United States Politics Thread 47

[rotting bones]

As far as Venezuela is concerned, I'm a bit frustrated that there's so much more attention on Trump's own words and international reactions than on what's happening in Venezuela itself.

Last I heard, Maduro's successors promised to continue his legacy.

I'm not saying I will always believe Chinese media. I will read US media too. I'm just saying US media is currently less reliable than Chinese media.

Before Western media began justifying kidnapping, I had 5% faith in Western media and 3% faith in Chinese media. I still have 3% faith in Chinese media, but 2% faith in Western media.

See if you can identify the subtle difference between those statements.

The second one is an analogy, but it is intended to explain the first one.

How many of the major Western media outlets you know have a comparable attitude towards anyone or anything?

None. Their sources of bias are harder to identify.

Why are you complaining about crimes against Venezuela then? Clearly nothing happened in Venezuela this year so far.

1. If they managed to get me to have -100% faith in them. 2. I include Chinese media in the "world's mainstream media":

I would deny that America exists. It's just a bunch of people who got together to get high and commit genocide.

[rotting bones]

Making magic words the gold standard for right use of language is one of the most common forms of human silliness.

I would accept any equal standard to describe everyone. The alternative is bias that is more difficult to detect than the bias in Chinese media.

I know you're being sarcastic, but yes, it is.

No, I'm being serious this time.

Still, in that regard, copying circumstances in the USA, and certainly copying circumstances in most other Western countries, would be better than copying circumstance in China.

It is not possible to "copy circumstances". Western countries have better circumstances because they are rich. Wealth is not a value. It is an outcome of historical processes described in The Divide by Jason Hickel.

Who or what is "Ground News", and why should I care?

They are the media bias monitors everyone uses.

The standard there is very simple: "terrorist" is usually reserved for non-state actors and people pretending to be non-state actors.

Hamas is a state actor. They won the elections. Now the Taliban is also a state actor. Are they not terrorists anymore?

[Travis B.]

So in essence your demand is that either all media use the magic word 'terrorist' to refer to Trump or refuse to use 'terrorist' to refer to Hamas and the Taliban. If they don't they are irredeemably biased. Yeah.

[rotting bones]

Did you read any bit of the articles zompist referenced? Do you really think they were being kind to Trump? Or do you demand that they specifically use the T-word?

Any equal standard is acceptable. They could also choose to use the same moderated language for everyone. The alternative is pervasive bias that is hard to detect.

Language has real effects. The way this bias appears is that it's easy to search for articles on Hamas committing terrorist attacks. However, when the IDF kills civilians, the headlines only say "civilians killed by missile in Gaza cafe", making it difficult to find the articles.

Similarly, there was constant outrage when Hamas took hostages. But Israel detains Palestinians without cause all the time. This is simply not presented in the same way. It is difficult for readers to come to the conclusion that it's a similar crime from the other side until they put a lot of thought into it.

[zompist]

rotting bones, did you even check the sources of the articles that zompist referenced? I did, and (hidden to not spoil the surprise for those others here who may want to try themselves)

More: show

the only one that was not from a Western news source was from Aljazeera, and of the two that were from American news sources, both were quite mainstream.

Not quite right— one of them was China Daily.

[Lērisama]

Any equal standard is acceptable. They could also choose to use the same moderated language for everyone. The alternative is pervasive bias that is hard to detect.

So the bbc are fine then?

I know this is old, but I can't find the explainer the bbc wrote on exactly how they use the word terrorist because they make it absurdly hard to find old news articles.

[zompist]

"Western media" is more of an attractor than a term with a hard definition. It has core members like the NYT, fringe members like the Guardian and outgroups like Chinese media. When I say something about Western media, I mean to say it applies strongly to the core members, applies with qualifications to fringe members and doesn't necessarily apply to outgroups.

This is the motte-and-bailey rhetorical trick. You make absurd claims about "Western media", then when you're challenged you redefine "Western media" to mean the NYT. Or now, apparently, Western media includes China.

This is not how human language works, it's a shell game. Why you think it improves your credibility is beyond me. All you have to say is "I exaggerated because I was too agitated to state things clearly."

The irony is that your rhetoric completely obscures your outrage over Trump. Not a single person here has defended Trump's barbarism.

[rotting bones]

Not quite right— one of them was China Daily.

Right, this was a factor behind why I accepted Raphael's framing. I still think your framing was off.

[rotting bones]

This is the motte-and-bailey rhetorical trick. You make absurd claims about "Western media", then when you're challenged you redefine "Western media" to mean the NYT. Or now, apparently, Western media includes China.

It's not my opinion. Widely used bias monitors consider the Guardian to be a fringe source. I clarified my stance on them fairly early.

Prototype theory is mainstream. It only becomes controversial when I post an opinion.

