11 months without politics (2 Viewers)

[JAA]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

Understood. From your perspective, who else tells it like it is that you would encourage me to check out?

 

[belljr]

The PSF turned into whatabouts and gotchas...

Like information/thoughts/views/ feelings can't change over time.

I'm much more empathetic now and less bro for sure

 

[titusbramble]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

Understood. From your perspective, who else tells it like it is that you would encourage me to check out?

Explore yourself. Find your own truth. Look at lots of options, research what they are saying and implying, work out who is saying what you think needs to be said. Pick a subject that's important to you, go on a dive as to who is discussing and researching it. Question everything.

 

[JAA]

Can't see this thread lasting if it stays on current topic. Let it go.

Not my forum and not my rules, but eliminating the PSF really watered things down IMO. My reaction is meh. I don't miss the trolling or the whining, but it was a great place for up to date information and viewpoints. It's a lot more boring around here now, which was probably the intended result.

I agree. While I did engage in some banter, I also found it easy to just scroll past a number of trolling posts. Just let it go.

 

[JAA]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

Understood. From your perspective, who else tells it like it is that you would encourage me to check out?

Explore yourself. Find your own truth. Look at lots of options, research what they are saying and implying, work out who is saying what you think needs to be said. Pick a subject that's important to you, go on a dive as to who is discussing and researching it. Question everything.

Im asking you, I want your opinion. I asked for unbiased news sources and you gave me one. Im asking for 2-3 more, that is all.

 

[djmich]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

Understood. From your perspective, who else tells it like it is that you would encourage me to check out?

I consider myself moderate (I find myself agreeing with Bill Clinton and circa 1990 dems a lot, considered well right of moderate today lol). I tend to like independents that are not pure social media phenoms. They often used to be employed by a major news outlet or have some other full time job. They often used to be Dems are now more center. Some examples to check out:

@friedberg, @coldxman, @mtracey, @JonHaidt, @chamath, @JohnHMcWhorter, @micsolana, @ggreenwald, @JonahDispatch, @neontaster, @wil_da_beast630, @kmele, @tracewoodgrains

Used to follow Matt Yglesias but he trolls too much for me lol. Also, you are asking for unbiased sources. Almost all of these people are opinion based writers using current events...I expect their opinion and there is almost always two sides of an argument...so bias is always inherent. For the record, I often don't agree with the takes from these follows. Would be interested in other follows that people would recommend please.

 

[titusbramble]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

Understood. From your perspective, who else tells it like it is that you would encourage me to check out?

Explore yourself. Find your own truth. Look at lots of options, research what they are saying and implying, work out who is saying what you think needs to be said. Pick a subject that's important to you, go on a dive as to who is discussing and researching it. Question everything.

Im asking you, I want your opinion. I asked for unbiased news sources and you gave me one.

Yes. I gave you one. X. Find what you like, not what I like. I do not know nor care what subjects are important to you, and I won't spoon-feed you accounts that I feel are interesting. Do your own research, which you frankly should have been doing in a pre-social media era rather than taking anything that is presented as gospel

 

[the moops]

Do your own research,

I prefer the experts do the research and I read their findings

 

[JAA]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

Understood. From your perspective, who else tells it like it is that you would encourage me to check out?

Explore yourself. Find your own truth. Look at lots of options, research what they are saying and implying, work out who is saying what you think needs to be said. Pick a subject that's important to you, go on a dive as to who is discussing and researching it. Question everything.

Im asking you, I want your opinion. I asked for unbiased news sources and you gave me one.

Yes. I gave you one. X. Find what you like, not what I like. I do not know nor care what subjects are important to you, and I won't spoon-feed you accounts that I feel are interesting. Do your own research, which you frankly should have been doing in a pre-social media era rather than taking anything that is presented as gospel

Thank you for the reply ... not sure why my entire comment got cut off.

Im asking you because I have already done what you have asked for. Im seeking guidance outside my sphere of understanding. If I was satisfied with my own research I would not be asking for help.

 

[djmich]

Do your own research,

I prefer the experts do the research and I read their findings

Which experts do you routinely rely upon?

 

[titusbramble]

Do your own research,

I prefer the experts do the research and I read their findings

If only there was an emoji which could describe my thoughts about this post

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

Understood. From your perspective, who else tells it like it is that you would encourage me to check out?

I consider myself moderate (I find myself agreeing with Bill Clinton and circa 1990 dems a lot, considered well right of moderate today lol). I tend to like independents that are not pure social media phenoms. They often used to be employed by a major news outlet or have some other full time job. They often used to be Dems are now more center. Some examples to check out:

@friedberg, @coldxman, @mtracey, @JonHaidt, @chamath, @JohnHMcWhorter, @micsolana, @ggreenwald, @JonahDispatch, @neontaster, @wil_da_beast630, @kmele, @tracewoodgrains

Used to follow Matt Yglesias but he trolls too much for me lol. Also, you are asking for unbiased sources. Almost all of these people are opinion based writers using current events...I expect their opinion and there is almost always two sides of an argument...so bias is always inherent. For the record, I often don't agree with the takes from these follows. Would be interested in other follows that people would recommend please.

