Burst Your News Filter Bubble with Read Across the Aisle(readacrosstheaisle.com)
readacrosstheaisle.com
Burst Your News Filter Bubble with Read Across the Aisle
http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com/
56 comments
You identify one of the important structural problems — that media outlets have partisan audiences, which for business reasons they need to keep happy. This means that an outlet like Vox will continue writing from a liberal perspective, and using headlines that get traction on platforms like Facebook. If they stray too far from their current strategy, their existing audience will disappear. And they have nothing to gain by becoming more moderate, since they have very few readers who are not liberal (who would read more from them if their coverage was more moderate)
We see this as a potential benefit to facilitating people reading from both sides: if we can bring moderate/other-side audiences to news outlets, they will have more of an incentive to make their coverage more moderate.
We see this as a potential benefit to facilitating people reading from both sides: if we can bring moderate/other-side audiences to news outlets, they will have more of an incentive to make their coverage more moderate.
There should definitely be an additional axis for alternative, non-mainstream sources.
It doesn't really work if you're just lumping everything together as either Democrat or Republican.
You're absolutely right that this is a multi-dimensional issue. We're starting out with just one dimension but want to add more in the future. What are the alternative sources you're thinking of? We're considering how to add libertarian to the mix, but there are other alternatives, of course.
Liberals read across the aisle all the time. Feels like it's half the shows on Comedy Central.
all the cries of Trump being supported by a resurgence in fascism or racism say otherwise. I often find that liberals understand conservative values much less than conservatives understand liberal values, and are thus prone to off-handedly ascribing conservative views as based in racism, xenophobia, or protecting white privilege.
There are some huge assumptions and obvious bias in this statement...
I agree that both sides would benefit from learning about what the other side values beyond the sound bites but part of the reason "liberals" are pushing back is because of the outrageous behavior of the Trump administration in regards to blatant lies and an apparent policy of reform through dismantlement (c.f. some of his cabinet picks and their lack of qualifications/pedigree for the position).
If conservatives want better understanding then they should act more moderately. There is a massive double standard by conservatives/Trump supporters in regards to issues like executive orders, presidential vacations, adultery by politicians, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and congressional investigations. If you want more understanding then stop pushing a divide and conquer agenda.
I agree that both sides would benefit from learning about what the other side values beyond the sound bites but part of the reason "liberals" are pushing back is because of the outrageous behavior of the Trump administration in regards to blatant lies and an apparent policy of reform through dismantlement (c.f. some of his cabinet picks and their lack of qualifications/pedigree for the position).
If conservatives want better understanding then they should act more moderately. There is a massive double standard by conservatives/Trump supporters in regards to issues like executive orders, presidential vacations, adultery by politicians, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and congressional investigations. If you want more understanding then stop pushing a divide and conquer agenda.
I've followed the reporting on both Trump's campaign and presidency, and have attempted to follow both sides of the aisle. While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical. I think the most overt example I can show you, that you can't argue against whatever your political position may be, is this clip of Chris Cuomo of CNN claiming that it is illegal for viewers to read the Clinton emails themselves and that all opinions must be pre-approved by the media: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_...
this is but one of many, many overt lies and untruths that the media has told over the last year to attempt to construct a narrative about who Trump is and what he stands for.
Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes.
this is but one of many, many overt lies and untruths that the media has told over the last year to attempt to construct a narrative about who Trump is and what he stands for.
Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes.
Respectfully....
> While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical
I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government.
> Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters.
And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives.
> The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes
Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests? I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc?
(Typing on mobile so apologize for typos and errors!)
> While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical
I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government.
> Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters.
And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives.
> The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes
Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests? I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc?
(Typing on mobile so apologize for typos and errors!)
> I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government.
Simply invoking "liar" is not in itself important unless you point to an instance of a lie and a reliable non-partisan source that disproves it. That might be a high barrier for agreement but partisanship has reached toxic levels in the past few years.
> And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives.
You realise it's largely the poor that voted him in? Poor white communities use the most welfare and they voted for Trump en masse. Perhaps it's because dignified people don't want to live on welfare, but want to have a job and contribute to society?
> Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests?
That's a burden of proof fallacy. The onus is on you to show that the administration is corrupt, has massive conflicts of interest and is business as usual for special interests. Simply going against your own political beliefs is not evidence of this either - for example, Trump wanting to improve relations with Russia is not evidence that Putin put him in the White House.
> I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc?
Management of Trump's brand umbrella has been handed off to Ivanka for his time in the White House. You could argue that anyone who owns any company at all is potentially making corrupt dealings if they land in the White House - that doesn't justify making them detach permanently from their life's work. I'm not aware of any calls from his supporters to divest - only the opposition, who have been throwing so many accusations at him as to render their voice moot. Throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks does not lend itself towards being considered reasonably.
Simply invoking "liar" is not in itself important unless you point to an instance of a lie and a reliable non-partisan source that disproves it. That might be a high barrier for agreement but partisanship has reached toxic levels in the past few years.
> And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives.
