|
Makou
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you see a "Rona Altana" out there on the internet somewhere, that's probably me
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
"Bush = Hitler", etc. Been there, done that, and the last time I checked Bush hasn't gassed any Jews. I'm getting severely bored with the comparison, especially when Hitler was extremely popular in Germany, hence his meteoric rise to absolute power, whereas Bush's popularity is questionable at best. The article is just a leftist op-ed piece anyway. Any time you see the word "progressive" it's a PC word that means "leftist", so replace "progressive community" with "leftist communists" and you'll have the right angle. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Makou
|
I've honestly never seen the comparison made before. And unless this guy is making everything up, there are some obvious similarities in a historical context between the two. I just find that, in itself, rather odd.
That's not to say I buy into it. It's no secret that I'm hardly a fan of Bush, but he's not Hitler, either.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you see a "Rona Altana" out there on the internet somewhere, that's probably me
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
   
Posts: 3330
|
I believe it's rather idiotic to assume the article wants to say 'Bush == Hitler'.
The way I see it, it simply shows that certain political and propagandist tricks and events can be very dangerous if they're not handled properly. To get a whole herd of bleeting sheep turned around requires a picture of a seriously evil looking wolf, before some of them start thinking -- at the same time, it will obviously have adverse effects, because anyone can go and say 'Hey, it's not THAT bad'. And it isn't, but that wasn't the point, and everyone's lulled back to sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
No this is the same bush = hitler crap radicals have been pusing for the past 4 years. I might agree with tab if it hadnt come from a site that claims to be a a source for "breaking news and views of the progressive community".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Hey, I'm not saying Bush is a saint either, but news and facts are rarely the same thing, and unfortunately unless you follow politics closely and understand the political climate and all the buzz words and lingo it's very easy to drown in all the mud. Most people are too busy just living their lives to keep up with this sort of thing, so it's not Makou's fault if he hasn't heard this before.
I've heard the Bush=Hitler comparisons ever since Bush took office, and especially post 9/11. I still have a friend who, despite being otherwise intelligent, is absolutely convinced that the US engineered 9/11 and that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition. I won't go into the specifics of this, but I'll just say the so-called "evidence" is extremely flimsy and borders on the absurd, yet there's always some shocking video, or "expert" testimony from "someone who was there", etc, to fuel the fire of paranoia. Nevermind the fact that Bin Laden outright owned up to it... but hey, he could be lying to make himself look better in the Arab world, too. Let's take another well-known case, like the JFK assassination. Even after a fairly scientific analysis showed the "magic bullet" that killed JFK could have easily been the result of a single projectile fired from a single weapon there are still people who will never be convinced there wasn't another shooter. Somehow it always has to be the "grand conspiracy". Do such conspiracies sometimes happen? Sure they do. Are there bad leaders, even in the free world? You bet. But when people spout the same rhetoric over and over amongst themselves it becomes a mob mentality, with the louder voices reinforcing each other and nobody stopping to question the basis for their feelings or dig down to the facts to find out if they're actually dealing with reality or just following someone's propaganda like good little sheep. Ever see those black and white WWII films of thousands of Germans changing "Sieg Heil!"over and over again during Nazi parades? That's what I'm concerned with, and it happens on both sides of the political aisle. The fact that you've never heard the Bush=Hitler comparison just goes to show among which community this particular notion is circulated, and where it is not. The mainstream does not hear about it because said community is anything but mainstream.
Remember, one man's hero is another's villain, and who does the writing determines how this person is going to appear. It's one thing to preach to the choir, but it's another thing when you want new converts. When it comes to convincing a person, or swaying opinion, it's all in the delivery. A slick salesman can peddle a sub-standard product if he can package it and promote it in a convincing matter. That's the kind of piece we have here - this is a smooth seller, the kind who knows how to write a piece to try to convince, as opposed to the rabid, foaming at the mouth variety you see on TV who are just angry and chant the party mantra. Just remember that in the realm of politics, delivery - not substance - is what matters most, and they know it. These guys are pros at convincing people, or they wouldn't have jobs. A well-written piece is worded in such a way that people begin to think the way the author wishes them to. When it comes to news and politics (which are inevitably intertwined), the following are always true:
1) Everyone has an agenda. Those who claim they don't should be viewed with even greater suspicion.
2) News is never objective.
3) There is no such thing as "fair" or "balanced" in the world of news and politics.
4) News is a business that exists for profit.
5) Politicians are never to be trusted.
Now I have an agenda, and I'm pretty upfront about it. My agenda is to try to shower off some of the bullshit so people can make up their own minds. The facts and the truth, or at least as much as we can ever know of it, matter most to me when it comes to news, politics, world events, etc. I am conservative on many things, so I will tend to believe conservative sources more than liberal. I can also say this is because I've found, on the whole, that conservative sources tend to be more factual and upfront than liberal ones, but that's only my experience. I'm sure some more liberal individuals will claim the opposite. On some other things I'd run afoul of most conservatives. I just tend to get into fights with leftists more often. I won't, however, go out of my way to distort facts or deliberately mislead anyone though. It doesn't serve my purpose, as I have no vested interest that would benefit from deception. I'll also flat out tell anyone who asks me what my opinions and biases are. I may not always be right, but you'll always know where I stand at least.
