Introducing the "Disinformation Governance Board" (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

January 21, 3025

President Trump orders the closure of CNN, NYT, Washington Post, and MSNBC due to misinformation from 2017 - 2021 related to Russian interference stories.  

And I thought Biden was too old to hold office.  What is Trump in this hypothetical?  A vampire or something?

 

[sho nuff]

And I thought Biden was too old to hold office.  What is Trump in this hypothetical?  A vampire or something?

He isn't currently?

I kid, I kid.  Though, my daughter is obsessed with Twilight and the Vampire Diaries shows...a spoof with Biden and Trump would be pretty funny.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And I thought Biden was too old to hold office.  What is Trump in this hypothetical?  A vampire or something?

He didn’t say Donald Trump.  This is his great-great-great-great-great-grandkid.  (Add like another 30 greats for accuracy).

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I'd really like to see what this "governance board" actually is, and is charged with doing. But I have to say with the extremely limited information thus far, I would say "oh heck, and I can't stress this enough, heck no".

Like usual, they named it something completely dumb just like Democrats are want to do. 

January 21, 3025

President Trump orders the closure of CNN, NYT, Washington Post, and MSNBC due to misinformation from 2017 - 2021 related to Russian interference stories.  

Not sure if the irony is intentional, but that's exactly what Donald Trump does, and if you think he needs some poorly named board as an excuse to do it, that's even more priceless.

 

[knowledge dropper]

And I thought Biden was too old to hold office.  What is Trump in this hypothetical?  A vampire or something?

Wishful thinking I guess.  I pulled a Sho.  Thanks for pointing out my fat finger.  I fixed it. 

 

[GordonGekko]

I recommend you go see 2000 Mules 

Tim won't watch it but say he did and the only conclusion he will come to is that there will need to be immediate reparations for 80,000 acres.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Do you think misinformation is a new thing?  Like, it didn't exist 20 years ago? 

Of course not. I think the ability to access and amplify it have increased dramatically though.

 

[John123]

Of course not. I think the ability to access and amplify it have increased dramatically though.

I would disagree.  The MSM has been around a lot longer, and it was much more concentrated back then in a few outlets.  If ABC news wanted you to believe something you did.  Fortunately, there was a lot more ethics and boundaries adhered to by the MSM back then.  Now, MORE people have the ability to have a wider voice than back then.  A peon like me can go viral and have a lot of people exposed to MY information.  That's a good thing.  And we should embrace it, not silence it.  The answer to this issue is teaching critical thinking skills.  Unfortunately, our schools are dumbing people down and not teaching critical thinking skills.  Worse, they are NOT teaching kids tolerance and the ability to have a reasoned conversation with people who hold alternative viewpoints.  So, the answer is there, but we are not doing it. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

This honestly seems like a good thing to me. I mean, the election wasn’t stolen and millions still think it was. And that led directly to the January 6 riot. So let’s get the truth out there. 

With the government involved?  

 

[Possum]

While I don’t think it’s the government’s job, how do people suggest misinformation be combatted? Or is it just the price of free speech?

allowing people to have freedom means that sometimes bad stuff is going to happen, because human beings are imperfect. I'm not happy that humans do bad stuff but I don't want anyone controlling what I can and can't say, read, watch, hear, etc. either, so it's a price I'm willing to pay.

 

[knowledge dropper]

With the government involved?  

With Joe Biden involved?  

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Sure, but the thing about the Patriot Act is that it was an Act (ie it was enacted legislation). We could look at it and understand it and see what it did and did not authorize the federal government to do.

How about we wait until we can say the same about this thing before losing our collective minds about it? Especially since we've already established that conservative media seems to be misleading its consumers by omitting the information about the focus on Russian efforts and human trafficking at the border.

You could be factually right, of course. And expecting the current GOP and its media allies to act in good faith about anything these days is a waste of mental space. 