This is not how human language works, it's a shell game. Why you think it improves your credibility is beyond me. All you have to say is "I exaggerated because I was too agitated to state things clearly."

Ramanujan famously calculated that the sum of all positive numbers is -1/12. This is not the normal sense in which humans use those words.

This is how language works.

[Travis B.]

Did you read any bit of the articles zompist referenced? Do you really think they were being kind to Trump? Or do you demand that they specifically use the T-word?

Any equal standard is acceptable. They could also choose to use the same moderated language for everyone. The alternative is pervasive bias that is hard to detect.

Your idea of "moderated language" seems to be centered around your idiosyncratic notions of what specific words you approve or disapprove of to refer to this or that.

The idea that the articles that zompist referenced are "moderated language" as you put it because they don't use the rotting bones-required magic words when denouncing Trump's actions is nonsensical.

Language has real effects. The way this bias appears is that it's easy to search for articles on Hamas committing terrorist attacks. However, when the IDF kills civilians, the headlines only say "missile kills civilians in Gaza cafe", making it difficult to find the articles.

Yeah, saying civilians were killed by a missile fired by the IDF is really an endorsement of the actions of the IDF.

The main terrorist attack that I see being referred to is the October 7th attack, and it was a terrorist attack in the sense that it was mass political violence outside of a war specifically targeting civilians who are not political figures as such for political purposes. To object to this characterization as 'biased' requires a certain understanding of the term 'bias' that seems idiosyncratic to people like yourself.

Similarly, there was constant outrage when Hamas took hostages. But Israel detains Palestinians without cause all the time. This is simply not presented in the same way. It is difficult for readers to come to the conclusion that it's a similar crime from the other side until they put a lot of thought into it.

Of course, the term 'hostage' has a specific meaning, and simply detaining people without cause is not it. If Israel tried to use people it had detained as leverage against the Palestinians (e.g. implied that they might execute them if the Palestinians resisted) then Israel's detention of Palestinians without cause would count as taking hostages, but as much as Israel's leadership is a bunch of génocidaires they did not do this.

[Travis B.]

rotting bones, did you even check the sources of the articles that zompist referenced? I did, and (hidden to not spoil the surprise for those others here who may want to try themselves)

More: show

the only one that was not from a Western news source was from Aljazeera, and of the two that were from American news sources, both were quite mainstream.

Not quite right— one of them was China Daily.

My bad.

[rotting bones]

Or now, apparently, Western media includes China.

If you're referring to the "world's mainstream media", that's a different term I used only once yesterday.

[Raphael]

Last I heard, Maduro's successors promised to continue his legacy.

Yes, stuff like that is precisely why I'm so curious to know more about who, exactly, at this very moment, is actually in a position to make any kind of promises in Venezuela.

I'm not saying I will always believe Chinese media. I will read US media too. I'm just saying US media is currently less reliable than Chinese media.

Before Western media began justifying kidnapping, I had 5% faith in Western media and 3% faith in Chinese media. I still have 3% faith in Chinese media, but 2% faith in Western media.

See if you can identify the subtle difference between those statements.

The second one is an analogy, but it is intended to explain the first one.

No, that's not the point I was trying to get at.

How many of the major Western media outlets you know have a comparable attitude towards anyone or anything?

None.

Not sure about that. The more decidedly right-wing US and UK outlets might qualify.

Their sources of bias are harder to identify.

Given that everyone is inevitably biased, less blatant biases are less bad than more blatant biases.

Why are you complaining about crimes against Venezuela then? Clearly nothing happened in Venezuela this year so far.

1. If they managed to get me to have -100% faith in them. 2. I include Chinese media in the "world's mainstream media":

I'm not sure if you got my point there. My point was that pretty much all of the world's mainstream media, and probably most non-mainstream sources as well, agree that some pretty big things happened in Venezuela over the last few days. And you claim that you now generally believe the opposite of everything they say. So by your own professed standards, you should assume that nothing of interest happened in Venezuela recently.

I would deny that America exists. It's just a bunch of people who got together to get high and commit genocide.

I think you yourself have pointed out in the past that nothing above the level of subatomic particles "really" exists. But abstractions for all kinds of things are still useful in many contexts. In this discussion, you yourself talked about "Maduro" being "abducted" from "Venezuela" by the "terrorist" "Trump". You didn't talk about a large number of subatomic particles somehow moving from one place to another place.

Wealth is not a value. It is an outcome of historical processes

Historical processes include ideas about values, their appearance and spread.

Who or what is "Ground News", and why should I care?

They are the media bias monitors everyone uses.

"Everyone"?

[rotting bones]

So the bbc are fine then?

I know this is old, but I can't find the explainer the bbc wrote on exactly how they use the word terrorist because they make it absurdly hard to find old news articles.

If they use identical language for Trump and Hamas, then I accept their policy on this matter. Now I only have an issue with the expert they brought on as it was happening. I posted a link.

