MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Brasilnut on August 13, 2017, 11:29
-
Anybody close to the action and capturing some editorials?
-
I personally don't like to aim at making money from the misfortune of others, but each to their own I suppose.
-
seems like racist will always be a major issue in the U.S.
A couple of years ago I took our technology team to a sports bar for dinner in Boise, ID and we waited for for service and it never came to us. One guy told me it was due to him being Chinese descendant. This guy served the U.S. in Vietnam as an infantryman for the US Army and now we couldn't even get a sandwich due to the rednecks in ID! I went to the bar and ordered sandwiches and served them to my team as all the rednecks watched us eat and drink >:(
-
I personally don't like to aim at making money from the misfortune of others, but each to their own I suppose.
Well at least there are news photographers covering the story because by your definition this would never be in the news as no one should photo/film or report on it...
-
I personally don't like to aim at making money from the misfortune of others, but each to their own I suppose.
Well at least there are news photographers covering the story because by your definition this would never be in the news as no one should photo/film or report on it...
First of all, it is Charlottesville. Also, there is a big difference between shooting for news, and shooting to put $$$ in your own pocket at someone else's expense. Surely you have ethics, unlike the US president, who is a turd.
-
I personally don't like to aim at making money from the misfortune of others, but each to their own I suppose.
Well at least there are news photographers covering the story because by your definition this would never be in the news as no one should photo/film or report on it...
I'm sure you think it's OK to snap a photo of some guy who lost is leg in an accident so you can make a few $$$?
Doing it with the purpose of showing the world what has happened is one thing, but going there to take pictures for Alamy to make a few $$$ is entirely different. I'm sure you see that.
The intent is not to expose the event to the world, it is to make money.
-
Same idiots on this side of the pond.
I have no problem photographing this type of news. I don't understand why this would be a "lack of ethics" or "profiting from misfortune". Perhaps I'm missing the point but to me it's about capturing a current event and of course making a profit from licensing such images.
-
Yes, of course it depends on WHAT you photograph at the event, you are right. I didn't specify enough, but I meant more specifically the victims, injured people etc.
-
I personally don't like to aim at making money from the misfortune of others, but each to their own I suppose.
Well at least there are news photographers covering the story because by your definition this would never be in the news as no one should photo/film or report on it...
I'm sure you think it's OK to snap a photo of some guy who lost is leg in an accident so you can make a few $$$?
Doing it with the purpose of showing the world what has happened is one thing, but going there to take pictures for Alamy to make a few $$$ is entirely different. I'm sure you see that.
The intent is not to expose the event to the world, it is to make money.
what an idiocy you have written really.
-
I personally don't like to aim at making money from the misfortune of others, but each to their own I suppose.
Well at least there are news photographers covering the story because by your definition this would never be in the news as no one should photo/film or report on it...
I'm sure you think it's OK to snap a photo of some guy who lost is leg in an accident so you can make a few $$$?
Doing it with the purpose of showing the world what has happened is one thing, but going there to take pictures for Alamy to make a few $$$ is entirely different. I'm sure you see that.
The intent is not to expose the event to the world, it is to make money.
Reuters? Associated Press? Any different to Alamy Live News or any other news feed?
News photographers and journalists and free lancers get paid for providing coverage.
So lets not get uppity about covering events good, bad or ugly!
Do you think staffers and film crews or free lancers cover these things and then say "Oh my bad I shouldn't get paid for covering this"
Next time you turn on the TV and watch the news of a riot or protest just look how many photographers/videographers are there providing images so you can munch your corn flakes whilst pouring over the news feeds the next day
-
Yes, of course it depends on WHAT you photograph at the event, you are right. I didn't specify enough, but I meant more specifically the victims, injured people etc.
BS
Look back on photos and film taken showing injured and dead people for news syndication.
You don't shoot news by ignoring the gory details
Go look up Kevin Carter and the Bang-Bang Club
-
I personally don't like to aim at making money from the misfortune of others, but each to their own I suppose.
Nothing to stop anyone who felt the same way making money and donating it to a related cause.
-
Look back on photos and film taken showing injured and dead people for news syndication.
You don't shoot news by ignoring the gory details
Anybody seen the movie "Nightcrawler"?
-
(https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20728214_1456825491033547_4062112690424739754_n.jpg?oh=b7cfb852203195859ad70b8f9a877b55&oe=5A283D48)
-
Look back on photos and film taken showing injured and dead people for news syndication.
You don't shoot news by ignoring the gory details
Anybody seen the movie "Nightcrawler"?
Yes, love that car he had!
-
Look back on photos and film taken showing injured and dead people for news syndication.
You don't shoot news by ignoring the gory details
Anybody seen the movie "Nightcrawler"?
Yes, love that car he had!
...and he loved that car too much!
Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, posted a photo of the smashed car that had rammed into a crowd in Charlottesville and said this about it: "The real tragedy is what happened to the car. It was a very nice car, worth much more than the life of whoever died."
-
A few other ethical considerations....
How much does your presence as a photographer distort the behaviour of the people you are taking pictures of?
At what point should you stop taking pictures and instead help the people who are suffering?
A story that is always worth reading.
The photographer, Kevin Carter, took a picture in Africa of vulture waiting for a starving child to die. He won a Pulitzer prize for it. He also committed suicide.
http://100photos.time.com/photos/kevin-carter-starving-child-vulture
(http://100photos.time.com/photos/kevin-carter-starving-child-vulture)
-
I personally don't like to aim at making money from the misfortune of others, but each to their own I suppose.
Nothing to stop anyone who felt the same way making money and donating it to a related cause.
I don't think anyone likes to make money off the misfortune of others (at least when it is worded that way) - but to say a reporter is unethical because he was paid for a story covering an unfortunate topic is a bit backwards i think. The reporter needs to make money too (pay bills, travel to the location, pay for cameras, pay for food and a roof over his head). It is important for both positive and negative stories to be covered. I think the reporter should be paid to cover both.