Be careful what you believe, and who you listen to. Question everything you're told. That's all I'm saying here.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-03-08, 17:39 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
bush = hitler ?
oh no , Hitler had a plan , a good plan to kill certain people , only he killed the wrong people .
instead of jewish it should have been morrocans .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
Stalin. He killed 30 million I belive.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
What makes it all so complex for most people, I assume, is that even though they are aware that they're dealing with biased and subjective sources of information -- they're still led by notions of certainty because things they hear comes from a specific source. ie.: a text can be found on a 'leftist' site, which makes it untrue by default, or Bush said it, so it cannot be taken seriously, etc. If one is not able to extract the core of an article and dismiss its origin (other than when you're determining the IQ of the author, for instance), one cannot say anything sensible in regards to that article. Because of the sheer amount of information shot at the average (news)reader, its not surprising many people choose to pick a source and stick to 'anything they say'. I just don't think that's wise.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
I agree. I view every news source with some degree of suspicion, but the problem isn't always misreporting of facts, but rather omission of key facts. Reporting a half-truth can lead to a biased interpretation just as easily as reporting an outright lie. The difference is that you can get away with only reporting some of the information as opposed to reporting something blatantly false. Reporting false information - intentionally or not - can bite you in the ass later in a big way. Just ask Dan Rather.
Let's use the Italian journalist shot by US troops in Iraq for an example of omission. If you believe her story outright then the US grunts are a bunch of goons ordered to put a "hit" on her in order to silence her as well as undermine Italy's "unofficial" policy of paying huge ransoms for hostage releases. Nevermind the fact that if soldiers want to kill someone she wouldn't be alive to squawk about this... Depending on where you get your news you may or may not hear that the car was speeding down the road to the Baghdad airport, which is one of the most dangerous stretches of roadway in Iraq, is of extreme strategic significance, and that since the Italian intelligence never coordinated their little operation with the US military. The Italians had no idea the US had set up additional checkpoints along the road because a high-level diplomat was expected in the country. With all the problems with car bombings, and this car driving full speed at a checkpoint, ignoring warning signals, including flashing headlights and warning shots, the US military did what anyone with a brain would do - they opened fire.
To someone who is opposed to the US or the war, the US military firing on this hostage deliberately is entirely believable. To someone who does not hold that opinion, the second version has more weight. My point is to illustrate that you can get very different portrayals of the same event depending on where you get your information, and either one can seem more believable than the other depending on what your views and biases are. The reporter in this case is an outspoken opponent and critic of the war, and also works for Italy's most hardline Communist publication. There's a clear motive for either an erroneous assumption on her part since she views the US as the "enemy", or a deliberately twisted account to further the agenda of her and her peers. Which version is the truth? Which version sounds more believable? The first we'll never know for certain, the second depends on what you already think, and how far you're willing to stray from your own preconceptions to try to find the facts. Everyone will see it differently to some degree, but some are more ready to accept things at face value than others.
That leads me to another problem, and that's what I could refer to as a sort of "spectral relativism." A prime example is Assamite's view of news agencies. Assamite believes nearly all news agencies, from CBS to CNN to FOX are right-leaning, with Fox being as far right as you can possibly go. His position is admittedly pretty far left, something he's not bothered by in the least.. Well, if you can't go any further left, than the only remaining direction to go is right. So from his perspective, everything except his preferred sources are too far right-leaning from his perspective. Someone on the far right would likewise consider almost all news sources to be left-leaning. My point is not to say which scenario is or is not true, we've debated that in the past and news agencies run the spectrum, but instead is to bring attention to the problem of believability relative to one's political perspective. A leftist will almost never believe a more conservative news source, whether their information is factual or not, and a right-winger will almost never believe a more liberal news source, whether their information is factual or not. What complicates matters even more for someone trying to do actual fact-finding is that news agencies want to peddle to their target audience, so the truth is nearly always going to be sacrificed in favor of ratings. You'll never get a 100% objective report of anything. It is impossible to remove the filter of human perception and interpretation. All one can do is try to run the spectrum of news agencies, or look to other people who are more interested in facts than political slant and try to compare notes to get some kind of picture of what's really going on. It's an extremely difficult thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
McDeth
|
Peanut Butter kicks ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Beer? I'm down.
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
I agree: I intended to include a picture but messed it up.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-03-12, 16:46 by shambler »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
It's an extremely difficult thing to do. All the more because no-one wants you to do it succesfully. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Moshman
|
Whether it is on the lefties site or the righties, it is untruthful to say that an article from either site is false because of their party. I'm no lefty for sure, but there are instances of truth from the left side.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
The Italians had no idea the US had set up additional checkpoints along the road because a high-level diplomat was expected in the country. With all the problems with car bombings, and this car driving full speed at a checkpoint, ignoring warning signals, including flashing headlights and warning shots, the US military did what anyone with a brain would do - they opened fire.
you got proof of that ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
