Recommended Posts

People believe what “speaks” to them and this applies to both sides of the political narrative.

“ Why people are wired to believe what they want to believe”

 
 

When thinking about the current political moment, it’s important to remember that as human beings we’re wired to interpret new information as confirming our beliefs and reject it if it runs counter to those beliefs.

First, there’s physiology. Sara Gorman, a public health specialist, and her father, Jack, a psychiatrist, explore this matter in their book Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us. They cite research that suggests that processing information that supports one’s beliefs leads to a dopamine rush, which creates feelings of pleasure. Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, says that “extreme partisanship may be literally addictive.”

On the flip side, “When something is inconsistent with existing beliefs, people tend to stumble. … Information that is inconsistent with one’s beliefs produces a negative affective response,” according to Norbert Schwarz, Eryn Newman and William Leach, experts in cognitive psychology.

In a sense, people see what they want to see, in order to believe what they want to believe. In addition, everyone likes to be proven right, and changing their views is an admission that they were wrong, or at least had an incomplete understanding of an issue.

Beliefs are also often tied up with identities. “If changing your belief means changing your identity, it comes at the risk of rejection from the community of people with whom you share that identity,” according to chemist and science writer Christine Herman. That is difficult to do.

In a sense, people see what they want to see, in order to believe what they want to believe. In addition, everyone likes to be proven right, and changing their views is an admission that they were wrong, or at least had an incomplete understanding of an issue.

Indeed the issue of partisan media goes all the way back to the founding of the United States. One example from the early years of the republic: Commenting about the election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Philadelphia’s Federalist paper, the Gazette of the United States, stated: “At the present solemn and momentous epoch, the only question to be asked by every American, laying his hand on his heart, is: ‘Shall I continue in allegiance to GOD — AND A RELIGIOUS PRESIDENT; Or impiously declare for JEFFERSON — AND NO GOD!!!’” This kind of thing was not unusual.

When thinking about society’s challenges, then, Americans need to understand the appeal of confirmation bias/motivated reasoning and recognize that they have manifested long before now. They shouldn’t glorify the past nor overstate the problems they face now.

At the same time, one shouldn’t underestimate the threat posed by this moment. The political culture is sick, the nation is increasingly polarized and fragmented, and people’s capacity to hear one another and reason together is deeply impaired. Facts are seen by many people as subjective, malleable and instrumental — a means to an ideological end. As a result, more and more Americans are living in a self-created reality.

A combination of factors has reshaped American politics: social media and new technology platforms; micro-targeting and psychometric methods in political campaigns; unprecedented polarization and hyper-partisanship; the fragmentation of traditional media sources and the advent of information silos; and the intervention in U.S. elections by hostile powers using fake news, misinformation and disinformation. The capacity to inject poison into the political bloodstream — in the form of lies and falsehoods, crazed conspiracy theories, smears and dehumanizing attacks — is unprecedented.

A decline of trust in institutions means there are far fewer institutions and figures of respect and authority who can declare certain things to be outside the boundaries of responsible discourse, who can say certain claims are preposterous and should be ignored. Instead, people who make false, outrageous and even indecent assertions are finding validation, affirmation and quite a large audience. Think of conspiracist Alex Jones’ baseless claims that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax.

In this environment, what’s the press to do? To start with, raise its standards and show more ideological balance, to report things more carefully than ever, to avoid errors that are often the result of rushing a story or wanting to sensationalize it. Journalists need to resist breathless reporting, jumping to premature conclusions and galloping ahead of the facts.   ( Ergo CNN )

We can also take steps toward ensuring the “integrity of information.” We need relentless fact-checking, greater news literacy, steps to improve the quality of journalism, and efforts to identify and deter misinformation/disinformation sites. We need to work with platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and Reddit to promote greater transparency and other interventions to discourage the spread of false information. Corporations need to do due diligence on websites where they advertise to ensure they aren’t inadvertently supporting hateful and bigoted ones.

Ultimately, it’s every citizen’s responsibility is to refuse to accept the lies, the false narratives, and instead refute and expose them, and in so doing shatter the world of appearances.

If we as Americans dedicate ourselves to that end — if we commit to a civic education necessary to confront the challenges of the 21st century — we will live within the truth, and the truth shall set us free.

https://medium.com/trust-media-and-democracy/why-people-are-wired-to-believe-what-they-want-to-believe-4d9b4e161eb5

79EAED38-6172-4A6B-9969-131796651328.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

IMO, any one who believes Ottawa doesn’t dictate what is printed about certain subjects is living in LaLa land. You don’t spend billions to bail out the media and not expect something in return.