Doctors make money off the misfortune of others as well. But looking at it that way is quite backwards IMO. A doctors makes money by helping those who have suffered a misfortune. Same as a reporter helps share the story of those who have suffered a misfortune.
-
A few other ethical considerations....
How much does your presence as a photographer distort the behaviour of the people you are taking pictures of?
At what point should you stop taking pictures and instead help the people who are suffering?
A story that is always worth reading.
The photographer, Kevin Carter, took a picture in Africa of vulture waiting for a starving child to die. He won a Pulitzer prize for it. He also committed suicide.
[url]http://100photos.time.com/photos/kevin-carter-starving-child-vulture[/url]
([url]http://100photos.time.com/photos/kevin-carter-starving-child-vulture[/url])
That story is rubbish
Kevin got a UN flight out to location in Southern Sudan
When the plain landed he and other passengers and crew got of the plane while local villagers were helping unload food supplies.
The parents of the little girl had put her on the ground while they helped move the cargo.
Kevin shot the photo and when the unloading was done the child was scooped up by her parents.
Everyone likes to blame him etc but it was wholly uncalled for. The child was never in danger and Kevin would no doubt have ended up being accused of kidnap or some souch nonsense if he had picked her up.
As a result of his photo it opened the world's eyes to what was going on.
Carter did not touch the child since photojournalists were "told not to touch famine victims for fear of spreading disease"
His suicide had nothing to do with that photo it had a lot more to do with the cumulative effect of all the subjects he photographed and the death of his friend.
His suicide note:
I’m really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist...I am depressed...without phone...money for rent...money for child support...money for debts...money!!!...I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain...of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners...I have gone to join Ken [recently deceased colleague Ken Oosterbroek] if I am that lucky”.
— Kevin Carter in his suicide note,
-
In the case of the starving African child (who according to Sammy the Cat, wasn't actually starving) the photographer could have done little to aid her.
In the Charlottesville situation, there were medical professionals aiding the victims. A reporter would only be in the way if he'd try to give medical aid. He could however help by taking pictures to cover the story (as long as he keeps his distance).
-
If I take (fake) images of drugs and sell them as stock, does that mean that i'm "profiting from the misery of others?"
I just published a blog post on this subject, highlighting the opioid crisis in the US:
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/08/14/stock-trends-opioid-crisis-in-the-usa/
-
If I take (fake) images of drugs and sell them as stock, does that mean that i'm "profiting from the misery of others?"
I just published a blog post on this subject, highlighting the opioid crisis in the US:
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/08/14/stock-trends-opioid-crisis-in-the-usa/
You should stick to marijuana though think there might be an unfilled niche there
-
You should stick to marijuana though think there might be an unfilled niche there
I tried but I think could have done a better job. What do you think?
-
That story is rubbish
Kevin got a UN flight out to location in Southern Sudan
When the plain landed he and other passengers and crew got of the plane while local villagers were helping unload food supplies.
The parents of the little girl had put her on the ground while they helped move the cargo.
Kevin shot the photo and when the unloading was done the child was scooped up by her parents.
Everyone likes to blame him etc but it was wholly uncalled for. The child was never in danger and Kevin would no doubt have ended up being accused of kidnap or some souch nonsense if he had picked her up.
As a result of his photo it opened the world's eyes to what was going on.
Carter did not touch the child since photojournalists were "told not to touch famine victims for fear of spreading disease"
His suicide had nothing to do with that photo it had a lot more to do with the cumulative effect of all the subjects he photographed and the death of his friend.
His suicide note:
I’m really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist...I am depressed...without phone...money for rent...money for child support...money for debts...money!!!...I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain...of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners...I have gone to join Ken [recently deceased colleague Ken Oosterbroek] if I am that lucky”.
— Kevin Carter in his suicide note,
Did you read the article on the Time website I linked to?
-
In the case of the starving African child (who according to Sammy the Cat, wasn't actually starving) the photographer could have done little to aid her.
In the Charlottesville situation, there were medical professionals aiding the victims. A reporter would only be in the way if he'd try to give medical aid. He could however help by taking pictures to cover the story (as long as he keeps his distance).
Where did I say that the child was not starving?
Try and keep up
-
That story is rubbish
Kevin got a UN flight out to location in Southern Sudan
When the plain landed he and other passengers and crew got of the plane while local villagers were helping unload food supplies.
The parents of the little girl had put her on the ground while they helped move the cargo.
Kevin shot the photo and when the unloading was done the child was scooped up by her parents.
Everyone likes to blame him etc but it was wholly uncalled for. The child was never in danger and Kevin would no doubt have ended up being accused of kidnap or some souch nonsense if he had picked her up.
As a result of his photo it opened the world's eyes to what was going on.
Carter did not touch the child since photojournalists were "told not to touch famine victims for fear of spreading disease"
His suicide had nothing to do with that photo it had a lot more to do with the cumulative effect of all the subjects he photographed and the death of his friend.
His suicide note:
I’m really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist...I am depressed...without phone...money for rent...money for child support...money for debts...money!!!...I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain...of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners...I have gone to join Ken [recently deceased colleague Ken Oosterbroek] if I am that lucky”.
— Kevin Carter in his suicide note,
Did you read the article on the Time website I linked to?
Yes I did and ?
-
You should stick to marijuana though think there might be an unfilled niche there
I tried but I think could have done a better job. What do you think?
Reminds me of the guy on shutterstock with his port of 10,000+ images of only marijuana at different angles.
-
You should stick to marijuana though think there might be an unfilled niche there
I tried but I think could have done a better job. What do you think?