Haha, a few of those are among my favorite accounts. Not gonna say which ones, and I'm fairly certain people would not guess.

I really like Yglesias, Noah Smith, and guys like that. Except that for the past six months or so, they've really just been electioneering. I don't mind that, and I haven't unfollowed them, but it's kind of disappointing. They provide very good, wonky commentary most of the time, but at the end of the day, they're doing politics, and it lessens my enjoyment of their accounts to know that they're not really being straight with me. @daveweigel is another one in the same boat, although he's always a little more partisan. Maybe @ArmandDoma too but now we're pushing it.

Two left-of-center accounts that I like are @dilanesper (law and other stuff) and @tyler_a_harper (academia). Those guys are both scouts, not warriors.

(Mods: I understand that this post is possibly over the line. I'm trying to stay on the right side of the line by highlighting accounts that don't share my personal worldview and by not evaluating right-of-center accounts. Just explaining my thought process).

 

[titusbramble]

Thank you for the reply ... not sure why my entire comment got cut off.

Because I only quoted the relevant bits rather than continue a wall of text.

 

[Psychopav]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

Understood. From your perspective, who else tells it like it is that you would encourage me to check out?

Explore yourself. Find your own truth. Look at lots of options, research what they are saying and implying, work out who is saying what you think needs to be said. Pick a subject that's important to you, go on a dive as to who is discussing and researching it. Question everything.

Im asking you, I want your opinion. I asked for unbiased news sources and you gave me one.

Yes. I gave you one. X. Find what you like, not what I like. I do not know nor care what subjects are important to you, and I won't spoon-feed you accounts that I feel are interesting. Do your own research, which you frankly should have been doing in a pre-social media era rather than taking anything that is presented as gospel

Thank you for the reply ... not sure why my entire comment got cut off.

Im asking you because I have already done what you have asked for. Im seeking guidance outside my sphere of understanding. If I was satisfied with my own research I would not be asking for help.

https://join1440.com/

 

[djmich]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

Understood. From your perspective, who else tells it like it is that you would encourage me to check out?

I consider myself moderate (I find myself agreeing with Bill Clinton and circa 1990 dems a lot, considered well right of moderate today lol). I tend to like independents that are not pure social media phenoms. They often used to be employed by a major news outlet or have some other full time job. They often used to be Dems are now more center. Some examples to check out:

@friedberg, @coldxman, @mtracey, @JonHaidt, @chamath, @JohnHMcWhorter, @micsolana, @ggreenwald, @JonahDispatch, @neontaster, @wil_da_beast630, @kmele, @tracewoodgrains

Used to follow Matt Yglesias but he trolls too much for me lol. Also, you are asking for unbiased sources. Almost all of these people are opinion based writers using current events...I expect their opinion and there is almost always two sides of an argument...so bias is always inherent. For the record, I often don't agree with the takes from these follows. Would be interested in other follows that people would recommend please.

Haha, a few of those are among my favorite accounts. Not gonna say which ones, and I'm fairly certain people would not guess.

I really like Yglesias, Noah Smith, and guys like that. Except that for the past six months or so, they've really just been electioneering. I don't mind that, and I haven't unfollowed them, but it's kind of disappointing. They provide very good, wonky commentary most of the time, but at the end of the day, they're doing politics, and it lessens my enjoyment of their accounts to know that they're not really being straight with me. @daveweigel is another one in the same boat, although he's always a little more partisan. Maybe @ArmandDoma too but now we're pushing it.

Two left-of-center accounts that I like are @dilanesper (law and other stuff) and @tyler_a_harper (academia). Those guys are both scouts, not warriors.

(Mods: I understand that this post is possibly over the line. I'm trying to stay on the right side of the line by highlighting accounts that don't share my personal worldview and by not evaluating right-of-center accounts. Just explaining my thought process).

Tyler Harper shows up in my feed a lot, often don't agree but he has some good takes and most important to me he's reasonable. Agree on Yglesias and for the same reason I stopped following Noah Smith as well, although Yglesias will show up in my feed (I may have muted Noah lol).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

Yes. The point is that with independent, individual reporting, they have no bias dictated to from above, and anything that is said can be freely challenged and debated and, if found to be clear bollocks, community noted. Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

Understood. From your perspective, who else tells it like it is that you would encourage me to check out?