The North Vancouver stabbing incident has drawn my attention to something: Over the last few days I've noticed a trend, and now that I have noticed it (and its actually registered), I realize tha

Posted Images

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-big-tech-silences-questions-about-covid-vaccine

I've noticed more and more that the specific information I go searching for is either unavailable or very difficult to find. This seems to apply across the board and to specific details I want (or need) to form an opinion.... that's why I'm looking for them. 

I will sometimes hear a government or media assertion about a topic I can claim to have some expertise in.... I then think, wait a minute, that doesn't fit with my experience. if it were actually true I would certainly know about it or have heard something about it myself. The smaller the group with a specific skillset the less likely they can be bamboozled, but small groups only have small voices,  exceptions to that rule are few and often far between. As a result, it's easy to sell those opinions as rogue, extreme (or what have you).

Sometimes though, small voices gain traction. By way of example, you may recall the fake soldier at the Ottawa Remembrance Day service a few years ago.... go back and look at his uniform, I almost admire the audacity because he had no idea what a small club he had just joined, or that everyone in that club all know each other. He was literally outed within minutes of doing that interview. 

It leads me to wonder if knowledgeable dissenting voices are going unheard because of deliberate suppression. Most people, even serving members, likely wouldn't have picked up on the combination of clues that lead to his being outed.

A notion worthy of consideration even if I bungled the analogy.

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Lord, I still say doing the work is the quickest way to a solid win….  every passing day reinforces that concept for me: 

The Lincoln Project is in shambles, the impeachment effort is adrift in an ocean of hypocrisy, the madness of invoking the 14th amendment looms large, Chelsea Handler no longer has a crush on Cuomo, Iran backed Houthi rebels are no longer terrorists, Newsom is on the cusp of being fired, and CNN is still obsessed with Trump.

No wonder Joe looks tired, democrats can't stay ahead of negative consequences stemming from arrogance and hypocrisy. Given the level of it no one could.... and it's self inflicted.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-lincoln-project-andrew-cuomo

Just do the work, earn the win.... ask any provincial/state level athlete and they'll tell you the same thing. 

An honestly built boat doesn't leak.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/donald-trump-michael-van-der-veen-impeachment

ONE OF TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT LAWYERS IS A PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY WHO SUED TRUMP LAST YEAR

Michael T. van der Veen specializes in dog bites, among other things.
 
 

Trump lawyer sued him for 'repeated claims' mail voting ripe with fraud

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that have to do with anything? Watch the video. That lawyer slaughtered that reporter...had nothing to do with the trial but how the MSM and the Dems handled themselves with their edited clips 

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be wise for the Conservative Party to make abolishing the CBC a part of its platform just yet. I make a case for playing nice with the CBC here. However, the country's national broadcaster has not only become a Liberal Party campaign machine, it has become a black hole for taxpayers. There will come a time when most Canadians will feel comfortable getting rid of the CBC and—when that time comes—it should be abolished, not privatized.

Canada sends the CBC more than $1.2 Billion each year and—if Justin Trudeau gets his way—that number will go even higher. Meanwhile, the national broadcaster is hemorrhaging ad revenues faster than it can layoff its low-end employees and win back its viewership. Ever since the network lost Hockey Night In Canada, it has been a steady downhill slide. Combining that epic loss with the CBC's ongoing and shameless slant to the political left would have ended with insolvency in the private sector, but because the CBC receives billions in taxpayer handouts every year, it still manages to chug along.

One day, however, the chugging will end.

 

Canadians will never recover the billions they've lost on the CBC over the past few decades. The money is gone, so there's no point trying to salvage whatever hundreds of millions, or few billion dollars, taxpayers would get from selling the CBC. If we look at the news programs and networks operated by Shaw, Bell and Rogers, they are all as bad as CBC News when covering politics and social issues. Selling the CBC to the highest bidding corporation wouldn't change its left-wing slant. As for the network's entertainment division—have you seen some of the homemade Canadian garbage offered by CTV and Global lately, like Private Eyes, The Launch and Nurses? Selling the CBC to the private sector won't make Canadian television any better.

The best solution is to cut our losses. The $15B we've lost over the past decade is gone. We're better off abolishing the CBC and eliminating its funding by 100%. Step one is to revoke or expire its broadcasting license, followed by legislation that would permanently stop all funding and amend the Broadcasting Act. Any of the physical assets (Crown property) should be sold off and the profits invested into scholarships or education grants for less fortunate families.