Reminds me of the guy on shutterstock with his port of 10,000+ images of only marijuana at different angles.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is what Pauws99 was referring to
-
You should stick to marijuana though think there might be an unfilled niche there
I tried but I think could have done a better job. What do you think?
Reminds me of the guy on shutterstock with his port of 10,000+ images of only marijuana at different angles.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is what Pauws99 was referring to
Correct ;-)
-
In the case of the starving African child (who according to Sammy the Cat, wasn't actually starving) the photographer could have done little to aid her.
In the Charlottesville situation, there were medical professionals aiding the victims. A reporter would only be in the way if he'd try to give medical aid. He could however help by taking pictures to cover the story (as long as he keeps his distance).
Where did I say that the child was not starving?
Try and keep up
You did say: "The child was never in danger".
Implying it wasn't starving, because that would classify as being in danger.
-
I think his point was that the child was not dying alone on a street corner without any help. The child was already being helped (allegedly). Nothing wrong with taking a picture. How else would the public know there is an issue if it isn't being reported?
-
The debate about the child in the African supports my original point: you need to think about when you should abandon taking photos, and help people in need.
-
I have taken a few photos of political things concerning positions to which I am strongly opposed. I do not think they have documentary value as images. I have not been able to upload them because I do not want used in any way hat would support certain positions. Perhaps it would be different if they were more documentary or i the image said more as an image.
-
It is Charlottesville Va. And although yes would be the answer, I use my news contacts for sensitive items like this. Besides they do pay more for newsworthy stuff. It is important to document such history for many purposes.
-
I have not been able to upload them because I do not want used in any way hat would support certain positions.
I worked in oil & gas for many years and they're one of the greediest most corrupt sectors around. Sometimes we have to do what we have to do but I'm glad I got out.
-
They're removing controversial statues left right and centre in crazy USA. Why?
-
Why not? Replace them all with statues of heroic black women, I say.
-
They're removing controversial statues left right and centre in crazy USA. Why?
Because most of them were put up as a message to minorities that they are not welcome in the south and they should know their place. Why did they tear down statues after the fall of the third reich?
If they belong anywhere it's in a museum to remind people of awful their ancestors were.
-
They're removing controversial statues left right and centre in crazy USA. Why?
Same reason why, in most of democratic Eastern European countries, you don't see statues of Lenin, Stalin, Ceausescu, etc, in public places, anymore.
Same reason why there are no Nazi related statues in Germany.
Communism, fascism or racism are no matters we should be proud of and celebrate.
-
Communism, fascism or racism are no matters we should be proud of and celebrate.
I agree, but it's complicated. If you ever have a chance to visit Lisbon you'll see many many buildings and churches covered in gold. This gold was taken from Brazil and carved by slaves. These are beautiful structures with a sad history (which few people know about) so would you say its right that such churches should stand?
-
Communism, fascism or racism are no matters we should be proud of and celebrate.
I agree, but it's complicated. If you ever have a chance to visit Lisbon you'll see many many buildings and churches covered in gold. This gold was taken from Brazil and carved by slaves. These are beautiful structures with a sad history (which few people know about) so would you say its right that such churches should stand?
It is not complicated.
The church is celebrating God, not some racist colonists.
Gold itself is not a symbol, unless you study chemistry.
On the other hand, a statue celebrating communism, fascism or racism is very much a symbol of evil and a shame for mankind.
You can't argue with that.
-
Communism, fascism or racism are no matters we should be proud of and celebrate.
I agree, but it's complicated. If you ever have a chance to visit Lisbon you'll see many many buildings and churches covered in gold. This gold was taken from Brazil and carved by slaves. These are beautiful structures with a sad history (which few people know about) so would you say its right that such churches should stand?
The statues are really not complicated in the same way at all.
-
I'm not really sure the moral reasons come into it ...the victors tear down the symbols of those defeated. So when the communists were in the ascendency they destroyed religious symbols as did the Protestants in England and so it goes on.
-
I'm not really sure the moral reasons come into it ...the victors tear down the symbols of those defeated. So when the communists were in the ascendency they destroyed religious symbols as did the Protestants in England and so it goes on.
Not really. The statues are (almost) all post civil war (obviously as they are claimed to be celebrating leaders from the civil war), so they were erected by people who were already defeated militarily.
If you look into their history and when and where they went up they are there to send a message about white supremacy and what the south stood for with regards to race in America, not actually to celebrate the people they depict.
Many went up in conjunction with Jim Crow laws being enacted with a more recent surge in reaction to civil rights movements in the 50s/60s.
-
Confederates defeated Militarily yes but I don't think the white supremacy movement was so to me it illustrates the battle continues.
-
Yeah but its also gone too far the other way nowadays all you have to do is salute your flag and youre classified a racist. Fortunately not many take too much notice of all this leftie crap anymore!
-
Why not? Replace them all with statues of heroic black women, I say.
How about soldiers of the Ethiopian Regiment?
-
Yeah but its also gone too far the other way nowadays all you have to do is salute your flag and youre classified a racist. Fortunately not many take too much notice of all this leftie crap anymore!
By who? If not many take notice of the lefties crap what do you mean you are " classified as a racist"?
-
Yeah but its also gone too far the other way nowadays all you have to do is salute your flag and youre classified a racist. Fortunately not many take too much notice of all this leftie crap anymore!
By who? If not many take notice of the lefties crap what do you mean you are " classified as a racist"?
Emily Thornberry is one that springs to mind in the UK https://twitter.com/emilythornberry/status/535450556199075840?lang=en. The left can take things too far but the right shouldn't use that as an excuse to not deal with racism. I'm so sick of the far left and far right, they're all as bad as each other.
-
Yeah but its also gone too far the other way nowadays all you have to do is salute your flag and youre classified a racist. Fortunately not many take too much notice of all this leftie crap anymore!
By who? If not many take notice of the lefties crap what do you mean you are " classified as a racist"?
