• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command"

So you're saying Matthews and Olbermann aren't partisan?

I didn't say that at all.

I don't think one is a communist and the other is a nazi. And I do find amusing the amount of ire, responses, pages and pages of anguished commentary the word 'teabagger' brought out as some sort of drag-into-the-mud termonology when you basically set the tone of the thread in your opening post and no one seemed to give a damn.

But hey, I think you've achieved your goal, Sarge. You've managed to inspire at least two ideological smack-down threads recently. You'll have this place turned into ES Tailgate before you know it. So congrats for that.
 
Last edited:
Two threads? Sorry, been on vacation, what's the other one?

And I think the fact that two of the biggest Bush bashers on the planet are now turning on Obama is pretty significant. Ye of the "Shut the hell up Mr President" and Mr "I have a thrill running down my leg".

Wonder where the thrill is now?

Fact of the matter is a LOT more could have been done within the first month of this mess

And it wasn't.

LACK

OF

LEADERSHIP


It's day 71, and we've just gotten around to accepting foreign help in this matter?

Ridiculous.

Even on MSNBC today there's an article about how government red tape is stalling the clean up.

70 days later

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37934128/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/

A real leader would have waived all that EPA crap and done what it takes to manage this mess

But our boy has been on vacation and flying off to the G-20

LACK

OF

LEADERSHP


As for making this the Tailgate, I don't think you can have a discussion, especially a political one, without people falling on one side or the other.

The fact that the left did all of their Bush bashing in the age of the internet just makes it easy to go back and pull up examples of their commentary.

And some on that side are having a hard time having that stuff played back for them.

Especially the Olberman stuff
 
Yep, we're well on our way.

Thanks again.
 
Yep, we're well on our way.

Thanks again.


Henry, resistance is futile. Sarge is a force of nature. Just try to stand far enough away to avoid the debris.
rockthrow.gif
 
A "Force of Nature"?

I kinda like that:laugh:

I may have to change my name :)

It was absolutely meant as a compliment, Sarge..as in unstoppable...inexorable...inevitable.


You know, kinda like the Mt Kilauea lava flows. Majestic, beautiful, awesome to watch.


From a safe distance, of course.:laugh: :)
 
I am so glad to have you back Sarge! And no, that is not sarcasm, I am glad to have another voice of reason. I hope you enjoyed Hawaii!
 
"Voice of Reason" and "Force of Nature". I'm gonna have to sleep on those two:laugh:

And yes, Hawaii was great. Thanks!
 
I didn't say that at all.

I don't think one is a communist and the other is a nazi. And I do find amusing the amount of ire, responses, pages and pages of anguished commentary the word 'teabagger' brought out as some sort of drag-into-the-mud termonology when you basically set the tone of the thread in your opening post and no one seemed to give a damn.

But hey, I think you've achieved your goal, Sarge. You've managed to inspire at least two ideological smack-down threads recently. You'll have this place turned into ES Tailgate before you know it. So congrats for that.


No he won't.

I don't like political threads - I used to, but that was before I realized that mostly people just like shouting at each other, and that very little listening or even trying to be open to other viewpoints is possible on the interwebz. Despite what I think is more than a little disinterest in these types of threads from a staff vantage point, we do care about the tone here. Neither this forum or any other is going to become the personal venting page for a handful of members. If we sense that's happening, we have capabilities the staff at ES long ago lost. We'll just eject the trouble-makers permanently or if we have to, get rid of the forum and have nothing but Redskins-related areas for posting :)
 
No he won't.

I don't like political threads - I used to, but that was before I realized that mostly people just like shouting at each other, and that very little listening or even trying to be open to other viewpoints is possible on the interwebz. Despite what I think is more than a little disinterest in these types of threads from a staff vantage point, we do care about the tone here. Neither this forum or any other is going to become the personal venting page for a handful of members. If we sense that's happening, we have capabilities the staff at ES long ago lost. We'll just eject the trouble-makers permanently or if we have to, get rid of the forum and have nothing but Redskins-related areas for posting :)

Perhaps we need a come to Jesus about what is acceptable in political threads. Unless it's banned entirely (the forum) you know more are going to come up.

Personally, and from my POV, it's acceptable to refer to Matthews and especailly Olbermann as "Comrade" and "Herr". I distinctly remember sitting in Afghanistan and one of Olbermanns anti-war, anti-Bush screeds was on the tube. Why I don't know. So imagine what a morale booster that was listening to even 10 seconds of that drek.

And as I said, those two, wlong with about 9/10ths of the media, were big time in the Obama camp and pumped his campaign almost from the git go. So the fact that they are starting to turn to me speaks volumes.