I consider myself moderate (I find myself agreeing with Bill Clinton and circa 1990 dems a lot, considered well right of moderate today lol). I tend to like independents that are not pure social media phenoms. They often used to be employed by a major news outlet or have some other full time job. They often used to be Dems are now more center. Some examples to check out:

@friedberg, @coldxman, @mtracey, @JonHaidt, @chamath, @JohnHMcWhorter, @micsolana, @ggreenwald, @JonahDispatch, @neontaster, @wil_da_beast630, @kmele, @tracewoodgrains

Used to follow Matt Yglesias but he trolls too much for me lol. Also, you are asking for unbiased sources. Almost all of these people are opinion based writers using current events...I expect their opinion and there is almost always two sides of an argument...so bias is always inherent. For the record, I often don't agree with the takes from these follows. Would be interested in other follows that people would recommend please.

Haha, a few of those are among my favorite accounts. Not gonna say which ones, and I'm fairly certain people would not guess.

I really like Yglesias, Noah Smith, and guys like that. Except that for the past six months or so, they've really just been electioneering. I don't mind that, and I haven't unfollowed them, but it's kind of disappointing. They provide very good, wonky commentary most of the time, but at the end of the day, they're doing politics, and it lessens my enjoyment of their accounts to know that they're not really being straight with me. @daveweigel is another one in the same boat, although he's always a little more partisan. Maybe @ArmandDoma too but now we're pushing it.

Two left-of-center accounts that I like are @dilanesper (law and other stuff) and @tyler_a_harper (academia). Those guys are both scouts, not warriors.

(Mods: I understand that this post is possibly over the line. I'm trying to stay on the right side of the line by highlighting accounts that don't share my personal worldview and by not evaluating right-of-center accounts. Just explaining my thought process).

Tyler Harper shows up in my feed a lot, often don't agree but he has some good takes and most important to me he's reasonable. Agree on Yglesias and for the same reason I stopped following Noah Smith as well, although Yglesias will show up in my feed (I may have muted Noah lol).

If you haven't read Tyler's article about "wetsuiting" in The Atlantic, I implore you to do so. Great article.

 

[Eephus]

If you haven't read Tyler's article about "wetsuiting" in The Atlantic, I implore you to do so. Great article.

The ocean or the magazine?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you haven't read Tyler's article about "wetsuiting" in The Atlantic, I implore you to do so. Great article.

The ocean or the magazine?

I meant the magazine, but both I think. It was horrifying but it was also something that I related to in a very diagonal way.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Because we have a familiarity with one another here.

But you can get that with other places.

It's the same way new people can join the FFA and fit in. Takes a little bit to know people but if you care, you can soon know your way around.

I'm sure there are good forums to do the same thing with for politics.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

 

[the moops]

Do your own research,

I prefer the experts do the research and I read their findings

Which experts do you routinely rely upon?

Depends on the topic. Not going to go down this road though. I will leave it at my statement

 

[eoMMan]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

 

[opensourcebeer]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

The "why" is control.

The mechanism is media. Here's a couple of examples, both from the left and the right.

Stephen Colbert, through the Colbert Report, spent 4 nights a week for 9 years dunking on conservatives nationwide. It helped to normalize the idea that it's fine to make fun of anybody that doesn't share your political view.

Rush Limbaugh, through his daily 3 hour nationally syndicated radio show, spent 33 years vilifying liberal ideas. It helped to normalize the idea that there is a "us vs them" within our country.

Our country has been on its current path for a while now and I don't have optimism about our future. I do know that consuming less media , including social media, and being more critically minded about what I do consume has been a life improvement for me.

 

[eoMMan]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

The "why" is control.

The mechanism is media. Here's a couple of examples, both from the left and the right.

Stephen Colbert, through the Colbert Report, spent 4 nights a week for 9 years dunking on conservatives nationwide. It helped to normalize the idea that it's fine to make fun of anybody that doesn't share your political view.

Rush Limbaugh, through his daily 3 hour nationally syndicated radio show, spent 33 years vilifying liberal ideas. It helped to normalize the idea that there is a "us vs them" within our country.

Our country has been on its current path for a while now and I don't have optimism about our future. I do know that consuming less media , including social media, and being more critically minded about what I do consume has been a life improvement for me.

But there was a time when both sides got along relatively peacefully. Think back to the times of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. It really wasn’t that long ago. We can get there but it’s to the people.

And yes, media of all forms (especially social media) has amplified the divide.

 

[opensourcebeer]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

The "why" is control.

The mechanism is media. Here's a couple of examples, both from the left and the right.

Stephen Colbert, through the Colbert Report, spent 4 nights a week for 9 years dunking on conservatives nationwide. It helped to normalize the idea that it's fine to make fun of anybody that doesn't share your political view.

