I think everybody knows the answer to that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Printable View
I think everybody knows the answer to that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
While I'm no fan of Fox, I will defend them on this one. The Left Wing media plays exactly the same game of divisiveness, just from the other direction. (This is a whataboutism but, I think, a valid one). I'm afraid it's inevitable as soon as you make the outlets dependent on a profit motive. Conflict sells, it's why social media is algorithmically tuned to cater to it.Quote:
That's how Fox News has grown to the most watched news network.
Of course, the alternative is state funding which comes with it's own raft of problems.
Anywhere not Gaza...Quote:
I think everybody knows the answer to that one.
There are increasing reports that the bombing hasn't been limited to areas notified in the app so it doesn't seem to even be succeeding in it's declared purpose, let alone the desired one. God, it's depressing.
I don't think saying, the other guy does it too, is any kind of a defense for behavior that harms people. Plus FOX is orders of magnitude more vile than all the others put together in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I agree with FD that both sides do it ... and yes, it seems that Fox is more blatant and "vile" about it ... but it's also largely perspective. It seems vile because you don't agree with it ... but I'm sure it feels the same from the other side ... Fox is the nice warm cocoon and CNN is the vile, despicable, evil media empire ... I haven't watched any national or cable news network in years because of this. I barely watch local new either because there's a clear bias from their conglomerate overlords (not the network, but the company that own like most of the "local" stations in the country.)Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
That said, yeah whataboutism is no excuse but unfortunately happens way too much ...
-tg
There's also a matter of speed and time format. I don't have a TV, so I rarely see television news, which means that when I do, I tend to look a bit more at how it is made rather than what it is saying. Over the course of an hour, you won't get many stories simply because it takes long enough to do an even half decent job that there isn't room for much. They tend to be only half decent, too, as television is an inherently visual medium. Most events have little or no meaningful video coverage, so you tend to see a few clips over and over as backdrop for the program. TV news might love a good hurricane because they can send somebody to stand out in the wind and rain so that the video is constant and dramatic. And then there's the infotainment stories. Lots of stories are thinly veiled advertisements for some kind of entertainment (guess what this actor just did).
Nonetheless, they could do better. There may not be two sides to an infotainment story (unless you count, "they did this" versus "who the heck cares"), but there are two sides to a hurricane, two sides to EVERY political story, and at least three sides to every economic story. We only get one, at most.
Really no need to defend Fox, there wasn't any kind of attach on Fox in my post. All my post says is, Fox gives people what they want, which has made them successful.Quote:
While I'm no fan of Fox, I will defend them on this one.
I'd say it's more of a damning statement about the American mindset. Though I do think these 24/7 political news outlets contribute to the level of anger people have. I can see how you would be convinced the sky is falling if you watch them a lot.
I do agree that is a matter of perspective but...Quote:
It seems vile because you don't agree with it
No it seems vile because the end result is dead people. Covid for example. They divided the country on getting vaccinated, masking, and undermining the CDC and the result was unnecessary deaths. There is nothing to agree or disagree with concerning that.
"Fox News is killing us: Here are the receipts"
https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/1...-the-receipts/
That is a good point. They are the #1 news station because people enjoy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
"Science Proves (Again) That Watching Fox News Makes You Dumber Than Not Watching Any News At All"
https://medium.com/transgender-soapb...l-6783ac48a348
Who watches any of them anymore? Many people haven't had cable TV for a decade or more and the numbers grow every day.
A simple search will answer that "fox news viewership history". Viewership seems to be growing.
I have rabbit ears.
And I don't have a TV as an excuse:(
Dil, do you remember the Yellow Press and how it got us into war over Cuba? Those were the days.
What's old is new and what's new isn't that old.
I sort of agree with the immediate cease fire veto but I think Israel needs to stop the air attacks. There are just to many civilians. They need to go in on the ground, boots on the ground, not blowing the hell out of everything with tanks.
I understand the difficulty that presents. How do you know who is Hamas and who is an innocent? Wars where you can't tell the combatants for the civilians are hard to win. Maybe impossible if the opposition in determined enough. I think the concept of completely eliminating Hama isn't possible but it makes the leadership sound good. Besides another Hamas would just grow.