Having said that.... healthy skepticism and immediate opposition until they tell us more is probably a good thing when the government says, hey we are going to create this board/ committee/ panel within the larger defense and military apparatus of the nation to control, on some level, information that we think is bad. 

I mean.... its kinda the American way. And, my core conservatism coming out..... really, eff them.  Freedom of speech is just that. Teach your side better and get better leaders if you can't stand up to,  "Biden gives 10 reasons for eating children, you will never guess #7!!!!!!"

 

[unckeyherb]

While I don’t think it’s the government’s job, how do people suggest misinformation be combatted? Or is it just the price of free speech?

just the price of free speech

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

You could be factually right, of course. And expecting the current GOP and its media allies to act in good faith about anything these days is a waste of mental space. 

Having said that.... healthy skepticism and immediate opposition until they tell us more is probably a good thing when the government says, hey we are going to create this board/ committee/ panel within the larger defense and military apparatus of the nation to control, on some level, information that we think is bad. 

I mean.... its kinda the American way. And, my core conservatism coming out..... really, eff them.  Freedom of speech is just that. Teach your side better and get better leaders if you can't stand up to,  "Biden gives 10 reasons for eating children, you will never guess #7!!!!!!"

Except that's not all the government said. Informed skepticism is fine, irrational panic based on an incomplete version of the facts is not.

And continuing the irrational panic even after being presented with the more complete facts (as well as clear evidence that the people hid those facts from you in an effort to trigger said panic)?  That's ... well, not something I can accurately describe without fear of violating FBG board rules.

 

[jm192]

While I don’t think it’s the government’s job, how do people suggest misinformation be combatted? Or is it just the price of free speech?

We’ve dealt with misinformation since the beginning of time.  The government deciding what is and isn’t misinformation certainly seems like a dangerous game.  

 

[lod001]

Sadly most here voted for this clown show.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And continuing the irrational panic even after being presented with the more complete facts (as well as clear evidence that the people hid those facts from you in an effort to trigger said panic)?

Where have you been for the past 6 years?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would disagree.  The MSM has been around a lot longer, and it was much more concentrated back then in a few outlets.  If ABC news wanted you to believe something you did.  Fortunately, there was a lot more ethics and boundaries adhered to by the MSM back then.  Now, MORE people have the ability to have a wider voice than back then.  A peon like me can go viral and have a lot of people exposed to MY information.  That's a good thing.  And we should embrace it, not silence it.  The answer to this issue is teaching critical thinking skills.  Unfortunately, our schools are dumbing people down and not teaching critical thinking skills.  Worse, they are NOT teaching kids tolerance and the ability to have a reasoned conversation with people who hold alternative viewpoints.  So, the answer is there, but we are not doing it. 

You guys are both right.  

Prior to the internet, a reporter for a major network probably could have gotten away with running a politically-explosive story during an election year based on fabricated information.  Dan Rather tried that in 2004 and learned the hard way that you can't do that any more.  The internet is very, very good at spotting bias, error, and outright lies propagated by people in the media.  That's great.

The other side of that, though, is that the internet and especially social media allows people to curate little information bubbles of their own creation.  And it allows millions and millions of people to do so, most of who are incapable of governing their own lives, let alone anybody else's life.  Those people get weird ideas going, and we know that groups of like-minded people tend to make themselves more extreme over time when left to their own devices, and suddenly we end up with a whole gaggle of folks who think that a deep state of pedophiles is running the country behind the scenes, or something like that.  

People like me -- who are mostly absolutists on this topic -- should acknowledge that social media creates some issues that didn't exist in the olden days.  The solution definitely isn't censorship, and I'm open to the argument that no solution is even necessary, but it's not unreasonable for people to be concerned about the way information flows through our culture today.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Where have you been for the past 6 years?

Lotsa places! We can catch up some other time, though. Great to see you.

Wherever I was, I recall lots of panicking, both rational and irrational. Not sure what that has to do with what I said, though, especially since I sometimes was the one presenting the "more complete facts" to my own side to quell the panic.

