It doesn't look like anything to me
My spouse and I recently watched the new HBO version of Westworld. My headline is a quote from the show. It is what the "robots" say whenever they are confronted with any form of facts, information, or piece of reality that they are programmed to ignore. For them, nothing outside the park exists, so if you show one of them a picture of Times Square, for example, they will look at the photo and say "It doesn't look like anything to me." Then they immediately forget it. The line is how you know one of the characters is actually a robot (host) and not human (presumably humans would not be susceptible to such selective blindness).
The robots are called "hosts" because their job is to entertain the parks guests, regardless of what those guests want, however sick or abusive. The hosts can be beaten, raped, murdered, whatever. All in a day's fun. They wake up the next day and start the loop of their programmed narrative again, a cheerful blank slate. The show uses the word narrative for each host's programmed character and story line.
In addition to not seeing things from outside the park, they are also programmed to not see things inside the park that they are not supposed to notice. Something can be right in front of them, but if it doesn't "fit their narrative" they literally can't see it.
So I will finally get to the point, very soon. Last night we were talking about the basic problems of communicating effectively with other people, in particular breaking through what is called confirmation bias. I'm sure you've heard of it. The tendency of people to see what they want to see, and ignore what they don't want to see or information that doesn't fit their narrative of what is going on in the world. I was complaining to hubby about how you can present facts and information, and people will just ignore it if they don't like it. He responded "It doesn't look like anything to me." Summing up the problem exactly and perfectly. We like to think we are better than that, right? Not programmed robots who simply don't see or acknowledge facts when they are right in front of us. But we're not. Confirmation bias affects us all. Even you. And you. Me too. We have to work at overcoming it. I think it's possible, but not easy.
Now finally, the issue at hand. Almost everyone here has recently been misled and fed some wrong information, which has been rampantly spreading around the news media and internet. It fits a narrative most of us tend to agree with, so it's taken as right. Despite the general skepticism here of believing policians and the mainstream news media -- we don't fall for all that ridiculous Russia!! silliness, we don't believe we need to spend a bazillion dollars a minute on "national defense" and we don't buy the lies that the democrats are going to help working people -- but, there is one recent news/political story that most have swallowed hook, line and sinker, and apparently don't want to notice they got it wrong. Facts were presented and ignored. "Doesn't look like anything to me." Quickly move on.
I'm posting this with some reluctance, but it's still bothering me, and I stubbornly think facts matter. Even ones that don't fit the narrative. Now, to be clear, this is not an earth shattering issue or a Very Big Problem. There are many more important issues out there. But at the same time I think confronting our own blind spots and confirmation biases is a worthwhile endeavor. So I'm going to enlighten you. Ready?
True fact: Congress did not just vote to change any "Obama era regulations" that have until now been protecting your online privacy. That didn't happen. They didn't pass any law that now suddenly allows anyone to start selling your personal information, or to do anything they haven't been doing all along. That didn't happen.
What did happen? Well let's keep a long story short.
On Tuesday the House voted to repeal an Obama-era rule that would have required internet service providers to ask customers’ permission before selling data.
"Obama era" by the way means last October, which is when the FCC announced new rules that were supposed to have gone into effect sometime this year, which would have made ISPs ask you before using your browsing history and demographic data to allow online advertisers to show you targeted ads. Those rules never went into effect. This vote maintains the status quo. Not one thing has changed about what ISPs currently can and cannot do.
That doesn't mean the vote wasn't a loss for advocates of increased privacy protections from the current situation, which is what actually was on the chopping block.
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=ad+exchanges
There's a lot more detail, of course, but in essence this is part of a turf war between the FCC and the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), which is the agency that currently regulates this industry, and which actually does have some rules in place about privacy. The new FCC rules would have been better. But the hysteria over what actually happened is way over the top and wildly overblown. Everyone is mindlessly repeating misinformation and flipping out. It's crazy.
Also, those fundraising campaigns to collect money from you to buy and publish the personal internet histories of congresscritters as punishment? Those are misguided at best, and essentially fraudulent. They've already started back pedaling today, (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/30/gofundme-scam-congress-i...)
“When I mentioned I wanted to obtain the web habits and history of the legislators and their families who approved the bill, I meant that in an abstract sense,” he said, adding that he would return donations if he was unable to deliver on his plan.
In an abstract sense? Ok, right.