Rush Limbaugh, through his daily 3 hour nationally syndicated radio show, spent 33 years vilifying liberal ideas. It helped to normalize the idea that there is a "us vs them" within our country.

Our country has been on its current path for a while now and I don't have optimism about our future. I do know that consuming less media , including social media, and being more critically minded about what I do consume has been a life improvement for me.

But there was a time when both sides got along relatively peacefully. Think back to the times of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. It really wasn’t that long ago. We can get there but it’s to the people.

And yes, media of all forms (especially social media) has amplified the divide.

Sometimes it feels like we've been weaponized against each other.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

How do I get on that text thread and promise to remain silent?
Joke but I bet you all have some great conversations
If I had ownership in this site I would not entertain a lot of political talk, it's just not good business
People flock here from all walks of life and they mostly just want to discuss FF and NFL

I've always had great admiration for JB the Mayor and that's how I view Joe
You might not always agree with him, it would be odd if you did
But he's fair and he tries to do what is right by his moral compass which points 12 o'clock North just in case you weren't clear
MoP's points at about 11:50

I still dislike the inability to not use the laugh emoji like we use to FTR but I feel like I might have been a witness to the exchange that prompted that move (Shark Pool- I know who it was)
I've been very very quiet about it out of respect for everyone but it was awfully convenient when we could click the laugh button

The Sharks you
How many message boards survive 25 years?

 

[kupcho1]

I have no interest in seeing a resurrection of the PSF.

A new forum for Religion though, that would be very welcome if you could set that up. Unless of course the objective of religious threads is to proselytize, in which case, those posters would simply ignore it and keep posting in the FFA.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

The "why" is control.

The mechanism is media. Here's a couple of examples, both from the left and the right.

Stephen Colbert, through the Colbert Report, spent 4 nights a week for 9 years dunking on conservatives nationwide. It helped to normalize the idea that it's fine to make fun of anybody that doesn't share your political view.

Rush Limbaugh, through his daily 3 hour nationally syndicated radio show, spent 33 years vilifying liberal ideas. It helped to normalize the idea that there is a "us vs them" within our country.

Our country has been on its current path for a while now and I don't have optimism about our future. I do know that consuming less media , including social media, and being more critically minded about what I do consume has been a life improvement for me.

But there was a time when both sides got along relatively peacefully. Think back to the times of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. It really wasn’t that long ago. We can get there but it’s to the people.

And yes, media of all forms (especially social media) has amplified the divide.

The candidates got along peacefully. But people's nostalgia is getting the better of them here. There has always been a not small contingent of people that think of the other side as pure evil. Go back and read some of the rhetoric of the Nixon years from both sides. And that was without social media. Add that in and it would have been chaos.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

It has to stop. This country was much better when we got ticked off once every 2 or 4 years, getting it off our chest and then moving on with our lives. Now I'm a heartless piece of crap if I'm not on your team. The 10-20% of the fringe are dividing the 80% of us in the middle. I'm tired of politics, I'm glad it's gone.

10-80-10 would be nice, but I really think it’s closer to 50-50. I’ve personally lost at least 50% of my family & friends due to the recent political division in this country. There’s just no way to talk to the “other side” these days. I really wish there was as I think we have more in common than we realize. Siloed media is the real problem

This is surprising to me. How many total friend & family relationships have suffered from political differences?

I haven’t lost a single friend/family due to politics. I mean, I can quickly tell those who hold different world views, and it’s not difficult to avoid political conversation, or change the topic.

You don't have the sort of personality that excommunicates a relative because they vote for the wrong person. Neither do I.

That said, it does happen. My BIL hasn't been on speaking terms with his dad since 2016, which strikes me as absolutely insane and the kind of thing that is going lead to a lifetime of regret for my BIL. But he's always been like this and it's in character for him. Some people just seek out drama.

I’m totally excommunicating people from my life when they “vote for the wrong person.”

That makes it sound way more innocuous than it really is. I like to surround myself with people that make me a better person. Voting for he-who-must-not-be-named is a deal breaker.

 

[Sand]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

Megyn Kelly.

 

[MAC_32]

Because we have a familiarity with one another here.

That’s the reason not to have politics here. Why learn to hate people you like. Go to Reddit and argue with some anonymous 20 year old incels.

I value healthy conflict much more than...that

 

[jhib]

In the wise words of a great American thinker, "There are three things I've learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin."

 

[steelerfan1]

Although I didn’t post but a handful of times in it, it is where I went for all of my news, as I try to stay off the grid otherwise, so I do miss it. I get why Joe closed it though. Country is way too divided now to discuss this topic civilly.

