All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Kirby101]

Legal immigration limits do remain a massive deal since there would be major consequences to raising the limits to 6,000,000 people an year or something. It's not the only issue that matters, but it is significant.

As he pulls a large arbitrary number from his butt. Currently it's in the hundreds of thousands.

[PwrdOn]

As he pulls a large arbitrary number from his butt. Currently it's in the hundreds of thousands.

Right wingers should probably just never talk about 6 million of anything...

[PaulBullion]

Right wingers should probably just never talk about 6 million of anything...

Remember that many GOP figureheads consider the NSDAP to be a left wing party, because of the S.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

It's a pipe dream to expect Facebook to self-regulate, they need to be broken up now before they become too big to take down. One of the few points of bipartisan agreement these days is that social media is cancer and needs to be controlled, why exactly are we still hoping that they police themselves?

Here's the problem with this, social media is entirely dependent on the value people put in and take from it. So regulating it just really feels like people needing a boogeyman to point to for their loss. Responsible can spot bots and bullshit articles pretty easily and do the fucking proper research on vetted sites to know when they are being fed crap. This stuff has been going on long before 2016, social media is just helping misinformation campaigns scale.

At some point you either have to get close to authoritarian to police bad actors and liars, or you just have to trust the public to be well informed.

[Jack Dracula]

Notice how Mets keeps up the Trump/GOP line that immigration is THE issue. (and how Dems don't want to solve it) A current "crisis" of Trumps own making. This helps push out the talk of the catastrophic damage Trump and the GOP are doing, the stomping on the Constitution, and the much more important issues we need to address. The issues the GOP want to ignore or exacerbate. Climate Change, income inequity, health care, etc...

The truth is that bi-partisan efforts have been made to reach a compromise in the immigration situation. Those efforts have been quashed by the Trump administration whose focus is on letting things get worse to create support for wall funding. My guess is that we have Stephen Miller to thank for some of that.

So the argument that Democrats are for open boarders and won't set limits is BS. Dem leadership has shown they're willing to come to the table do do just that.

Here's the problem with this, social media is entirely dependent on the value people put in and take from it. So regulating it just really feels like people needing a boogeyman to point to for their loss. Responsible can spot bots and bullshit articles pretty easily and do the fucking proper research on vetted sites to know when they are being fed crap. This stuff has been going on long before 2016, social media is just helping misinformation campaigns scale.

At some point you either have to get close to authoritarian to police bad actors and liars, or you just have to trust the public to be well informed.

Except people don't research the facts about controversial subjects due to confirmation bias. Foreign countries have weaponized it and we're currently experiencing a Trump Presidency due in part to that influence. IMO it's time to have this conversation about the power of misinformation on the political climate and society in general, even if the end result is to do nothing, one positive may be that people will be more aware of the problems true scale.

[Iron Maiden]

The truth is that bi-partisan efforts have been made to reach a compromise in the immigration situation. Those efforts have been quashed by the Trump administration whose focus is on letting things get worse to create support for wall funding. My guess is that we have Stephen Miller to thank for some of that.

So the argument that Democrats are for open boarders and won't set limits is BS. Dem leadership has shown they're willing to come to the table do do just that.

You know that and we here know that but between Fox News and Trump himself, they make the most noise about their spin on it. It's like they're using cannons vs the Dems using a squirt gun. They're not successfully calling out the GOP deception. Trump is always saying that Mueller and his mythical "18 angry Democrats" were conspiring with the Deep State or whatever nonsense he comes up with on any given day. They have to figure out a way to shine a light on this and send the cockroaches scurrying. Just think how many millions more there are like that woman at the Rep. Amash town meeting that said she thought the Mueller report completely cleared Trump, because people saw Toady AG Barr say it does. The Dems have to find a stronger platform to counter the lies. This is why I think Bill Maher is on the right track by telling the Democrats to go on Fox News. Elizabeth Warren or any other candidate and spokesman should go on there and and call them out on their lies.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Except people don't research the facts about controversial subjects due to confirmation bias. Foreign countries have weaponized it and we're currently experiencing a Trump Presidency due in part to that influence. IMO it's time to have this conversation about the power of misinformation on the political climate and society in general, even if the end result is to do nothing one positive may be that people will be more aware of the problems true scale.

I agree with you that people don't research subjects due to confirmation bias. But that's just it, it's confirmation bias. Most of the people that bought into the misinformation were either Republicans who wanted more fuel to their Hillary hate or Democrats/Independents who already didn't like Hillary and wanted a reason to justify themselves. And at the end of the day... more people still voted for Hillary. So I don't even know how effective we can call it because we have a system that counts votes in some regions as being more valuable than others.

But people being stupid and not doing their own homework or wanting to believe something is really not the responsibility of social media companies. Yeah delete bots and shit obviously, but that's standard practice anyways. I don't think breaking them down for some government regulation is really going to work. It might scale down the misinformation, but people who want to find it will. I never or rarely dealt with Trump bots on twitter or facebook because I simply don't frequent enough pages that are pro Trump. And if I have a friend on those sites that spreads that shit, I just ignore it. It's easy. At some point you have to say people have to be responsible for themselves and you can't regulate due to willful idiocy.

[Mister Mets]

There's no "argument" there -- there's only your talking point, which no one is buying.

The Democrats can stand on their record with regards to immigration -- you're busy attacking imagined evils in order to distract us from your party's actions.

I'm not distracting you guys from anything. The open borders argument comes up because you bring it up in discussions about other topics.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post4380351

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...03#post4304503

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...29#post4277329

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...rs#post4238348

As he pulls a large arbitrary number from his butt. Currently it's in the hundreds of thousands.

Your question was why anyone would think legal immigration is a serious issue.

I responded with something that would have major consequences to highlight the stakes.

If Democrats are advocating for a lower number, I'm eager for any links.

Right wingers should probably just never talk about 6 million of anything...

Can you expand on this one?

Here's the problem with this, social media is entirely dependent on the value people put in and take from it. So regulating it just really feels like people needing a boogeyman to point to for their loss. Responsible can spot bots and bullshit articles pretty easily and do the fucking proper research on vetted sites to know when they are being fed crap. This stuff has been going on long before 2016, social media is just helping misinformation campaigns scale.

At some point you either have to get close to authoritarian to police bad actors and liars, or you just have to trust the public to be well informed.

You can't expect ordinary people to be responsible.

They've got lives. They don't have time for research.

This leaves Facebook with limited choices. They can regulate, preferably in an open and transparent manner. Or they can make it explicitly clear that they will do nothing if someone lies in bad faith, an admission that will damage their brand.

[PaulBullion]

Can you expand on this one?

.

Are you denying it, then?

[Tami]

Trump Camp Rebuts Trump Calling Meghan Markle Nasty — With Clip Of Him Calling Her Nasty

Article headline pretty much sums it up. Slight of hand doens't work if the rabbit is already out of the hat and staring the audience.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'm not distracting you guys from anything. The open borders argument comes up because you bring it up in discussions about other topics.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post4380351

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...03#post4304503

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...29#post4277329

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...rs#post4238348

Your question was why anyone would think legal immigration is a serious issue.

I responded with something that would have major consequences to highlight the stakes.

If Democrats are advocating for a lower number, I'm eager for any links.

Can you expand on this one?

You can't expect ordinary people to be responsible.

They've got lives. They don't have time for research.

This leaves Facebook with limited choices. They can regulate, preferably in an open and transparent manner. Or they can make it explicitly clear that they will do nothing if someone lies in bad faith, an admission that will damage their brand.

See I don't think it damages their brand at all. I think you tend to see social media sites lose popularity when things get over regulated and people start to leave when a new one pops up that can take it's place. Twitter for instance allows for far more leeway with nudity and obcene imagery and it's been taking off far more with young people as of late and I'd argue that's a more dangerous platform for bots. People like the freedom aspect of social media and the choice. You can literally limit who and what you see and share on facebook. You can open yourself to everything or only see what your friends post.