Emily Thornberry is one that springs to mind in the UK https://twitter.com/emilythornberry/status/535450556199075840?lang=en. The left can take things too far but the right shouldn't use that as an excuse to not deal with racism. I'm so sick of the far left and far right, they're all as bad as each other.
Of course there are nutters of every political persuasion but saying you are "classified" as a racist makes it seem like it is a mainstream view. I was confused because it was quickly followed by the statement that not many think it. Seemed a bit double thinkish to me.
-
Here's a statue of Oliver Cromwell in front of the Houses of Parliament in London.
To many English he's considered a hero. To the Irish he's a war criminal
In September 1649, Cromwell's 12,000-strong forces stormed Drogheda, north of Dublin.
HIs troops massacred nearly everyone in the garrison and the town - which Cromwell justified as the "righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches".
A month later Wexford suffered the same fate and both incidents, justified by the British as militarily necessary to subdue the population, still figure strongly in Irish republican history.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/326121.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/326121.stm)
-
Here's a statue of Oliver Cromwell in front of the Houses of Parliament in London.
To many English he's considered a hero. To the Irish he's a war criminal
In September 1649, Cromwell's 12,000-strong forces stormed Drogheda, north of Dublin.
HIs troops massacred nearly everyone in the garrison and the town - which Cromwell justified as the "righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches".
A month later Wexford suffered the same fate and both incidents, justified by the British as militarily necessary to subdue the population, still figure strongly in Irish republican history.
Source: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/326121.stm[/url] ([url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/326121.stm[/url])
But clearly that statue isn't there because of what he did to the Irish or to remind Irish people to keep their heads down. It is there because of his role in the history of British parliament. His reputation is tarnished by what he did in Ireland. The statues in the South are only there because of the horrific things done by the people they depict and to glorify the evil ideology behind them. Look into when they were put up and by who.
If the Orange Order put up a statue of Cromwell in the middle of Belfast at the height of troubles then I would be on the side of tearing that down too, it would only be there remind the Irish of the pain they had suffered and as a veiled threat.
The statues being torn down in the US are not only of people who fought for a hateful ideology but the statues themselves are there to further that ideology. It isn't nearly as complicated as it is being made out to be.
-
The Irish removed British statues. They dealt with Nelson's Pillar in Dublin when the politicians did nothing about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson%27s_Pillar#Destruction
-
Why not? Replace them all with statues of heroic black women, I say.
Or heroic black men, white men, white women, Asian women or Asian men. But seeing black women are probably the most underrepresented in the world of statues, you probably have a fair point... level the scales a bit.
-
The Irish removed British statues. They dealt with Nelson's Pillar in Dublin when the politicians did nothing about it
Of course not ;) the Irish weren't/aren't really fond of English war heroes, plus it is a matter for the Gardai really
-
Interesting article on the (left-wing) Guardian today about Nelson's column. Apparently, he was a white supremacist.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery)
-
Interesting article on the (left-wing) Guardian today about Nelson's column. Apparently, he was a white supremacist.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery)
Again Nelson isn't on that column because he was a white supremacist though is he? (not saying he was or not but clearly it isn't the reason for the column)
The column itself isn't there to celebrate white supremacy is it?
These wider discussions about the grey complicated area surrounding other statues put up to celebrate achievements by people who may also have aspects to them that aren't to be celebrated or whatever are really irrelevant to the very black and white issue of the statues being discussed in the US at the moment. The people showing up to defend the statues aren't screaming about how great the people they depict are or how much they love art or history, they are screaming about Jewish and black people.
Are you going to keep Googling up other statue controversies and posting them rather than discussing the issue in any substantive way? I mean there's Churchill, or if you want to stick to the US there's Roosevelt too. None of these people have monuments thrown up to them to celebrate their views on race or their willingness to kill for those views.
-
It's always fun to be reminded of how alike the United States and England are when it comes to racism. Reading the comments to the Guardian article is just like reading comments from people here in the USA, albeit with slightly different spelling.
-
It's always fun to be reminded of how alike the United States and England are when it comes to racism. Reading the comments to the Guardian article is just like reading comments from people here in the USA, albeit with slightly different spelling.
And what is your opinion on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
-
Are you going to keep Googling up other statue controversies and posting them rather than discussing the issue in any substantive way? I mean there's Churchill, or if you want to stick to the US there's Roosevelt too. None of these people have monuments thrown up to them to celebrate their views on race or their willingness to kill for those views.
I'm on the fence on this one, to be honest, although I don't think the statue of Nelson should be demolished for the simple fact that he was a great naval commander & patriot. The US statues in question are more problematic in that they symbolise something which 99.5% of people consider to be "wrong" in 2017.
The cliche is that History is written by the winners so if the N azis had won WW2, there would have been fascist statues all over the UK and a large minority wouldn't think twice about it (look at Eastern Europe during communism). Morality changes with time as we tend to evolve, slowly.
I think being a History revisionist is dangerous. Did those people hold racist views (by modern standards)? Yes. Should we erase this legacy from the public sphere? No, in my opinion.
I tend to generally agree with the following quote from the article:
"Its History – we cant & shouldn’t re-write it – we learn from it. Removing statues would make us no different to terrorists at Palmyra."
I'll be taking a train shortly at Milan's train station. It's a magnificent over-the-top structure built by the Italian fascist regime in 1931 to represent the power that racist regime (picture below). It has "strong nationalistic" symbols everywhere. Maybe I'm missing the point but such building needs to be preserved even if what it represented once-upon-a-time was "evil".
-
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).
These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.
-
ETA, this is a response to the post above Shelma's
Well that makes it sound like we are somehow post-history now.
It isn't revising history to take down a statue of Hitler. You aren't denying he existed. You can take down some statues of racist confederate generals built in the 1960s without tearing down Milan station.
