PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on July 26, 2016, 12:34:53 PM
-
;D
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COg9tVvUsAA47_B.png)
Might not be Facebook but the principle stands.
-
I've changed my mind.
I used to think people could be convinced by logic and a calm, rational presentation of facts.
I no longer do. But I'm not pissed about it, just disappointed.
-
The Spin Zone was closed. What did you expect? We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts!
-
I've changed my mind.
I used to think people could be convinced by logic and a calm, rational presentation of facts.
I no longer do. But I'm not pissed about it, just disappointed.
I'm still there. But I accept the fact that there is music going on between the ears that beats a louder drum than those "facts". Rarely, are people willing to disclose the music they're listening to. Also, our presentation of said "facts" betray our biases and thusly adds fuel to the Wankel engine.
-
Are you saying you can't present facts without bias?
-
Are you saying you can't present facts without bias?
It is haughty to think that we don't have any?
-
I think we've that learned that people of good will but varied beliefs can largely discuss and agree and disagree mostly in a fun-loving and respectful way.
And we can tell anyone who doesn't agree with us to go fuck themselves, ignore them, or simply choose not to bother with those who are not worth our time.
In short, near perfection.
'Gimp
-
And we can tell anyone who doesn't agree with us to go fuck themselves, ignore them, or simply choose not to bother with those who are not worth our time.
on top of that, we can also tell anyone who willfully ignores facts to do, as you say," go fuck themselves, ignore them, or simply choose not to bother with those who are not worth our time."
-
The Spin Zone was closed. What did you expect? We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts!
Well played, private ;D
-
I think we've that learned that people of good will but varied beliefs can largely discuss and agree and disagree mostly in a fun-loving and respectful way.
And we can tell anyone who doesn't agree with us to go fuck themselves, ignore them, or simply choose not to bother with those who are not worth our time.
In short, near perfection.
'Gimp
In large measure that experiment has not been proved here at this site. We are mostly full of right-wingers. Granted, the rise of Trump has caused some dissention in that group. But we have very few of the "other side" here. Steingar toughs it out but has nearly been driven off at times. MarkZ comes around every now and then. Jaybird is active. And I enjoy participating, though I'm frankly fairly varied and even-handed in my views for a liberal.
More so than even the POA SZ, this site can tend to be a conservative circle-jerk.
-
Most accurate synopsis of this site.
-
I think the vast majority of pilots lean right, a lot of that based on average age. Young punks haven't figured it out yet.
-
More so than even the POA SZ, this site can tend to be a conservative circle-jerk.
what do you expect to happen when liberals won't engage in discussion?
-
In large measure that experiment has not been proved here at this site. We are mostly full of right-wingers. Granted, the rise of Trump has caused some dissention in that group. But we have very few of the "other side" here. Steingar toughs it out but has nearly been driven off at times. MarkZ comes around every now and then. Jaybird is active. And I enjoy participating, though I'm frankly fairly varied and even-handed in my views for a liberal.
More so than even the POA SZ, this site can tend to be a conservative circle-jerk.
I think you are selling the Left, Middle of the Road and Libertarians here quite short. Sure I may personally think that some of them are bat-shit-crazy and not worth a response but I don't have to attack them or call them names, and best of all, no nanny running around telling us what we can or cannot say or think.
Unapproved thoughts and beliefs are accepted here and we are allowed to espouse them to the level and volume we feel compelled to, or not.
'Gimp
-
I think you are selling the Left, Middle of the Road and Libertarians here quite short. Sure I may personally think that some of them are bat-shit-crazy and not worth a response but I don't have to attack them or call them names, and best of all, no nanny running around telling us what we can or cannot say or think.
Unapproved thoughts and beliefs are accepted here and we are allowed to espouse them to the level and volume we feel compelled to, or not.
'Gimp
Only with 3-5mm thick cowhide.
-
I learned that there is one person who use to provide well thought out opinions at POA which I valued reading and now I glance over said person's comments as they are as predictable as the sunrise.
