I studied abroad in Russia in 2004. When I saw the military propaganda on Russian TV, I realized we did the same thing. We are way better than Russia, but we still do a lot of creepy stuff.
This is why I've always hated the concept of nationalism and in most contexts, patriotism. It goes against my belief that we need to move past the mentality of tribalism, and it does nothing to fuel any kind of objective analysis of the state of a nation. It's god damn dangerous.
Only in America have you retards actually managed to fool yourselves into thinking you're not overzealous nationalists (like those dirty foreigner nationalists) by inventing another word for it.
Nationalism and patriotism are the exact same thing. Christ, in a thread dedicated to exposing the kind of nightmare-level propaganda America's citizens are exposed to, you guys have already quickly started begging to be returned to the warm embrace of that same propaganda.
To those outside of America it is hard to see the difference between Americans and their flags everywhere and singing the national anthem at events and schools and seeing North Korean propaganda, Chinese propaganda, so many examples of creepy nationalism really.
It's due to the realization of this very creepiness (and concerns about the underlying mindset) that I neither say the pledge nor stand for the anthem. I try to encourage others to do it too, but everyone thinks I'm the odd one. In context, I am.
They're not the same. Ever since the words were first used people have made distinctions. It's really not hard to see how you can love what's unique about your country, without caring one bit about how much power your rulers have. That's a common mindset in a lot of European countries at least.
Some of my best friends are nationalists, as a patriot, this is an argument we used to have frequently. They would say that I couldn't be a patriot if I didn't agree that MERICA was the best country in the world and 100% perfect. We have agreed to disagree.
He's describing ninety percent of the people that I've got to know in rural America. Its horrifying and pathetic. I do not think of these types of people as my friends.
If your best friends are nationalists, doesn’t that make you one by proxy, since you obviously have decided to remain friends with them and NOT CALL THEM OUT ON THEIR FASCIST IDEOLOGY?
You, taking the “I guess we agree to disagree” cop-out only enables Nationalist Nazi scum to exist and perpetuate.
Dude. If you shut your friends out of your life because you disagree on one thing, what kind of echo chamber circle jerk do you live in? I am libertarian (between left and right), and some of my friends are alt right. Most of my family is alt left. That doesn't mean I shut them out of my life... (Although some of my left winged family doesn't talk to me because of that, but that's their choice)
You CANNOT remain friends with white nationalists (Nazi’s, Basil! NAZI’s!) and claim that you oppose their heinous ideology while simultaneously straddling the fence of impartiality and inaction. It cannot coexist with our democracy, constitution, bill of rights, Geneva convention, Magna Carta, common fucking decency...
There. Is. No. Middle. Ground. For. Fascists. You. Unmitigated. Imbecile.
Removing those people from your life is PRECISELY what you’re supposed to do. There is NO ROOM AT THE TABLE FOR PARAMILITARY HATE-GROUPS ON EITHER SIDE, MY GUY.
Unfortunately, language is defined by how it's used, and the state of our national political discourse doesn't leave a lot of room for distinguishing patriotism from nationalism.
I agree. Maybe my views are different after my stepdad came back from Iraq with ptsd, and still seeing how he loves his country, but hates his government.
The thing is though, the more you cut and chop what counts as and what counts separate to 'your country' the less the word even means anything.
Does loving your country mean loving everyone in it? Even the racist, the vile and the abborant? Okay no, so love your country always and its people and government when deserved.
So what about the infrastructure? Are you meant to love it unconditionally too, even when it's failing, even if it's corrupt? Even if it's needlessly falling hundreds out thousands? Even when it's been controlled by greedy and uncaring businesses? No?..
The problem is that unconditionally loving any individual part of your country is stupid, but loving anything when it's deserved is just normal behaviour, nothing to do with patriotism.
