I don’t know, you’d have to ask the expert.

You’d best recognize Leo Pellegrino

Yeah, I’m an amateur musician and can tell the difference between different kinds of saxomophone, between cellos and violas, and so on. But, there are a lot of things I’d just call “drums” that have specialty names. I mean, how many names are there for “large upright drum that you play with your fingertips and thumbs while it sits between your legs”?

Thank you for proving that the left lives in a bubble just like the right.

It’s propaganda. But, it’s not just propaganda, it’s effective propaganda.

The fact that it’s so effective is somewhat new and very concerning. We have to understand why it’s effective if there’s any hope of eventually stopping it. And, it’s effective not just because the propaganda is well crafted, it’s effective because there’s a whole system that immerses the audience in it and never lets them see an alternative point of view.

In North Korea the only information you get is information specifically selected by the state. The US free market and first amendment was supposed to be a shield against that sort of propaganda. Unfortunately, while people have the right to find other forms of media, a lot of people want the comfort of living inside their own media bubble. Then the propaganda channel tells them that every other source of media is full of lies, and controlled by the jews, and who knows what else, and those people get even more locked in to their propaganda source. Then they’re told that scientists are getting rich (ha!) by selling out, so you can’t trust scientific papers. So, you can’t trust the government, the media, scientists, doctors, schools… you can only trust them.

Then they’re told that if they ever do try to do their own research, they’re not going to get results because of censorship. Some censorship exists. Sometimes it’s formal, sometimes it’s informal, like YouTube taking down videos that hurt their bottom line, or cause them headaches. But, the convenient thing about claiming that information is being censored is that it’s unprovable or “unfalsifiable”. You can’t prove that something that doesn’t exist was censored because you can’t prove it ever existed in the first place. And, of course, when an idiot is told that information on “turbo cancer” is being censored, they search for it and get no results, that just reinforces their belief that the news is being censored.

Add to that that the same group that wants to lock people into a pipeline of disinformation also wants to defund schools and universities. You can’t hope that someone can learn the truth from a teacher or a professor if the school no longer exists. You can’t hope that the next generation learns critical thinking in high school if the high school is defunded and shut down.

Big tech companies making their platforms extremely engaging is yet another element in this shitty soup. Most of these companies actually employ mostly liberal people, and the culture is at least somewhat left of center. But, they get their money by keeping people engaged, which means feeding them things that are shocking, angering, etc. That keeps people in their bubbles, and keeps them from engaging their critical thinking abilities.

The end result is you get people living in bubbles, listening to, watching and reading news that makes them feel good because it reinforces their existing biases. They cut off people in their lives who have dissenting views because either they’re angry about that person’s views, or it’s just too much of a headache to constantly fight with them. Social media keeps them in a bubble that keeps them engaged, and keeps them seeing the same point of view over and over. And so-on.

Because the whole situation is so complicated, it’s not going to be easy to reverse. It’s not just a matter of shutting down Fox News, or Newsmax or MSNBC or any other propaganda fountain. It’s also going to have to involve breaking up tech monopolies, or at least removing their Section 230 protection for their editorial decisions. It’s also going to require major educational system reforms, ensuring that all kids go to schools that teach critical thinking skills, and because this is the US that will involve major fights over property taxes and religious freedom. I honestly don’t know if it’s going to be possible.

gave the odds 65-35 or so, in Clinton’s favor

I don’t think people realize how close that means the race was. 50/50 is like a coin flip. 35% is like rolling a six-sided die and getting either a 1 or a 2. It’s not the most likely outcome, but it’s not a surprising result either.

This is literally something my conspiracy-addicted mom says all the time.

According to her, this is why, for instance, you won’t find articles articles on “turbo cancer” in the mainstream media.

its

Imagine thinking political theory involves selection pressures.

Sure, sure.

It’s so lazy to describe capitalism backsliding towards feudalism as “late stage capitalism”. If capitalism actually had “stages”, you’d have to progress forward to reach later stages. Backsliding towards the feudalism that birthed capitalism isn’t some kind of “late stage”, it’s capitalism failing and feudalism reasserting itself.

My “stipulation”? It’s really weird of you to consider what I said as a “stipulation”, rather than simply a description.

In any case, how does PBS/NPR not meet that description?

