Jump to content
Delano

Astrological Prediction the end of Trump's Presidency

Recommended Posts

CNN, I seem to remember, started this 24 hour news cycle.  I stopped watching them mainly because they made every thing seem like a crisis, "breaking news."

 

What changed 12 years ago @Delano that changed you behavior regarding watching news?

 

@Kalexander2, I didn't denounce CNN. Like Del, I don't watch the network, so I don't have an opinion.  If sounds like you believe they do indeed do a disservice to Black folks.  Why do you say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not watching TV; looks like you've been using you time constructively.

 

Lately I've been watching TV almost every evening to wind down. I've given up trying to read in the evening, by the time I call it quits. I'm too tired to read, so I read during the day.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy  Black folks (we) do a disservice to ourselves by not fact-checking and researching or relying too much on news reporting, even more so to social media.  All the news networks effect and influence us in both positive and negative ways.  Whether it is forming opinions about social control mechanisms, reeling in our support, or advocating against each other under the guise of law and order; even though we lack primer information related to important social matters beforehand.

 
In fewer words, we fail to think for ourselves first, before consuming news reports; and when we attempt to so, it's usually from some pre-established misguided premise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure we have to think for ourselves, but unfortunately most of us will never have the data to actually make informationed decisions and arrive a factually based conclusions.  The is why we must rely on journalists and the scientific community to properly inform us -- individuals simply can not do this on our own.

 

Now I have access to data about books published by Black people by mainstream publishers but this is a very small dataset and easy to understand.  The information needed to understand climate, for example, is another beast altogether. No individual can make this determination independently and even if they could they don't have the platform to make it known or the power to get people to do anything about it. 

 

Social media is not a news source -- facebook has no journalist or writers, they refuse to fact check the stuff people put on their platform, complaining that would constrain free speech when the reality it will constrain their revenue stream.

 

Many news sources are becoming social media amplifiers reporting on and commentating of study they've found on social media -- like 45's tweets. 

 

GIven these trends we increasing have to think for ourselves @Kalexander2 but given the complexity of the world this is an impossible task.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kalexander2 Face Book's role is limited to showing re-runs of  news clips from  CNN and MSNBC and Fox and BET, and providing links to newspaper and magazine articles.    They do no reporting or editorializing. They simply make sources available for people to read  and make up their own minds about. If you're more comfortable imagining what the truth is, then nobody is stopping you from doing this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kalexander2 said:

Black folks (we) do a disservice to ourselves by not fact-checking and researching or relying too much on news reporting

Ironic coming from a self identified liar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troy said:

The information needed to understand climate, for example, is another beast altogether. No 

Then why do you argue that it is a fact. 

Is this a new technique. Using examples of positions I disagree with you. 

I will just postvthe following observations fit people that think. 

 

Climate scientist say climate change is an in convertible truth. When have you ever heard scientist make am absolute statement. 

 

I have a look at how  much a climate change foundation pays its employees as a percentage of funds it spends. This is a general good rule of thumb yo use for all foundations and charities. Trump used hus as a personal checking account. Yhe Clinton used it to pay their own  catering company more exorbitant prices. 

 

Al Gore made a kot if money from his film. And he has a training course. He flies all over the world selling it. Flying isn't good for the environment. 

Feel free ti check any of the above statements. The following or news clippings about Gore what an appropriate name. 

 

the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

 

he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates."

 

Also their models aren't very good a prediction. Plus they use temperature changes not tempature from 1980.

Check any or all of those for yourself. 

In our debate I posted a pros and cons. Troy didn't read it. He said its too big for him to understand. An odd comment. When has the impeded an discussion that takes place in this forum?

@Troy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Delano we've gone through the climate change debate. Neither of us will change our positions. Let's not waste each others time.

 

Did you have your kids vaccinated or do you also buy into the conspiracy theory vaccinine are bad for us too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook and the internet as whole present data. Very few people check the validity of what they repost. News became infotainment in the 80's. 