My neighbor caught me putting the trash down lastnight and I kind of cringed as he loves politics. It went good for the first 15 or so minutes of our talk and I thought I dodged a bullet, but didn’t get so lucky. When I told him I went the opposite direction that he did, his face became red, eyes and veins bulged and I spent another 30 minutes in the yard listening to a tirade. I like our neighbors and think they are good people and told him as such, but we just aren’t going to agree on this subject, so it did end more decently than where it started, but the times are too hostile between sides with a lot of people I have seen, so I doubt it would be any different here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I have no interest in seeing a resurrection of the PSF.

A new forum for Religion though, that would be very welcome if you could set that up. Unless of course the objective of religious threads is to proselytize, in which case, those posters would simply ignore it and keep posting in the FFA.

Thanks. I could be wrong and maybe have missed it but I don't see a ton of proselytizing in the threads. Seems like more discussion.

To be fair, I think it's a real point to ask if Christians (or people of other faiths) SHOULD do more evangelism and trying to get more people to follow Jesus. That's a pretty clear instruction in our Bible. That could be an interesting thread maybe at some point.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

The "why" is control.

The mechanism is media. Here's a couple of examples, both from the left and the right.

Stephen Colbert, through the Colbert Report, spent 4 nights a week for 9 years dunking on conservatives nationwide. It helped to normalize the idea that it's fine to make fun of anybody that doesn't share your political view.

Rush Limbaugh, through his daily 3 hour nationally syndicated radio show, spent 33 years vilifying liberal ideas. It helped to normalize the idea that there is a "us vs them" within our country.

Our country has been on its current path for a while now and I don't have optimism about our future. I do know that consuming less media , including social media, and being more critically minded about what I do consume has been a life improvement for me.

But there was a time when both sides got along relatively peacefully. Think back to the times of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. It really wasn’t that long ago. We can get there but it’s to the people.

And yes, media of all forms (especially social media) has amplified the divide.

The candidates got along peacefully. But people's nostalgia is getting the better of them here. There has always been a not small contingent of people that think of the other side as pure evil. Go back and read some of the rhetoric of the Nixon years from both sides. And that was without social media. Add that in and it would have been chaos.

That's a good point and a good question. I'm sure you're right and there was some of that in the past. Especially surrounding the Vietnam War I'd guess.

But it does seem like in my lifetime, the "people who don't agree with don't just have a different opinion but are evil" has become much more prevalent in the last 15 years.

My hope, likely naive, is that it can go back to where it was.

And my feeling is that's connected to social media and regular media and the way we communicate today. Which is of course not going back anywhere.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

I get what you are saying here, but I think the bolded is very telling. You have a long history with them and it's still a cautious conversation.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

The "why" is control.

The mechanism is media. Here's a couple of examples, both from the left and the right.

Stephen Colbert, through the Colbert Report, spent 4 nights a week for 9 years dunking on conservatives nationwide. It helped to normalize the idea that it's fine to make fun of anybody that doesn't share your political view.

Rush Limbaugh, through his daily 3 hour nationally syndicated radio show, spent 33 years vilifying liberal ideas. It helped to normalize the idea that there is a "us vs them" within our country.

Our country has been on its current path for a while now and I don't have optimism about our future. I do know that consuming less media , including social media, and being more critically minded about what I do consume has been a life improvement for me.

But there was a time when both sides got along relatively peacefully. Think back to the times of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. It really wasn’t that long ago. We can get there but it’s to the people.

And yes, media of all forms (especially social media) has amplified the divide.

The candidates got along peacefully. But people's nostalgia is getting the better of them here. There has always been a not small contingent of people that think of the other side as pure evil. Go back and read some of the rhetoric of the Nixon years from both sides. And that was without social media. Add that in and it would have been chaos.

That's a good point and a good question. I'm sure you're right and there was some of that in the past. Especially surrounding the Vietnam War I'd guess.

But it does seem like in my lifetime, the "people who don't agree with don't just have a different opinion but are evil" has become much more prevalent in the last 15 years.

My hope, likely naive, is that it can go back to where it was.

And my feeling is that's connected to social media and regular media and the way we communicate today. Which is of course not going back anywhere.

I'm hopeful as well that things can go back to some level of civility. Agree that the media dynamic isn't going to save us, but maybe it'll get better when the guy who has broken all rules of decorum and decency goes away.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

The "why" is control.

The mechanism is media. Here's a couple of examples, both from the left and the right.

Stephen Colbert, through the Colbert Report, spent 4 nights a week for 9 years dunking on conservatives nationwide. It helped to normalize the idea that it's fine to make fun of anybody that doesn't share your political view.

Rush Limbaugh, through his daily 3 hour nationally syndicated radio show, spent 33 years vilifying liberal ideas. It helped to normalize the idea that there is a "us vs them" within our country.

Our country has been on its current path for a while now and I don't have optimism about our future. I do know that consuming less media , including social media, and being more critically minded about what I do consume has been a life improvement for me.