The BBC earns £5 billion per year in revenue. On the news side, it generates 120 hours of radio and TV output per day, and employs over 5000 journalists, including 50 different foreign news bureaus. It’s the world’s largest broadcast news organization. Canada’s CBC has a budget of approx $1.38 billion in CAD. CBC’s news operation is the largest news gathering operation in Canada and includes a 24 hour news network. Australia’s ABC has about a $1b/year budget, but in Australia news is split between two public broadcasters, SBS and ABC. Those two are the most trusted news sources in Australia, with the BBC as the 4th most trusted. The most trusted private network is ranked 5th.

If the US wanted something similar in its media landscape, it would have to have a budget of at least $10 billion, or $40b if it were to have a footprint similar to the BBC. How does that compare to the actual budgets of PBS and NPR? PBS is at well under $1b total, NPR is at only $250m Of that, the total government contribution between the two of them is $500m.

In every other major English-speaking country, the public broadcaster is the main source, and the most trusted source of news. They have significant budgets that they use to employ huge numbers of journalists. BBC, in particular, has such an immense news organization that it has a huge worldwide footprint, not just one local to the UK.

NPR and PBS just don’t compare. They may “exist”, but just barely.

There was a quote from one of them the other day talking about being unable to sleep well because he’s constantly afraid of people coming after him for what he’s got. If only there were a way to remove that target from your back…

That looks more like feudalism.

For Capitalism there should be multiple different money scoops, some better designed than others. There should also be a greased-up rope that leads from the unicycle-bar to the top, showing that it’s theoretically possible to rise to a different class, it’s just practically impossible.

That’s not the same at all.

Plus the overthrowing of democratic governments in Latin America so that US-based fruit companies could profit. Hence: Banana Republic.

It sucks, and we’re not ready for it.

One reason we know that the moon landings were real is that the technology to fake them simply didn’t exist in the 1960s. They didn’t even have video tape back then, let alone computer graphics. Add to that the fact that almost everybody in the US got their news from one of 3 TV networks, or from newspapers that actually cared about and could afford to do real journalism. That means that when people saw the moon landings they knew they were witnessing something real. It was unfortunately also easy to cover up real things (like MK Ultra) when you only had to deal with 3 TV networks.

These days, especially for Americans, there are no authoritative sources of truth. (Australia has ABC, Britain has BBC, Canada has CBC, but the US has no not-for-profit news source that doesn’t have to worry about pleasing advertisers). Add to that that every kind of media is subject to “deepfakes” and other kinds of manipulation.

And, this now affects historical events. When people in 1969 witnessed the moon landing, almost nobody thought it was fake. In 1969 it would have been relatively easy to remove almost any doubts anybody might have. But, memories are faulty and it’s so easy to create fake evidence, that now even people who were alive and watching it live when the moon landing happened are now starting to doubt it.

In courts, we require evidence of various kinds because we know how unreliable people’s memories are. But, it feels like we’re heading for a future where your own memories may be more reliable than any research you’re able to do. And, we’re just not ready for that post-truth world.

Some masculine traits in women are accepted to some extent. But, look at the backlash against that Algerian boxer.

For someone who really cares about fitting in with society, the pressure to conform can be pretty brutal. There’s probably more freedom to be who you want to be now than ever before. In the past not only gender roles, but every role in society was extremely rigid. People didn’t even have the freedom to decide whether or not to wear a hat outside. The expectation was that everyone wore a hat, and if you didn’t you were a real oddball.

I strongly suspect that some of the people who think they’re trans are just people who have interests/passions/attitudes/personalities that don’t conform to their stereotypical gender roles.

There are pluses and minuses for most things. Aggression can be very useful if the kid is into sports, or even competitive video games. Too much can be a problem, but too little and you get Milton from Office Space.

Pickiness can be thought of as the opposite of adventurousness. If someone’s too picky they may never try new things. If they’re too adventurous, they may never settle down, and might seek out situations that are too dangerous and thrilling.

I don’t know if how you’re raising your kid is good or not. But, I do know that as a kid, my parents never would have put up with that kind of pickiness. Either I ate what they were preparing, or I didn’t eat that meal. On one hand, this did result in my absolutely hating brussels sprouts. They were always prepared ultra mushy and now, even if I try some that are prepared well, the memory of the disgusting ones comes up and I gag. On the other hand, I’m pretty adventurous when it comes to trying new foods. I’ll hesitate a bit at brains or other organs, bugs, and fermented things, but other than that I’m eager to try new things. I think overall it served me well to have been pushed to eat outside my tiny comfort zone as a kid.

Yes… as I said. But, most people use hardware provided by other people, which means other people write the drivers.