 

[John123]

You guys are both right.  

Prior to the internet, a reporter for a major network probably could have gotten away with running a politically-explosive story during an election year based on fabricated information.  Dan Rather tried that in 2004 and learned the hard way that you can't do that any more.  The internet is very, very good at spotting bias, error, and outright lies propagated by people in the media.  That's great.

The other side of that, though, is that the internet and especially social media allows people to curate little information bubbles of their own creation.  And it allows millions and millions of people to do so, most of who are incapable of governing their own lives, let alone anybody else's life.  Those people get weird ideas going, and we know that groups of like-minded people tend to make themselves more extreme over time when left to their own devices, and suddenly we end up with a whole gaggle of folks who think that a deep state of pedophiles is running the country behind the scenes, or something like that.  

People like me -- who are mostly absolutists on this topic -- should acknowledge that social media creates some issues that didn't exist in the olden days.  The solution definitely isn't censorship, and I'm open to the argument that no solution is even necessary, but it's not unreasonable for people to be concerned about the way information flows through our culture today.

You conveniently ignored my solution.  And, it's an important piece to this puzzle.  Because, if people are taught to think critically and to tolerate alternative viewpoints they're less likely to seek out like minded bubbles and more likely to seek out the truth, because the truth is intellectually challenging whether it confirms a worldview or not.  But when you dumb people down and don't give them the toolset to handle differing opinions they're going to seek out that bubble.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Lotsa places! We can catch up some other time, though. Great to see you.

Wherever I was, I recall lots of panicking, both rational and irrational. Not sure what that has to do with what I said, though, especially since I sometimes was the one presenting the "more complete facts" to my own side to quell the panic.

I set forth everything @IvanKaramazov said above.  I would add,  I'm not fighting you so much as saying.....I get it,  but my default on this type of thing is skepticism of the government so I'm not going to personally panic very much, I'm also not going to shout down anyone who does just yet. I might. I might not.  I'm all for the discussion we are having...... and all of this, as is the way of the internet these days, is based solely on everything I've read here, no where else and you all could be nutjobs. 

 

[FairWarning]

Don't people complaint when Facebook and others do it too?

Though, again, this (on the surface) seems like combatting foreign misinformation campaigns and actual threats.  Probably stuff that could be rolled into current cyber security work without much controversy if focused just on that.

I would prefer if the government is involved to set guidelines rather than actually play referee.      If they are after foreign threats (legitimate concern), it wasn’t made clear, maybe I just missed it.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You conveniently ignored my solution. 

Teaching critical thinking skills?  I think that's a great idea.  I support it.

The problem is that most people just aren't very bright.  Half of all adults have below-average intelligence, after all.  You can teach all the critical thinking skills you want in schools, and those people are still going to be kind of dumb.  Everybody who graduates from high school took 12 years of math -- how many adults do you know who struggle with percentages?  Why would "critical thinking" turn out any better?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I would disagree.  The MSM has been around a lot longer, and it was much more concentrated back then in a few outlets.  If ABC news wanted you to believe something you did.  Fortunately, there was a lot more ethics and boundaries adhered to by the MSM back then.  Now, MORE people have the ability to have a wider voice than back then.  A peon like me can go viral and have a lot of people exposed to MY information.  That's a good thing.  And we should embrace it, not silence it.  The answer to this issue is teaching critical thinking skills.  Unfortunately, our schools are dumbing people down and not teaching critical thinking skills.  Worse, they are NOT teaching kids tolerance and the ability to have a reasoned conversation with people who hold alternative viewpoints.  So, the answer is there, but we are not doing it. 

I like this tract. 

I've been teaching my oldest and anyone that will listen to me that our fundamental idea of education has to change. We are past collecting knowledge. That's done. I have the entirety of human knowledge on this phone and it's never going back in the bottle.  The way we went to school is now a problem. We don't need to teach knowledge collection, we need to teach discernment. 