You say think for yourself but follow scientist blindly because they are experts. Didn't doctors suggest their patients smoke? Read a boom called Radical Science it gives a insight look on scientist and science. 

It is also a fascinating read. If you want a window into the close minded of scientist read about hoe Richard Feymann was our in charge of more senior physicist while making the atomic bomb. He initially said no. His supervisor said he chose Feymann because he is he e only scientist that didnt care aviut rank or reputation. If you gitvthe science wrong he is going ti keep yelling. Ybat convinced Feymann. 

Yes but howdoes tgathave any bearing in the global warming debate. Remember it used ti ne called that butbyhe scientist had to change yhe name because itvwas obvhisky not  just getting warmer. 

 

Also note that I stated. After havingblooked at temperature production and Co2 leveks from 1700-1980 I believe climate change ti be a fiction. However conservatuin of energy and resources is still a good idea. Interesting Al Gore has the opposite position. He believes in clkmate change but his actuins don't match his idealism. While i rode a bike to work 70% of the time for close to 20 years. We are both hypocrites however i am a better  one than Gore. 

@Troy when i ess single i never git a flu shot. Yet i saw people who did, get sick. I rarely road public transport which are germ incubators. I rode a bike. I didn't have a sedentary life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gore is not the only environmentalist associated with "An Inconvenient Truth" who has come under fire for personal habits --

 

producer Laurie David for her use of private Gulfstream jets. 

BTW the quote isn't 97% of scientist is 97% of climate change scientist. So if you wrote a paper about climate change and yiu said it was a fact that was considered an endorsement. If yiu wrote a paper and said you didn't know that was also considered an endorsement. I read the source material from IOCC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. and Feynmann regretted use of the bomb.

 

Sure scientist say things that are wrong and do so knowingly -- typically for personal gain.

 

Infotainment is a major problem in our society, and it started long before the '80s. Today it is 24/7. Unless you go completely off the grid you can't escape it today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy  Black folks (we) do a disservice to ourselves by relying too much on news reporting, even more so to social media.  All the news networks effect and influence us in both positive and negative ways.  Whether it is forming opinions about social control mechanisms, reeling in our support, or advocating against each other under the guise of law and order; even though we lack primer information related to important social matters beforehand.

 
In fewer words, we fail to think for ourselves first, before consuming news reports; and when we attempt to so, it's usually from some pre-established misguided premise. 
 
Data (or quantitative) information is traditionally available as privileged access to a linguistically made up social world.  Contents of such data, scientific or not, is often, more than not, taken out of context or misconstrued especially if there's no solid foundation for absorbing it.  Journalists and the scientific community master linguistic techniques to report whatever they desire in whatever way that serves their purpose.  A marginalized Black person may be subject to misguidance when consuming information about racism without first understanding basic aspects of sociology and her/his own psychological pact.
 
"An impossible task" as you assert is just another issue, of many, why relying on news reporting is an abhorrence to news, information unknown.  
 
 
11 hours ago, Cynique said:

They simply make sources available for people to read  and make up their own minds about. If you're more comfortable imagining what the truth is, then nobody is stopping you from doing this. 

 
Precisely my point, sister.  Imagining a truth without, or worse, with a made-up mind.  No one can ever truly be free of culture-bound influences whether reporting information or consuming it.  What to do?  Think for yourself based on empirical experiences; after all, what else can go wrong?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Delano what do you know about the website procon.org?  Who is behind it, where does it get it's funding? Can you say with certainty that it is a legitimate site? In deed legitimate enough for you to dismiss the findings of Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  If so why?

 

5 hours ago, Kalexander2 said:

we fail to think for ourselves first, before consuming news reports; and when we attempt to so, it's usually from some pre-established misguided premise. 

 

This is way I generally don't consumer news, that I really care about, on sites that rebroadcast news from other sites, like social media, blog, etc.  I go to the original source if s study is reference I look at the study.