-
I've learned that Jaybird has skin as tough as nails and appreciate his opinion even if we don't agree.
-
I learned that there is one person who use to provide well thought out opinions at POA which I valued reading and now I glance over said person's comments as they are as predictable as the sunrise.
Henning isn't here
;D ;D ;D
-
Henning isn't here
;D ;D ;D
He said well thought out opinions
-
Only with 3-5mm thick cowhide.
Exactly! We have learned that Steingar, Jaybird, asechrest and MarkZ are not snowflakes.
8)
-
I think you are selling the Left, Middle of the Road and Libertarians here quite short. Sure I may personally think that some of them are bat-shit-crazy and not worth a response but I don't have to attack them or call them names, and best of all, no nanny running around telling us what we can or cannot say or think.
Unapproved thoughts and beliefs are accepted here and we are allowed to espouse them to the level and volume we feel compelled to, or not.
'Gimp
I agree with you about the no-nanny part. And even though you may not attack or call names, others here do. But anyway, what I was trying to express is that this site is many leagues away from being representative of the "varied beliefs" of the public at large. What we've got here are a bunch of right-wingers with a smattering of lefties with thick skin. I guess we've got some middle of the road folks, but if we're honest, most of them are heavily right-leaning. Dav8or is the best middle of the road representative I've seen on this forum, and he's regularly labeled a liberal and even socialist.
I participate because I like most of you, you're pilots, it's good to hear other viewpoints, and it keeps my debate skills up. I am occasionally embarrassed, usually by a Canadian who knows the Constitution better than I do. ;D But still, it's fun.
-
In large measure that experiment has not been proved here at this site. We are mostly full of right-wingers. Granted, the rise of Trump has caused some dissention in that group. But we have very few of the "other side" here. Steingar toughs it out but has nearly been driven off at times. MarkZ comes around every now and then. Jaybird is active. And I enjoy participating, though I'm frankly fairly varied and even-handed in my views for a liberal.
More so than even the POA SZ, this site can tend to be a conservative circle-jerk.
It is for the same reason that liberal talk shows never survive. They can't backup their beliefs in a two way discussion.
-
It is for the same reason that liberal talk shows never survive. They can't backup their beliefs in a two way discussion.
I don't believe that is true. The Left's positions can usually be supported, it is a matter of what principle values are used. To make a blanket statement that only one side's arguments make sense is exactly why you don't understand. You aren't trying or you don't respect some else's right to be different.
Now - I do not consider myself on the left, but let's try an exercise - give me a topic and I will explain the Left's position as best I can.
Start a new thread.
-
I agree with you about the no-nanny part. And even though you may not attack or call names, others here do. But anyway, what I was trying to express is that this site is many leagues away from being representative of the "varied beliefs" of the public at large. What we've got here are a bunch of right-wingers with a smattering of lefties with thick skin. I guess we've got some middle of the road folks, but if we're honest, most of them are heavily right-leaning. Dav8or is the best middle of the road representative I've seen on this forum, and he's regularly labeled a liberal and even socialist.
I participate because I like most of you, you're pilots, it's good to hear other viewpoints, and it keeps my debate skills up. I am occasionally embarrassed, usually by a Canadian who knows the Constitution better than I do. ;D But still, it's fun.
(http://static.wixstatic.com/media/9867e6_bb1d13e54a2f469fb3a88eb36b9715c8.jpg)
-
LOL. :)
-
It is for the same reason that liberal talk shows never survive. They can't backup their beliefs in a two way discussion.
bflynn answered better than I could have. You ought to give some serious thought to what he said.
-
what do you expect to happen when liberals won't engage in discussion?
What in the hell do you mean- "discussion"??! I have witnessed the brave liberals that have ventured here get nothing but abusive behavior including name calling and standard right wing shout downs provided by the right wing media. Very few here actually want to discuss anything with a liberal, they just want a whipping boy to vent their frustration on. I don't blame liberals one bit for looking in, checking out a few threads and saying- "Screw this bullshit!"