With that kind of thinking we would very quickly run out of room to build anything at all.
How do you think the Palmyra got built? Those Greco-Roman columns are built on the ruins of the Amorites and Arameans.
Deciding what to preserve and what can be let go is complicated but we can't be scared to grapple with it by pretending everything can be or should be held onto. It is a massively complicated topic with a huge grey area in the middle. The statues in the US are no where near that grey area.
-
The previous two posters have summed it up nicely. There is no gray area about statues to Confederate military leaders. 1) Aiding your enemy during a war is the definition of treason - all of those "leaders" were traitors to their country. You don't have monuments to traitors! 2) They were fighting to preserve the inhumane and morally bankrupt institution of slavery. I grew up in the south and they taught us all this nonsense about how the "war between the states" as they like to call it there was not about slavery but states rights. However, if you read the articles of secession and documents from the CSA it is clear that the only states right they cared about was slavery. 3) Those "leaders" lost the war. As a kid I was always confused about why they had monuments to these "great" leaders for a war they lost - why memorialize that? The only purpose for those statues and other memorials was for oppression.
If any of those statues have artistic or true historical value then they should be preserved in a museum, but the vast majority should be destroyed and replaced with something appropriate. This should extend to the names of schools, roads, etc., except maybe in their home towns or other areas where there could be historical significance. This is long past due. This is not revisionist history - the revisionists were the ones who put up the statues and named the schools.
To sum it up in terms even Trump could understand: 1) traitors = losers; 2) morally bankrupt cause = losers (for Trump: "morally bankrupt" = "bad"); 3) lost the war = losers. Why have statues to triple losers when there are many good people who could be memorialized instead?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_symbolism
Just spotted at Milan's central station.
-
The OP was about Charlottesville - you're in the wrong country!
-
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).
These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.
You mean, democrats?
-
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).
These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.
You mean, democrats?
Yes the racist Southern Democrats who were against school integration, didn't what colored voters, and didn't want integration. Those lovely Democrats who now claim to be on the side of minorities, promising welfare and free support for votes. Great fakers. ps Lincoln was a Republican
-
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).
These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.
You mean, democrats?
Yes the racist Southern Democrats who were against school integration, didn't what colored voters, and didn't want integration. Those lovely Democrats who now claim to be on the side of minorities, promising welfare and free support for votes. Great fakers. ps Lincoln was a Republican
Yeah! I hear this a lot of this sophism from racist republicans, who like to forget about the great switch-over that took place some 60 years ago, during Nixon's time (what is known as the "southern strategy"), when the republicans decided to do whatever it takes to attract the southern voters on their side.
Back then, the two major parties basically switched positions on the social liberty axis.
What matters is who supports and emboldens racism TODAY! And the answer is crystal clear!
-
Well this took a sudden turn. Isn't it possible to discuss issues or policy without turning it into partisan BS?
I'm being rhetorical, because of course it isn't.
Okay the Democrats used to be awful, you win I guess?
-
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).
These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.
You mean, democrats?
Yes the racist Southern Democrats who were against school integration, didn't what colored voters, and didn't want integration. Those lovely Democrats who now claim to be on the side of minorities, promising welfare and free support for votes. Great fakers. ps Lincoln was a Republican
Yeah! I hear this a lot of this sophism from racist republicans, who like to forget about the great switch-over that took place some 60 years ago, during Nixon's time (what is known as the "southern strategy"), when the republicans decided to do whatever it takes to attract the southern voters on their side.
Back then, the two major parties basically switched positions on the social liberty axis.
What matters is who supports and emboldens racism TODAY! And the answer is crystal clear!
60 years ago would be 1957. Why don't you try your revisionist history with the facts? The southern democrats went well into the decades after that and maybe still now, as despicable racists. Pretending to care isn't the same as actually standing up for diversity and individual rights.
The removal of Confederate monuments is an attempt to 'erase parts of our history just in the name of some contemporary political cause.' But you're a sucker for cause instead of thoughtful meaningful wisdom. Old wrongs can't be corrected by over correcting. There's no way to repair slavery, racist hate, or the misdeeds of the past.
Remember the Irish were once a shunned and abused minority. The Italians can after that. The blacks are no longer the largest minority in America, the Hispanics are. And believe it or not, the blacks are not happy with this change. Seems like having a cause and being a victim is more important than blending into the existing society.
Separate but equal is not a minor concept. It's the way that minority groups, or social pressure groups manipulate issues for more than equal status by handing guilt trips to the rest of us. If we are all equal, we don't need special treatment or extra rights beyond everyone else.
-
Rolls eyes
-
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).
These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.
You mean, democrats?
Yes the racist Southern Democrats who were against school integration, didn't what colored voters, and didn't want integration. Those lovely Democrats who now claim to be on the side of minorities, promising welfare and free support for votes. Great fakers. ps Lincoln was a Republican
Yeah! I hear this a lot of this sophism from racist republicans, who like to forget about the great switch-over that took place some 60 years ago, during Nixon's time (what is known as the "southern strategy"), when the republicans decided to do whatever it takes to attract the southern voters on their side.
Back then, the two major parties basically switched positions on the social liberty axis.
What matters is who supports and emboldens racism TODAY! And the answer is crystal clear!
60 years ago would be 1957. Why don't you try your revisionist history with the facts? The southern democrats went well into the decades after that and maybe still now, as despicable racists. Pretending to care isn't the same as actually standing up for diversity and individual rights.
The removal of Confederate monuments is an attempt to 'erase parts of our history just in the name of some contemporary political cause.' But you're a sucker for cause instead of thoughtful meaningful wisdom. Old wrongs can't be corrected by over correcting. There's no way to repair slavery, racist hate, or the misdeeds of the past.
Remember the Irish were once a shunned and abused minority. The Italians can after that. The blacks are no longer the largest minority in America, the Hispanics are. And believe it or not, the blacks are not happy with this change. Seems like having a cause and being a victim is more important than blending into the existing society.