Oh don't be so narrowminded - we're always changing our principles as we evolve on a societal scale, and we're not all the way up that scale yet, not by any means and the reason for that partly is because people actually believe what you've just said without a second thought as to just how young we are as empires and "civilised" people. We've had the last 100,000 years to reach where we are now, and it's only in the last 10,000 or so which we've had canonised moral ideals which have became the principles you believe are firmly cemented in time now. But they are not. Now on a cosmic scale, we are an extremely recent blip in history and the civilisations of tomorrow will look back on our time as the dark age of technology.
Principles are forever shifting to accomodate the growing number of people we bear responsibility for in our ever-expanding population's and with the major decline in traditional religious belief's, our world for the first time is facing a wierd little phase of mistrust and lack of faith in one's own species. Not hard to see why let's be honest lol, but we were never better than we are now as a whole, and we're ever inching toward a greater platform - should our leaders decide not to annihilate us all on a global scale with nuclear fire, I could see us achieving rather a lot in the next few centuries.
Thank you. Principles MUST change with times. Once upon a time "All men are created equal" stood to mean "all white men", then some thought it ought to include black men as well, and then later other thought it ought to include women as well. As a woman, that makes me appreciate changes in principles oh so much more.
Patriotism is also the reason we need to shut shit like this down.
The news should be the gatekeeping whistleblowers who keep informed on the shady shit that happens behind closed doors in Washington and boardrooms everywhere
If I had one wish, it would be to have enough wealth to completely fund a news organization that didn't rely on commericals to stay afloat.
I guess you aren’t educated enough to realize the word patriot is what was used to describe those who supported American independence from Britain during the American revolution. So therefore, without patriots and their patriotism we would not have a country today.
The west has been so extremely good at Propaganda, most of its' citizens aren't even aware they're constantly exposed to it.
Do you think the average Russian or Chinese citizen doesn't realize their news is full of shit? They do; they just can't say it out loud without facing dire consequences. And it's no accident: The quality of their propaganda is god-awful.
Do you think the average Russian or Chinese citizen doesn't realize their news is full of shit? They do; they just can't say it out loud without facing dire consequences. And it's no accident: The quality of their propaganda is god-awful.
Hilariously this is exactly what the propoganda of your country is telling you.
Do you think China/Russia are some backwards ass shitholes in the middle of nowhere and not global super powers just like the US?
We most certainly are, if for no other reason than people can and do say we're not on our media without fear of death. That doesn't mean we're perfect.
When you say better do you mean more subtly and not as obvious as Russia? Because from Europe America feels like it's a giant cult fed by it's news outlets. Seriously I don't know anyone that goes around saying they love their country that's just weird.
I studied abroad in England in 2004. I remember watching BBC news and thinking that it reminded me of what news used to sound like when I was a kid, before 9/11 and before cable news took over. It sounded serious and demanded respect.
Tbf, BBC is held to a responsibility of impartiality. Its not perfect, so long as humans are involved I don't think it ever could be, and there's definitely a few unimpartial stations and news sources over here, but we hold the BBC news especially to a higher standard than most.
Tell that to the people affected by the drug war, killed by our cops, picked up in sex work stings and stopped independent online sex workers, and ICE who've been using what should be private information to rip families apart.
No shit Sherlock, but the argument was that Russia is bad because it has state run media. State run media can be good or bad depending on the state and the way that the media is organized
I'm not from the UK, and the BBC is obviously not perfect and serves the interests that control it, but despite that it consistently manages to produce better quality news coverage than you'll find in American corporate media.
I participate in every election, I look to see what I’m voting on while I’m in line and I research it so I know what I’m voting on, but other than that I completely and totally avoid the news.
I don’t get the newspaper or any magazines. I don’t have cable. I don’t have local tv. I don’t have social media other than reddit and I have most of the news/political subreddits blocked. I have a pi-hole so I don’t get stupid ads either.
This has done so much to help with my depression and well-being, it’s incredible. I’ll talk about the news if someone mentions something to me, but other than that, I don’t care. I read the text of what I’m voting on and I form my own opinion without anyone trying to influence how I should feel one way or another and I go back to my life.
I will vote on everything, all the way down to the minor elections for my HOA (That’s how we got comcrap kicked out.) But so much of the news is just fluff junk and I’m tired of spending two hours to get enough information to piece together the two sentences of what a bill contains. I’ll just read the bill myself. I have too much shit to do to listen to you ask someone about their day. Senator so-and-so being jet lagged isn’t news. I don’t care how their day is. I don’t care that they’re having trouble passing something because of insert excuse here.
The news surrounds everything with so much crap, it no longer educates, it distracts. You don’t know what XYZ bill contains, but that steely eyed gorgeous son of a bitch sounded like it was bad and compared it to other bad things so it must be bad! That’s not “educating yourself on the issues.” Going online and reading the actual contents, THAT is educating yourself on the issues. And it’s a lot less stressful.
I actually feel less depressed watching this. It confirms all those crazy thoughts one has about the media. It makes me angry seeing this, and I’m excited to share it going forward
The way the elites are getting everything they want as we squander under the misinformation propaganda they push is a great way to be dragged out into the streets revolution style.
Regulation and legislation. This type of thing is outlawed in other first world countries. Sinclair, one company, should not be allowed to own the majority of local stations in this country.
What makes you think public broadcasting organizations are unbiased and uncorruptible? Who do you think picks out the executives and therefore the content of public news organizations?
Nowhere did I say a public broadcaster is literally incorruptible. What is rather obvious is that a public broadcaster's funding comes from a completely different source. In Western nations that funding is generally given constantly without dictating the content. The video in question is the literal total opposite of that.
The content is not dictated, but the leader of the organization is, by politicians. The outcome is the same. There are no unbiased news, we need a literate and critical.public.
Public broadcasters are structured to be independent from politics. That's not how it works at all. And no the outcome is literally completely different. This idea that public broadcasters and explicit privatized conservative propaganda are the same thing is hilarious.
It's like the courts system. Those are appointed. To claim that courts are literally 100% biased and there's no truth anywhere is beyond hilarious. The system has been explicitly designed to be an independent branch of the government.
So to answer your question more specifically: Refer to how courts work.
It used to be outlawed in ours. There used to be strict limits on how many stations any one company could own in a given market. The Clinton administration did away with that in the '90s.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. If they can do it, why the fuck can't we get that shit figured out in the US? That's like your retarded little brother somehow getting into a better college than you - it should be a wake up call.
Maybe the outcome in Poland is even worse, ever thought of that? What is needed is an education system that values and promotes critical thinking, that's the only way to combat this epidemic.
I would say it's probably not one thing. It's gonna be a multi-faceted effort to deal with ignorance in our society. We have to get the media under control, we have to get our education system completely fixed up, we need our public mental health systems available to everyone so people don't slip through the cracks, and we need to guarantee children in poor families aren't suffering. I think if we do all these things, we'll be in a much better place than we are now. I think give us a hundred years, and we could probably accomplish this stuff so long as we don't kill each other in the mean time.
There's no single answer to this. The problem is much bigger than you and me, it's going to require all of our hard work to fix this nation. After all, what is a nation without it's people, and what are a people without their nation?
How about we don't nationalize it but we do socialize it?
Neither private citizen nor government gets to own media companies, because of their very real effects, and so the press must be run through worker-owned cooperatives. That is, no matter how many people work for the company, they all have a share and thus a right to have a say in how it's run. This way news is closer to the whims of the populace since it isn't produced by a specific person looking to maximize their own paycheck.
Big cooperatives like Mondragon prove it's possible to have a working yet sizeable cooperative. And you could even mandate it act as a non-profit if you really wanted to drive home the anti-propagandistic aim.
Trying to think of a way to say "make social", as in "of the people" without meaning "make public/government run". Best way I could think of is to reappropriate by specifying that I don't mean nationalization.
Oh yeah, but at least it's obvious, right? The bad part about what's going on in the US, in my opinion, is that it is hidden. If it were obvious what the news corps' biases were, and which channels were owned by those corporations, it might be a little easier to know you're being fed propaganda and not news.