[Raphael]

Of course, the term 'hostage' has a specific meaning, and simply detaining people without cause is not it. If Israel tried to use people it had detained as leverage against the Palestinians (e.g. implied that they might execute them if the Palestinians resisted) then Israel's detention of Palestinians without cause would count as taking hostages, but as much as Israel's leadership is a bunch of génocidaires they did not do this.

I do think that Israel has de facto taken the entire Palestinian population of Gaza hostage.

[rotting bones]

Yes, stuff like that is precisely why I'm so curious to know more about who, exactly, at this very moment, is actually in a position to make any kind of promises in Venezuela.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/venezu ... 026-01-04/

No, that's not the point I was trying to get at.

Then I don't know.

Not sure about that. The more decidedly right-wing US and UK outlets might qualify.

Do they? They do hate it if their overlords do good things by mistake.

Given that everyone is inevitably biased, less blatant biases are less bad than more blatant biases.

It depends. Like I said, blatant biases are easier to identify. On the other hand, blatantly biased sources leave out information you might be able to find in less biased sources with enough effort.

I'm not sure if you got my point there. My point was that pretty much all of the world's mainstream media, and probably most non-mainstream sources as well, agree that some pretty big things happened in Venezuela over the last few days. And you claim that you now generally believe the opposite of everything they say. So by your own professed standards, you should assume that nothing of interest happened in Venezuela recently.

If you look at the original language, I said: IF

I was implying that the world's mainstream media, the West's and China's, are in a race to the bottom, the bottom being -100%.

I think you yourself have pointed out in the past that nothing above the level of subatomic particles "really" exists. But abstractions for all kinds of things are still useful in many contexts. In this discussion, you yourself talked about "Maduro" being "abducted" from "Venezuela" by the "terrorist" "Trump". You didn't talk about a large number of subatomic particles somehow moving from one place to another place.

I would be ok with that framing if all actors were described in the same way.

Historical processes include ideas about values, their appearance and spread.

I'm actively promoting that framing for understanding how items move in the economy. Reducing the realm of desire to the movement of particles is a goal, but I don't have a complete model for it yet.

My issue with the way values are currently discussed is that I think it promotes genocidal behavior rather than uniting the oppressed people of the world (not just workers).

"Everyone"?

It is the most popular media bias monitor in the information ecosystem I'm familiar with.

[Ketsuban]

It's not my opinion. Widely used bias monitors consider the Guardian to be a fringe source.

[The Guardian] is considered a newspaper of record in the UK [… Its] readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion.

Ground News is a Canadian news aggregator which uses bias ratings from AllSides, MBFC and Ad Fontes Media, all of which are American. If it says the Guardian is a fringe left-wing source, I think that says more about the atrocious right-wing bias of American media than the Guardian.

(I also think rotting bones needs to be more concrete than "the West", given that the UK has been oscillating between membership and nonmembership of that category seemingly on a per-post basis. I was under the impression it was part of the West; did we accidentally leave it at the same time we left the European Union?)

[rotting bones]

Your idea of "moderated language" seems to be centered around your idiosyncratic notions of what specific words you approve or disapprove of to refer to this or that.

The idea that the articles that zompist referenced are "moderated language" as you put it because they don't use the rotting bones-required magic words when denouncing Trump's actions is nonsensical.

This lack of media literacy is the reason why I keep having to say things like: my opinions are grounded in scholarship.

Of course, the term 'hostage' has a specific meaning, and simply detaining people without cause is not it. If Israel tried to use people it had detained as leverage against the Palestinians (e.g. implied that they might execute them if the Palestinians resisted) then Israel's detention of Palestinians without cause would count as taking hostages, but as much as Israel's leadership is a bunch of génocidaires they did not do this.

Israel really does detain Palestinians as hostages. They say so explicitly.

[Raphael]

No, that's not the point I was trying to get at.

Then I don't know.

I was referring to the way you switched between "US media" and "Western media".

[rotting bones]

[The Guardian] is considered a newspaper of record in the UK [… Its] readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion.

The Hindu is a newspaper of record that's widely considered to be an anti-national fringe newspaper in India.

Ground News is a Canadian news aggregator which uses bias ratings from AllSides, MBFC and Ad Fontes Media, all of which are American. If it says the Guardian is a fringe left-wing source, I think that says more about the atrocious right-wing bias of American media than the Guardian.

I do trust the Guardian more than the media bias monitors.

(I also think rotting bones needs to be more concrete than "the West", given that the UK has been oscillating between membership and nonmembership of that category seemingly on a per-post basis. I was under the impression it was part of the West; did we accidentally leave it at the same time we left the European Union?)

I assumed that European countries were more or less on America's side since they gave Trump's far-right appointee Machado an award. But maybe "America" would be a better term than "the West". Or maybe the "America-Russia-China unipole" vs. whoever is still against it.