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com

This would be one of those times when it's a good idea to read what you're rebutting.

From:

I did. I know there are a lot of arguments about massaging intel and pushing different concepts. It's all a way to distract from the greater overall point that doing so defies rational activity.

From:

bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com

"Arguments about" is a strange way to describe direct statements to a reporter about events that the people being quoted say absolutely did happen. "The greater point" is also brought up in that article (how couldn't it be). You sure you read it? It's looking an awful lot like you read the headline and figured you didn't have to bother.

From:

You'd be correct if this was the only reporting on the issue, or if the claims being made even came close to passing the smell test.

From:

bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com

I'd be correct about the content of this article (and whether or not you'd read it) if it were the only one on the subject? How does that work? You're making very little sense, Jeff.

From:

At least that's one good outcome then. Hopefully it will keep him from intervening completely.

From:

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

You... you mean... erroneous talking points keep being regurgitated by the media with political agendas? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?!?!

From:

ddstory.livejournal.com

There's one media that has brought this art to perfection. The one that declares far and wide how it strives for "fairness and balance". Obviously, for them the word means something different from what it usually means in common dictionaries. Or perhaps they're using the alternative meaning, which is to say balance should be brought back to the Force by countering the bias of all "lamestream" media combined with ample amounts of bias of their own, but in opposite direction. (Not to mention how that media is as mainstream as mainstream goes).

From:

peristaltor.livejournal.com

Sadly, Cenk himself was told back at MSNBC to back off the talking points of the "other side". The cable players have developed a nice niche environment, where acceptable lies on one side are said, acceptable lies on the other are said elsewhere, and a whole bunch of very, very inconvenient truths are never spoken at either place.

Cenk wanted to explore some of those inconvenient truths, so he's over at Current TV, well off the dial of most Basic Cable subscribers.

From:

I only see him on youtube.

Sadly, Cenk himself was told back at MSNBC to back off the talking points of the "other side".

All kinds of wrong. It should be about technique, not content.

From:

It's the continued attempt at "objectivity" where none exists. I still believe we'd be better with the historical model in which we know where each outlet stands.

From:

..er...Der Spiegel?

From:

This socratic critique is pretty well done, and presented well. It suffers (inevitably) from some of the same errors he points out, and that's fine. I wonder if he is willing to consistently stick to the data, even when it doesn't support his bias? That one is tough.

Would be interested in Cenks rebuttal. I do notice that medium matters. For example, a debate is not a good forum for getting to the raw data. TV news, the internet videos tend to be inferior to written works, not always though, but usually. When we think of solid information, what medium do we choose?

Re: Syria. Not sure how to act quickly and not get information wrong. And killing and lying dance together as closely as do cause and effect.

Do you think anyone is immune?

Edited Date: 1/9/13 20:25 (UTC)

From:

kylinrouge.livejournal.com

Lmao if that Turk guy thinks gun violence will end if you take away all the legal guns. Most gun crimes are committed with illegally-acquired weapons.

The problem isn't guns, it's gun culture. People in these other cultures are taught from an early age to fear and respect guns. America worships them.

Edited Date: 2/9/13 21:21 (UTC)

From:

paft.livejournal.com

And yet, when Australia passed a ban on assault weapons after an especially heinous mass shooting, it had an effect.

Yes, actually to a great extent, the problem is guns.

From: