I do want conservatives on here

Callatoroy said:
Case in point. To my knowledge this was never intended to be a lib board. "I don't know if we want" is nothing more than the zzlp. Your intolerance is shining brightly. You might as well just come out and say you are just interested in another echo chamber. The idea that you dictate what type of views people have or they have to meet some standard you impose is again, not what this board was intended for. Civility was intended though and I find your post offensive and completely lacking in civility.
Click to expand...
1721982164963.png
 
C
Callatoroy said:
You tell me.
Only if you vote for kamala
Click to expand...
Call, it’s responses like these that give us the go ahead to discount your views as someone not engaging in good faith. Simple clear question yes/no questions were asked of you in a sincere effort to engage you in good faith.

I’ve not put you on ignore yet, because I have a perverse notion that there may be more to you than we’ve seen so far, but come on, man. You gotta give us something that half way resembles good faith.

Answering those two questions honestly would be a pretty good start.
 
Lando said:
One of the issues with evaluating media sources is pretending that both sides function in the same way. They don't. Mike Cernovich once laid out a way to get a lie spread on Fox News. He would have his group of miscreants to get some hashtag or made up story to trend. If Gateway Pundit picked it up (and they would pick up random chatter on the internet like that) then there was a chance Drudge would pick it up. If it made it to Drudge it was destined to come out of Hannity's mouth. Cernovich could make up nonsense about Hillary having a head injury or a neurological disorder and a few days later everyone on Fox News was talking about it. Lower level BS factories like World Net Daily would get stuff sent to the more famous BS factories, and then the Washington Times would pick up on it. Then the nonsense would come out of the mouths of Republicans everywhere. And from there it cycles back through. Each previous iteration of BS becomes proof of the current BS, and suddenly every small town in America is convinced that two kids are crapping in litter boxes at the local school.

Ever see ESPN create it's own story? 47 hours per day of debate shows need stories, so one guy starts with a hot take and then that hot take gets discussed elsewhere. Suddenly it's a whole thing that ESPN discusses as if its a big deal because people are talking about it, even though ESPN provided all of the people talking about it. Right wing media functions on a similar feedback loop. I bring this up because we are then expected to pick out different parts of the right wing media ecosystem as more reliable than others, even though they all feed off of each other. A more reasonable take built on nonsense remains nonsense.

The left does not have that particular dynamic. They function more as aggregators than content generators. The Daily Beast reporting someone getting totally "roasted" in twitter replies is embarrassing and doesn't actually produce anything that could be sent up the chain. The feedback loop that exists on the right simply doesn't exist. Social media crazies don't have the reach because they don't have that pipeline to more "credible" media members.
Click to expand...
For sure, and I'm very much aware of how information "originates" and disseminates through the various media ecosystems and why. The first time I saw this occur was Cheney speaking about WMD intel in Iraq. Years and years ago when I still identified as Republican, I recall witnessing Dick Cheney giving a response to Tony Snow, which was later reported as fact, which Cheney even later then quoted as hearing as being reported by Fox News. That really blew my mind and at first I thought it was just an oversight or something. But no retractions were issued and it would begin to happen more and more often. Turns out I'd witnessed a new kind of "reporting" phenomenon which would shape our current media landscape, which you laid out quite well above.

Anecdotes aside, I don't dispute any of what you say. It's been my experience that really is how it works.

But all that said, and in an effort to make our conservative friends - Callatoroy in particular - feel a bit more at ease being here in the seemingly uncomfortable Liberal Lion's den (for lack of a better phrase), I'm willing to proceed tabula rasa until we come upon a dispute involving the quality of information. Then we can have the conversation about credibility of sources.

And looking at the latest arrivals here, I think Calla is going to find that he will have more poasters who feel similarly to his worldview than the alleged liberal echo chamber of the ZZLP.
 
Last edited:
Callatoroy said:
You tell me.
Only if you vote for kamala
Click to expand...
First, I’m definitely voting for Kamala Harris. It’s a choice between her and a man who is a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser, led/inspired an insurrection that tried to overturn the 2020 elections, and who still lies about the integrity of the 2020 elections.

So, please answer the question(s) about the 2020 elections.

Are they legitimate or are they fraudulent?
 
Ddseddse said:
C

Call, it’s responses like these that give us the go ahead to discount your views as someone not engaging in good faith. Simple clear question yes/no questions were asked of you in a sincere effort to engage you in good faith.

I’ve not put you on ignore yet, because I have a perverse notion that there may be more to you than we’ve seen so far, but come on, man. You gotta give us something that half way resembles good faith.