But there was a time when both sides got along relatively peacefully. Think back to the times of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. It really wasn’t that long ago. We can get there but it’s to the people.

And yes, media of all forms (especially social media) has amplified the divide.

What I think happened is a dangerous mix of that social media that has been brought up along with us becoming more and more isolated. It goes along with kids not out playing, decrease in groups like church or others, working from home, and even when we are in contact with other people we are likely to have earbuds in or are on our phones. Then while we are on our phones we get fed videos and thoughts of the most vocal, and often the worst of us.

The less we can look at each other and see the commonalities, the faster the division accelerates.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It has to stop. This country was much better when we got ticked off once every 2 or 4 years, getting it off our chest and then moving on with our lives. Now I'm a heartless piece of crap if I'm not on your team. The 10-20% of the fringe are dividing the 80% of us in the middle. I'm tired of politics, I'm glad it's gone.

10-80-10 would be nice, but I really think it’s closer to 50-50. I’ve personally lost at least 50% of my family & friends due to the recent political division in this country. There’s just no way to talk to the “other side” these days. I really wish there was as I think we have more in common than we realize. Siloed media is the real problem

This is surprising to me. How many total friend & family relationships have suffered from political differences?

I haven’t lost a single friend/family due to politics. I mean, I can quickly tell those who hold different world views, and it’s not difficult to avoid political conversation, or change the topic.

You don't have the sort of personality that excommunicates a relative because they vote for the wrong person. Neither do I.

That said, it does happen. My BIL hasn't been on speaking terms with his dad since 2016, which strikes me as absolutely insane and the kind of thing that is going lead to a lifetime of regret for my BIL. But he's always been like this and it's in character for him. Some people just seek out drama.

I’m totally excommunicating people from my life when they “vote for the wrong person.”

That makes it sound way more innocuous than it really is. I like to surround myself with people that make me a better person. Voting for he-who-must-not-be-named is a deal breaker.

Thank you. This is very clarifying.

 

[Todem]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

The "why" is control.

The mechanism is media. Here's a couple of examples, both from the left and the right.

Stephen Colbert, through the Colbert Report, spent 4 nights a week for 9 years dunking on conservatives nationwide. It helped to normalize the idea that it's fine to make fun of anybody that doesn't share your political view.

Rush Limbaugh, through his daily 3 hour nationally syndicated radio show, spent 33 years vilifying liberal ideas. It helped to normalize the idea that there is a "us vs them" within our country.

Our country has been on its current path for a while now and I don't have optimism about our future. I do know that consuming less media , including social media, and being more critically minded about what I do consume has been a life improvement for me.

But there was a time when both sides got along relatively peacefully. Think back to the times of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. It really wasn’t that long ago. We can get there but it’s to the people.

And yes, media of all forms (especially social media) has amplified the divide.

The candidates got along peacefully. But people's nostalgia is getting the better of them here. There has always been a not small contingent of people that think of the other side as pure evil. Go back and read some of the rhetoric of the Nixon years from both sides. And that was without social media. Add that in and it would have been chaos.

That's a good point and a good question. I'm sure you're right and there was some of that in the past. Especially surrounding the Vietnam War I'd guess.

But it does seem like in my lifetime, the "people who don't agree with don't just have a different opinion but are evil" has become much more prevalent in the last 15 years.

My hope, likely naive, is that it can go back to where it was.

And my feeling is that's connected to social media and regular media and the way we communicate today. Which is of course not going back anywhere.

I'm hopeful as well that things can go back to some level of civility. Agree that the media dynamic isn't going to save us, but maybe it'll get better when the guy who has broken all rules of decorum and decency goes away.

Your last two posts are exactly the reason….literally exactly why the PFS is extinct.

Stop gaslighting. People have choices, people can support who they want. If you don’t agree that’s ok. Move along.

But seriously stop it man. It’s just not cool. And this is coming from someone who is not happy with either choice…..but as a country this is what we have……a choice. If you want to excommunicate people who don’t fall in line on “your side” wonderful….it’s your life.

But bringing that hostility and misery in here is simply not cool.

So happy the PSF is gone. And this is the reason. It was really divisive and made it very difficult in almost every thread.

Because people can’t help themselves.

You want decency and civility. And so do most of us. So cut out the stinky bait and move on.

Peace.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

No. That's exactly how it works. That's how twitter works. That's how facebook/instagram works. That's how tik tok works. That's how youtube works. The algos are suffocating facts and reality. The best (maybe saddest?) part is the people who think they have it figured out and somehow aren't susceptible to those algos. They are often times further gone than some of the loons.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

I get what you are saying here, but I think the bolded is very telling. You have a long history with them and it's still a cautious conversation.

I agree with you @KarmaPolice. I think that's telling too.