Separate but equal is not a minor concept. It's the way that minority groups, or social pressure groups manipulate issues for more than equal status by handing guilt trips to the rest of us. If we are all equal, we don't need special treatment or extra rights beyond everyone else.
I said "some" 60 years ago, please don't try to play the accuracy game here, when you know exactly what I'm talking about.
For those who don't, here is a summary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
"In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party. It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right."
-
Thus sums it up! Arnold's thoughts...
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/08/18/arnold-schwarzenegger-charlottesville-jnd-orig-vstan.cnn/video/playlists/charlottesville-white-nationalist-rally/ (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/08/18/arnold-schwarzenegger-charlottesville-jnd-orig-vstan.cnn/video/playlists/charlottesville-white-nationalist-rally/)
-
Rolls eyes
No Joke. #ESPN pulled an Asian American announcer because his name is #RobertLee ..
Madness!
— Karlene Nation (@karlenenation) August 23, 2017
I'm sure his name, #RobertLee has something to do with how he announces a game...where do we draw the line???
— Aaron Royalty (@MosCowboy96) August 23, 2017
So @espn pulled an announcer off coverage because his name was Robert Lee.
Robert Lee is an Asian American with no ties to the confederacy
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 23, 2017
Wait, @espn actually pulled an Asian announcer named Robert Lee from the booth for the UVa opener?
-
I said "some" 60 years ago, please don't try to play the accuracy game here, when you know exactly what I'm talking about.
For those who don't, here is a summary:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy[/url] ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy[/url])
"In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party. It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right."
http://russp.us/racism.htm (http://russp.us/racism.htm)
"Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism."
The Southern Democrats are hypocrites and still finding ways to oppress and control minority groups, especially the poor Blacks. Many of the conservatives want to embrace and educate to help people of color and minorities gain stature and become part of America, like other minority groups over our history. The Liberals want to control and manipulate people, for the power of their votes.
Free food, subsidized housing, grants that are based on race or other minority requirements, and basically a discriminatory policy against white males. The largest minority in the US now is Hispanics, and that pisses off some of my Black friends. Consider this, black businesses are booming, blacks have a long tradition of military service, with black veterans amounting to more than 2 million in 2010. Moreover, blacks graduate from high school at about the same rate as Americans do overall.
Blacks prefer the South and the former Confederate states as their homes. I have a feeling we can expect the black American's to take over leadership in the South to a greater extent in the future, which is a positive movement instead of pandering by white politicians to control. Latinos and Hispanic peoples will concentrate in the South West and have a favorably controlled representation in that area.
The melting pot will just have some realignments, and still be the United States.
White supremacists have no place in our country. We support freedom of speech for all, so unfortunately they are allowed to speak. I don't care to hear them, or their misguided racist claims. Spreading hate with lies shouldn't be encouraged.
-
Again? Everyone knows the parties switched. All this does is prove you're untruthful and aren't allowed to say this stuff on the SS forums any more, so you're forced to spew it here.
-
Probably time to end this string to do more worthy things like actually taking photos 8)
-
Seems like Civil War #2 has already begun. Congrats on squabbling over your own versions of the truth.
-
Seems like Civil War #2 has already begun. Congrats on squabbling over your own versions of the truth.
I wonder who's the divisive "leader" who started it... :o
And I guess you realise that the same culprit is not far from starting serious international wars, not only civil >:(, just to prove that he doesn't have "small hands"
-
Seems like Civil War #2 has already begun. Congrats on squabbling over your own versions of the truth.
I wonder who's the divisive "leader" who started it... :o
And I guess you realise that the same culprit is not far from starting serious international wars, not only civil >:(, just to prove that he doesn't have "small hands"
I'm no fan of Trump. I was also no fan of Obama. They equally catered to their own sides which based on the almost 50/50 split of the last election this nation is clearly divided. This last election also uncovered the lying cheating mess that is both parties. We are not each other's enemies. We are just being led to believe that by the barrage of biased news, echo chamber social media, and other sources of questionable information. Wikipedia? Snopes? News blogs? Liberal CNN or Conservative Fox News? It's all bull$hit. The more people argue, the better the ratings, and the more money there is to be made at our expense. Division is big business. Carry on.
-
Are you seriously comparing wikipedia and snopes to fox news?
-
Are you seriously comparing wikipedia and snopes to fox news?
You're missing the point which is accuracy and bias of information which varies.
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are. You just choose to get your information from whatever "news" outlet caters to your bias.
Wikipedia? While I think the intent is good the crowdsourced information is questionable. It may be getting better in accuracy but not there yet. Ever used it? I have and I've found quite a bit of copy-paste from other websites.
Snopes? Who fact-checks them? Exactly.
-
Are you seriously comparing wikipedia and snopes to fox news?
You're missing the point which is accuracy and bias of information which varies.
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are. You just choose to get your information from whatever "news" outlet caters to your bias.
Wikipedia? While I think the intent is good the crowdsourced information is questionable. It may be getting better in accuracy but not there yet. Ever used it? I have and I've found quite a bit of copy-paste from other websites.
Snopes? Who fact-checks them? Exactly.
If only Trump could understand that this is normal in a democracy!
But no, for him only those kissing his a@@ are the owners of the truth. For him, truth cannot come from "from many sides".
Instead, "many sides" are wrong when he wants to defend neo-*, KKK and white supremacists.
"Good" comes only from one side, evil from "many sides".
-
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.
The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox. Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times). To equate the two is ridiculous.
-
Agreed.
Everyone has a bias. But there's a continuum. Sometimes it appears as selective reporting, sometimes as outright lies and fabrication. What I want avoid is false equivalency or you end up with Russia, where the powers that be have ensured no one trusts anyone anymore.