 

[John123]

Teaching critical thinking skills?  I think that's a great idea.  I support it.

The problem is that most people just aren't very bright.  Half of all adults have below-average intelligence, after all.  You can teach all the critical thinking skills you want in schools, and those people are still going to be kind of dumb.  Everybody who graduates from high school took 12 years of math -- how many adults do you know who struggle with percentages?  Why would "critical thinking" turn out any better?

Eh.  That's a very defeatist attitude.  We can sure as heck do a lot better than we are.  My generation, in general, is much better at tolerating differing points of view.  People haven't gotten dumber in the 35 years since I graduated high school.  We're just not doing it as well as we did then. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You conveniently ignored my solution.  And, it's an important piece to this puzzle.  Because, if people are taught to think critically and to tolerate alternative viewpoints they're less likely to seek out like minded bubbles and more likely to seek out the truth, because the truth is intellectually challenging whether it confirms a worldview or not.  But when you dumb people down and don't give them the toolset to handle differing opinions they're going to seek out that bubble.

I agree that we should be teaching critical thinking skills in school.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Eh.  That's a very defeatist attitude.  We can sure as heck do a lot better than we are.  My generation, in general, is much better at tolerating differing points of view.  People haven't gotten dumber in the 35 years since I graduated high school.  We're just not doing it as well as we did then. 

I’m not sure what generation you are but older people are more likely duped by scammers and to forward false info on social media.  I’m not sure they’re great with critical thinking either.

 

[Jayrod]

Sadly most here voted for this clown show.

I voted for this clown show, but only because the other option was a #### show.

 

[McBokonon]

Teaching critical thinking skills?  I think that's a great idea.  I support it.

The problem is that most people just aren't very bright.  Half of all adults have below-average intelligence, after all.  You can teach all the critical thinking skills you want in schools, and those people are still going to be kind of dumb.  Everybody who graduates from high school took 12 years of math -- how many adults do you know who struggle with percentages?  Why would "critical thinking" turn out any better?

IREX is trying.

I’ve reviewed this curriculum and even facilitated some classes with it. It’s not perfect but it’s decent and has had some good outcomes. The idea here isn’t to necessarily make people have better brains, because like you say the reality is the reality as far as average intelligence goes. The goal here is really to teach specific tools, simple things like recognizing when a news headline is clearly being emotional, reverse image searches so you can see that a photo was manipulated, pounding home the idea to check multiple places before sharing anything, etc. Stuff that likely seems obvious to most people on this board but, quite frankly, isn’t to a lot of people.

Side note - the pilot was actually conducted in Ukraine as a reaction to Russian disinformation from back in 2013 (and prior).

Just read @Yankee23Fan use the word - the curriculum is actually called Learn to Discern.

 

[John123]

I’m not sure what generation you are but older people are more likely duped by scammers and to forward false info on social media.  I’m not sure they’re great with critical thinking either.

You can't tell what generation I am from my post?  It's just basic math.  Hmmm.........

Older people fall for scams because they're older. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I set forth everything @IvanKaramazov said above.  I would add,  I'm not fighting you so much as saying.....I get it,  but my default on this type of thing is skepticism of the government so I'm not going to personally panic very much, I'm also not going to shout down anyone who does just yet. I might. I might not.  I'm all for the discussion we are having...... and all of this, as is the way of the internet these days, is based solely on everything I've read here, no where else and you all could be nutjobs. 

I think skepticism of both the government AND news media are healthy.

Anyone who applied both of these things before reaching any conclusions about what was going on here would have arrived at the same place I did. The problem arose because people went beyond healthy skepticism for one of those things while opting for blind acceptance of the other.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Eh.  That's a very defeatist attitude.  We can sure as heck do a lot better than we are.  My generation, in general, is much better at tolerating differing points of view.  People haven't gotten dumber in the 35 years since I graduated high school.  We're just not doing it as well as we did then. 