These are some of my best friends for 20+ years. And I have to be cautious and careful. That's remarkable. But true.

On the flip side, it's incredibly valuable. I have a much better understanding I think of the bigger picture by having real conversations with people with diverse opinions on the topic. And that's helpful. And something I'd encourage folks to do as strongly as I possibly can.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

No. That's exactly how it works. That's how twitter works. That's how facebook/instagram works. That's how tik tok works. That's how youtube works. The algos are suffocating facts and reality. The best (maybe saddest?) part is the people who think they have it figured out and somehow aren't susceptible to those algos. They are often times further gone than some of the loons.

Yes. It's why it's so important to be self aware and constantly ask yourself about the "media diet" you're consuming.

And why I so much prefer in person interaction on this when possible.

For the algorithms, I think of it a little differently. It's not necessarily suffocating facts, as it is serving up content the reader will click on. Maybe they click because they like it and agree. Maybe they click because they're mad and can't believe it. The platforms don't really care why. They just want you to click and stay engaged.

In that sense, the content that's served up may or may not be factual. But it'll definitely be something they think gives them the best chance of keeping the user on the platform.

That's their job.

The danger is they are VERY good at their job.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

The "why" is control.

The mechanism is media. Here's a couple of examples, both from the left and the right.

Stephen Colbert, through the Colbert Report, spent 4 nights a week for 9 years dunking on conservatives nationwide. It helped to normalize the idea that it's fine to make fun of anybody that doesn't share your political view.

Rush Limbaugh, through his daily 3 hour nationally syndicated radio show, spent 33 years vilifying liberal ideas. It helped to normalize the idea that there is a "us vs them" within our country.

Our country has been on its current path for a while now and I don't have optimism about our future. I do know that consuming less media , including social media, and being more critically minded about what I do consume has been a life improvement for me.

But there was a time when both sides got along relatively peacefully. Think back to the times of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. It really wasn’t that long ago. We can get there but it’s to the people.

And yes, media of all forms (especially social media) has amplified the divide.

Sometimes it feels like we've been weaponized against each other.

Sometimes? I know I haven't been around as long as most of you (here or in life in general) but this has been the case for as long as I can remember. My dad says you have to go back to the 70s to find any semblance of unity from the electorate. He suggests that this all really started with Newt Gingrich with Limbaugh picking it up pretty quickly and throwing it on talk radio back 40 years ago. I can't speak with any certainty on the subject other than to say its been this way my whole life.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'd also encourage as much as possible to seek out real life friends for this.

I have several text group chats where we can cautiously talk politics. I have a very long history with these friends and they know me and trust me. The range is from adamantly strong on both sides of the aisle and some in between. It's a healthy discussion that I've found to be invaluable. But it takes work to find it. And work to maintain it.

Tried this and a military member in our fantasy football immediately wanted no politics in our group chat. Someone made an innocent joke about ranking Harris and Trump along with football players and he got all bent out of shape. He was only here “to talk football with his boys”.

Horrible how divided this country has become and how far some people have gone with their views.

It was definitely more cordial 15 years ago. I wonder why.

The "why" is control.

The mechanism is media. Here's a couple of examples, both from the left and the right.

Stephen Colbert, through the Colbert Report, spent 4 nights a week for 9 years dunking on conservatives nationwide. It helped to normalize the idea that it's fine to make fun of anybody that doesn't share your political view.

Rush Limbaugh, through his daily 3 hour nationally syndicated radio show, spent 33 years vilifying liberal ideas. It helped to normalize the idea that there is a "us vs them" within our country.

Our country has been on its current path for a while now and I don't have optimism about our future. I do know that consuming less media , including social media, and being more critically minded about what I do consume has been a life improvement for me.

But there was a time when both sides got along relatively peacefully. Think back to the times of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. It really wasn’t that long ago. We can get there but it’s to the people.

And yes, media of all forms (especially social media) has amplified the divide.

What I think happened is a dangerous mix of that social media that has been brought up along with us becoming more and more isolated. It goes along with kids not out playing, decrease in groups like church or others, working from home, and even when we are in contact with other people we are likely to have earbuds in or are on our phones. Then while we are on our phones we get fed videos and thoughts of the most vocal, and often the worst of us.

The less we can look at each other and see the commonalities, the faster the division accelerates.

Yes. I think there's a lot of truth in this.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

No. That's exactly how it works. That's how twitter works. That's how facebook/instagram works. That's how tik tok works. That's how youtube works. The algos are suffocating facts and reality. The best (maybe saddest?) part is the people who think they have it figured out and somehow aren't susceptible to those algos. They are often times further gone than some of the loons.

Yes. It's why it's so important to be self aware and constantly ask yourself about the "media diet" you're consuming.

And why I so much prefer in person interaction on this when possible.