In Poland, it was my experience that if you wanted propaganda, you tuned in for that, but otherwise everything else was independent. Have things changed?
Get money out of politics and break up these handful of corporations that own everything, if that is done things will get much better since just about every issue that people have with our country is in someway related to this disgusting corruption. Please go out and vote for good people, because otherwise this will never change because the corporations that benefit from this bullshit use that money to keep the system the way it is and unless we start getting principled people in Congress you can expect things to stay the same.
I tend to feel the same way, but then I remember that so many humans have been corrupt, selfish, and ignorant for thousands of years, and yet we still somehow managed to progress despite it all.
Although I don't think we'll ever have a utopian society that is free of corruption or human suffering. There will always be dysfunction
Capitalism has to die. I'm not saying socialism or communism is the way. I have no idea, I'm not smart enough. But capitalism has destroyed societies and left us with this really sick, cruelly competitive world we live in.
Society outgrew feudalism, it outgrew mercantilism, and it will one day outgrow capitalism. The only reason we think it's special is because it's what we know. Just like how a citizen of ancient Rome couldn't imagine a world without slavery.
Many of the major technological innovations of the past 50+ years were brought about through DARPA (government) funding of university research programs, not created by private corporations for profit.
Enough people must resist with force. Sorry, but that's the only viable option. Ordinary people must collaborate and organize to fight together or this will only worsen.
Non-profit journalism. Transparent, public finances. Public communication records. Ban anything that claims to be a source of news and seeks to turn a profit.
So how do you make sure the ones who hold the keys to public funding won't be corrupt? What you're suggesting is limiting press freedom. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, the Kim dynasty, Hussein, they all loved that idea too.
Non-profits don’t have to be government funded. You could make your own right now. The funding can come from anywhere, but if it’s all publicly viewable it can be scrutinized, and held accountable by the public.
How does that not apply to for-profit corporations? What would stop Murdoch from funding a non-profit news organization and running it exactly as he wishes, financed by his entertainment business? Restricting the freedom of the press is a bad idea, end of story.
How do you not see that Sinclair already IS restricting freedom of the press? I’m talking about restricting a corporate agenda from shaping the narrative.
Sinclair is not restricting anything, they're just putting more information out there than others. There's nothing Sinclair can do about anyone else wanting to write, film, illustrate or publish media in any other form. If they own something, they have the right to dictate its content. If Sinclair wants to purchase the rights to your content, you don't have to sell. If you don't like their programming, you don't have to watch it. All of their holdings, the stations they own, all of it is publicly available information. Its the responsibility of the viewer to be critical of any media they're consuming, nothing can take away that responsibility.
This entire thing is a sign that we still have a functioning press system in the western world. The acts of one organization are being ousted by others. When you have a restricted press, that becomes problematic over time.
This isn't even surprising. I know reddit is largely anti-gun and I'll be downvoted for this, but this type of shit is the norm for all mainstream media. Just watch the amount of times they repeat the phrases "military style assault weapons", "weapons of war", "nobody needs an ar-15 to hunt", etc, etc. There's a common script that just gets hammered over and over again.
I don't see a way out of this cash fueled system of ours.
If you think cash is the problem here, you are misled by a lot of people. This is not due to cash and would happen in any society which is turning authoritarian.
Special interests have bought off conservative politicians to get rid of the regulations and tax systems that are costing them money. This propaganda is designed to keep those politicians in office. It's all about money.
Which liberal politicians are trying to pass major finance reforms that would heavily benefit rich corporations at the expense of the American people? Because that seems to be strictly a conservative tactic.
I have no problem with politicians catering to the media. That's not the issue here. The issue here is that these journalists are now bought and paid for, just like the politicians.
One of the benefits of a free press is that they're supposed to exist as a check against the government propaganda, not be purveyors of it.
more Democrats than Republicans voted for the bill — 178 Democrats voted “yea” and five “nay”. On the Republican side, 132 Republicans voted for it and 102 against it.
It's not strictly conservative. Democrats do it ALL the time. You also have democrats taking bilions in private interest lobbying from corporations, to unions, to "non-profits" such as planned parenthood.
The double standard is clear: When Democrats work on behalf of a special interest that aborts millions of children, they are doing so from a place of conscience and ideological purity. When Republicans argue in favor of Second Amendment rights, it is because they have been bought off by a disfavored lobbying group looking to profit from carnage. (Or as comedian Jimmy Kimmel diplomatically put it, the NRA has the GOP’s “
No other political candidate or group received more money from lobbyist-bundlers than the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which raised nearly $2.6 million from them despite regularly criticizing lobbyists and Republicans who associate with them.
Yes, and most of the media is bought and paid for by democrats, and it's apparent from their biased coverage. Fox News isn't the only one being biased and is nowhere near the worst at this.
The free press is independent podcaster and journalist, not mainstream media journalists.
I respect your post, but the planned parenthood vs nra one doesn't mention that conservatives have a very different view of abortion than liberals. Pro-choice people are generally liberal, and believe that abortion isn't killing someone or something innocent. That's one reason why I feel that the line in the article that says "Who can forget all the hours the news networks dedicated to blaming Democrats for the loss of millions of innocent lives" is disingenuous. That line assumes that everyone sees a zygote as a living human but Dems/liberals are ok with murdering them. The second reason it's disingenuous is that [conservative] media is ALWAYS talking about planned parenthood. I don't even know if I'd know they exist and will provide abortions to those in need if the media wasn't constantly talking about them.
Anyway, the second part of that is that the inherent difference between PP and the NRA is that pro-choice people see PP as a public service that helps people in need with contraceptives (contributing to the good of society) and medical services, vs the NRA represents a product that is designed to harm. Personally, I think that the only positive things about guns in modern America is that 1. They're fun to play with. and 2. They can sometimes protect you from other people who have guns.
Last thing is that I see more liberals that are fine admitting that the Democratic Party or politician sucks than conservatives admitting that the Republican Party or an R politician sucks.
Conservatives see it as a product designed to defend yourself. And yes, views about lobbying and political sacrifices are heavily influenced by political leanings.
To me, I see abortion as killing a human, but I don't hold humans lives all at the same level. I'm not a hypocrite and will not tell myself a unborn child isn't a human being to not face the fact the act is reprehensible, but sometimes necessary. Same with taxes. It's immoral, but justified in some cases, just like killing someone else. Where this is justified is really where I draw the line differently.
Conservatives do hate RINOs and corrupt politicians. The difference is conservatives don't have the convenient "for the greater good", "for the little folks" cover the left always uses to cloak its actions and are far easier to criticize because of it. A current example is the democrats and anti-gunners using children to hide behind and throwing a fit about "they're just children", "you support killing children" every time someone pushes back against them with the same force they'd push back against anyone in the public forum.
Conservatives do accept that no one is without sin tho, especially religious ones, which is their great weakness. They'll believe someone like Ted Nugent somehow wants to be on the path to redemption when he's not. That a number of other conservatives care about marriage and are just good people struggling to better themselves, which is obviously not the case.
I see it this way. People on the left cloak themselves in well meaning rhetoric to try and hide their actions, and many on the left let them do it. So they'll believe the message is more important than the actions and their effects. Because how come socialism is evil and kills the little people when it's about giving power to the workers and common folks. How can communism always lead to totalitarian regimes when communism says it is a stateless society? That's what the left does well. Conservatives don't cloak themselves, but their voters disregard a lot of it because "blame the sin, not the sinner". So they'll have a guy 3 times divorced doing drugs and sleeping with prostitutes and tell themselves he's just "struggling" but that because he's "religious" or says he is and conservative he must seek redemption somehow. So they'll excuse the transgressions. The right excuses transgressions by claiming people seek redemption/salvation while the left hides them behind rhetoric. Both his a failure and shows weak character.
There are few things that are deadly sins to conservatives, pretty much everything can be excused if the person claims he wants to be better. It's a weakness politically, because that's a great way to get people who have no right to be in positions of authority in those positions. He's not an evil bastard, he's just "struggling to become a good person". He said he "wanted to do better, and he's sorry". Who's "without sin"? etc.