If you want to convince your liberal friends to abolish the CBC, simply ask them how often they watch anything produced or aired by the CBC. Then tell them where that extra $1.2B dollars could be spent to make Canada a better place for less fortunate and underprivileged children and families.

Here are some examples.

Up to 50,000 poor Canadians could receive $2000 per month in universal basic income. Or, the government could implement a new welfare program that selects up to 35,000 poor and homeless Canadians to receive $2000 a month for a year, just to help them get on their feet. If that's too ambitious for your CBC-loving liberal buddies, you could suggest investing that extra annual billion into universities and colleges under the agreement that they lower everyone's tuition.

If your liberal friends quiver with disgust over the idea of giving smelly poor people free money, you'll know exactly what kind of hypocrites they are. If they tell you that Canada already has welfare programs in place and can continue to fund the CBC while doing all the things I mentioned above, just unfriend the idiots and ban them from entering your home. Seriously.

There will come a time when most Canadians will feel comfortable getting rid of the CBC and—when that time comes—it should be abolished, not privatized."

Last month, it was reported that the Trudeau government has pushed federal spending to the highest levels in Canadian history. Canada's current rate of government spending is over $9,000 per person and will probably increase in 2020. Healthcare spending is expected to grow by nearly 5% over the next ten years and the national debt will balloon to $900 Billion by the end of the decade. So, next time your liberal friends say we have enough money to do it all, show them the numbers. Then ask them how they feel about saddling their children and grandchildren with a massive national debt that can only be paid off with higher taxes and cuts to essential services.

The sad reality is that the $1.2 Billion we'd save every year from abolishing the CBC wouldn't even put a meaningful dent in our national debt. The only way to make the money count would be to invest it in building a stronger, smarter and skilled population—which would naturally make our economy more resilient. The better way to do that is to invest the savings into education, entrepreneurial endeavours and helping low income families get on their feet. A real tax cut for low income earners might be a good start as well.

When the time comes to abolish the CBC, politicians on all sides will be trying to find ways to spend the extra money. Chances are, most of their suggestions will work to benefit labour unions, corporations and activist groups (the people who influence them), rather than real, ordinary Canadians. It'll be important for Canadians and the new non-CBC journalists to pay close attention to how the money gets spent, redistributed and invested. With the CBC gone, there will be fewer journalists who find benefits in regurgitating Liberal talking points and running with Liberal narratives. Many of the newly unemployed journalists might find jobs working at new right-leaning organizations like The Rebel or True North, or they might find opportunities down South, working for Fox News orBreitbart.

A future without the CBC could be good for everyone.

Getting to the point where most Canadians are ok with getting rid of the CBC is the real challenge. We're getting close, but we aren't there yet. Despite not watching CBC programs and news, many Canadians would still be easily manipulated by Liberals and activists to oppose the destruction of the CBC. Rhetoric about it being a “cultural icon” and a part of Canadian heritage will be a majority of what we hear, but talking about the cost of keeping it alive is a good way to counter the nonsense. Talking about ways the money could be better spent, particularly on issues that are dear to the hearts of Liberal voters, is a good way to build a case against the CBC.

How many poor Canadians could be lifted out of poverty with $1.2 Billion? How low could government push tuition by doling out some of that cash to universities and colleges? How much progress could we make toward a carbon-neutral economy if we handed out grants to young inventors and entrepreneurs? These are the questions Liberals and CBC supporters need to be asked. Instead of talking about tax cuts and smaller government, like conservatives often do, the key to turning Canadians against the CBC is in the right questions.

How true to their own principles are your liberal and socialist friends? Find out, by talking about the good things we could do with the money we save from abolishing the CBC.

http://www.poletical.com/abolish-the-cbc.php?fbclid=IwAR1fmGBDkO3dZXNEVQ_oBsXOlyKkFfSlM3R-b5WTSvTDM7XQF_BP84KZ4oA

 

C09EA3AC-96F4-41D2-BA87-E6F6CA491081.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The New York Times....Some ones favourite go to for “news” 🤣😂😳
 

The damage was already done...which was the purpose intended by their original story. My guess is the retraction was buried somewhere inconspicuous

“ The New York Times issued a correction on Sunday after it was revealed that the Capitol police officer who they reported had been killed by supporters of former President Donald Trump after being bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher actually died of a different cause.

"UPDATE: New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police," the Times wrote.

"Law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, but weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit," the story now reads. "Medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official."