For the algorithms, I think of it a little differently. It's not necessarily suffocating facts, as it is serving up content the reader will click on. Maybe they click because they like it and agree. Maybe they click because they're mad and can't believe it. The platforms don't really care why. They just want you to click and stay engaged.

In that sense, the content that's served up may or may not be factual. But it'll definitely be something they think gives them the best chance of keeping the user on the platform.

That's their job.

The danger is they are VERY good at their job.

I'm guessing you haven't read the studies on this subject all that much? I don't disagree with your framing of what the algos do and why they do them, but it is crystal clear that a result of that is the suffocation of fact. It might not be what the stated goal is of writing the algos. Going down that path to try and get in the minds of the decision makers is a losing battle every time. But it is DEFINITELY a result.

The other thing I see, which has never made sense to me is this notion that because I consume both Fox and MSNBC, then somehow I'm being "balanced". No, you're not. You're just consuming the fringes of either side. Why anyone would actively do that and think its a positive is beyond me. When I was a kid, I didn't have the phones. I didn't have the SM accounts. Parents wouldn't let me have them. At the time I thought they were the worst. Now, I completely get it and am grateful they did what they did. This is one topic that I am in lockstep with them on now that I see what it's doing to society.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Ive worked really hard to find a panacea of unbiased news. Ive tried pure Reuters, The Economist, BBC, and blending CNN/FOX where I would read both to try and find the middle. All of those were failures. For me, the best place I have found is abcnews. They are not perfect, def left leaning, but I do find it easier to tune out some rhetoric.

Im open to hearing how others find their news.

X. Everything else is propaganda. Legacy media/news is dead, and they did it to themselves.

I have limited exposure on X, but I find it very echo-chambery. You follow individuals and these individuals have agendas. Am I being too cynical?

No. That's exactly how it works. That's how twitter works. That's how facebook/instagram works. That's how tik tok works. That's how youtube works. The algos are suffocating facts and reality. The best (maybe saddest?) part is the people who think they have it figured out and somehow aren't susceptible to those algos. They are often times further gone than some of the loons.

Yes. It's why it's so important to be self aware and constantly ask yourself about the "media diet" you're consuming.

And why I so much prefer in person interaction on this when possible.

For the algorithms, I think of it a little differently. It's not necessarily suffocating facts, as it is serving up content the reader will click on. Maybe they click because they like it and agree. Maybe they click because they're mad and can't believe it. The platforms don't really care why. They just want you to click and stay engaged.

In that sense, the content that's served up may or may not be factual. But it'll definitely be something they think gives them the best chance of keeping the user on the platform.

That's their job.

The danger is they are VERY good at their job.

I'm guessing you haven't read the studies on this subject all that much? I don't disagree with your framing of what the algos do and why they do them, but it is crystal clear that a result of that is the suffocation of fact. It might not be what the stated goal is of writing the algos. Going down that path to try and get in the minds of the decision makers is a losing battle every time. But it is DEFINITELY a result.

The other thing I see, which has never made sense to me is this notion that because I consume both Fox and MSNBC, then somehow I'm being "balanced". No, you're not. You're just consuming the fringes of either side. Why anyone would actively do that and think its a positive is beyond me. When I was a kid, I didn't have the phones. I didn't have the SM accounts. Parents wouldn't let me have them. At the time I thought they were the worst. Now, I completely get it and am grateful they did what they did. This is one topic that I am in lockstep with them on now that I see what it's doing to society.

Thanks. You'd be guessing wrong there for me. But thanks.

It's an interesting situation, for sure.

 

[massraider]

Jon Stewart on Crossfire was almost 20 years ago. It is worse now, doesn't mean it was a civil exchange of ideas before that.

The way it used to be was you didn't discuss politics that much, it was a private matter. Certainly not with strangers. That's why there's a little curtain for privacy????

It has been quite common for bars to have a 'no politics' rule as long as I have been hanging around them, so that's 30 years.

So when exactly in history are people pining for?

 

[the moops]

Someone like Tucker Carlson clearly leans to one side of the political spectrum, but I'd say the only "agenda" he has is to tell things like it is, as opposed to what his network wants him to tell

You could probably find a better example

Megyn Kelly.

What exactly are we trying to find examples of with these two names?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Jon Stewart on Crossfire was almost 20 years ago. It is worse now, doesn't mean it was a civil exchange of ideas before that.

The way it used to be was you didn't discuss politics that much, it was a private matter. Certainly not with strangers. That's why there's a little curtain for privacy????

It has been quite common for bars to have a 'no politics' rule as long as I have been hanging around them, so that's 30 years.

So when exactly in history are people pining for?

I don't know that anyone is pining for anything. I think people are mostly saying we wish there could be less of the "the other side is evil". Which for some of us, feels like a relatively newer thing. Even in real life.