Answering those two questions honestly would be a pretty good start.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it, and it’s probably a good thing because I would likely have been less eloquent.
 
Also my personal preference is that anyone who wants to be on this board can be on it until they do something truly ban-worthy. And I thought snoop's idea of what was ban-worthy was usually pretty good, maybe a little too aggressive sometimes.
 
Callatoroy said:
The trap is that they know you are likely to only view sources that lean your way. If something significant happens (biden cognitive decline) that will benefit the right they just sit on it or lightly cover it. Meanwhile the right media sources are hammering away at it. What then is the result. You believe it’s a nothing burger and the right believes it is a smoking gun. The biden situation is a great example. For two years biden's decline has been dismissed by the left's media, therefore dismissed by the left until it was on stage for the world to see. The right's media has been reporting it non stop and therefore we repeat what we are hearing. You and I hear what they want us to hear and they know only a small percentage of people will actually dig deeper. I used to think oh Fox wouldn't do that. Bullshit. Fox wants me to be mad all the time and they aren't going to give me the entire story if they don't have to. Your media is the same and if you continue to deny it then you are doing just what they want you to do.
Click to expand...
Hey, Calla. To resume the conversation we were having on the other board, I know you think Kamala is a deeply flawed candidate with a lower than desired level of intelligence. I think she’s a great candidate and the next few months will show America it really did not know her. There’s a long way to go, obviously, but early returns seem to be supporting my position. In light of what you posted above, here are a couple of questions for you —

1. Do you agree that it’s possible your impression of Kamala has been tainted by misleading reports from Fox or other news sources? In particular, outlets that highlighted Kamala’s occasional verbal flub early in her vice presidency (which is pretty much ubiquitous for politicians), but that have not shown her speeches in recent years, especially on issues such as abortion. Are you willing to suspend your preconceptions of Kamala’s intelligence and speaking ability and make new judgments based on what you actually see and hear with your own senses now that she’ll be front and center 24/7?

2. To the extent your impressions of Kamala were formed by what happened to her in the 2020 primary, do you agree she’s in a completely different position now? In 2019, she was a former law-and-order prosecutor trying to win the nomination of a party that, even before George Floyd, was moving fairly strongly in the direction of police distrust. Now, she’s in the MUCH more comfortable position of being able to use her prosecutorial bonafides to attack a man who’s already been convicted of 32 felonies and is facing many more charges. She’s also able to speak to issues such as abortion that are far more salient than they were in the 2020 Dem primary. In other words, do you agree that the same things that undercut her primary campaign in 2019 could actually be major benefits to her in this election?

For what it’s worth, I will agree that to the extent her current platform is different, the positions she took and statements she made in 2019 on issues like defunding the police and allowing incarcerated felons to vote will likely be liabilities for her, and they’re certainly fair game. I’m just wondering if you’re starting to reconsider your first impressions of Kamala based on what you’re seeing now, and if you’re not yet, if you’re willing to do so going forward.
 
Zoo_View said:
First, I’m definitely voting for Kamala Harris. It’s a choice between her and a man who is a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser, led/inspired an insurrection that tried to overturn the 2020 elections, and who still lies about the integrity of the 2020 elections.
Click to expand...
This.

And I also look forward to hearing Calla's responses.
 
rodoheel said:
Also my personal preference is that anyone who wants to be on this board can be on it until they do something truly ban-worthy. And I thought snoop's idea of what was ban-worthy was usually pretty good, maybe a little too aggressive sometimes.
Click to expand...
and there are people who feel it wasn't aggressive, hence the never happy atmosphere that any forum eventually lands in
 
UNCMSinLS said:
Same here.
Click to expand...
The beauty of the ignore button Rock has in place on his gorgeous new platform is that you not only NEVER see when or if the ignored poaster actually posts or comments on anything but also, you don’t see the inane post when somebody else “quotes” or replies back to the dumbarse. It’s all quite lovely. I mean I can see when TarSpiel or Zoo have replied back to Calataroy… but I can’t see what calallataroy has actually written. This is unlike the old ZZLP board. Really cool stuff Rock. You Rock! I’ll never, ever see another word old callalaatroy writes again!
 
KarlMarxism said:
We must keep this board free of any dissenting opinions comrades. We are the intelligent majority that must use our power to rule over the low life idiots that do not share our visions of a country that promises equal outcomes for everyone.