I am curious why the US has always been so loyal to Israel. Israel/Jews has always seem like an east coast thing. It's never been a big thing where I live in Ca.
I don't even know which media camp is backing which side. I have no use for the entire mess, and I don't think the US should be involved at all. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm not a fan of being taxed to support perpetual war.
I'm just tired and I feel abused.
Yeah, for decades now the US has been playing the worlds babysitter. Not that we don't let our best interest guide a lot of our decisions.
But I'm not for isolationism. Some battles abroad need to be fought.
For many years if thought one of the worlds biggest failures has been the United Nations. Seems like a great idea but it's turned out to be a toothless dog. Just bark bark bark, where's the bite?
That's a false narrative. It isn't "isolationism" to stop providing massive subsidies to one side or pouring money into arms and action on its behalf. Just as we shouldn't be letting citizens slip money to either side.
It reminds me of the crap with Ireland and Northern Ireland years ago, just on an even bloodier level.
So you don't mind getting involve in conflicts abroad, just as long as is doesn't cost anything. That would be a neat trick.Quote:
That's a false narrative. It isn't "isolationism" to stop providing massive subsidies to one side or pouring money into arms and action on its behalf.
Broadly it's Left supporting Palestine, Right Supporting Israel. There's lots of grey water, though, and not as simply defined.Quote:
I don't even know which media camp is backing which side
It's isolationism unless you're proposing some other form of involvement. I don't think Isolationism is dirty word though. I personally believe in selective interventionism but I don't think the isolationist position is crazy.Quote:
It isn't "isolationism" to stop providing massive subsidies to one side or pouring money into arms and action on its behalf
From a transactional point of view, I think America is as powerful as it is because of it's interventions in the last century or so and I think you feel that in your pocket. You'd certainly be paying a whole lot more for your fuel right now (take it from a European, I know your prices have been jumping up but it's still dirt cheap over there by comparison). But, yeah, some of those interventions have descended into enormously expensive white elephants. They're only identifiable with hindsight though (and even then not reliably because you're still dealing with What Ifs).
From a moral point of view, I do think we have a responsibility to step in and lend support when we see a great injustice being done in the world. Sadly we rarely do step in on that basis and it's almost always the transactional argument that wins the day. There have been examples of moral intervention though. WW2 is the obvious stand out example but I think the conflicts that followed the break up of Yugoslavia also qualify.
You have to be real careful with the moral arguments, though, because they're subjective and well meaning interventions can easily head south in a hurry as the situation on the ground changes. E.g. I think the support the US gave to Israel following the Hamas attack is misguided in retrospect as the neighbouring Arab states haven't shown much interest to intervene on Palestine's behalf which was the fear - so we've observed two combative sides, one of which has a massive, high tech standing army and the other which has some second hand AKs and some hyperlites. We gave all the money to the side with the tanks who look increasingly like they're engaging in genocide, which doesn't leave us looking moral after all.
I'm not a fan of getting involved at all. That's not realistic though and things are more nuanced than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
But who created the mess that became WW II in Europe? Or the one in Indo-China? The U.S. bears a lot of blame for war with Japan. I'm not sure that the Korean War wasn't a result of European soft-mouthing of global Communism. Who created the mess in the Middle East? Boer Wars? And on and on and on.
So much of it came from colonialism and then disrepect by Europeans. People here are sick of changing Europe's diapers any more.
Not sure I agree with our oil prices being so much lower because of our conflict involvements in the middle east. Our own oil production ability plays a large role in keeping the prices down and our business involvement are big factors. Not that we haven't military involvement in the middle east for business reasons.Quote:
From a transactional point of view, I think America is as powerful as it is because of it's interventions in the last century or so and I think you feel that in your pocket. You'd certainly be paying a whole lot more for your fuel right now (take it from a European, I know your prices have been jumping up but it's still dirt cheap over there by comparison). But, yeah, some of those interventions have descended into enormously expensive white elephants. They're only identifiable with hindsight though (and even then not reliably because you're still dealing with What Ifs).