On related news apparently fox may get more fact based (though still with a rightwing bias) soon after all the scandals and now that breitbart and Sinclair media are eating into their lunatic fan base.
-
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.
The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox. Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times). To equate the two is ridiculous.
Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline - Black man killed while assaulting white man
These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?
-
Seems like Civil War #2 has already begun. Congrats on squabbling over your own versions of the truth.
I wonder who's the divisive "leader" who started it... :o
And I guess you realise that the same culprit is not far from starting serious international wars, not only civil >:(, just to prove that he doesn't have "small hands"
I'm no fan of Trump. I was also no fan of Obama. They equally catered to their own sides which based on the almost 50/50 split of the last election this nation is clearly divided. This last election also uncovered the lying cheating mess that is both parties. We are not each other's enemies. We are just being led to believe that by the barrage of biased news, echo chamber social media, and other sources of questionable information. Wikipedia? Snopes? News blogs? Liberal CNN or Conservative Fox News? It's all bull$hit. The more people argue, the better the ratings, and the more money there is to be made at our expense. Division is big business. Carry on.
Bravo ++++++++++
-
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.
The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox. Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times). To equate the two is ridiculous.
Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline - Black man killed while assaulting white man
These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?
As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions. That goes beyond bias to fabrication. Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.
-
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.
The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox. Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times). To equate the two is ridiculous.
Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline - Black man killed while assaulting white man
These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?
As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions. That goes beyond bias to fabrication. Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.
Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html)
-
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.
The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox. Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times). To equate the two is ridiculous.
Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline - Black man killed while assaulting white man
These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?
As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions. That goes beyond bias to fabrication. Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.
Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html)
Wouldn't it be good if politicians resigned when they lied or did something shady? I have no doubt there would be no president Trump if that happened. Every time he complains about fake news, I wonder how he fools himself into thinking nobody notices the way he uses fake news when it suits his agenda? Perhaps he really is stupid enough to believe some of the lies he has helped spread? Either way, I think he has proven to be completely incompetent and out of his depth as president and the longer he does the job, the more damage it will do to the US.
-
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.
The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox. Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times). To equate the two is ridiculous.
Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline - Black man killed while assaulting white man
These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?
As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions. That goes beyond bias to fabrication. Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.
Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html)
Wouldn't it be good if politicians resigned when they lied or did something shady? I have no doubt there would be no president Trump if that happened. Every time he complains about fake news, I wonder how he fools himself into thinking nobody notices the way he uses fake news when it suits his agenda? Perhaps he really is stupid enough to believe some of the lies he has helped spread? Either way, I think he has proven to be completely incompetent and out of his depth as president and the longer he does the job, the more damage it will do to the US.
No he's not stupid but some of his supporters are but that is also true of other parties. When i look at Facebook I think there is a large population incapable of any critical reasoning or ability to see that not everything is black and white.
-
No he's not stupid but some of his supporters are but that is also true of other parties. When i look at Facebook I think there is a large population incapable of any critical reasoning or ability to see that not everything is black and white.
I think it's not just large, it's the majority. More than half population will go wherever their leaders will take them. Which is more of a psyche thing than analytical abilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
-
No he's not stupid but some of his supporters are but that is also true of other parties. When i look at Facebook I think there is a large population incapable of any critical reasoning or ability to see that not everything is black and white.
I think it's not just large, it's the majority. More than half population will go wherever their leaders will take them. Which is more of a psyche thing than analytical abilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
It doesn't seem like the majority of Americans want to go where Trump is forcing them to.
-
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.
The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox. Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times). To equate the two is ridiculous.
Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline - Black man killed while assaulting white man
These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?
As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions. That goes beyond bias to fabrication. Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.
Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html)
Oh, please, get over it. There was a problem with a minor CNN story that was never widely reported and they immediately took action to retract the story and the involved people resigned. A mistake that was quickly corrected, which shows the integrity of the organization.
In contrast, Fox has completely and deliberately fabricated numerous main stories, does not retract them at all or only after a very long time and the people who made up the "facts" are still with them. One organization has integrity and the other doesn't - there is no comparison at all.
-
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.
The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox. Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times). To equate the two is ridiculous.
Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline - Black man killed while assaulting white man
These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?
As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions. That goes beyond bias to fabrication. Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.
Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html)
Oh, please, get over it. There was a problem with a minor CNN story that was never widely reported and they immediately took action to retract the story and the involved people resigned. A mistake that was quickly corrected, which shows the integrity of the organization.
In contrast, Fox has completely and deliberately fabricated numerous main stories, does not retract them at all or only after a very long time and the people who made up the "facts" are still with them. One organization has integrity and the other doesn't - there is no comparison at all.
In all fairness, Fox also fired O'Reilly & Co, or exactly those who were preaching integrity, respect for values and morality, from a very high pedestal, while in fact, they were those "squeezing the cat in the dark".
And I even here more and more Fox voices criticizing Trump! Imagine that!
-
No he's not stupid but some of his supporters are but that is also true of other parties. When i look at Facebook I think there is a large population incapable of any critical reasoning or ability to see that not everything is black and white.
I think it's not just large, it's the majority. More than half population will go wherever their leaders will take them. Which is more of a psyche thing than analytical abilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
It doesn't seem like the majority of Americans want to go where Trump is forcing them to.
Noone says their should be only one leader/group of obedient followers in a society. Regardless, tribal behavior is here to stay.
-
No he's not stupid but some of his supporters are but that is also true of other parties. When i look at Facebook I think there is a large population incapable of any critical reasoning or ability to see that not everything is black and white.
I think it's not just large, it's the majority. More than half population will go wherever their leaders will take them. Which is more of a psyche thing than analytical abilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
It doesn't seem like the majority of Americans want to go where Trump is forcing them to.
Noone says their should be only one leader/group of obedient followers in a society. Regardless, tribal behavior is here to stay.