The article had initially stated that Sicknick died "from brain injuries he sustained after Trump loyalists who overtook the complex struck him in the dead with a fire extinguisher." 

The paper used anonymous sources to substantiate their claim.

The article was later cited by a variety of mainstream media outlets without questioning the reporting of the paper. His death was even brought up by Democrats during Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate.

Investigators have found no evidence of trauma sustained by blows to the head, and nobody has been arrested in connection to Sicknick's alleged murder.

In fact, Sicknick had returned to his job after the Capitol riot, and texted his brother that aside from being pepper sprayed twice, he was otherwise "in good shape."

According to Capitol police, Sicknick later had a stroke. It is now being investigated whether he inhaled bear spray, and whether that may have contributed to his sudden death.”

B30D7399-6978-4076-AF42-1060AA7FAAE5.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all suppose these revolting creatures will retract anything? In addition to being untrue and provocative, it's an affront to the family. It serves Democrats and their acolytes poorly but they can't help themselves. They are quick to accuse others of unsubstantiated claims though.

It's the sort of stuff first responders and simple soldiers don't forget and it's hard to undo that, mostly they fume about it quietly. When you do stuff like this, it needs to be right... even then common decency and consideration for the family suggests you shouldn't.

image.png.abae6733bbfdcd7a528f1f9c7496ba92.png

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

Y'all suppose these revolting creatures will retract anything? In addition to being untrue and provocative, it's an affront to the family. It serves Democrats and their acolytes poorly but they can't help themselves. They are quick to accuse others of unsubstantiated claims though.

It's the sort of stuff first responders and simple soldiers don't forget and it's hard to undo that, mostly they fume about it quietly. When you do stuff like this, it needs to be right... even then common decency and consideration for the family suggests you shouldn't.

image.png.abae6733bbfdcd7a528f1f9c7496ba92.png

 

Underwood.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnns-cuomo-nursing-home-controversy-terrible-conflict-interest

In life, politics and warfare, these charades are difficult to maintain and usually end poorly. Do the work and earn the win with integrity; it's always the easiest way and if you make a mistake people are inclined to forgive you. 

If you can't do that then at least have sound policies on offer that make sense to most people.

If you can't do either of those then you're probably a Democrat. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/02/18/its-digital-warfare-research-pulls-back-curtain-on-how-much-iranian-russian-trolls-are-targeting-canada.html

‘It’s digital warfare’: Research pulls back curtain on how much Iranian, Russian trolls are targeting Canada

There are memes of Justin Trudeau — hundreds of them. Sexist insults. Photoshopped images of the prime minister wearing headscarves paired with Islamophobic messaging.

Such comments and visuals taken from Twitter form the basis of a new study that asks the question: How are foreign actors using social media to influence politics in Canada?

The answer? Repeatedly and systematically.

In the case of Russian trolls, the disinformation came from the world of right-wing conspiracy theories. The trolls tweeted and retweeted racist and xenophobic messages about immigration, calling Justin Trudeau “weak” for his policies to allow more immigrants and making claims such as “ISIS is stronger because Canada is soft.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, deicer said:

Spare the crocodile tears.

Should I have been as generous as you were with George Floyd?

Meet the REAL George Floyd - Non Aviation Discussion Forum - The Airline Website

Which proves to me two very obvious conclusions

(1) your thinking is not reality based, but stems from an incurable case of TDS

(2) as per normal you make baseless comments based on headline skimming without taking the time to watch the video because of your pre-conceived, pre-conditioned bias against Candace Owens

This then will probably really freak you out

https://nypost.com/2021/02/08/candace-owens-says-she-may-run-for-president-in-2024/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that hard.... have high (but reasonable) standards for police officer conduct and weed out the known bad actors. 

Every cop on the force knows who they are and so do the supervisors. It's not unlike pilots; do you deliberately bid away from anyone?

I sure did... especially when it came to sim trips. There were people I'd rather inject myself with Covid than sit next to in challenging weather conditions. 

Firing people takes effort and documentation but it's the very definition of leadership. It always boils down to doing the work and earning the win, how did we unlearn such a simple reality of the universe?

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

Which proves to me two very obvious conclusions

(1) your thinking is not reality based, but stems from an incurable case of TDS

(2) as per normal you make baseless comments based on headline skimming without taking the time to watch the video because of your pre-conceived, pre-conditioned bias against Candace Owens

This then will probably really freak you out

https://nypost.com/2021/02/08/candace-owens-says-she-may-run-for-president-in-2024/

 

It shows a lot that you celebrate the man who...