Obviously there are reasonable things you can do. I don't think anybody cares about getting rid of bots and fake accounts (it will fuck a lot of influencers on Instagrams buffed up numbers, but I really don't view that site as much of a political problem). But for the most part, no, you have to either allow people to be responsible or irresponsible and that's their problem.

If the argument is "you can't expect ordinary people to be responsible", I think it's a crap argument. I also think it's a disengenous one. Some of the busiest people I know who are CEO's or Executive of billion dollar companies do their research when it comes to politics and are very skeptical and guard themselves from consuming crap. The average person can easily find out what is and isn't true. Hell most of the time you see one of these articles you'll have people commenting right on the link that it's fake.

And honestly if they really don't care that much, then I don't see it effecting the sites if they don't regulate. I just really don't think people care as much as you seem to think. I think if it got too intrusive, people would migrate to another platform that was less regulatory.

[Mister Mets]

See I don't think it damages their brand at all. I think you tend to see social media sites lose popularity when things get over regulated and people start to leave when a new one pops up that can take it's place. Twitter for instance allows for far more leeway with nudity and obcene imagery and it's been taking off far more with young people as of late and I'd argue that's a more dangerous platform for bots. People like the freedom aspect of social media and the choice. You can literally limit who and what you see and share on facebook. You can open yourself to everything or only see what your friends post.

Obviously there are reasonable things you can do. I don't think anybody cares about getting rid of bots and fake accounts (it will fuck a lot of influencers on Instagrams buffed up numbers, but I really don't view that site as much of a political problem). But for the most part, no, you have to either allow people to be responsible or irresponsible and that's their problem.

If the argument is "you can't expect ordinary people to be responsible", I think it's a crap argument. I also think it's a disengenous one. Some of the busiest people I know who are CEO's or Executive of billion dollar companies do their research when it comes to politics and are very skeptical and guard themselves from consuming crap. The average person can easily find out what is and isn't true. Hell most of the time you see one of these articles you'll have people commenting right on the link that it's fake.

And honestly if they really don't care that much, then I don't see it effecting the sites if they don't regulate. I just really don't think people care as much as you seem to think. I think if it got too intrusive, people would migrate to another platform that was less regulatory.

You know multiple executives of billion dollar companies, personally?

The logical fallacy there is expecting everyone else to act the same as people who are disproportionately likely to be very intelligent and well-informed.

Are you denying it, then?

I'm curious about what he means.

[Jack Dracula]

Seems like if Facebook can't or won't self-regulate and people can't be trusted to research their own opinions the solution is to pull the plug on it and eliminate the problem at it's root. If for no other reason than to eliminate the threat of foreign influence.
The Mueller Report, if nothing else, concluded that Russia had flooded Facebook and other platforms with content designed specifically to create division and dissent in our country with the ultimate goal of undermining our faith in the democratic process. IMO that needs to be acknowledged and addressed immediately. If that means your Aunt Sharon can't post pictures of her new puppy then so be it. The world existed just fine before Facebook.

[aja_christopher]

I'm not distracting you guys from anything. The open borders argument comes up because you bring it up in discussions about other topics.

I brought it up to point out your double standard in saying Shapiro should be judged one way (based on word and action) and Democrats should be judged another (based on biased "inference").

You started claiming I was "dodging" so I decided to point out that you're the one who frequently "dodges" the problems within your party -- I even provided a list so you could see the difference between "inference" and "fact".

My "question" was never asking why anyone would consider immigration is a serious issue because I think it is a serious issue -- I just don't think separating families is the answer, nor do I care about "limiting principles" since the Democrats have already proven they can govern responsibly without them.

At this point, it's obvious that we can't say the same for the Republican party.

-----


"MARK 10:13-16 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them."

-----
"4th migrant child dies in U.S. custody since December"

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...since-december

[shooshoomanjoe]

You know multiple executives of billion dollar companies, personally?

The logical fallacy there is expecting everyone else to act the same as people who are disproportionately likely to be very intelligent and well-informed.


I'm curious about what he means.

6 million Jews died in the Holocaust and people are bringing up Hitler's regime with the way trump is treating Hispanic immigrant.