But they've already collected a lot of money, and the misinformation around this topic has been around the world twice already while the truth is still trying to get its shoes on. This essay is my little way of trying to help poor truth get out the door, and a PSA for you here, my internet friends (and frenemies). Does it look like anything to you?
Comments
Wonderful way to make your point
I noticed that a lot of issues of Obama's that Trump 'is rolling back' were recently put in place and they weren't going to go in effect for a few months or longer.
If these issues were that important to Obama then why did he wait so long to issue them?
Probably because he knew whoever became president would roll them back.
On a side note, I have tried to watch Westworld but I didn't like it. If you want suggestions for another series, I finished watching The Fall and The living and the dead.
I'll let you look for what type of shows they are but I enjoyed both of them.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Thanks snoopydawg
I'm not sure what if any role Obama himself had in the whole FCC v. FTC turf war and the FCC's attempt to implement new regulations. Possibly it was his appointees who pushed through the new regs.
But frankly all the news media hysteria around what the republicans did, and the way reports are repeatedly telling us they rolled back "Obama era regulations" makes it sound like he was our Great Protector or something, which is claptrap. Pure misinformation.
On Westworld. I didn't love the show at first. It seemed gratuitously violent and arcane. But as hubby was into it, we kept watching and by about half way through I was hooked. When season one ended we immediately watched the whole thing again in one weekend and it was way better. Looking forward to season two.
Thanks for the suggestions for other shows. I will check them out.
I stopped after episode 3 and decided to watch the finale
of the season and still couldn't get interested in it. I looked at some forums about the show and people either really liked it or didn't. No in between.
I don't know how you are binge watching the series but if you are interested I have this device and I can watch basically every tv show or movie ever made.
The only thing I had to buy was this and I can watch most episodes the same night they were aired.
https://www.techlife.tv
I have saved so much money from not having to pay for cable.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Haven't had cable for years
We got a subscription to HBO Go (I think that's what it's called), just to watch Westworld, on the recommendation of a friend who shares our love of sci fi. We got one month free, so watched the entire show twice during our free month then cancelled it.
Whenever they come out with season 2 we will wait til it's done, then sign up again for another month to see it all at once. I'm impatient with installment series, and much prefer binge watching if I'm into a show.
If there are more than one season of a tv show
all episodes are available on this device.
Netflix, Hulu and Amazon prime will release episodes when they want or remove series and movies if they want.
Everything is always available on this.
I have caught up on so many series that I started watching after they had been on for years.
Check the link. Or not.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I agree. Eight years in office,
supposedly completely blocked by Republicans for the last six, but didn't get around to a lot of things until year 8, anyway. And didn't make them effective immediately, either.
Seems very cynical.
Then there's his excuse for not getting anything done
During his first two years because the blue dogs wouldn't vote with the democrats. And they had rotating villains who would take one for the team. Oh of course he couldn't use his bully pulpit because his image of no drama Obamas's would be shattered and he would look like an angry black man. How many times did we hear that excuse? And 11 dimensional chess because he had the republicans right where he wanted them.
Basically he wasted 8 years in office from my point of view but from the viewpoint of the banks, the MICC and everyone else who is better off than they were 8 years ago. The rest of us saw income inequality rise higher than it was in 1928 and his bragging about how unemployment decreased, but many of those jobs were low paying or part time. And he didn't.........for 8 years.
Too bad that his supporters can't or won't see how he conned them.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I remember it and see it a bit differently, but the outcome
is the same. Bottom line: He delivered to a majority of Americans very little of what he campaigned on in 2008. And, no, that was not because of convenient scapegoat Indie Joe Lieberman or because the left of the left did not "have his back."
For once I decided to go through the whole thread before
putting in my own 2¢. I'm glad I did. Half the time I pop off right after reading the OP without reading the whole thread. You just said everything I was going to say but you said it much better than I would have.
Thanks!
EDI: Added the sentence starting with "Half the time..." for clarity.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
@Amanda Matthews
I wish I'd remember to do that - usually I think of some comment in response to something in the OP and put it down before I forget to almost invariably find that there are sometimes multiple responses much better informed and written than anything I could hope to produce.
But, oh well, at least I've vented without cornering any roommates (unable to skim past anything uninteresting to them) encountered on a kitchen coffee run with my views on the matter, lol.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
"Probably because he knew
whoever became president would roll them back."