Face it, this site is pretty much a conservative circle jerk. Pretty much only Jaybird, Kristin and Asechrest make it interesting and I do miss FastEddie too. I do give credit also to Jeff and Stan for exposing the Trump BS where possible.
-
It is for the same reason that liberal talk shows never survive. They can't backup their beliefs in a two way discussion.
What!!?? Are you kidding me??! Name one conservative talk show that actually participates in a two way discussion. They use the same "debate" tactics seen here. Insult, name call, shout down with pre-perpared stock answers and when all else fails, hang up on the caller. I listen to Rush, Michael Savage, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity on a pretty regular basis when I'm driving. I flip flop between them and NPR. I only have respect for Mark Levin but even he is prone to ridiculous theatrics and abusive treatment of anybody that doesn't brown nose him on the phone.
There was a guy they used to have on named John Bachelor who was conservative and had fascinating shows, but they dropped him here because I believe he made people think and people don't want to do that. They just want to hear the words and then repeat them. His show was like a conservative version of NPR with guests on to discuss things instead of just the idiots of America calling in.
-
What!!?? Are you kidding me??! Name one conservative talk show that actually participates in a two way discussion. They use the same "debate" tactics seen here. Insult, name call, shout down with pre-perpared stock answers and when all else fails, hang up on the caller. I listen to Rush, Michael Savage, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity on a pretty regular basis when I'm driving. I flip flop between them and NPR. I only have respect for Mark Levin but even he is prone to ridiculous theatrics and abusive treatment of anybody that doesn't brown nose him on the phone.
There was a guy they used to have on named John Bachelor who was conservative and had fascinating shows, but they dropped him here because I believe he made people think and people don't want to do that. They just want to hear the words and then repeat them. His show was like a conservative version of NPR with guests on to discuss things instead of just the idiots of America calling in.
Fox News (not conservative) always presents both sides even on their conservative opinion shows like Hannity. Conservative talk radio TELLS YOU THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE OPINION, not news. Air America was funded by Soros and still couldn't survive.
-
I don't believe that is true. The Left's positions can usually be supported, it is a matter of what principle values are used. To make a blanket statement that only one side's arguments make sense is exactly why you don't understand. You aren't trying or you don't respect some else's right to be different.
Now - I do not consider myself on the left, but let's try an exercise - give me a topic and I will explain the Left's position as best I can.
Start a new thread.
Then why have liberal talk shows all failed miserably, as Joe stated?
I listened to Air America when it was on the air, and it was nothing but negativity and anger. Sure, you have some of that with conservative talk radio, but you also get optimism and love of country. That was completely absent from Air America. Completely.
-
Air America sounded more like a circle jerk among academic crazies than a talk show.
-
Then why have liberal talk shows all failed miserably, as Joe stated?
I listened to Air America when it was on the air, and it was nothing but negativity and anger. Sure, you have some of that with conservative talk radio, but you also get optimism and love of country. That was completely absent from Air America. Completely.
The Left has NPR and that's really all they need. It's been around forever and will continue on I'm sure.
-
Then why have liberal talk shows all failed miserably, as Joe stated?
I listened to Air America when it was on the air, and it was nothing but negativity and anger. Sure, you have some of that with conservative talk radio, but you also get optimism and love of country. That was completely absent from Air America. Completely.
I think it's a few things: Demographic differences that make radio listening less likely on the left; the fact that radio outrage media is done best by the right, and is self-reinforcing ("don't listen to the liberal media, listen to us!"); many liberals listen to NPR for a broader selection of topics; etc.
-
I think it's a few things: Demographic differences that make radio listening less likely on the left; the fact that radio outrage media is done best by the right, and is self-reinforcing ("don't listen to the liberal media, listen to us!"); many liberals listen to NPR for a broader selection of topics; etc.
Sarcasm, right?
-
The Left has NPR and that's really all they need. It's been around forever and will continue on I'm sure.
And we help pay for it..
-
Sarcasm, right?
No.
-
And we help pay for it..
That's because they don't have anyone to steal it from.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jul/28/20050728-081354-1414r/
-
And we help pay for it..
And you can listen to it, too! I'm fond of This American Life and America's Test Kitchen.
-
And we help pay for it..
This is true and it really bothers me. I don't mind paying for it, I think it's worthwhile, but what bothers me is it has become solely a left wing biased organization. I believe that because it is in part publicly funded, equal air time should be granted to those with a right wing bias. Originally it was supposed to be unbiased and just fact based, but as we all know, unbiased reporting and opinions are impossible.
Since unbiased programing is impossible, I would suggest programming from both biases. It would be a challenge to organize and many of the supporters now would leave, but many new supporters would arrive. I have always thought how nice it would be to have a right wing informative radio program styled like NPR, but all we get is angry loud mouths and ridiculous call in shows.
-
I think it's a few things: Demographic differences that make radio listening less likely on the left; the fact that radio outrage media is done best by the right, and is self-reinforcing ("don't listen to the liberal media, listen to us!"); many liberals listen to NPR for a broader selection of topics; etc.
I disagree; the left does outrage media far better than the right, because they obfuscate the truth, act as if the truth is already known and it is their version, and convolute or entirely ignore the truly controversial.
This is not a knee-jerk reaction from me; I am a moderate, and believe (as history has shown) that center-right governments fare better than either far left or far right.
My observations have been that NPR skews quite far to the left, in a matter-of-fact, faux-intelligent way that lulls listeners into just agreeing with them. About three years ago I finally grew so frustrated with the slant that I stopped listening and stopped donating. When I got calls and e-mails about why I was no longer donating, I offered examples of programs/hosts/guests that were slanted left, and stated that I preferred a balanced discussion. I said that NPR used to at least try to be fair, but they had stopped even doing that. AND EACH PERSON AT NPR WITH WHOM I SPOKE OR E-MAILED AGREED WITH ME. It was bizarre. They understood completely.
Similarly, when the RNC calls me and I say that I will support them when they do something worth supporting, THEY AGREE WITH ME.
-
This is true and it really bothers me. I don't mind paying for it, I think it's worthwhile, but what bothers me is it has become solely a left wing biased organization. I believe that because it is in part publicly funded, equal air time should be granted to those with a right wing bias. Originally it was supposed to be unbiased and just fact based, but as we all know, unbiased reporting and opinions are impossible.
Since unbiased programing is impossible, I would suggest programming from both biases. It would be a challenge to organize and many of the supporters now would leave, but many new supporters would arrive. I have always thought how nice it would be to have a right wing informative radio program styled like NPR, but all we get is angry loud mouths and ridiculous call in shows.
People are angry because the sources of unbiased information have been slowly and insidiously removed from our access. Everything is spun. We know this, and it makes us feel helpless and thus angry.
How would you feel if you knew that all your cockpit instruments were slightly if not very inaccurate? You would be forced to fly differently, but all your decisions and actions would be guesses, and the only truth you'd have would be what you could actually see. Same with our media and politics. People look around, see what they see, and it doesn't square with what the media is feeding us.
Recipe for anger.
-
I disagree; the left does outrage media far better than the right, because they obfuscate the truth, act as if the truth is already known and it is their version, and convolute or entirely ignore the truly controversial.
The ratings speak for themselves. Look at Rush (with radio contracts exceeding multiple hundreds of millions dollars), Savage, and others on the radio side. Look at O'Reilly and Hannity on the TV side. There is no opposing liberal force on the radio side, so the right clearly dominates radio outrage media (which is what I said in the post you quoted). But you can also look at the Fox talking heads and see it clearly as well. Viewership and success are drastically better than anything on MSNBC or others. The right does outrage media best.
I admit NPR slants left, though not drastically so. But it also has great and varied non-political content and shouldn't be discussed as similar to Rush et al.
-
And we help pay for it..
Not to defend NPR, but if you want lefty government funded BS, CBC is in a league all their own. Last election they went all-in for Justin and got a huge budget increase for their trouble.
-
Public TV used to have William F. Buckley's Firing Line.
-
Public TV used to have William F. Buckley's Firing Line.
And now there is nothing like that on PBS, or NPR. I believe there should be.
-
People are angry because the sources of unbiased information have been slowly and insidiously removed from our access. Everything is spun. We know this, and it makes us feel helpless and thus angry.
How would you feel if you knew that all your cockpit instruments were slightly if not very inaccurate? You would be forced to fly differently, but all your decisions and actions would be guesses, and the only truth you'd have would be what you could actually see. Same with our media and politics. People look around, see what they see, and it doesn't square with what the media is feeding us.
Recipe for anger.
The thing is, often the stuff these guys are all angry about are abstract to me and I only know of such things as Hillary's emails, or Benghazi, or uranium production, or whatever, is because some media outlet told me of them. I am entirely dependent on some outside source to tell me these things because I don't have any first hand knowledge. How true any of this information entirely depends on how much I trust that source of information. I can't just look around and see these things, somebody has to tell me.
The anger is largely manufactured. They tell you a thing, they tell you they are very angry, they tell you perpetrators of this thing are villainous scum, they tell you that you should be angry too and so people get angry. It's great for ratings and the purveyors of anger get paid handsomely. It is a lot of theatrics and drama and these people make a nice living off of acting angry to make you angry.
I wish I could get right leaning news and opinions without the ranting theatrics, without the name calling and from people that weren't such obvious sell outs to the almighty dollar.
-
People are angry because the sources of unbiased information have been slowly and insidiously removed from our access. Everything is spun. We know this, and it makes us feel helpless and thus angry.
When has there ever been unbiased sources of information? Spin has existed since the first word was written. If anything, the explosion of information sources gives all of us so many, varied and different viewpoints. I'm not clear how this has been removed from our access. No doubt it does take more effort to sort though all those views and try to rationally glean out what might be facts verses opinion.
How would you feel if you knew that all your cockpit instruments were slightly if not very inaccurate? You would be forced to fly differently, but all your decisions and actions would be guesses, and the only truth you'd have would be what you could actually see. Same with our media and politics. People look around, see what they see, and it doesn't square with what the media is feeding us.
Recipe for anger.
There is some truth to that. Spin is a well practiced art all across the political spectrum.
-
When has there ever been unbiased sources of information? Spin has existed since the first word was written. If anything, the explosion of information sources gives all of us so many, varied and different viewpoints. I'm not clear how this has been removed from our access. No doubt it does take more effort to sort though all those views and try to rationally glean out what might be facts verses opinion.
There is some truth to that. Spin is a well practiced art all across the political spectrum.
I think the key is getting your information from a variety of sources. That allows at least some measure of bias to be cancelled out, or allows you to remain neutral if the bias is so thick you are unable to glean the truth from the chaff.
-
I think the key is getting your information from a variety of sources. That allows at least some measure of bias to be cancelled out, or allows you to remain neutral if the bias is so thick you are unable to glean the truth from the chaff.
True! But then, we all have our own internal bias of what is "fact" after we've done that "gleaning". ;)
-
True! But then, we all have our own internal bias of what is "fact" after we've done that "gleaning". ;)
True too! Facts have a well-know liberal or conservative bias, depending on who you ask. ;D
-
I think it's a few things: Demographic differences that make radio listening less likely on the left; the fact that radio outrage media is done best by the right, and is self-reinforcing ("don't listen to the liberal media, listen to us!"); many liberals listen to NPR for a broader selection of topics; etc.
You have GOT to be kidding. Just because you listen to people on NPR who speak softly and in monotone like the Saturday Night Live skit doesn't mean that there is a diversity of thought on NPR. It just makes them sound smart - it doesn't mean they are so.
-
The thing is, often the stuff these guys are all angry about are abstract to me and I only know of such things as Hillary's emails, or Benghazi, or uranium production, or whatever, is because some media outlet told me of them. I am entirely dependent on some outside source to tell me these things because I don't have any first hand knowledge. How true any of this information entirely depends on how much I trust that source of information. I can't just look around and see these things, somebody has to tell me.