You realise it's largely the poor that voted him in? Poor white communities use the most welfare and they voted for Trump en masse. Perhaps it's because dignified people don't want to live on welfare, but want to have a job and contribute to society?
> Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests?
That's a burden of proof fallacy. The onus is on you to show that the administration is corrupt, has massive conflicts of interest and is business as usual for special interests. Simply going against your own political beliefs is not evidence of this either - for example, Trump wanting to improve relations with Russia is not evidence that Putin put him in the White House.
> I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc?
Management of Trump's brand umbrella has been handed off to Ivanka for his time in the White House. You could argue that anyone who owns any company at all is potentially making corrupt dealings if they land in the White House - that doesn't justify making them detach permanently from their life's work. I'm not aware of any calls from his supporters to divest - only the opposition, who have been throwing so many accusations at him as to render their voice moot. Throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks does not lend itself towards being considered reasonably.
> Simply invoking "liar" is not in itself important unless you point to an instance of a lie and a reliable non-partisan source that disproves it. That might be a high barrier for agreement but partisanship has reached toxic levels in the past few years.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-overst... http://www.wsj.com/video/white-house-disputes-inauguration-c... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722 http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-administration...
The inauguration photo debate is a litmus test for the credibility of the administration and it's ability to tell the truth.
We will have to agree to disagree on all of the other points.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-overst... http://www.wsj.com/video/white-house-disputes-inauguration-c... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722 http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-administration...
The inauguration photo debate is a litmus test for the credibility of the administration and it's ability to tell the truth.
We will have to agree to disagree on all of the other points.
the whole inauguration crowd debacle strikes me as ridiculous. We know Trump is a man with an ego, he made a claim that the crowd was big, it wasn't as big as he thought, the media starts whipping up a frenzy about how it proves we live in a "post-fact" world. Then, the media started throwing up photos from earlier in the day to show that the crowd was tiny, when there are other photos that show a bigger crowd, for example: https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/u...
The real story here, in my opinion, is how both sides respectively exaggerated and underrepresented the size of the crowd (unimportant), and the media spun it into a narrative that was very clearly designed to invoke 1984-esque ideas that the party can declare that 2+2=5 and it becomes the truth.
Also, your decision to "agree to disagree" on everything I've said strikes me as unhelpful. Rather than flesh out why you disagree with, for example, established facts like that poor whites largely voted Trump, you refuse to engage? If you wish to critique my argument then you should be expecting me to counter your critique.
The real story here, in my opinion, is how both sides respectively exaggerated and underrepresented the size of the crowd (unimportant), and the media spun it into a narrative that was very clearly designed to invoke 1984-esque ideas that the party can declare that 2+2=5 and it becomes the truth.
Also, your decision to "agree to disagree" on everything I've said strikes me as unhelpful. Rather than flesh out why you disagree with, for example, established facts like that poor whites largely voted Trump, you refuse to engage? If you wish to critique my argument then you should be expecting me to counter your critique.
It is ridiculous. But like I said, it's a litmus test for whether the Trump administration can look at fact and tell the truth.
I struggle to understand how anyone can look at photos/video taken from the same perspective and claim it was bigger than Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg - the gaps at the back are clear). No one doubts it was a large crowd - as your photo shows, there were clearly hundreds of thousands of people there - and both sides definitely put a spin on everything, but the Trump administration clearly tried to play 2+2=5 on this issue, either for his ego or for more serious reasons. Either way, it's not part of a healthy society.
I struggle to understand how anyone can look at photos/video taken from the same perspective and claim it was bigger than Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg - the gaps at the back are clear). No one doubts it was a large crowd - as your photo shows, there were clearly hundreds of thousands of people there - and both sides definitely put a spin on everything, but the Trump administration clearly tried to play 2+2=5 on this issue, either for his ego or for more serious reasons. Either way, it's not part of a healthy society.
For context, I'm not trying to claim it was bigger. I don't think you were trying to say that, but just so there's no misunderstandings.
Trump has been elected precisely because he's not a focus-group-groomed super-careful politician who never says anything concrete. He was elected as a "real person" who, as a business magnate, should be able to apply his knowledge of negotiation and wealth accumulation to the nation at large.
As such, there are going to be jarring incidents like this for those of us who are used to groomed politicians, where Trump says something off-hand and it turns out to be inaccurate. I think that's fine, as a non-politician he's going to make mistakes, but it's also an asset (IMO) to be able to signal intent with concrete statements, or to be able to make initial statements and then revise them when more facts come to light. The characteristic that made him slip up on the inaug. crowd size is the same characteristic that has led to him fulfilling campaign promises at record speed. I think it's a good trade-off.
Trump has been elected precisely because he's not a focus-group-groomed super-careful politician who never says anything concrete. He was elected as a "real person" who, as a business magnate, should be able to apply his knowledge of negotiation and wealth accumulation to the nation at large.
As such, there are going to be jarring incidents like this for those of us who are used to groomed politicians, where Trump says something off-hand and it turns out to be inaccurate. I think that's fine, as a non-politician he's going to make mistakes, but it's also an asset (IMO) to be able to signal intent with concrete statements, or to be able to make initial statements and then revise them when more facts come to light. The characteristic that made him slip up on the inaug. crowd size is the same characteristic that has led to him fulfilling campaign promises at record speed. I think it's a good trade-off.