Exactly.
Kinda like the slugger that hits a dinger in the bottom of the 8th with the team already up by 5. The dinger didn't affect the game, just padded the player's stats.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
@snoopydawg
I love your accuracy in calling things out! Still, this was symbolic and at least it generated some angst and activity regarding the internet we are in the process of losing.
Obama's disposal of Domain Names into 'public/private' hands, for example, should have triggered this kind of reaction; Google's notice of YouTube's censorship beginning with the demonetization of anything corporate donors didn't like should have initiated an immediate wave of people organizing some alternative*. We (especially me, beyond some general requests for alternative suggestions, if anyone knew of any and a pathetic attempt at rabble-rousing by nothing more than posting a bit) did nothing, as usual, and so it progresses, as usual, to worse.
*For those about to point this out, YouTube might be a privately owned site, but it consists of user-posted content and activity on which it relies and which forms the purpose of its existence. Without users, there is nothing to commercialize anyway, so the users/content-providers ought, if only out of enlightened self-interest, to be considered by management over intrusively bullying advertisers seeking to limit and control the public's expression and information access. However, if we all meekly accept this and continue using the place to see user-posted content there, there's no reason to consider us at all, is there? Just as with the US Two-Faced Trade-Off Corporate Monopoly Party, where the outcomes are already determined by who's allowed to run, never mind win...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Good essay CS. It's important to acknowledge
confirmation bias and work to avoid it. I certainly tend to read mostly what I'm interested in that would "confirm my bias'" but I feel I see all or both sides most of the time.
The advantage we have, those of us that heavily read the alternative news, is that we do also hear the other side, the mainstream corporate media version of events and issues. That's as opposed to most people who only read or watch corporate media and don't seek out alternative news and opinions.
So personally in almost all cases I don't believe I'm practicing confirmation bias when I mostly focus on the small number of alternative news and opinion sites and authors that I do because I do also catch the corporate media narratives. Plus I'm kind of smart and able to think for myself.
Thank you Big Al
As I've mentioned before, your essays here have played a big part in making me rethink a lot of issues and you've changed my mind on topics I am or was poorly informed about. I greatly appreciate that. I like having my beliefs challenged and learning where I have been wrong or off base.
I agree we are usually quite good at that around here, which is why I enjoy this place so much. Personally I'm a skeptic by nature. I tend to take all claims with a grain of salt until I read up on it and look at counter arguments. Too often it's nearly impossible to even discover an objective and verifiable truth, and ultimately we have to use our best judgment on what to believe. This particular story isn't one of those. The facts are what they are.
Thanks again, I'm trying to write something now to
try to alter the views of some libertarians and conservatives regarding the war of terror, the Constitution, and Trump's travel ban. That's proving to be more involved than I anticipated.
I think it's also important to keep the big picture in mind, actually develop a good handle on the picture, and how it applies to what we need to do. Like this ISP issue. What I take from it may confirm my bias but then again, even if it's not true, it doesn't take away from my overall opinion regarding our government, Obama or Trump.
I believe the travel ban is misnamed.
@HenryAWallace
Very true! 'It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive' in detention...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
A delay is not the same as a prohibition.
I don't agree with either one, but "travel ban" is a bs term.
@HenryAWallace
Lol, was agreeing with you with my adapted/mis-quoting of - I can't remember who.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
There is no converting
wingnuts. All we can do is outvote them.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Dunno about that non-conversion
Didn't Bernie just bring a whole room full of Trump supporters to applaud for "Gub-ment health care" in a matter of minutes?
They won't vote for
Dems. We can't cure stupid. We can only outvote them.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
That's not stupid.
It's refusing to vote for fake (R)'s when real (R)'s are on the ballot.
The (D) party is doomed like the Whigs and for the same reason.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I for one learned something today
I have never heard of "Confirmation Bias" before. An excellent category for that particular behavior. I certainly have experienced it. Also, I had no clue as to the existence of TFC.
This essay is encouraging.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Awesome sojourns, I'm delighted to hear that
Learning something new and feeling encouraged -- excellent. Helping to do that for even one person makes this more than worthwhile to write and relieves my fear it was a bad idea. Thank you!
You're more than welcome!
--n/t
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I still have no clue about the TFC. What is it?
I thought the essay had a typo for FTC, the Federal Trade Commission.
Aw, drat, you're quite right HW. It's FTC.
Federal trade commission. I need to fix the typo! Thanks.
I can't take credit. I thought it might be a typo
only because I had seen "FTC" in one of the replies. I had not noticed whose reply, but I now see it was one of yours.
https://caucus99percent.com/comment/253195#comment-253195
No biggie, anyway: If I had a nickel for every typo I've made in a post, I might have enough to pay Hillary's speaking fee! Well, without all the extras, like airfare for her Secret Service detail, etc.
At the rate I dupe and make typos, if I got paid for them I
could buy the Clinton Creature her own airline.
And I never did figure out what TFC was. Thank goodness someone asked or I would have had to. (I have to do that a lot. I'm very acronym challenged.) I'm confused a lot of the time by the new custom of using acronyms for everything but I'm getting a little better. I've even started doing it myself, to a limited extent naturally.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Ah. I can see said he blind man
-- Federal Trade Commission makes perfect sense. Their bylaws and rules have much more teeth behind them.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
The Toothy Federal Commission has even more teeth!
Oh, every joke attempt doesn't work.
@sojourns
But aren't the rights of people/sites to such things as (commercially/politically, not, like, posting your escaped ex-GF's nude pics and address with rape incitements and a claim that she likes that) uncensored freedom of expression and equal (paid-for) speed/payment/treatment for all of the various customer groups on the internet better protected when the internet is classified as providing essential communications services (as it certainly does) rather than a trade commodity?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Thank you for this essay
One of the things I love about this site is that we can admit to confirmation bias. One of the things I have noticed about Obama was that he always made a gesture (throw a bone to the real people) when it really did not matter. In the same vein, I always wondered why he did not immediately pardon Chelsea Manning, but deferred it to May. Par for the Obama course, I guess.
Thank you for pointing out that when it really does not matter, Obama was there with the empty gestures.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Obama did not pardon Manning.
He commuted her sentence.
I just looked up the difference. A pardon kind of wipes out the crime. It's as though the person was never convicted in the first place. A commutation of sentence leaves the conviction in place but reduces the punishment, kind of a Get Out of Jail Free card, if that is not too flippant.
The Constitution mentions only pardons and reprieves, but the Supreme Court has interpreted those words to allow all kinds of things. I imagine, but have not checked, that the reasoning is that pardon is a much bigger power than merely commuting a sentence. Therefore the power to pardon must include the power to reduce a sentence? Anyway, as usual, there's a wiki article about it if you want to get into the weeds. Also: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-exe...
True. But still, why delay her release from prison?
I've never been able to figure that out. He took forever to do anything, and when he finally did, he still delayed her release for months, in a totally unnecessary manner.
I'm only in the Vocabulary Department.
You need either the Mindreading Department or the number of Obama's personal cell phone.
I don't KNOW the why but I THINK that he did it for his
'legacy'. It cost him nothing and it was a half-assed gesture. He could have pardoned Manning. He just couldn't bring himself to do something that decent. Particularly since he spent 8 freaking long years lying for and defending the IC and their spying.
I've really really come to dislike the Empty Suit.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Pokiest president ever!
-- Unbelievably slow on every major decision.. From the Keystoe XL to Artic drillig to oil leasing in the Atlantic, ad infinitum.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Why?
Because politics trumps the rule of law (the Constitution), the bill of rights and democracy these surreal days. It was a by-partisan coup, that started in 1992 and all politics are nothing but a circus show to get people to consent from the political fake spectrum to give their consent be it passive or actually voting for these posers, including Bernie. Obama was nothing but a front man for the by-partisan screw we're living with.
The real question should be why did Obama throw Chelsea in prison to begin with? Or why did he commission the odious Cat Food Commission? Or push for the TPP? cut deals with the for profit 'healthcare industry' in August, 2009? Or suppress the torture report as we're patriotic torturers? Or not close Guantanamo. But hey Lily Ledbetter. The dude is a stone killer ('turns out I'm good at killing people') who normalized and legalized every damn horrendous thing the Bushies did and that Clinton (Poppies other son) held the place for. They set the stage for the next administration to reek havoc and are still at it.
As Obama exited he did a lot of shit that gives the illusion he was a man of change you can believe in but by this time anyone who can not see what his administration was about doesn't give a shit about real facts. Confirmation bias is about as real as 'white privilege' just another fake progressive term to get you to forget your lying eyes. Why listen to any of these pols when Obama has told you that night is day for 8 years?
I heard from his lying mouth that DAPL was on hold which was bs. All the while he lied the Dems. sicced the militarized corporate goon squad on the protestors and plowed on with installing the pipe line? What about his comfy shoes in WI? I do not know your sources but really it matters little when it all revolves around the farce of partisan politics rather then self evident truths which cannot be denied.
Regardless of the numbers or wording of these legislative bills or acts the complicit legislative bodies enact They stink to high heaven and mean nothing but harm and misery. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 sealed the Raygun deal. And on and on it goes. Who cares if this Trump Republican new further screw of the internet isn't what it's hyped to be. Nothing these pols hype and create outrage is ever what they say it is.
Thanks Shaz. I agree with a lot of what you say here
Your comments on this have been great and much appreciated. Along with some others who commented that I haven't been able to respond to yet, this conversation went all kinds of places I didn't expect, and there's enough that I'm working on another essay to follow some of these threads. I'll understand if you don't think it's important or worthwhile to explore further, but I do love the perspective you bring.
I understand that Obama is a neoliberal and in the end, a con man. My question above really was wondering what political motive there was for the delay in the release date from prison. I don't see how that helped him or his ambitions. But it really doesn't matter. It was a passing curiosity I had, but it's not a question that needs answering.
Who cares about the facts or this particular story about the privacy vote? well, I do. Enough to look up information and read and find out what there is to be learned about it. Why did it grab my attention? Why bother writing about it? Fair questions! I did say that I was reluctant to do it, and that is wasn't a Very Big Problem.
I think the main reason it got me was the fundraising groups that immediately sprung up, and made wild claims and alarmed people and starting raking in cash. That makes me want to know: is this true? Is it real, or a scam that is ripping people off. I don't think people should be encouraged to give over money like that, based on false pretenses. So it seemed worth bringing up, for those who do care. Like I said, a public service announcement. I didn't except it to get much attention or generate such interesting questions and conversation. So I don't regret doing it. I appreciate everyone who contributed to it.
Confirmation bias is a newfangled term, but the phenomenon is real. There's been a lot of various discussions lately that go back to this idea, how do we know what is true, what is real, can we even know? ... with all the fake news, propaganda, alternative facts... it's all too much, a sea of noise. I get the desire and value in turning it all off, and tuning it all out.
In fact I spent at least ten years of my life on a "news fast" and if anyone brought up or asked me anything about current events or politics, I would have to say "sorry, but I have no idea. I don't listen to or read the news." The looks I got from people- shocked! Or condescending about how informed they were. I didn't care. I believed watching news, especially tv news, was toxic to the mind and psyche. So I really do get what you're saying.
The whole thing about programming and mind control and how people decide what reality they believe in, and how other people are constantly trying to influence what is believed by large numbers of people... I find it interesting now. I read a lot of news now, but for different reasons and with a different view than I used to.
Well this went on longer than I meant to. Thank you again for your comments and thoughts.
Thanks for replying CS
pay no attention to my hostility these days. I'm taking a break from online politics because I'm in no state to deal with the politicizing of every damn issue when politics have nothing to do with facts or truth. Not your fault but mine. I find less and less people I know offline and on believe the news. I recently read a pew study that stated that 67% of the respondents believe the 'news' is full of bs. It's not news it's politicized propaganda to keep people frightened and divided.
I'm just weary of this insane partisan loop wherein every fact is filtered though the political bias of the professional elitist's of the left or right. Academic feminist's and other so called 'socially liberal' professionals preach the gospel of divide and conquer from their ivory towers. Case in point being DEO who teaches black studies to white rich kids in the Hudson Valley or this latest famous feminist to heap guilt on ordinary people who want real change instead of being told they are racist, sexist or need to stop being purist's and believe in identity politics that no liberal or humanist human should identify with.
I'm gong to stop haranguing people here whom I do respect. I'll be posting but not on any of the essays about politics that are emanating from the politicized soap opera being regurgitated from the hypocrites of the so called left.They offer no solutions and keep the sick game in play. As far as I can see Obama's motives are to appease the soft left into compliance with these pigs by throwing them a useless bone ( a bamboozle) that is a freaking lie and a bad con. He's setting it up so the next administrations be it R or D can continue to wreck the place and he has the gall to think people will fall for it. A fake out as is most legislation these days when politics trump governance and all sides are complicit.
I hear ya
And I'm glad you're here. I always enjoy your take on things and your way with words.
Thanks for the enjoyable read! You got me,
really did not read closely thought I would wait for the EFF email version on it all so I am glad to read this perspective.
What's your take on this? Think EFF exploited the vote to bump up donations?
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
It sure looks like they did
Of course they are not alone in exploiting the vote for political and financial reasons. I do support the EFF, and when the FCC rule was announced in October it was hailed as a big victory, so this vote is a blow to advocates who had supported the effort. I don't begrudge them fundraising to continue their work. I just want more honesty and clarity from everyone about what actually happened and didn't happen. I'm especially annoyed at the false implication that during the "Obama era" we had these most excellent rules in place which we've suddenly lost.
Thanks. We do two things and I don't think either of them
is intrinsically bad. Whether it is bad or good depends on the situation, the goal, etc.
Anyway, we do tend to ignore or rationalize away things that do not "fit" what we want to believe. However, we also gather "evidence" for things we do wish to believe. So, in a way, we fool ourselves coming and going.
A good example from my own experience: During the 2008 primary, I posted on a message board with people of all political views and hues. Someone posted that Obama had received an below market interest rate on a loan. Maybe it was even a loan to buy the property that Rezko sold him at a below market price, but I am not sure about that.
I argued that nothing was wrong with taking the loan at a below market rate. A Republican who was a bank officer posted, though he was obviously anti-Obama, that banks do that kind of thing all the time. I felt vindicated. But...should banks do that kind of thing all the time? And why are they doing it? Because they are chartered to be Santa Claus whenever the mood strikes them? Or because they are trying to buy the goodwill of the politician?
Anyway, I should have seen it as a bad thing, even if the bank officer biased against Obama chimed in to vindicate me. Maybe not bad enough, in the big picture scheme of things, to stop me from voting from him. But not okay. Not okay at all. However, looking back, it seems I had to believe that nothing he had ever done in his life was questionable. (Why do we do that? Why are we so reluctant to vote for human beings for President?)
Good points all
Yes, confirmation bias is a two-pronged process: screening out what doesn't fit or support our beliefs, and gathering evidence to confirm them.
I'm very much aware of the many ways I do this. One I'll share is around my skepticism of the medical industry. I love to find studies showing evidence of how some widely used and prescribed drug or procedure turns out to be deadly or dangerous. "See!!! I was right! I am wise to reject all mainstream medical advice and whatever they are currently pushing at all costs!" Heh.
I'm skeptical of "new" medicine.
So many of older, tried and true medications work better than the new stuff anyway.
On the other hand, if I truly had advanced cancer, I would try new medications. I'd have nothing to lose. There may be a few other conditions like that.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
I am out of my comfort zone, so I will again stick to
my own experience.
When I was very young, I learned that foxglove, which had once been dismissed by the medical profession, along with other medicinal herbs, as an old wives' tale* or some such, contained digitalis or a form of it.
I decided then that there may be a type of Darwinism of ideas, meaning that I should never dismiss out of hand an idea that had lasted for centuries. Of course, the "scientific fact" that the world was flat had lasted for centuries, too. So, the operative term is "out of hand."
On a somewhat related point, when I was young, I also noticed that every few years, someone would publish the results of a medical study that disproved the results of some earlier medical study. Some old wives' tales had a much longer shelf life than some scientific studies!
*As if older women say more things that are untrue than older men do?
Exactly
I remember when I was younger (30s and 40s), it was standard medical advice and practice that older women should routinely take hormones (HRT, hormone replacement therapy) to "treat" menopause symptoms. I was like, what? That's a terrible idea! Our bodies go through certain changes as we age for millennia, and now modern doctors want to push drugs on us to "treat" this "condition". I said I'd never take them. Later they announced that, guess what, we discovered that HRT causes cancer, and should be avoided unless you're one for whom menopause is simply unbearable. Duh!!
Stories like this abound, and someone like me, who seeks confirmation of my bias that modern medicine is often dangerous, laps them up. My current bugaboo is statins. No thank you.
I did do HRT for a time, and I am still alive!
But this wee AM, I am out of pain relievers save for aspirin. My Ibuprofen bottle is empty. This is what happens when one (me) sleeps days away because of the Cast I Can't Get Wet. And it's raining or mixed precipitation outside. I had a haunt dream tonight: husband and day care provider (both dead) negotiating prices on boat storage that I sold after he died, more than 6 years ago. The death of my mother has not affected me (except by the broken foot). only heard her voice once. No dreams yet. They will come. This may have been an outer ripple.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Take care of yourself RL
I'm glad you're still alive! I should have been more precise, HRT increases risk but obviously doesn't kill everyone who took it. Thank goodness.
I broke my ankle in 2004 and had to have a cast for six weeks. The key to keeping it dry was plastic: garbage bags worked well to cover and tightly wrap it so I could shower. I also used crutches and sometimes a rental wheelchair to keep it off the ground when wet outside. It's a hassle, no doubt. Wishing you a speedy recovery.
HRT can also cause blood clots, especially if you have another
risk factor, such as smoking or obesity. However, I think, but am not sure, that it also has benefits beyond relieving symptoms of menopause. There are natural sources of estrogen and other herbals, which some women find useful. Some women also find testosterone, even testosterone cream, useful in relieving symptoms of menopause.
That brings up another issue: I am highly allergic to ampicillin, which is an artificial form of penicillin. If anyone administers it to me another time, I might die, because the first episode of an allergic reaction to something like ampicillin is the one you are likeliest to survive. So, I have to wear one of those medical bracelets.
However, I am not allergic at all to the natural form of penicillin. So, going back to foxglove, the effects of manufactured digitalis may be different than digitalis from foxglove.
Gut reactions are very important to our narratives
This is apparently researched, although I haven't yet looked it up in detail. We make a quick emotional judgement on everything we choose to see and then we try to conform what we see later to that initial judgement. That's why advertisers and propagandists place so much emphasis on creating the "correct" gut reaction.
Beware the bullshit factories.
we're all
just 'pissing about in the dark' as the detective in the mystery I'm currently reading said. 'There are no truths outside the gates of Eden' as Bob Dylan said. Facts are hard to come by as far as politics and history goes. Good luck getting humans to not look for 'facts' that confirm their carefully manipulated created biases and beliefs.
There is nothing factual or new about the 'news' or revisionist history. It's all fake as it all revolves around the fake story line, plot that the current masters of the universe have devised and disseminated to keep us all in the dark. It's like the tower of Babble where no one understands as they are too busy hating, fearing and fighting for their own brand of the truths.
I find it ironic that Orwell's 1984 is now being used to rally the so called left/progressives and Demorat's to resist Dolt45. Orwells book is selling like hotcakes and the left is showing the movie to the resistor's. Like this is all down to the Republicans and the latest Goldstein Trump/Putin. Binary thought and data, just the facts, does not tell a truthful tale as humans are are not artificially intelligent machines. All the data, memes, talking points, propaganda, fear, hate and the fake news do not seem able to kill the human spirit that conceived of and understood those universal self evident inalienable truths.
Human intelligence is more complex and diverse then being the receptors of data and facts that are manipulated to give the story tellers validity. I found it hopeful that the Clinton Machine's machine software could not predict that people for myriad reasons would not be lead to their water hole to drink their poisonous water. Fact's alone do not tell this dark tale it's a story as old as humanity.
Beautiful as always Shaz
Wish I had time to write a thoughtful reply as this deserves, but I'm on my way to a hike with my dogs now, so I'll just say this, paraphrasing Captain Mal in Firefly:
I may be on the losing side, but still not convinced it's the wrong side.
I certainly didn't intend to suggest that facts are the be-all, end-all answer to everything. You're quite right of course. thanks for taking time to comment.
@shaharazade We need a handbook of
We need a handbook of guidelines for the truth-seeker, complete with a list of tells for trolls and liemongers.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Presenting "What's Going On in the World"
to a national audience must be a daunting task. The world is after all, an extremely large, and very diverse place. The notion that anyone or anything can accurately represent more then a tiny fraction of it is patently absurd.
Yet this is what the major news networks continually try to do, or pretend to do. In their efforts to summarize and compress unique situations into politically convenient narratives, they have become notoriously untrustworthy. To the point where "the news" in many people's minds, is now equated with the latest governmental efforts to manipulate public opinion.
When a large enough proportion of "all the news that's fit to print" becomes irreconcilable with a common understanding of experienced reality, one or the other must prevail.
native
Is it about winning or losing?
Thanks for the thought provoking essay CS. I seem to be on a tear these days online. I have been thinking about the constant stream of data and fake news, we as people are fed online. I was lucky enough in the 10th grade to have a civics teacher, an old marine surprisingly, who spent most of the class term telling us about the history of American political misdirection from Tammany Hall, Teddy's San Juan hill, Hearst's 'Remember the Maine', to Korea, the Cold War and Veit Nam. I bet this great teacher was a Republican. He prepared us all for the political language and so called factual onslaughts we would all incur via the 'yellow press' and the 1% machine political party's.
At this point I'm on nobody's side as the global, national and local sides are false. As for fact's they are essential to critical thinking. Where are these facts? It's a sort it out yourselves world online and the establishment media is totally unbelievable. My god when Bezos of Amazon owns the WaPo why would anyone think they would publish the truth? Talk about existential crises. The NYT is in what way not a fake news source. Judith Miller? Like Big Al said upstream I'm smart and can read and figure out what ax their grinding and the facts that all sides are touting as the truth. Seems pretty simple to grasp that no 'facts' we're currently confronted with have a damn thing to do with the truth. Truth is we're screwed. Once you let go of thinking any of this has anything to do with facts it's liberating. You are no longer looking for facts to back up the madness they tell you is reality.
I now call it noise, not news.
And am so glad I turned the TV off several years back. Little bits of stuff on FB tell me what is happening in fake world. For some reason, I am getting Algerian news there, en Francais. They are not happy, either. Noise seems common.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Bull. The newsfeeds I read
Specifically outlined what you state they didn't, with regard to implementation dates, etc. Additionally, the Minnesota House and Senate both passed legislation this week in response to something you claim didn't happen, that forbids internet providers from sharing browsing data of users in Minnesota. What do you know that the Minnesota Legislature doesn't?
+
https://plus.google.com/+PatriciaMcGowan52/posts/EasUmuCYtQi
Who's paying you?! [Something I couldn't say at GOS!]
You're mistaken
everything I wrote is true. I researched it carefully and thoroughly.
I didn't say anything about "the news feeds you read" since I have no idea what you read and my essay wasn't directed at you personally.
from your own link, it agrees with what I said (although it contains a typo in the year):
As I said, the new FCC rules never went into effect. That's what the words "would have come into effect" mean. You need to read more closely.
Good for Minnesota taking steps at the state level. It doesn't mean anything I wrote is incorrect.
Your personal attacks are silly
Try reading the links I included in my essay and reading what I actually said.
If you know of a way I can get paid to write blog posts, do let me know!
Thank you for responding. We
Thank you for responding. We're on the same side. Peace. And Minnesota does rock, although the South is invading... It's not the same world I grew up with in the 60s and 70s.
I have watched Westworld and appreciated your take on it. Interesting show but kind of boring but for the pretty people and great actors.
I stand by my post.
The Minnesota Legislature (Republican and Democratic) didn't respond to nothing, with regard to internet privacy. The U.S. Republican Congress attacked it this week.
And I don't trust anyone who sides with the telecommunication industry in 2017.
Me either
this issue dates back to Raygun and then Billary's 1996 nail in the coffin of regulated 'news'. they pulled the stops out as far as letting the fake news rip.
That question is the important one
and gets into the weeds on the issue that I decided not to delve into in my essay but are the crux of the matter in terms of which agency has jurisdiction.
I agree with the position that ISPs should be considered infrastructure providers, different from content providers, and therefore fall under FCC jurisdiction.
It's like the difference between the phone company and a business you call. If you call a company and inquire about their product, they can then use that information to market to you. But the phone company can't use the fact that you made that call to sell that information to advertisers to market to you.
Under the existing FTC regulations, which we have had and still have, both the internet "phone companies" (ISPs) and the businesses you "call" (sites you visit) have the same rules on what they can and cannot use.
The new rules would have changed that so that ISPs would have been reclassified and treated differently, and have more restrictions than google or other sites we visit and "voluntarily" give our information to.
I agree that was the right thing to do, and would have been an improvement. It makes sense. They fought it because they want to keep doing what they're doing now. I'm actually not sure as a customer browsing the internet we'd have noticed much if any real difference though. Google and other search engines and content sites would have still been under the current FTC rules, and their targeted ads would still be stalking us everywhere.