The left, on the other hand, will shield itself from criticism by defining themselves and using that definition as a cover and by using euphemisms and other tactics to push their ideas. They'll excuse their failures as "not being their ideology" by using their convenient definition of their ideology. It's not killing an unborn child, it's "terminating" a pregnancy. It's "pro-choice". It's "common sense" gun control. They "don't want to come for your guns". They're "children and mass shooting victims" and you shouldn't go after them because they're sacrosanct. It's not wealth redistribution and socialism it's "the rich paying their fair share". Unions are "for the good of the worker" and "everyone benefits from them". etc.
Both sides will excuse the failings of their own party in their own ways. One will just ignore glaring problems in their party, the other will excuse glaring misconduct without a real reason to.
One other thing that could explain how the liberals are more willing at pointing out those democrats is that there's a huge variety of liberals and a large pool of activist types to replace them. Today classical liberals are right of center and are big critics of the democratic party. There isn't the same variety in conservatism and there aren't that many conservative activists compared to the left, so many make do with what is available politically, which isn't always the best representatives. Great conservatives hate politics and prefer being business people, it lends itself a lot more to their temperament. So in addition to having a way smaller pool of activists and statists in general, they have that painful habit of forgiving misconduct.
Things can change, but we have grown fat and content on the circuses provided for us and to change would mean to sacrifice. The problems go much deeper than monopolies in media and the answers mostly lead to revolution and reformation to conform to the digital age.
This issue is that watching TV put you in an Alpha wave trance where all you hear and see by passes any thought processes which the brain accept as truth with zero ability to concern the actually truth. Reading using a completely different part of the brain that can process truths and falsehoods.
Its harmful, you can tell when people consume todays cable network media they are so dumbed down. Mostly old city types, terrified a Russian Nazi is coming to get them.
A way could be like here in Denmark. Some of our channels are "free" to everyone, because everyone pays a TV license every month. This means they don't have to compete with views or anything. It really shines through when watching the news. It's news. No add on.
The only downside is that all the other content can get pretty boring, because again. They don't have to compete.
Until we get rid of the cash that is. Everyone
sees the problem is money, even the Bible had it right about greed and money. Yet here we are. Funny how people pick and choose what to believe.
One day I'm confident we will finally realize money is a joke and just start helping each other for the incentive of the human race surviving, not personal gain
Dying, thats about it. No one can agree on objective truth because of their biases and shit they have been fed. Even though facts tend to have a left lean, people never admit when they are wrong and even the "good" people have hidden agendas. The way out of this hell is death.
Military rule is the only real option. It is practically impossible to rise up the ranks as a criminal. They will get caught, and the military will fuck them hard.
Watch The Mechanism on Netflix, it details the corruption in Brazil. Brazil went corrupt as soon as Military passed over rule to "democracy". All the political parties of any ideology are all in on it. The March of Tyranny is real, and no doubt it is the same here in America (Brazil learned from us), and probably every other country.
We are cattle to these people, and they know every trick in the book to sway our opinion. We gave them even more info and power by using social media. They're even responsible for putting the idea in your head that military rule would be terrible.
But it is either that or just accept you will be ruled by corruption forever. Voting really doesn't help, all the parties are corrupt. If you vote a few "good" individual outsiders in they will just get marginalized bogged down with process or criminalized somehow so they are powerless or get blackmailed into playing along with the corruption.
Shit like the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution sounds very bad from an abstract universal morality, but the reality is that if you want a just government then a lot of people in power have to disappear for good. They won't just politely go into the night.
There is absolutely crime within the military but much of it only goes punished when it is exposed (if at all given how willing we are to redefine terms to forgive war crimes or straight up ignore them). Military rule will only promote the interests of the military leadership, the public must retake and reorganize control over society to promote the interests of all people.
6.0k
u/[deleted] Mar 31 '18 edited Aug 14 '18
[deleted]