But of course we as the ruling class will need certain benefits that are needed in order to rule over the masses.
Click to expand...
See, the actual fact is you’re the kind of troll which needs to get banned ASAP. You bring no intelligent discourse to the conversation. You post nothing about actual policies or even politics in general. Your poasts are nothing but trolling and you probably think I just misspelled “posts” because you’re a total nube and ignoramus. What a maroon.

So tell us comrade, how badly did the CoVid virus hit you when you first got it? 3 or 4 days in bed with high fever? More? Did you wear a mask at all? Ever? In your opinion, how badly is the Deep State embedded in Washington DC? And finally, Yankees or Red Sox? Duke or Carolina? Alabama or Auburn? Michigan or Ohio State?
 
KarlMarxism said:
Was your borscht bad this morning? Not trolling. But thanks for 100% proving my point comrade.

We must keep this site pure and void of ANY dissenting opinions.

Anyone that dares question The Party must be shouted down, insulted and banished.

Doesn’t matter on opinions or facts. There’s only one set of facts and those are the facts in which The Party says are acceptable.

Carry on comrade!

One party, one rule!
Click to expand...


What a sad small life you must have
 
Ddseddse said:
I get it. I really and honestly get where that feeling comes form. And you know what? There honestly are some real world constraints around the dynamic of power that force that to be the the case. When you have 20 minutes, I can't recommend strongly enough that you watch this CPG Grey video. It's literally like a secret decoder ring that has helped me see thought and understand why politicians continually seem to fail us. It also explains the structural conditions under which the public get more good from their government and which conditions lead to less good from the government (newsflash we are heading in the wrong direction there).



I know 20 minutes is a big time investment in our short attention span world, but the investment is worth it, I PROMISE. Besides, CPG Grey videos are fast paced, amusing, educational, and fun (I recommend the Hexagons are the Bestagons video next... so good).

ETA: After digesting the contents of this video it might be interesting to think though the implications of:
  • How our system of checks and balances was helpful by creating multi-polar centers of power each with their own keys to power, which created a matrix like effect that added a ton of stability to our political system, and how terrifying the erosion of those checks balances truly is (e.g. unitary executive theory)
  • How terrifying the Supreme court power grab (e.g. the Chevron decision) is because it centers power in lifetime appointment judges which severely limits their needs to rely on keys to power at all (their need for keys to power is limited solely to needing someone to enforce their rulings, no more and no less)
  • How problematic efficiency gains though technology are, and will be in the future (if you can increase productivity though AI and/or installing robots on the factory floor, what do you need an educated productive population for?)
  • And so on... Like I said, a magic decoder ring (useful analytical framework, actually) for understanding why the world is the way it is and what's driving it.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay, crazy week… but I will for sure watch this. Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Not really used to that in the Tank.
 
altmin said:
and there are people who feel it wasn't aggressive, hence the never happy atmosphere that any forum eventually lands in
Click to expand...
Snoop also did a very good job of ignoring a concerted effort by a select group of ZZLers (not frequent ZZL-P posters) to ridicule and defame him. They were relentless and tried their best to mock and bully him. Most because he banned them from the ZZL-P, but others who apparently were just their posse.
 
Just gonna throw this out there … this study was from 2019 but have seen several similar outcomes since then …

“…
Overall, Americans dramatically overestimate the extremity of their opponents' views. Both Democrats and Republicans overestimate the proportion of their political opponents holding immoderate views by about 20 percentage points or more. Independents, on average, misjudge Democrats' and Republicans' views by about 16 percentage points.

For example, the proportion of Democrats who agree that "most police are bad people" (15%) is less than a third of what Republicans suspect (52%). Similarly, the proportion of Republicans who deny that "racism exists" (21%) is less than half what Democrats estimate (49%).

We call this the "perception gap" in American politics -- the yawning chasm between Americans' suspicions and reality.

…
Consider the following question: What is the term length of a US senator?

We found that, ironically, the perception gap of people who answered this question correctly (six years) is 20% higher than those who don't. In other words, the more people know about the political system, the worse they may be at guessing what their opponents actually believe.

Similarly, people who regularly post political content on social media counterintuitively have a 50% wider perception gap than those who don't.

The perception gap is also wider among people who consume various types of media. For example, people who follow the news "most of the time" are almost three times less accurate than those who do so "only now and then." …”


amp.cnn.com

Americans exaggerate the extremism of the other side

Daniel Yudkin writes that Democrats and Republicans dramatically overestimate the extremity of their opponents' views, a concept he calls the "perception gap," the chasm between American suspicions and reality.
amp.cnn.com amp.cnn.com

Just Saying Devils Advocate GIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top