 

Mocked.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, deicer said:

It shows a lot that you celebrate the man who...

More false narrative from the fake news King.

When and where have I celebrated Rush Limbaugh? 

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrogant' and 'wrong': Australia slams Facebook's move to block news as unnecessary and heavy-handed

The social media giant on Wednesday said it will no longer allow publishers and users in Australia to share or view news on its platform.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Facebook’s actions were “as arrogant as they were disappointing.”

"Facebook was wrong. Facebook's actions were unnecessary. They were heavy handed and they will damage its reputation here in Australia," said Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said at a media briefing on Thursday.

The Australian government has slammed Facebook's decision to block users in the country from all news content on its platform — a move that ended up affecting access to several government sites.

Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison called Facebook's move "arrogant" and "disappointing," while Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said it was "wrong" and "unnecessary."

The social media company on Wednesday announced its decision to ban Australian users from viewing and sharing news content. It came ahead of an expected decision by the Australian parliament to pass a new media bill that will require online platforms like Google and Facebook to pay news outlets for displaying and linking to their content.

"Facebook was wrong. Facebook's actions were unnecessary. They were heavy-handed and they will damage its reputation here in Australia," Frydenberg said at a media briefing on Thursday.

"Their decision to block Australians' access to government sites — be they about support through the pandemic, mental health, emergency services, the Bureau of Meteorology — were completely unrelated to the media code, which is yet to pass through the Senate," he said.

Frydenberg's comments were later followed by strong criticism from Morrison.

"Facebook's actions to unfriend Australia today, cutting off essential information services on health and emergency services, were as arrogant as they were disappointing," Morrison said in a Facebook post.

In addition to pages run by news outlets, several government-backed Australian accounts were also wiped clean by Facebook on Thursday morning. Government pages affected include those providing updates on the Covid pandemic and bushfire threats.

Facebook's decision was in contrast to that of Google. The latter on Wednesday said it has agreed on a revenue-sharing deal with Australian media conglomerate News Corp, which owns media outlets including The Wall Street Journal and New York Post.

Morrison said he would encourage Facebook "to constructively work with the Australian Government, as Google recently demonstrated in good faith."

"We will not be intimidated by BigTech seeking to pressure our Parliament as it votes on our important News Media Bargaining Code," said the prime minister.

Facebook restores government pages

Human rights advocates also criticized Facebook's move. Elaine Pearson, Australia director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement posted on Twitter that the social media giant is restricting important information such as Covid-19 updates.

"Facebook is severely restricting the flow of information to Australians," she said.

"This is an alarming and dangerous turn of events. Cutting off access to vital information to an entire country in the dead of the night is unconscionable," she added.

Facebook said in response to CNBC's request for comment that government pages should not be affected by its latest move in Australia.

"The actions we're taking are focused on restricting publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content," a spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

"As the law does not provide clear guidance on the definition of news content, we have taken a broad definition in order to respect the law as drafted. However, we will reverse any Pages that are inadvertently impacted," the statement read.

Many of the affected government pages were restored by mid-afternoon.

'Bad' PR for Facebook

Facebook's "overreach" earlier Thursday that restricted Australians' access to non-news pages was a "bad" public relations move, said Tama Leaver, a professor at Curtin University's School of Media, Creative Arts and Social Inquiry.

"I think Facebook has lost the PR battle by enforcing a ban that's just simply too wide," Leaver told CNBC's "Street Signs Asia" on Thursday.

"If Facebook was hoping this would remind Australians how important Facebook is, I think really they're gonna remind that Facebook does things without considering the consequences on its users," he added.

Nevertheless, the professor said the social media company has raised some legitimate concerns about the proposed media law in Australia.

"Facebook does bring a lot of eyeballs to Australian news content, so it has a legitimate claim that actually, it's doing more work for Australian news producers than it should be paying for," said Leaver.

So, there should be more debate on the respective value that Facebook and Australian news producers bring to each other, added Leaver. He predicted that Facebook will eventually follow in Google's footsteps in securing deals with news companies.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/australias-treasurer-says-facebook-was-wrong-to-block-news-content.html

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

More false narrative from the fake news King.

When and where have I celebrated Rush Limbaugh? 

You have posted his words as if you follow him:

https://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/430724-left-vs-right-right-vs-left/?do=findComment&comment=1745922

https://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/416839-trump-2020-continues-/?do=findComment&comment=1698804

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.