I think it's more "realistic" than "defeatist," but that's probably one of those "I'm determined, you're stubborn" things.

The main thing I'm saying is that it is an inevitable fact of life that some people are going to be wrong about stuff on the internet.  We need to figure out a way to be okay with that, because there is no alternative universe where people don't occasionally get sucked into bad ideas.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I think skepticism of both the government AND news media are healthy.

Anyone who applied both of these things before reaching any conclusions about what was going on here would have arrived at the same place I did. The problem arose because people went beyond healthy skepticism for one of those things while opting for blind acceptance of the other.

And you will never understand where someone stands until you understand where they sit and live. You can keep saying what your saying and believe it, but you are missing all of human history if you truly think that everyone would have reached the same conclusion you did if they just did what you did. That specific thought pattern is the devil in the details of the mess we are in right now. 

 

[timschochet]

Let’s remember your sentiment in three years when Trump is in charge of this group.

If Trump is re-elected a department of information, or whatever this is, will be the least of our worries. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I think it's more "realistic" than "defeatist," but that's probably one of those "I'm determined, you're stubborn" things.

The main thing I'm saying is that it is an inevitable fact of life that some people are going to be wrong about stuff on the internet.  We need to figure out a way to be okay with that, because there is no alternative universe where people don't occasionally get sucked into bad ideas.

Point of order.....Dr. Strange is going to open a portal ţo that alternative universe in like 7 days. 

 

[timschochet]

And you will never understand where someone stands until you understand where they sit and live. You can keep saying what your saying and believe it, but you are missing all of human history if you truly think that everyone would have reached the same conclusion you did if they just did what you did. That specific thought pattern is the devil in the details of the mess we are in right now. 

I agree with this 

 

[timschochet]

Point of order.....Dr. Strange is going to open a portal ţo that alternative universe in like 7 days. 

By the hoary hosts of Hoggoth! 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

And you will never understand where someone stands until you understand where they sit and live. You can keep saying what your saying and believe it, but you are missing all of human history if you truly think that everyone would have reached the same conclusion you did if they just did what you did. That specific thought pattern is the devil in the details of the mess we are in right now. 

You lost me here, sorry.

A skeptic of both institutions would have look at multiple articles about the proposal, then looked for a primary source on it and found none. That's what I did. And I don't see how someone who does that could continue to believe that this thing is an indication that, for example, "our country has lost its way."

I didn't mean to imply that anyone else who did this reach the exact same spot I did in terms of what conservative media is doing and what the future holds and all that. I meant that they'd reach the same basic and obvious conclusion that we really don't know much about this thing, including whether it has any enforcement capabilities, and therefore its best to chill until you know more instead of overreacting and declaring it the end of the American experiment. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You lost me here, sorry.

A skeptic of both institutions would have look at multiple articles about the proposal, then looked for a primary source on it and found none. That's what I did. And I don't see how someone who does that could continue to believe that this thing is an indication that, for example, "our country has lost its way."

I didn't mean to imply that anyone else who did this reach the exact same spot I did in terms of what conservative media is doing and what the future holds and all that. I meant that they'd reach the same basic and obvious conclusion that we really don't know much about this thing, including whether it has any enforcement capabilities, and therefore its best to chill until you know more instead of overreacting and declaring it the end of the American experiment. 

Ok.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Ok.

I try to bridge the gap you referenced when I can, so if you'd like to explain to me what I'm missing, I'm all ears. I'm looking at verifiable facts and drawing what seems to me to be an inescapable conclusion about what we do and do not know.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

IREX is trying.

I’ve reviewed this curriculum and even facilitated some classes with it. It’s not perfect but it’s decent and has had some good outcomes. The idea here isn’t to necessarily make people have better brains, because like you say the reality is the reality as far as average intelligence goes. The goal here is really to teach specific tools, simple things like recognizing when a news headline is clearly being emotional, reverse image searches so you can see that a photo was manipulated, pounding home the idea to check multiple places before sharing anything, etc. Stuff that likely seems obvious to most people on this board but, quite frankly, isn’t to a lot of people.