I fairly often read Breitbart out of (morbid) curiosity to see how they cover stories. 95% of the commenters espouse a viewpoint based on very transparent racism, xenophobia or protecting white privilege.
Maybe Breitbart readers are not representative of American conservative values -- but if that's the case, given Bannon's role in the White House, that should worry everyone.
Maybe Breitbart readers are not representative of American conservative values -- but if that's the case, given Bannon's role in the White House, that should worry everyone.
I also regularly read Breitbart and can attest that none of these supposed attitudes are the reason for the comments you're seeing. There are genuine reasons to oppose e.g. BLM or muslim immigration that aren't backed by racism and the automatic attribution that you're displaying is exactly a symptom of people walling themselves off from people of the opposite opinion.
Breitbart is actually reasonably mainstream, and despite what you may have read, Steve Bannon is not a neo-nazi. At least, as far as I can tell from the flimsy "evidence" that has been provided.
Breitbart is actually reasonably mainstream, and despite what you may have read, Steve Bannon is not a neo-nazi. At least, as far as I can tell from the flimsy "evidence" that has been provided.
Are we reading the same Breitbart? When there's a mention of Michelle Obama, most comments call her some variation of hideous ape. When there's a mention of muslims, most comments discuss paranoid theories of global invasion. And so on.
Help me understand: Am I supposed to ignore what people actually write and imagine what unfortunate circumstances make them act like that? But wouldn't that be terribly patronizing, just the kind of thing that liberals get accused of...?
I just don't see what's the proper way to read Breitbart without the "automatic attribution".
Help me understand: Am I supposed to ignore what people actually write and imagine what unfortunate circumstances make them act like that? But wouldn't that be terribly patronizing, just the kind of thing that liberals get accused of...?
I just don't see what's the proper way to read Breitbart without the "automatic attribution".
one thing the left seems to talk about a lot, but not really understand, is personal bias. The left talks about racial bias, sexist bias, and so on, all of which are subconscious, and this is known to be a scientific fact. However, one thing I often see left-leaning individuals fail to recognise is their own bias towards language. The left is very stifled in terms of language, due to concerns about offending people or making social mis-steps around people of specific assigned minority groups. And yet, the left is often willing to direct these deemed-offensive patterns of communication against groups deemed "fair game", such as males or whites. Hence you will often find left-leaning commentary similar to "white people need to X" or "white men are ruining Y". You would never see these phrases directed against black or gay people. My point is that the mainstream left believes in (or at least tolerates) an asymmetric treatment of people based on unchangeable characteristics. The rationale is around how this is "punching up" or that power imbalance between groups makes race-based attacks acceptable or unacceptable in different circumstances, but the key thing you need to understand is that the right is vehemently opposed to this concept and in many ways takes the complete opposite approach.
Modern conservative communication (I'm talking about younger conservative movements - The_Donald, Breitbart, you name it) doesn't generally care what race or gender or orientation you are, and will attack or praise you based on your ideas alone. When right-leaning outlets or communities make anti-muslim comments, the left-wing assumption is "my conception of a muslim person is brown, attacking a brown person is racist, this person is racist" but in actual fact the criticism will often be about perceived cultural incompatibilities. A conservative may criticise BLM or promote "all lives matter", because they oppose racialising police brutality (an issue that is much more closely tied to economic station than race) or some of the acts of BLM-backed groups. In the interpretation of the left, BLM is a civil rights group for black people, the conservative is attacking a black civil rights group, therefore the conservative is racist. The modern right also often goes out of its way to subvert political correctness by using offensive language, for the express purpose of offending the left and in-group signalling to the right. See Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay Jewish man and figurehead of modern conservatism, making Jew jokes at his own expense or talking about how gay he is in thinly-veiled stereotypes or references. And he seems to have fun doing it. Do you really think that a racist or homophobic movement would have people like Milo, Sheriff David Clarke, Ben Shapiro and so on as figureheads if they were motivated by hatred of gays, blacks or Jews?
I hope you don't take this as an attack as it isn't intended as such - but there's a lot of context to understand if you want perspective from the other side of the aisle. I personally see the right as more egalitarian than the left in modern times as it more closely follows MLK's dream of judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".
Modern conservative communication (I'm talking about younger conservative movements - The_Donald, Breitbart, you name it) doesn't generally care what race or gender or orientation you are, and will attack or praise you based on your ideas alone. When right-leaning outlets or communities make anti-muslim comments, the left-wing assumption is "my conception of a muslim person is brown, attacking a brown person is racist, this person is racist" but in actual fact the criticism will often be about perceived cultural incompatibilities. A conservative may criticise BLM or promote "all lives matter", because they oppose racialising police brutality (an issue that is much more closely tied to economic station than race) or some of the acts of BLM-backed groups. In the interpretation of the left, BLM is a civil rights group for black people, the conservative is attacking a black civil rights group, therefore the conservative is racist. The modern right also often goes out of its way to subvert political correctness by using offensive language, for the express purpose of offending the left and in-group signalling to the right. See Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay Jewish man and figurehead of modern conservatism, making Jew jokes at his own expense or talking about how gay he is in thinly-veiled stereotypes or references. And he seems to have fun doing it. Do you really think that a racist or homophobic movement would have people like Milo, Sheriff David Clarke, Ben Shapiro and so on as figureheads if they were motivated by hatred of gays, blacks or Jews?
I hope you don't take this as an attack as it isn't intended as such - but there's a lot of context to understand if you want perspective from the other side of the aisle. I personally see the right as more egalitarian than the left in modern times as it more closely follows MLK's dream of judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".
Modern conservative communication (I'm talking about younger conservative movements - The_Donald, Breitbart, you name it) doesn't generally care what race or gender or orientation you are, and will attack or praise you based on your ideas alone.
That sounds great.
Here's a random Breitbart news item that involves Michelle Obama and Stevie Wonder:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/01/12/stevie-won...
Look at the comments. Can you explain how the vicious attacks on her (and him) are based on ideas alone?
That sounds great.
Here's a random Breitbart news item that involves Michelle Obama and Stevie Wonder:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/01/12/stevie-won...
Look at the comments. Can you explain how the vicious attacks on her (and him) are based on ideas alone?
could you highlight some particular comments that you think are bad? All I see that could be deemed offensive is references to Stevie Wonder being blind, and bad puns linking his physical blindness to saying that Michelle Obama is "lovely". Suggesting that a blind man is physically blind is just stating a fact, and making a pun around that is exactly the offensive humour I mentioned earlier.
I may have missed some stuff that's lower down though.
I may have missed some stuff that's lower down though.
Here's some I collected in a few minutes, until I couldn't take it any more. Most of the 600+ comments are like this.
"He didn't see the bulge in the First Yeti's crotch, so it all worked out!"
"- So much for the story of blind people's other senses improving. He couldn't smell her bile?" "- Or jock sweat?"
"Those who have seen a Sasquatch up close and personal say the stench is the first thing you notice. I think the real reason Trump is staying in NYC for the time being is to give Stanley Steamer time to get all those Cleveland Steamers out of the drapes."
"They made the decision to throw the drapes away! Also paint the entire place with anti-Wookie stench paint for Purina's paint division."
"Does he know he's serenading to a man?"
"If he could see her...he'd likely puke and gouge his eyes out."
"Yup, anyone who thought he might be faking it can rest assured, he's as blind as a bat."
"He can't see the Wookie!"
""Isn't she ape-y" just doesn't have the right ring to it."
"A little Braille on Micheal might answer a few questions."
"Just give Mikey a quick cup check. Besides, Stevie ain't blind."
"Well, to be honest, they HAD to use Stevie. Anyone else would've been turned to stone."
"Serenading Chewbacca, how precious."
"Stevie wonder has no idea how lucky he is to be blind singing for that sow or correction boar..."
"You know how blind people feel a persons face to get an idea of what they look like? Stevie did that and asked "who let the wookie in!?"
"Wonder performed his hit songs “Isn’t She Wookie” and My Wookie Amour,” changing the lyrics to the latter song to include “My Michael Amour” while the First Wookie looked on."
"He didn't see the bulge in the First Yeti's crotch, so it all worked out!"
"- So much for the story of blind people's other senses improving. He couldn't smell her bile?" "- Or jock sweat?"
"Those who have seen a Sasquatch up close and personal say the stench is the first thing you notice. I think the real reason Trump is staying in NYC for the time being is to give Stanley Steamer time to get all those Cleveland Steamers out of the drapes."
"They made the decision to throw the drapes away! Also paint the entire place with anti-Wookie stench paint for Purina's paint division."
"Does he know he's serenading to a man?"
"If he could see her...he'd likely puke and gouge his eyes out."
"Yup, anyone who thought he might be faking it can rest assured, he's as blind as a bat."
"He can't see the Wookie!"
""Isn't she ape-y" just doesn't have the right ring to it."
"A little Braille on Micheal might answer a few questions."
"Just give Mikey a quick cup check. Besides, Stevie ain't blind."
"Well, to be honest, they HAD to use Stevie. Anyone else would've been turned to stone."
"Serenading Chewbacca, how precious."
"Stevie wonder has no idea how lucky he is to be blind singing for that sow or correction boar..."
"You know how blind people feel a persons face to get an idea of what they look like? Stevie did that and asked "who let the wookie in!?"
"Wonder performed his hit songs “Isn’t She Wookie” and My Wookie Amour,” changing the lyrics to the latter song to include “My Michael Amour” while the First Wookie looked on."
beaconstudios, your reply is marked dead, but I want to comment on some points you made there. I'm really trying to understand what you're thinking. You wrote:
"looks to me like a bunch of offensive humour centered around the idea that Michelle is unappealing"
It's obvious to me that the "jokes" are about her being a black woman.
"All these comments are, is mockery aimed at left-leaning individuals."
How do you know that? How can one distinguish between actual racism and nudge-nudge-wink-wink "mockery at left-leaning people", if they look the same?
Previously you blamed me of automatic attribution. Aren't you the one attributing some kind of positive ironic/humorist twist to these comments, even when there's no objective evidence of such? Can you just wave away any kind of cruelty and bullying by assuming it's a joke?
In programming terms, I think of racism as duck-typed, and these comments definitely "implement the interface", so to speak. I guess you must think of racism as somehow statically typed... But I'm at a loss to understand how anything could be racism, if this isn't.
(Besides, I don't understand what Mrs Obama ever did to deserve this level of meanness. As far as public figures go, she was a model of grace and compassion.)
"looks to me like a bunch of offensive humour centered around the idea that Michelle is unappealing"
It's obvious to me that the "jokes" are about her being a black woman.
"All these comments are, is mockery aimed at left-leaning individuals."
How do you know that? How can one distinguish between actual racism and nudge-nudge-wink-wink "mockery at left-leaning people", if they look the same?
Previously you blamed me of automatic attribution. Aren't you the one attributing some kind of positive ironic/humorist twist to these comments, even when there's no objective evidence of such? Can you just wave away any kind of cruelty and bullying by assuming it's a joke?
In programming terms, I think of racism as duck-typed, and these comments definitely "implement the interface", so to speak. I guess you must think of racism as somehow statically typed... But I'm at a loss to understand how anything could be racism, if this isn't.
(Besides, I don't understand what Mrs Obama ever did to deserve this level of meanness. As far as public figures go, she was a model of grace and compassion.)
That's pretty stupid that my comment was marked dead - apparently offering insight into why something may not be racially motivated is a no-go here now?
> It's obvious to me that the "jokes" are about her being a black woman.
I think that depends on your perspective. I disagree about that, but neither of us can know what the poster was intending. I can't say for sure in individual cases, but what I'm trying to convey is a general attitude in the modern right. Extracting intent from text is always quite hard, especially text that is using metaphors that can be both racially charged and refer to someone being large and/or ugly.
> How do you know that? How can one distinguish between actual racism and nudge-nudge-wink-wink "mockery at left-leaning people", if they look the same?
I can't know it for sure, but I honestly believe that much of the discernment comes down to cultural perspective. The modern right and left are extremely culturally different when it comes to online behaviour and problems with cultural interaction and misinterpretation come into play. Consider a more extreme example of online culture: 4chan's mode of communication. Everyone calls each other "fags" and the n-word is thrown around like it's nothing. It might appear to outsiders to be a hub of extreme overty homophobia and racism, but anyone who's actively used 4chan for any period can tell you that these are cultural artifacts that arise from 4chan's values around humour, opposing social norms and in-group signalling.
I could flip the script on you (or more accurately, the modern left) on this one and call out the regular articles that often start "Dear White People" as being racist. The modern left claims these statements are not racist due to their core values and cultural interpretation, which I do not share, and thus we're prone to disagree.
> Aren't you the one attributing some kind of positive ironic/humorist twist to these comments, even when there's no objective evidence of such?
Yes I am, because that's all I can do - after all, I didn't write the comment in question. I can, however, give you insight into a pattern of language that the right uses now that you may see as "this is 100% undeniably racist". There are many many more examples that aren't as grating as referring to a black woman as "ape-y" - that's a particularly pointed example that I can't say for sure isn't a racial attack. But I'm not trying to play judge over internet comments - I'm trying to provide a tiny bit of insight into an issue that's tearing the nation apart.
> In programming terms, I think of racism as duck-typed, and these comments definitely "implement the interface", so to speak. I guess you must think of racism as somehow statically typed... But I'm at a loss to understand how anything could be racism, if this isn't.
Building off the metaphor you've constructed, I could say that many comments that the left and right hold in contention only partially implement the "racism" interface, and also implement some other interface such as "humour" or "criticism" or "mockery". The left's interface definition of racism has evolved over time to encompass more and more minute complaints to the point where the "racism" interface is basically a superset of many other interfaces. Political correctness and the definition of hate speech has grown to the point where it flags up many false positives and people lose their jobs over them. Hence people rebelling against political correctness.
> (Besides, I don't understand what Mrs Obama ever did to deserve this level of meanness. As far as public figures go, she was a model of grace and compassion.)
I think it's largely partisanship to be honest. Both sides could be fairly accused of attacking the other just because they're the other side. The propagation of "good vs bad" morality in politics is really quite cancerous.
> It's obvious to me that the "jokes" are about her being a black woman.
I think that depends on your perspective. I disagree about that, but neither of us can know what the poster was intending. I can't say for sure in individual cases, but what I'm trying to convey is a general attitude in the modern right. Extracting intent from text is always quite hard, especially text that is using metaphors that can be both racially charged and refer to someone being large and/or ugly.
> How do you know that? How can one distinguish between actual racism and nudge-nudge-wink-wink "mockery at left-leaning people", if they look the same?
I can't know it for sure, but I honestly believe that much of the discernment comes down to cultural perspective. The modern right and left are extremely culturally different when it comes to online behaviour and problems with cultural interaction and misinterpretation come into play. Consider a more extreme example of online culture: 4chan's mode of communication. Everyone calls each other "fags" and the n-word is thrown around like it's nothing. It might appear to outsiders to be a hub of extreme overty homophobia and racism, but anyone who's actively used 4chan for any period can tell you that these are cultural artifacts that arise from 4chan's values around humour, opposing social norms and in-group signalling.
I could flip the script on you (or more accurately, the modern left) on this one and call out the regular articles that often start "Dear White People" as being racist. The modern left claims these statements are not racist due to their core values and cultural interpretation, which I do not share, and thus we're prone to disagree.
> Aren't you the one attributing some kind of positive ironic/humorist twist to these comments, even when there's no objective evidence of such?
Yes I am, because that's all I can do - after all, I didn't write the comment in question. I can, however, give you insight into a pattern of language that the right uses now that you may see as "this is 100% undeniably racist". There are many many more examples that aren't as grating as referring to a black woman as "ape-y" - that's a particularly pointed example that I can't say for sure isn't a racial attack. But I'm not trying to play judge over internet comments - I'm trying to provide a tiny bit of insight into an issue that's tearing the nation apart.
> In programming terms, I think of racism as duck-typed, and these comments definitely "implement the interface", so to speak. I guess you must think of racism as somehow statically typed... But I'm at a loss to understand how anything could be racism, if this isn't.
Building off the metaphor you've constructed, I could say that many comments that the left and right hold in contention only partially implement the "racism" interface, and also implement some other interface such as "humour" or "criticism" or "mockery". The left's interface definition of racism has evolved over time to encompass more and more minute complaints to the point where the "racism" interface is basically a superset of many other interfaces. Political correctness and the definition of hate speech has grown to the point where it flags up many false positives and people lose their jobs over them. Hence people rebelling against political correctness.
> (Besides, I don't understand what Mrs Obama ever did to deserve this level of meanness. As far as public figures go, she was a model of grace and compassion.)
I think it's largely partisanship to be honest. Both sides could be fairly accused of attacking the other just because they're the other side. The propagation of "good vs bad" morality in politics is really quite cancerous.
Thanks for the reply. This must be the first time that anyone has ever taken the time to explain this "anti-PC" discourse to me in any other terms than: "If you don't get it you're a lame slowflake lol" -- so I appreciate it!
There is a lot to be said on this topic, but this is probably not the right forum. It's sad how hard it is to actually talk about this stuff.
There is a lot to be said on this topic, but this is probably not the right forum. It's sad how hard it is to actually talk about this stuff.
tnone(1)
"When you do it you're an idiot, but when I do it it's because I know what I'm talking about"?
you might want to clarify that. I have no idea what you're trying to invoke.
founder here — I'll be checking in on the thread in case folks have questions!
How do you determine what's across the aisle for any given X?
Good question. There are two basic approaches: (1) have a set ranking of sites, and decide what's "center"; or (2) determine the center based on what the person's preference is (either stated, or based on answers to questions).
For now, we're starting out with option 1. We would love to build something more complex, like option 2, so that it's personalized for each user. Our rating data comes from various reputable sources, including public polling, and some crowdsourcing (via our kickstarter backers).
For now, we're starting out with option 1. We would love to build something more complex, like option 2, so that it's personalized for each user. Our rating data comes from various reputable sources, including public polling, and some crowdsourcing (via our kickstarter backers).
it'd be interesting to see what ends up being the center based on public opinion. My understanding was always that the "fixed center" (as opposed to the Overton window) of politics was renaissance/classical liberalism, as both the left and the right draw many stances from varying interpretations of it. I'd be open to seeing how my opinion differs from others who have different stances.
The example puts Fox at one extreme. Uh, might this be your own filter bubble? Not too long ago, there was a study posted here with statistics-derived positioning that showed Fox being barely right of center. (BTW, can anybody dig that study up?)
FWIW you're missing Drudge Report, Breitbart, Stormfront, The Daily Stormer, The Daily Caller, /r/The_Donald
You had more on the other side, but Mother Jones was notably missing.
FWIW you're missing Drudge Report, Breitbart, Stormfront, The Daily Stormer, The Daily Caller, /r/The_Donald
You had more on the other side, but Mother Jones was notably missing.
I'm not sure how much value anyone could get from reading the Daily Stormer or Stormfront. These are not conservative sources, they are "third position" sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position). I'd also argue that pro-communist, anarchist or tankie sources represent another position that is neither left nor right as it is also opposed to liberalism. Including sources that reject classical liberalism altogether would be valuable, if only to understand the views of extreme positions, but certainly not valid on a left-right scale (in my opinion).
The video is just a demo. There will be news to the right of Fox News, don't worry. Also note that the farthest left source shown is HuffPo. We'll likely include farther left sources also, like Occupy Democrats. Ultimately, the list of sources will be driven by the crowdsourced voting. There is also voting on partisanship ratings.
Thanks for pointing out how this could come across though. We certainly don't want to turn anyone off, even inadvertently.
Thanks for pointing out how this could come across though. We certainly don't want to turn anyone off, even inadvertently.
> FWIW you're missing Drudge Report, Breitbart, Stormfront, The Daily Stormer, The Daily Caller, /r/The_Donald
News?
News?
Breitbart and The Daily Caller are definitely news sources. The_Donald and Drudge Report are news aggregators, and Stormfront and the Daily Stormer are "third position" i.e. fascist/nazi sites that reject both liberalism and conservatism.
FWIW the list misses a large number of right-wing outlets, but that's likely to do with the author's lack of familiarity.
FWIW the list misses a large number of right-wing outlets, but that's likely to do with the author's lack of familiarity.
The center is defined constructively as "news presented in order of significance and without providing commentary". These are objective metrics, though they are very hard to calculate. And while any particular ranking is likely to be subjective, the standard is not.
The news is infinite though. Inconvenient news could be left out, and that would still meet your standard.
There is also the matter of the English language having numerous ways to express the same thing. Choice of words matters, even if the cold facts don't change. Example: did the cars collide, crash, hit each other, smash into each other, or have an accident? Was the child spanked, swatted, hit, whacked, struck, or paddled?
There is also the matter of the English language having numerous ways to express the same thing. Choice of words matters, even if the cold facts don't change. Example: did the cars collide, crash, hit each other, smash into each other, or have an accident? Was the child spanked, swatted, hit, whacked, struck, or paddled?
I said ordered by significance. If something is left out of my ideally objective news outlet, then it was, by construction, less significant than the things that were included.
To address your second point, connotation is objectively a part of meaning. I did not merely require that this ideally objective news source SEEM objective. It has to actually be objective.
Frankly, the argument you made was that the existence of "farther right wing" media pushed fox towards the center.
All I have to do is demonstrate that there exists an objective presentation of newsworthy facts, even if only in an abstract sense, and then show that fox has not changed its position relative to itself, over time, to show that your argument is false.
Centered does not mean average, when it comes to reporting, it means objective.
To address your second point, connotation is objectively a part of meaning. I did not merely require that this ideally objective news source SEEM objective. It has to actually be objective.
Frankly, the argument you made was that the existence of "farther right wing" media pushed fox towards the center.
All I have to do is demonstrate that there exists an objective presentation of newsworthy facts, even if only in an abstract sense, and then show that fox has not changed its position relative to itself, over time, to show that your argument is false.
Centered does not mean average, when it comes to reporting, it means objective.
that doesn't make sense, because if your scale is based on subjectivity vs objectivity, there is no partisan divide. There is just objective journalism approaching one side (approaching, as I don't think any journal could be truly objective without being purely numbers-based) and highly subjective content from any viewpoint approaching the other. That defeats the whole point of reading across the aisle and is more a metric of yellow journalism vs fact reporting. To attempt to split subjectivity onto a left and right wing would be to cause a lot of difficulty determining the limits and whether a report is subjective or objective at a partisan level would inherently be poisoned by the reviewer's own bias.
I'm not trying to measure bias, the statement that I am challenging is that fox news has been moved to the left by the addition of other sources which are to the right of Fox news. This is only the case if the definition of unbiased is "average".
My reasoning is as follows:
Partisan bias is a type of bias. If there exists a way of presenting information without any bias, then it presents information without partisan bias.
if such a method exists, then we do not need to measure news sources relative to each other in order to talk about what qualifies as non-partisan. This means that partisanship is a static quality of a piece of journalism, i.e. any method you propose of measuring partisanship should always give you the same answer for the same piece of journalism.
If you interpreted fox as having a far right bias in 2004, and don't notice any particular change in their reporting, then you should interpret them as having a far right bias now.
My reasoning is as follows:
Partisan bias is a type of bias. If there exists a way of presenting information without any bias, then it presents information without partisan bias.
if such a method exists, then we do not need to measure news sources relative to each other in order to talk about what qualifies as non-partisan. This means that partisanship is a static quality of a piece of journalism, i.e. any method you propose of measuring partisanship should always give you the same answer for the same piece of journalism.
If you interpreted fox as having a far right bias in 2004, and don't notice any particular change in their reporting, then you should interpret them as having a far right bias now.
but if fox is far right, where does that leave Breitbart? Most would say that Breitbart is more partisan, but you can't just make it "far far right". A scalar with a limit means that as you add new values towards the limit, other values have to shrink towards the root to compensate. Fox was "far right" in 2004 when politics was generally quite centrist, but now that politics has become much more polarised on both sides, fox is still fairly centrist but new, more partisan sources have come along.
Fox's level of partisanship hasn't changed, the environment has, leading Fox's "relative partisanship" to go down.
Fox's level of partisanship hasn't changed, the environment has, leading Fox's "relative partisanship" to go down.
In that time period, the biggest change has been CNN making a dramatic move to the left. They went from near the center to being out with MSNBC, which was already well to the left and moving left.
With that, we lost the closest thing we had to unbiased mainstream media. It's pretty disturbing that Fox is now the least biased.