Anyway, I'm all for keeping the peace, as long as you all agree with me;)
 
I don't think 'over the line' can be defined. The truth is, it's always the 'other guy' who's over the line, never ourselves :) And I'm not necessarily saying I think anyone has gone over the line. I'm just reminding folks that the minute it starts to feel like real meaningful conversation is dead, and it's just about demeaning or gutting members who disagree, or becomes personal, we're not going to tolerate that. Enough said on that front. Bottom line - tone is king here. Long as folks are being respectful, polite, and courteous, I don't think we're going to have problems. I'll continue to say that references to 'other websites' really have no relevance to this place. The more folks work to leave their baggage behind, the better.
 
I found this article-here in full-which I think explains well why political discussions-among others-degrade into verbal abuse sessions-it's simply how we humans behave. I'm not exempt by any means but I've been reading about the phenomena of confirmation bias for some time and watch my own thinking and emotional reactions as much as I can in an effort to filter out the effect.

Confirmation Bias
JUNE 23, 2010
tags: confirmation bias, punditry, belief, The Golden Child, Fox News, MSNBC
by David McRaney
The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.


Source: EIL

Have you ever had a conversation in which some old movie was mentioned, something like “The Golden Child” or maybe even something more obscure?

You laughed about it, quoted lines from it, wondered what happened to the actors you never saw again, and then you forgot about it.

Until…

You are flipping channels one night and all of the sudden you see “The Golden Child” is playing. Weird.

The next day you are reading a news story, and out of nowhere it mentions forgotten movies from the 1980s, and holy ****, three paragraphs about “The Golden Child.”

You see a trailer that night at the theater for a new Eddie Murphy movie, and then you see a billboard on the street promoting Charlie Murphy doing stand-up in town, and then one of your friends sends you a link to a post at TMZ showing recent photos of the actress from “The Golden Child.”

What is happening here? Is the universe trying to tell you something?

No. This is how confirmation bias works.

Since the party and the conversation where you and your friends took turns saying “I-ah-I-ah-I want the kniiiife” you’ve flipped channels plenty of times; you’ve walked past lots of billboards; you’ve seen dozens of stories about celebrities; you’ve been exposed to a handful of movie trailers.

The thing is, you disregarded all the other information, all the stuff unrelated to “The Golden Child.” Out of all the chaos, all the morsels of data, you only noticed the bits which called back to something sitting on top of your brain.

A few weeks back, when Eddie Murphy and his Tibetan adventure were still submerged beneath a heap of pop-culture at the bottom of your skull, you wouldn’t have paid any special attention to references to it.

If you are thinking about buying a new car, you suddenly see people driving them all over the roads. If you just ended a long-time relationship, every song you hear seems to be written about love. If you are having a baby, you start to see them everywhere.

Confirmation bias is seeing the world through a filter, thinking selectively.

The examples above are a sort of passive version of the phenomenon. The real trouble begins when confirmation bias distorts your active pursuit of facts.

Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias.

Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter – these people provide fuel for beliefs, they pre-filter the world to match existing world-views.

If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn’t, you hate them.

Whether or not pundits are telling the truth, or vetting their opinions, or thoroughly researching their topics is all beside the point. You watch them not for information, but for confirmation.

“Be careful. People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things. New things…well, new things aren’t what they expect. They like to know that, say, a dog will bite a man. That is what dogs do. They don’t want to know that man bites a dog, because the world is not supposed to happen like that. In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave is olds…Not news but olds, telling people that what they think they already know is true.”

Terry Pratchett through the character Lord Vetinari from his novel, “The Truth: a novel of Discworld

Check any Amazon.com wish list, and you will find people rarely seek books which challenge their notions of how things are or should be.

During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Valdis Krebs at orgnet.com analyzed purchasing trends on Amazon.

People who already supported Obama were the same people buying books which painted him in a positive light. People who already disliked Obama were the ones buying books painting him in a negative light.

Just like with pundits, people weren’t buying books for the information, they were buying them for the confirmation.

Krebs has researched purchasing trends on Amazon and the clustering habits of people on social networks for years, and his research shows what psychological research into confirmation bias predicts: you want to be right about how you see the world, so you seek out information which confirms your beliefs and avoid contradictory evidence and opinions.

Half-a-century of research has placed confirmation bias among the most dependable of mental stumbling blocks.

Journalists looking to tell a certain story must avoid the tendency to ignore evidence to the contrary; scientists looking to prove a hypothesis must avoid designing experiments with little wiggle room for alternate outcomes.

Without confirmation bias, conspiracy theories would fall apart. Did we really put a man on the moon? If you are looking for proof we didn’t, you can find it.

“If one were to attempt to identify a single problematic aspect of human reasoning that deserves attention above all others, the confirmation bias would have to be among the candidates for consideration. Many have written about this bias, and it appears to be sufficiently strong and pervasive that one is led to wonder whether the bias, by itself, might account for a significant fraction of the disputes, altercations, and misunderstandings that occur among individuals, groups, and nations.”

- Raymond S. Nickerson

In a 1979 University of Minnesota study by Mark Snyder and Nancy Cantor, people read about a week in the life of an imaginary woman named Jane. Throughout the week, Jane did things which showcased she could be extraverted in some situations and introverted in others.

A few days passed. The subjects were asked to return.