From a moral point of view, I do think we have a responsibility to step in and lend support when we see a great injustice being done in the world. Sadly we rarely do step in on that basis and it's almost always the transactional argument that wins the day. There have been examples of moral intervention though. WW2 is the obvious stand out example but I think the conflicts that followed the break up of Yugoslavia also qualify.
You have to be real careful with the moral arguments, though, because they're subjective and well meaning interventions can easily head south in a hurry as the situation on the ground changes. E.g. I think the support the US gave to Israel following the Hamas attack is misguided in retrospect as the neighbouring Arab states haven't shown much interest to intervene on Palestine's behalf which was the fear - so we've observed two combative sides, one of which has a massive, high tech standing army and the other which has some second hand AKs and some hyperlites. We gave all the money to the side with the tanks who look increasingly like they're engaging in genocide, which doesn't leave us looking moral after all.
Yeah, I wish all conflicts where as clear cut as WWII. But even that involvement was opposed here for a long time.
As for Israel/Hamas, I don't think the US was wrong to get involved at first. Though I don't understand why Israel was asking for help after just like two days. Did they really only have a couple of days of munitions stores. But once it was clear that Israel was killing thousands of innocents with no end in sight the US should have backed off the support. I don't understand this blind support the US has for Israel. It's been like that as long as I can remember. If a lot of our involvement is transactional based, then wat does Israel bring to the table?? I'm sure there's a reason for our support, I just don't know what it is.
Moral arguments are hard to truly justify since we pick some and ignore others. It does seem to be base much more on what's best for us.
I'm not a fan of getting involved either. I was alright with Kuwait because it was such a clear unprovoked invasion. Plus we went in, achieved the stated goal and got out But I wasn't for the Iraq/Afghanistan involvements.Quote:
I'm not a fan of getting involved at all. That's not realistic though and things are more nuanced than that.
But who created the mess that became WW II in Europe? Or the one in Indo-China? The U.S. bears a lot of blame for war with Japan. I'm not sure that the Korean War wasn't a result of European soft-mouthing of global Communism. Who created the mess in the Middle East? Boer Wars? And on and on and on.
So much of it came from colonialism and then disrepect by Europeans. People here are sick of changing Europe's diapers any more.
The mess that became WWII started at the end of WWI. Germany was destitute and everyone wanted more from them. Then in the 30's a world wide depression made it even worse. Desperate people will grab for any possible life line. Hitler convinced them he was that life line. At least enough people that he was appointed chancellor. After that you know what happened.
Boer Wars?? Was the US involved in that? The middle east mess is an ongoing mess. I actually have no idea how far back it goes or what started it. I don't think the the US or Europe started it but both of our hands are dirty.
I don't think we've been changing Europe's diaper. But I do think most of the world expects the US to take on an unfair share of the worlds problems. Some how China manages to keep uninvolved or actually take advantage of conflicts. I believe they're getting some really cheap gas prices from Russia because of the war in Ukraine.
Short term there are benefits for turning a blind eye to world problems, I'm not sure there is a long term benefit. Besides I like having friends and helping people. lol
Boer Wars?? Was the US involved in that?
From ChatGPT...yes but mainly no:
"Yes, indirectly. While the United States wasn't directly involved in the Boer Wars (1880-1881 and 1899-1902), there was some interest and involvement from American individuals and businesses. Some Americans sympathized with the Boers (descendants of Dutch settlers) in their conflicts with the British due to a shared skepticism of imperialism.
American newspapers covered the wars extensively, and some American volunteers, like the "Rough Riders" led by Theodore Roosevelt (before he became president), expressed interest in joining the conflict on the side of the Boers, though they were not officially sanctioned to do so by the US government.
However, the US government itself did not participate militarily or formally in the Boer Wars"
I guess I should be surprised to see the least important point being grasped so hard by the war apologists here.
My point was not the U.S., who has rarely been the most egregious aggressor, but instead dirty diaperland - the colonial powers.
That won't happen if you don't try and make your point with things you just make up and throw out...Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
LOL thanks. I've been missing your arguments by personal attack.
:rolleyes:...oh wait... you're serious. You don't read a lot of history do you? There's some Mexicans who'd really like to have a word with you about he entire South West of your country. Not to mention the First Nationers who'd really like to discuss the rest of it. The entire history of your Nation is one of aggression against weaker neighbours.Quote:
who has rarely been the most egregious aggressor
And Vice Versa. Iraq... Afghanistan... You're welcome.Quote:
People here are sick of changing Europe's diapers any more
but here you're right. If you're looking for the single Nation that's probably most responsible for the Israel/Palestine situation is probably us Brits. We promised it to both parties during WW1 when we wanted to court their support and then we led the resettling of Jews into the area without consideration for the indigenous Arabs post WW2 (although we also tried to prevent it when the massive numbers heading there became more apparent). All the allied nations (including the US) were party to the agreements, though, so you don't simply get to wash your hands of it.Quote:
the colonial powers
Of course, you could blame the Egyptians if you're willing to engage in enough intellectual gymnastics. It's all Ramses fault.
I would have brought up the Philippines before either of those. While the Mexicans can have some complaints, and the natives would have a wide variety of complaints, the depth of our misdeeds in the Philippines is still suppressed to this day. One could make arguments about the others along the lines of, "we didn't really know what we were doing, so it was kind of individual acts." Not so with the Philippines.
Ooh, good example. I'd forgotten the Philippines. I'll be honest that I don't know much about it beyond some history YouTube vids I've caught over the years. It goes completely untaught and mostly disregarded over here.
While I'm about it, I really should have mentioned all the South American proxy wars that were used to prop up friendly (and often awful) regimes.
Honestly, though, I think the US has been a broadly benign player on the world stage with spikes of unpleasant transactionalism. I think you guys have much to be proud of but I hate exceptionalism. Y'aint saints.
My mother is!!!!Quote:
Y'aint saints.
Should look into the Christian/Catholic treatment of Indigenous in Canada as recently as the '80's ... not all the bad crap is ancient news... some of it is quite contemporary... And you generally won't find it in any history book no matter how updated it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
-tg
Nothing was taught about it when I went to school. I doubt that has changed.Quote:
It goes completely untaught and mostly disregarded over here.
Yeah, that's some dirty laundry. I didn't hear how bad it was until I was into my 40s.
You just called us "war apologists", that wasn't personal? I wouldn't have posted anything if you didn't make up your own facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I just spent some time reading about that. I was not aware of that and they didn't teach it the high school I went to. One source likened it to American's "Manifest Destiny", when the continental expansion was complete the Philippines were next. They didn't fare much better then the American Indians. Except they still have a country.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
This is part of a post I made in #151Quote:
I don't understand this blind support the US has for Israel. It's been like that as long as I can remember. If a lot of our involvement is transactional based, then what does Israel bring to the table?? I'm sure there's a reason for our support, I just don't know what it is.
Never got an answer. So I thought I'd ask again. Considering 30,000 death in Gaza and the US is still vetoing measures to restrain Israel in the UN.
To get an answer you would have to accept that there is something behind the US government moving the strings, from what I know of you , you won't accept that so you won't get an answer, or maybe get one of those "bend" answers we usually get here.
That certainly isn't an answer, just a vague unsupported accusation. What's to accept? That the government has some reason I don't know. Well yeah, that's why I'm asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
Sapator NEEDS somebody to be pulling the strings.
There are a variety of factors. I have no idea which is the strongest. One of the weird ones is that evangelicals strongly support Israel for the peculiar reason that they feel Israel is necessary for the end times to arrive.
That reason surprises me. I always felt that the Christians sort of had a grudge against the Jews. Because of not believing Jesus is the son of God. Also, some blame the Jews for Jesus being crucified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
You got anymore reasons you want to share??
Politics in general.
I was surprised by the evangelical thing, too. Generally, they are anti-Jew for a couple reasons, but there is a belief that Israel has to be reformed for the end times to come...or maybe it's just Jerusalem. Can't say I pay all that much attention to it.
Your previous reason was much more interesting. lolQuote:
Politics in general.
I just don't see what the benefits are or what the political reasons are. They're only @ 2.5% of the population, Israel has no resources we need. I imagine their location could be beneficial. But as blindly as we protect them it feels more like we feel we owe them our loyalty.