Side note - the pilot was actually conducted in Ukraine as a reaction to Russian disinformation from back in 2013 (and prior).

Just read @Yankee23Fan use the word - the curriculum is actually called Learn to Discern.

This sounds good, I’ve used similar material in class from Stanford U. College of Education.

 

[Da Guru]

If Trump is re-elected a department of information, or whatever this is, will be the least of our worries. 

It is the least of our worries now.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Having said that.... healthy skepticism and immediate opposition until they tell us more is probably a good thing when the government says, hey we are going to create this board/ committee/ panel within the larger defense and military apparatus of the nation to control, on some level, information that we think is bad. 

Maybe I'm being naïve but I don't read into this "control" but instead "gather and react".   That the "policing" function isn't to suppress any speech but to act on the threats that the spreading of misinformation creates.  I admit I struggle on how they could possibly act to Russian misinformation campaign aimed at influencing election cycles, but I would think that in general that our intelligence apparatus never wants to suppress such speech because it brings threats of various types out into the open.  Sure they might want their own propaganda campaigns, but would they (the security guys, not the politicians) really want to silence  this chatter?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Teaching critical thinking skills?  I think that's a great idea.  I support it.

The problem is that most people just aren't very bright.  Half of all adults have below-average intelligence, after all.  You can teach all the critical thinking skills you want in schools, and those people are still going to be kind of dumb.  Everybody who graduates from high school took 12 years of math -- how many adults do you know who struggle with percentages?  Why would "critical thinking" turn out any better?

Absolutely. All the critical thinking in the world won’t teach a toddler calculus. And our biases compound the problem, particularly stuff like the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I try to bridge the gap you referenced when I can, so if you'd like to explain to me what I'm missing, I'm all ears. I'm looking at verifiable facts and drawing what seems to me to be an inescapable conclusion about what we do and do not know.

It's ok to disagree and or not agree. I was having fun with a conversation not looking for a debate. Two different things. 

The fact that you can't accept my ok is one of the problems in our culture today. I'm good with ending the tangent shaking hands and grabbing a beer. You need to keep going and the language you use is..... go ahead and prove me wrong. Whether or not you mean it that way, though let's be honest, we all mean it that way when we are debating and not conversing. 

I ultimately don't care about your opinion here. Not in a negative way but in a, I'm fairly comfortable with my own thought processes and don't need support or backup from someone with whom I only know online which is a whole other dynamic today. Again though, enjoy the conversation for what it is. 

But to answer your question on good faith;

[You're]looking at verifiable facts [from sources you trust based upon your entire life experience] and drawing[using your thought process based on your knowledge and experience] what seems to me [your opinion and or conclusion based, again, on your life experience which is different from many, many people] to be an inescapable conclusion [that you came up with looking at it through your lense, your life, your experience, and your comfort level or trust level with the sources you first accepted] about what we do and do not know [we know, so far,only what others.... biased by their positions in government, media and politics.... tell us at the moment, which might be all we ever get, or the beginning and might change as we gather more information all challenging the idea that any 'conclusion,' can be drawn at all about the subject, but more importantly about the people for whom have done all these same things and come to a current 'conclusion' different than yours].

Meanwhile, way back when... like an hour ago....I said I probably agree with you but I'm fine with skepticism of anything concerning the potential for limiting speech in any way by the government.  For reasons known only to you, though I have my opinion obviously, you can't accept that because if anyone had just done what you did they would have reached the same conclusion you did and you can't possibly understand why they don't do that. 

But your posts are a confession..... one more of us need to make.... YOU don't understand..... that's not a me problem. That's a you problem. So when you try to figure out why someone would end up in a different position than yours even though you have verifiable facts and inescapable conclusions, the starting point is not, why won't you just agree with me or say I'm right? 