I miss the old CNN. :-(
With that, we lost the closest thing we had to unbiased mainstream media. It's pretty disturbing that Fox is now the least biased.
I miss the old CNN. :-(
It's not the existence of "farther right wing" media that puts fox near the center, though that is suggestive. It's the fact that fox more closely aligns with mainstream opinion.
Ah, here, this looks like a story on the study I remember:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-your-preferred-news-outl...
For your convenience, it links to this:
http://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-...
Ah, here, this looks like a story on the study I remember:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-your-preferred-news-outl...
For your convenience, it links to this:
http://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-...
This is a dumb idea. The whole matter is too subjective to be easily quantifiable. In a free country, no one dares to attempt to hold some kind of claim to what is true and what is not true. Any such behavior is akin to what China, East Germany, and the Soviet Union did--they attempt to manage reality for people. It never worked, it doesn't work today. Only the willful foolish are ever tricked by state propaganda.
It's sad that we live in a nation that is so broken that disinformation is a daily problem for each of us, but it is and it is not going away. Your best bet is to remain skeptical of all information at all times.
Also, there is more at play than just reporting of so-called facts. The NY Times will typically run a story and for no reason at all, there will be a paragraph bashing Trump in some way, right in the middle of an otherwise unrelated article. They just find ways to inject stupid editorial opinions into otherwise "clean" news articles.
It's sad that we live in a nation that is so broken that disinformation is a daily problem for each of us, but it is and it is not going away. Your best bet is to remain skeptical of all information at all times.
Also, there is more at play than just reporting of so-called facts. The NY Times will typically run a story and for no reason at all, there will be a paragraph bashing Trump in some way, right in the middle of an otherwise unrelated article. They just find ways to inject stupid editorial opinions into otherwise "clean" news articles.
I feel like this is the type of thing that people say they want and know they should do, but won't work at wide scale because it flies in the face of our biology.
"Filter bubbles" exist because we seek them by default, it's proven to be cognitively expensive to challenge your beliefs, so the people who actively seek out challenging information are outliers.
I don't see anything here that takes cognitive science into account to truly change behavior, which I think would be required.
Good idea but I think we need to fundamentally change biology for this kind of thing to work.
"Filter bubbles" exist because we seek them by default, it's proven to be cognitively expensive to challenge your beliefs, so the people who actively seek out challenging information are outliers.
I don't see anything here that takes cognitive science into account to truly change behavior, which I think would be required.
Good idea but I think we need to fundamentally change biology for this kind of thing to work.
People are definitely on a spectrum when it comes to this. I've talked with people who really want to read news on both sides, and are in fact already doing so manually. They're looking forward to having something automated to help them track their progress and remind them.
There are also folks on the other end of the spectrum, for whom this isn't something they can stomach. In some cases this is because it reminds them of painful conversations with family members or others, or just because they feel marginalized at a personal level when they read certain news from the other side.
This app is designed for folks in the first camp, who are looking for ways to have a more balanced "news diet", so to speak.
We're also considering adding some gamification techniques to make this stickier for people. This could operate at the individual level (letting people level-up based on their track record) or at a team level. It's a work in progress!
There are also folks on the other end of the spectrum, for whom this isn't something they can stomach. In some cases this is because it reminds them of painful conversations with family members or others, or just because they feel marginalized at a personal level when they read certain news from the other side.
This app is designed for folks in the first camp, who are looking for ways to have a more balanced "news diet", so to speak.
We're also considering adding some gamification techniques to make this stickier for people. This could operate at the individual level (letting people level-up based on their track record) or at a team level. It's a work in progress!
I think the gamification or making it something addictive is a good idea. If the crowd is actually people already doing it, I would be curious to know what that TAM is and if it's something that is growable.
Essentially you are making a cognitively heavier Reddit/facebook feed/digg etc... that also assumes each side has equivalently quality content.
Good luck, I think this is something needed but it's probably in the hardest camp, with toughest monetization.
Essentially you are making a cognitively heavier Reddit/facebook feed/digg etc... that also assumes each side has equivalently quality content.
Good luck, I think this is something needed but it's probably in the hardest camp, with toughest monetization.
We'll have to figure out something that combats cognitive dissonance. Ideally, it would be an AI which double binds them when they say stupid shit.
Yeah we're partnering with some other folks that are in the filter bubble-bursting space, so that we can cross-pollinate interested users and share technology. Thanks for the feedback and suggestions!
This project seems flawed before it starts. It just continues the bad tradition of giving the loudest voice to the ones with the most money. That's not how to get all sides of an issue.
Creator here. How is it giving louder voices to people with more money? We definitely don't want to do that (and I'm pretty sure we're not).
News outlets are not paying for placement in the app — the list of included news outlets is being crowdsourced through our Kickstarter community. Does that address your concern, or am I not understanding?
News outlets are not paying for placement in the app — the list of included news outlets is being crowdsourced through our Kickstarter community. Does that address your concern, or am I not understanding?
I'm not saying they were perfect back then, but there was a clear sense of professionalism and fact checking in journalism even in the recent past, that now is difficult to find even in major journals.