Researchers divided the people into groups and asked them to help decide if Jane would be suited for a particular job. One group was asked if she would be a good librarian; the other group was asked if she would be a good real-estate agent.

In the librarian group, people remembered her as an introvert. In the real-estate group, they remembered her being an extravert. After this, when they were asked if she would be good at the other profession people stuck with their original assessment, saying she wasn’t suited for the other job.

The study suggests even in your memories you fall prey to confirmation bias, recalling those things which support your beliefs, forgetting those things which debunk them.

An Ohio State study in 2009 showed people spend 36 percent more time reading an essay if that essay aligns with their opinions.

Another study at Ohio State in 2009 showed subjects clips of the parody show “The Colbert Report,” and people who considered themselves politically conservative consistently reported “Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said.”

“Thanks to Google, we can instantly seek out support for the most bizarre idea imaginable. If our initial search fails to turn up the results we want, we don’t give it a second thought, rather we just try out a different query and search again.”

- Justin Owings

A popular method for teaching confirmation bias, first introduced by P.C. Wason in 1960, is to show the following numbers to a classroom: 2, 4, 6

The teacher then asks the classroom to guess the teacher’s secret rule by offering up three numbers of their own. The teacher will then say “yes” or “no” if the order matches the rule. When the student thinks they have it figured out, they have to write it down and turn it in.

Students typically offer sets like 10, 12, 14 or 22, 24, 26. The teacher says “yes” over and over again, and the majority of people turn in the wrong answer.

To figure out the rule, students would have to offer sets like 2, 2, 2 or 9, 8, 7 – these, the teacher would say, do not fit the rule. With enough guesses playing against what the students think the rule may be, students finally figure out what the original rule was (three numbers in ascending order).

The exercise is intended to show how you tend to come up with a hypothesis and then work to prove it right instead of working to prove it wrong. Once satisfied, you stop searching.

You seek out safe havens for your ideology, friends and coworkers of like mind and attitude, media outlets guaranteed to play nice.

Whenever your opinions or beliefs are so intertwined with your self-image you couldn’t pull them away without damaging your core concepts of self, you avoid situations which may cause harm to those beliefs.

“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”

- Francis Bacon

Over time, by never seeking the antithetical, through accumulating subscriptions to magazines, stacks of books and hours of television, you can become so confident in your world-view no one could dissuade you.

Remember, there’s always someone out there willing to sell eyeballs to advertisers by offering a guaranteed audience of people looking for validation. Ask yourself if you are in that audience.

In science, you move closer to the truth by seeking evidence to the contrary. Perhaps the same method should inform your opinions as well.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/
 
I've said many times that I'm a huge believer in self awareness and not arguing against facts simply because they don't happen to fit with one's worldview. Malcolm X is one of my personal heroes at least in part because when confronted with the realization that the organization he'd devoted his life to was a sham, he had the courage to change course.

I've made many huge changes over the course of my life simply because I'm willing to face the fact that something I once believed in, oftentimes passionately believed in, was incorrect or at the very least not supported by facts. And in spite of the fact that I will typically research both sides of an argument before and even after forming an opinion, I have to admit that I'm sometimes guilty of confirmation and other types of bias myself.

Perhaps none of us are nearly as openminded as we think we are. Great post as always Serv.
 
I've said many times that I'm a huge believer in self awareness and not arguing against facts simply because they don't happen to fit with one's worldview. Malcolm X is one of my personal heroes at least in part because when confronted with the realization that the organization he'd devoted his life to was a sham, he had the courage to change course.

I've made many huge changes over the course of my life simply because I'm willing to face the fact that something I once believed in, oftentimes passionately believed in, was incorrect or at the very least not supported by facts. And in spite of the fact that I will typically research both sides of an argument before and even after forming an opinion, I have to admit that I'm sometimes guilty of confirmation and other types of bias myself.

Perhaps none of us are nearly as openminded as we think we are. Great post as always Serv.

Hey Mr Y! Nice post...but I have a couple problems:

- facts are not the same thing as actions. one has to make decisions on what to do and the sorts of things you refer to (let's say social justice) aren't driven exclusively by facts. they are driven by emotions, theoretical disposition, fcats taht fit into theoretic constructs, value judgments, moral systems, constantly changing legal canons, instinct, intuition. there is no clean, factual approach to many of society's major issues. You believe there is a factual approach to resolving abortion? I don't think so.

- there are no perfect solutions in the realm you are talking about. there are always trade-offs involved when it comes to whose rights prevail and what wrongs are perceived to occur. that is why things are more contentious than ever these days...folks are drawing the line on right/wrong (i.e., impact) and are less willing to accomodate inherently murky trade-offs.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
We are all excited to experience the announcement of draft selections IN REAL TIME TOGETHER. If you feel the need to be the first to 'blurt out' the team's picks you are better off staying out of chat and sticking to Twitter. Please refrain from announcing/discussing our picks until the official announcement has been made at the podium. Thanks!

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top