The anger is largely manufactured. They tell you a thing, they tell you they are very angry, they tell you perpetrators of this thing are villainous scum, they tell you that you should be angry too and so people get angry. It's great for ratings and the purveyors of anger get paid handsomely. It is a lot of theatrics and drama and these people make a nice living off of acting angry to make you angry.
I wish I could get right leaning news and opinions without the ranting theatrics, without the name calling and from people that weren't such obvious sell outs to the almighty dollar.
Are you implying that listeners to "right wing radio" are incapable of forming opinions on their own? Because that is the typical response of leftists and NPR devotees.
-
You have GOT to be kidding. Just because you listen to people on NPR who speak softly and in monotone like the Saturday Night Live skit doesn't mean that there is a diversity of thought on NPR. It just makes them sound smart - it doesn't mean they are so.
You don't appear to be arguing with the points I made. I didn't say "diversity of thought" or "smart", though there may be a valid point if I had. We are discussing the dearth of liberal talk radio.
-
Are you implying that listeners to "right wing radio" are incapable of forming opinions on their own? Because that is the typical response of leftists and NPR devotees.
No, not at all. Certainly some can and do form their own opinions. As I said before, I listen to right wing radio too and I don't agree with a lot of it. However, there are a significant number of "ditto heads" out there that can't or don't want to come to their own conclusions. This also true on the left, they just do it without all the yelling and name calling.
-
No, not at all. Certainly some can and do form their own opinions. As I said before, I listen to right wing radio too and I don't agree with a lot of it. However, there are a significant number of "ditto heads" out there that can't or don't want to come to their own conclusions. This also true on the left, they just do it without all the yelling and name calling.
So it's not conceivable that such listeners, based upon lifetimes of observation and participation in the exercise of self-governance, have actually already formed their opinions, and said opinions are simply confirmed and nicely framed by such talk show hosts as Rush?
How can you tell which "ditto heads" "can't or don't want to come to their own conclusions"?
Isn't it the height of arrogance for you to believe that you are capable of making this determination?
-
The Left has NPR and that's really all they need. It's been around forever and will continue on I'm sure.
You left out ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC & CNN
-
You left out ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC & CNN
Seriously, those outlets may be controlled by the left, but they are mainly for the consumption of those that don't really understand the difference between left and right, or care. Every now and then want to know what's going on in the world outside their little world.
-
So it's not conceivable that such listeners, based upon lifetimes of observation and participation in the exercise of self-governance, have actually already formed their opinions, and said opinions are simply confirmed and nicely framed by such talk show hosts as Rush?
How can you tell which "ditto heads" "can't or don't want to come to their own conclusions"?
Isn't it the height of arrogance for you to believe that you are capable of making this determination?
Seriously?? Have you listened to many of the callers that call in? Not a lot of original thought there. They parrot and repeat the exact same phrases, school yard names and ideas they just heard. They rarely if ever add anything new to the conversation. It's usually a butt kissing, "me too" and "what you said" kind of a thing.
Oh yeah and I am super arrogant and super capable of determination- so there! ;)
-
Seriously?? Have you listened to many of the callers that call in? Not a lot of original thought there. They parrot and repeat the exact same phrases, school yard names and ideas they just heard. They rarely if ever add anything new to the conversation. It's usually a butt kissing, "me too" and "what you said" kind of a thing.
Oh yeah and I am super arrogant and super capable of determination- so there! ;)
Yes, I do listen. And I'm sure there is some of it. But would you say that I don't have original thoughts on a topic of, say, the Constitution, because I may have repeated a phrase that Mark Levin said more eloquently than I could have?
-
It is very difficult to filter out eh bias in news media. They are there to sell products first and foremost. It is telling that the best investigative journalism in the country is on John Oliver's show. I really miss Al Jazeera. Say what you want, they had no dog on our fight and reported a much clearer picture. The BBC isn't quite a good, but isn't as bad as domestic outlets.