The starting point is, what don't I understand about them that led them to a different conclusion.  Because, and I know this is really hard for, well all of us, we simply aren't that perfect, can make mistakes and many, many times we can be wr.... wro..... wrong.  We can be wrong. 

And when all of this really p####s you off and you think I'm being condescending, note I'm really not. I'm answering your question as to why I pushed back a bit on your inescapable conclusion. My opinion. Based on my life experience and my verifiable facts and inescapable conclusions about how communication and human interaction works right now. 

I do agree with your first sentence.... you try to bridge the gap. We all do in our own way, for the most part. You could argue that engaging in the conversation itself is a form of it whether or not agreement is ever reached. But there are also times when just listening is the resolution, not convincing or agreeing.  And I know full well the irony of me specifically saying that given everything I've ever written here in total. 

Though I was 100% correct on Catherine Bell. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Absolutely. All the critical thinking in the world won’t teach a toddler calculus. And our biases compound the problem, particularly stuff like the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Honest question to a science guy like you (I did law because I was told there would be no math)....

Advanced mathematics.... let's define that as anything after basic algebra.... is it really necessary anymore before college? Because you can send back to me pretty much any math problem you want and either Google itself or a website I can find on Google will let me copy paste it and give me the answer. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

It's ok to disagree and or not agree. I was having fun with a conversation not looking for a debate. Two different things. 

The fact that you can't accept my ok is one of the problems in our culture today. I'm good with ending the tangent shaking hands and grabbing a beer. You need to keep going and the language you use is..... go ahead and prove me wrong. Whether or not you mean it that way, though let's be honest, we all mean it that way when we are debating and not conversing. 

I ultimately don't care about your opinion here. Not in a negative way but in a, I'm fairly comfortable with my own thought processes and don't need support or backup from someone with whom I only know online which is a whole other dynamic today. Again though, enjoy the conversation for what it is. 

But to answer your question on good faith;

[You're]looking at verifiable facts [from sources you trust based upon your entire life experience] and drawing[using your thought process based on your knowledge and experience] what seems to me [your opinion and or conclusion based, again, on your life experience which is different from many, many people] to be an inescapable conclusion [that you came up with looking at it through your lense, your life, your experience, and your comfort level or trust level with the sources you first accepted] about what we do and do not know [we know, so far,only what others.... biased by their positions in government, media and politics.... tell us at the moment, which might be all we ever get, or the beginning and might change as we gather more information all challenging the idea that any 'conclusion,' can be drawn at all about the subject, but more importantly about the people for whom have done all these same things and come to a current 'conclusion' different than yours].

Meanwhile, way back when... like an hour ago....I said I probably agree with you but I'm fine with skepticism of anything concerning the potential for limiting speech in any way by the government.  For reasons known only to you, though I have my opinion obviously, you can't accept that because if anyone had just done what you did they would have reached the same conclusion you did and you can't possibly understand why they don't do that. 

But your posts are a confession..... one more of us need to make.... YOU don't understand..... that's not a me problem. That's a you problem. So when you try to figure out why someone would end up in a different position than yours even though you have verifiable facts and inescapable conclusions, the starting point is not, why won't you just agree with me or say I'm right? 

The starting point is, what don't I understand about them that led them to a different conclusion.  Because, and I know this is really hard for, well all of us, we simply aren't that perfect, can make mistakes and many, many times we can be wr.... wro..... wrong.  We can be wrong. 

And when all of this really p####s you off and you think I'm being condescending, note I'm really not. I'm answering your question as to why I pushed back a bit on your inescapable conclusion. My opinion. Based on my life experience and my verifiable facts and inescapable conclusions about how communication and human interaction works right now. 