 

@Delano, if Trump does not make it to the end of the year I'll give you and K2 $50.  What would there be for me to say other than, "I was wrong, and you and K2 were right?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Troy said:

This is way I generally don't consumer news, that I really care about, on sites that rebroadcast news from other sites, like social media, blog, etc.  I go to the original source if s study is reference I look at the study.

 

Consumers of news reporting (believers in climate change, etc.) are considered advocates of democracy, people who find no value in consuming news are considered fascist sympathizers (deniers of facts ); at least that seems to be the case.  Do you think there's a middle ground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2018 at 12:26 AM, Troy said:

Alright! That's what's up! 

,

This is win-win for me cause i'd pay to see that guy with the weird hairdo get the boot. 

 

Plus in the extremely unlikely event that you win @Delano, not only will you get $50 I'll never question your astrological prowess gansta ;)

@Troy

Except now it doesn't seem so unlikely. 

We are at the half way mark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Troy said:

what do you know about the website procon.org?  Who is behind it, where does it get it's funding? Can you say with certainty that it is a legitimate site? In deed legitimate enough for you to dismiss the findings of Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  If so why?

 

In all seriousness @Delano, I'm really interested in reading your reply to this question.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pro and con. You can check the source or you can see if it sounds plausible. I am not interested in rehashing the debate. 

Troy read the NASA first them if you want to discuss individual points fine. Don't just skim it read all the footnotes. 

I have read the entire IPCC report so come prepared. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard not be partisan when vetting news sources.  There's no way i can give a lot of credence to anything Fox News reports because i am so anti-Trump.  I want to believe what CNN and MSNBC report because  they are more aligned with my politics.  So it is important to not only hold news organizations to a high standard but, as a consumer, to divest yourself of bias.  Seeking the truth can be a frustrating quest because the truth plays no favorites and, as such,  can also be the  cause of disillusionment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cynique said:

divest yourself of bias

 

@Cynique  Easier said than done, do you agree?  There's no undoing the truth; it is, however, subject to various POV's.  I never accepted clever arguments of 'alternative facts or truths' meant to distract from the reality.  Deliberate falsehoods are lies and lies can never lose the negative connotations attached to them; Kellyanne Conway's delusional interpretations of the truth isn't a mistake; she's taken her to freedom to think for herself and offered it up to persuade as a logical way to see things.
 
e.g., 'Donald Trump is a racist whose policies and pronouncements empower White nationalists.'  And, 'Black folks without exposure to higher education have no valid complaint about marginalization in America.'  No alternative POV can remove the negative connotation behind these truths; arguments questioning the existence of White Nationalists and/or whether racism and lack of education marginalize Blacks - does not alter the truth.
 
True, knowing weather patterns for the day, dangerous cities, and candidate platforms are crucial to decision making,  Journalist easily convey news reports that could render them incomplete, thus an 'alternative fact' because people fill in the blanks at their leisure.  Imagine a Black parent with small children consumes a news report about children dying from vaccination shots; leave out a few important facts and you have mass panic that subjects those children to life-threatening viruses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Delano said:

Why does it lead to disillusionmen

the truth can lead to disillusionment because it can disprove what you passionately believe and this can destroy your illusions.

 

7 hours ago, Kalexander2 said:

Easier said than done, do you agree? 

of course it's not easy to divest yourself of being partisan.  But you have to apply the same standards to yourself as you do to news organizations if you're truly seeking the truth.  if you're not objective, then how can you demand it of other sources.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Cynique said:

But you have to apply the same standards to yourself as you do to news organizations if you're truly seeking the truth.

 

I see, so you submit that one's standards and views aligned with the information consumed are (can be) acceptable, objective truths, for that person?  Perhaps.  But I ask, does a White nationalist who watches Fox News or Breitbart really get the objective truths any more than a liberal democrat who consumes MSNC or the Washington Post? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

5 minutes ago, Kalexander2 said:

I see, so you submit that one's standards and views aligned with the information consumed are (can be) acceptable, objective truths, for that person? 