So it is not the majority of the population, the way you stated it.
After all, a vast majority of the population is following A leader or another, for a defined period or for longer. Very few choose not to follow any leader ever.
I guess these are the tiny anarchist or survivalist minority.
In a way, following a leader is the very definition of democracy. The majority is electing a leader (except for USA :o) and then the leader is setting the direction the majority committed to follow, until a new leader is elected.
Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:
If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.
-
So it is not the majority of the population, the way you stated it.
I did not state it. I merely repeated what a Yale researcher (and some others after him) concluded from his/their experiments. Not being a psychologist myself I cannot test the veracity of this statement. It sounds about right, but I am always open to an expert's alternative interpretation.
Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:
If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.
Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.
-
Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:
If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.
Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.
Same for me: majority means >50%.
If >50% will always blindly follow their leader, that leader would be re-elected forever because he/she will ask those >50% blind followers to vote for him/her, over and over again. And they will blindly follow his/her request.
Because this is NOT happening in real life, it means that initial assumption is wrong.
Or, in other words, the majority is not always blindly following their leader.
Maybe some majorities are blindly following their leaders, but not all majorities.
And USA, today, is an example where >50% of the population is not blindly following the leader.
-
Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:
If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.
Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.
Same for me: majority means >50%.
If >50% will always blindly follow their leader, that leader would be re-elected forever because he/she will ask those >50% blind followers to vote for him/her, over and over again. And they will blindly follow his/her request.
Because this is NOT happening in real life, it means that initial assumption is wrong.
Or, in other words, the majority is not always blindly following their leader.
To be honest, I really don't care about voting in USA (or anywhere else for that matter, I can't be bothered to vote). But I do care about math, even if it's very simple. I guess I have to be very detailed to explain my point.
Let's say you have 100 voters in a given country C.
51 of them voted for "leader A" today. 80% of them vote for leader A no matter what. That constitutes 0.8x51~ 41 people who trust leader A unquestionably. We'll call the remaining 10 people swing voters who today voted for leader A.
49 of the total pool of voters voted for "leader B" today. 80% of those who trust leader B unquestionably is 0.8x49~39 people. The remaining 10 people we'll call swing voters who today voted for leader B.
As a result of this election "leader A" won.
Now let's say by tomorrow leader A screwed up somehow, fell out of favor. None of the swing voters in group B were affected, because they did not vote for A. Let's say two swing voters out of group A decided that they now will vote for leader B. The group A is now reduced by 2 people (49 votes remaining), while the group B becomes larger by 2 people (51 votes). If the election is to be held tomorrow, the leader B will win.
To summarize. 80% of all voters vote never change their opinions (41 vote for A, 39 for B). Nonetheless, a small shift in swing votes changed the election outcome. Where do you see a contradiction?
-
Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:
If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.
Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.
Same for me: majority means >50%.
If >50% will always blindly follow their leader, that leader would be re-elected forever because he/she will ask those >50% blind followers to vote for him/her, over and over again. And they will blindly follow his/her request.
Because this is NOT happening in real life, it means that initial assumption is wrong.
Or, in other words, the majority is not always blindly following their leader.
To be honest, I really don't care about voting in USA (or anywhere else for that matter, I can't be bothered to vote). But I do care about math, even if it's very simple. I guess I have to be very detailed to explain my point.
Let's say you have 100 voters in a given country C.
51 of them voted for "leader A" today. 80% of them vote for leader A no matter what. That constitutes 0.8x51~ 41 people who trust leader A unquestionably. We'll call the remaining 10 people swing voters who today voted for leader A.
49 of the total pool of voters voted for "leader B" today. 80% of those who trust leader B unquestionably is 0.8x49~39 people. The remaining 10 people we'll call swing voters who today voted for leader B.
As a result of this election "leader A" won.
Now let's say by tomorrow leader A screwed up somehow, fell out of favor. None of the swing voters in group B were affected, because they did not vote for A. Let's say two swing voters out of group A decided that they now will vote for leader B. The group A is now reduced by 2 people (49 votes remaining), while the group B becomes larger by 2 people (51 votes). If the election is to be held tomorrow, the leader B will win.
To summarize. 80% of all voters vote never change their opinions (41 vote for A, 39 for B). Nonetheless, a small shift in swing votes changed the election outcome. Where do you see a contradiction?
There is no contradiction: the election is meant to elect the leader of the whole country C.
B, the loser, is not a leader. He was only a candidate, with no real power to make decisions for the country C. Therefore not a leader. Those 39 who gave him their vote might never vote for him again, because losers very seldom get a second chance to get elected. So not even his old minority voters are blindly following him, let alone a majority. They might decide to support candidate D, next time around.
Moreover when A becomes the leader of country C, he is the authority figure mentioned in your experiment.
He will obviously not be the leader of country C forever, meaning that his voters (his old majority) will not blindly follow him and elect him forever.
-
I guess we just differ in a definition of a leader which what caused misunderstanding.
-
I guess we just differ in a definition of a leader which what caused misunderstanding.
Meanwhile, I edited my answer above: A is the only authority figure as defined by the Milgram experiment.
B has no authority at all, after the election. He has no power to ask country C to obey him. Only A can do that.
-
...
-
I read a very interesting paper about the Milgram experiment many years ago ( I am too lazy to find it) which basically said the results have been totally misrepresented.
It was a series of experiments, not just one and what they showed was that people refused to do something they thought was wrong just because they were told to by an authority figure, but if you could convince them that it was for the greater good (in milgram's case that the results would help further science in a big way) they would do things they would normally find morally abhorrent.
-
Perhaps voters should have an option to reject people they don't want to lead their country before an election happens? Trump and Clinton seemed like two of the worst applicants for the job. It's the same in the UK, May or Corbyn, I couldn't vote for either of them. I just can't believe that the major parties of two old democracies can't find better leaders.