I do agree with your first sentence.... you try to bridge the gap. We all do in our own way, for the most part. You could argue that engaging in the conversation itself is a form of it whether or not agreement is ever reached. But there are also times when just listening is the resolution, not convincing or agreeing.  And I know full well the irony of me specifically saying that given everything I've ever written here in total. 

Though I was 100% correct on Catherine Bell. 

LOL I read your "OK" as a sarcastic dismissal, not an agreement to disagree.  Either I've been away from this place too long, or I spent too much time here in the first place.  Probably the latter.

I understand what you're saying about sources I personally trust., etc.  FWIW those included the multiple articles from right-wing news sources, the AP story, and a review of anything from DHS itself- I searched the DHS site for info in part because I know people don't trust media, even AP.  And my "inescapable conclusion" was not that this is bunk and will never present any problems, but that we know very little about it and there's no valid reason to suspect that it will repress domestic speech. That seems like a verifiable, factual conclusion to me.

Maybe it was the rhetorical flourish of "inescapable conclusion" that made it seem more confrontational than it was. I'll try to watch those. In exchange, maybe once in a while the board's conservatives can gently suggest that people on the right need to reach across the aisle or try to understand where the people on the left are coming from?  We certainly hear it the other way often enough from everyone- the right, the mainstream media, politicians, etc.

Also I have no idea what we disagreed about regarding Catherine Bell, unless (1) you were suggesting in any way that she's not one of the most beautiful women in America, or (2) you were trying to call dibs on her in the event the United States collapses into some sort of Handmaid's Tale-style theocracy.

 

[djmich]

It's ok to disagree and or not agree. I was having fun with a conversation not looking for a debate. Two different things. 

The fact that you can't accept my ok is one of the problems in our culture today. I'm good with ending the tangent shaking hands and grabbing a beer. You need to keep going and the language you use is..... go ahead and prove me wrong. Whether or not you mean it that way, though let's be honest, we all mean it that way when we are debating and not conversing. 

Hard to tell but it sounds like it is focused on external threats, not Americans' speech. Back to your regularly scheduled efforts to keep Americans frrom learning that slavery happened and was bad.

I don't think he can because its hard for some people to accept the person they are not seeing eye to eye with is not genuinely ill intended.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Statistics and probabilities is useful math IMO.

Still would like to see the details on this board. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

LOL I read your "OK" as a sarcastic dismissal, not an agreement to disagree.  Either I've been away from this place too long, or I spent too much time here in the first place.  Probably the latter.

I understand what you're saying about sources I personally trust., etc.  FWIW those included the multiple articles from right-wing news sources, the AP story, and a review of anything from DHS itself- I searched the DHS site for info in part because I know people don't trust media, even AP.  And my "inescapable conclusion" was not that this is bunk and will never present any problems, but that we know very little about it and there's no valid reason to suspect that it will repress domestic speech. That seems like a verifiable, factual conclusion to me.

Maybe it was the rhetorical flourish of "inescapable conclusion" that made it seem more confrontational than it was. I'll try to watch those. In exchange, maybe once in a while the board's conservatives can gently suggest that people on the right need to reach across the aisle or try to understand where the people on the left are coming from?  We certainly hear it the other way often enough from everyone- the right, the mainstream media, politicians, etc.

Also I have no idea what we disagreed about regarding Catherine Bell, unless (1) you were suggesting in any way that she's not one of the most beautiful women in America, or (2) you were trying to call dibs on her in the event the United States collapses into some sort of Handmaid's Tale-style theocracy.

We're good; I despise the GOP and am now.... you'll love this....an activist liberal to some on this board; we can have a whole other thread on why left and right are so far apart at the moment but it takes an introspection from both sides neither are willing to have and many are incapable of having. 

And the Catherine Bell thing is from old yeller' and our once proud beautiful women draft that we can't speak about anymore.... like If you say Candyman in the mirror 5 times, Joe or maurile or Elon Musk will suspend you. 

I think.  I lost track of whose in charge at this point.  The boat guy only does BBQ now or something.  I'm getting old.