No, that's not what  i am submitting. I'm saying that when seeking accurate facts, one has to be objective and this involves not limiting your consumption of information  to news organizations whose positions simply reinforce your own. Broaden your scope.  Admittedly this is hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Cynique said:

 limiting your consumption of information  to news organizations whose positions

 

"Thinking for one's self" through the sensory organ for vision (the eyes) the 'sky is blue' is equally true as the scientific explanation of color sensitivity which without explains the sky is, in reality, violet or grey.  Both can be true, yes?  Or, am I being dogmatic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kalexander2I'm not talking about  phenomena of nature.  I'm talking about people and events, This is becoming a world where everybody claims their own truth and this is why chaos is brewing.  At some point people have to endeavor to be objective for the common good.  This is all i have to say on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No @Delano climate change is not simple (see how easily I answered your question).  Sono while climate change is not simple, my questions are:

 

@Delano 

  1. What do you know about the website procon.org? 
  2. Who is behind it, where does it get it's funding?
  3. Can you say with certainty that it is a legitimate site? Indeed legitimate enough for you to dismiss the findings of Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  If so why?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, though the truth is so whether in nature or of people and events.  It's more than philosophical, or phenomena when the senses interpret news reports one way and the truth is something else.  
 
Back to the point: adversely, if political science, economics, and the rule of law show Donald Trump maintaining his presidency up to 2019 and events show something else; what is the truth?   The problem is when consumers of news take in information and conclude "we'll wait and see" even as the objective fact remain elusive.   Not you, me, nor anyone may never know the facts about what is the common good, except for what we believe which may not be good despite of being common.  News reports coupled with internal instincts (views and beliefs) may prove even less truthful.

 

3 hours ago, Cynique said:

At some point people have to endeavor to be objective for the common good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalexander2 said:

t's more than philosophical, or phenomena when the senses interpret news reports one way and the truth is something else.  

Well, facts are a component of the truth.  Where humans are concerned, you seem to be focused on examples of people afflicted with a cognitive dissonance syndrome wherein they cannot relinquish their beliefs even if the facts are  right before their eyes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy check for yourself and make up your own mind whether they are credible. 

That's exactly my position. Make up your own mind  based on the information and knowledge you have.

The following is the transcript of a conversation with The Bob Woodward and President Trump. 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/trump-woodward-transcript/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Delano the artful dodger of direct questions.  

 

OK, let me help you bruh, the site you referenced is a bullshit site probably created by a Russian troll farm.  You won't vouch for it because you have not vetted it in you desperation to find anything that contradicts the reality of man made climate change. 

 

Obviously one can find anything to support any hair brained idea they have, I just did not expect this from you -- no insult intended just profound disappointment, no so much that you tried pass this site off as some authoritative source-- when it is not, but that you simply won't admit that you did.  No one is perfect man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy it's pro and con. Read the about section. Make an informed statement. I have read it. So after yiu read it then we can discuss it. 

Alleviate your ignorance first before making unfounded disparaging comments, Brother. 

@Troy

Troy read the about section and then print a retraction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cynique said:

Well, facts are a component of the truth.  Where humans are concerned, you seem to be focused on examples of people afflicted with a cognitive dissonance syndrome wherein they cannot relinquish their beliefs even if the facts are  right before their eyes. 

1

 

You are not wrong; is it pessimistic only to focus on people's internal disorder, difficulty to change, or is it true that humans want to see that one component of truth; or both?  Beliefs, customs, etc. influence culture-bound limitations but they are not beliefs of themselves.  And, there's no news reporter, scientist, or researcher who can completely separate her/his self from their work; no matter how obvious a fact or truth.  You've verified both your own as well as my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...