America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 42,476 comments
  • 2,395,126 views
I don't know... maybe we should have some kind of forced representation of opposing viewpoints on this thread to make our ever-so-slightly right leaning friends feel more welcome? Some kind of DEI quota deal? Popper's paradox says insert Family Fortunes uh-uhh sound effect, so here's another one for the echo chamber:

Jon Stewart reminds us this week that although the forty-seventh president may do and say a lot of stupid stuff, it shouldn't distract anyone from the seriously bad things he's doing to the country like slashing safety administration as well as health care for first responders injured in the 9/11 attack. He doesn't even know whether he should uphold the US Constitution despite swearing to do so during his inauguration.

Some uncensored bad language at around 16 minutes in.

 
Last edited:
UKMikey
I don't know what I was thinking.
Click to expand...
That is the right spirit, now we can finally begin talking.
All jokes aside, the YT makes me really worry about the mental state of the clown at the helm - also about the kindergarten fitness test he solved.
 
Liquid
Hurry up and die already. I'll take the warning or post deletion.
Click to expand...
I never wanted that. I just want him to go away, but thing is, he dies and the USA are left with the knucklehead next in charge:
"I know we'll have visitors, probably from close to 100 countries," said Vance.

"We want them to come. We want them to celebrate. We want them to watch the game.

"But when the time is up, they'll have to go home."
Click to expand...
Oh, I’m sure visitors will want to go home.
 
Last edited:
GTP isn't an echo chamber, not even close. However, I do think people who don't fully subscribe to the primary line of thinking don't post much anymore. I posted something that wasn't the status quo and was told I was talking like a MAGA person. That's not constructive. I hate Trump; I think he should be in prison. I think Musk, Hegseth, and Gabbard are enemies of the state and should be in Gitmo being treated like the Russian spies they are. I think RFK Jr. is a public health threat at best and a bio terrorist at worst. I'm pretty far from MAGA, but I have zero love for the Democrats and will continue to think they are spineless. It feels like it's not even worth it to participate in those discussions anymore, at least not until the world course corrects a bit.

I also think there are some people who've just tried to limit their exposure to world events for their mental health. Doomscrolling is becoming a thing and GTP isn't immune to it. I found myself getting sucked into it and that's why I've backed off. I still think that there are really well thought out posts though that offer interesting takes on a given situation, so I do still enjoy reading this section of the forum even if I've backed off on participating some. So it might feel a bit echo chambery due to the constant flood of doomscrolling posts. Unfortunately, good news is in short supply these days and the things that dominate the headlines are pretty much terrible things.
 
Famine
Not, because there is no active component.

The rest of your response is superfluous, because it addresses something other than what I said: people not wanting to participate for any reason is not the same as them being prevented from doing so or erased after the fact.

I'm old enough to remember the exact same person insist that the exact same members made the forum a "Libertarian echo chamber" - always big L, and big L libertarianism subsequently proving a short walk from Tea Party to MAGA, despite the obvious anti-libertarian ethos. It was as true then as it is now.
Click to expand...
You're actively suppressing them by shooting them down... Part of the reason why such pushback occurs in the first place is because you interrogate them, cross-examine them and go out of your way to prove them "wrong". Yes, viewpoints can be challenged but if people are not willing to change their viewpoint, you don't go in for the kill. I've tried with my dad and things always get out of hand. Call him ignorant if you like but there are some conversations that he simply doesn't want to have, and if I keep going at him, he complains and starts to insult me. Not because of my view, but because of my interrogation and lack of respect. If he wants to think one way, that's his problem and I can't change that. All I can do is put my viewpoint forward.
 
ScottPuss20
You're actively suppressing them by shooting them down...
Click to expand...
Discussion of and challenging - engaging with - contrary viewpoints is literally the exact opposite of suppression.

Again, echo chambers are closed systems where single points of view are amplified and those contrary to that are not permitted at all. They are removed and those who express them are banned from further participation on that basis alone. We do not do that.

Sure, some people don't like to be challenged at all, and react negatively to that - and though it's not an exclusively "pro-Trump" response, the very nature of that mindset requires a lack of even self-questioning - but only when they cross the line into abusing the AUP do sanctions follow. They're still allowed to express their views for others to try to engage with them, and it's a choice not to do so rather than because their opinions are being suppressed.
 
Famine
Discussion of and challenging - engaging with - contrary viewpoints is literally the exact opposite of suppression.
Click to expand...
Challenging a view doesn't mean constantly trying to push it onto someone who clearly isn't interested.
Famine
Again, echo chambers are closed systems where single points of view are amplified and those contrary to that are not permitted at all. They are removed and those who express them are banned from further participation on that basis alone. We do not do that.
Click to expand...
So do you stop people from saying things before they say it? You can't suppress a view if no one has provided one!
Famine
Sure, some people don't like to be challenged at all, and react negatively to that - and though it's not an exclusively "pro-Trump" response, the very nature of that mindset requires a lack of even self-questioning - but only when they cross the line into abusing the AUP do sanctions follow. They're still allowed to express their views for others to try to engage with them, and it's a choice not to do so rather than because their opinions are being suppressed.
Click to expand...
People don't talk because they know that they will be suppressed.
 
ScottPuss20
Challenging a view doesn't mean constantly trying to push it onto someone who clearly isn't interested.
Click to expand...
I don't really know what this means, but if someone is happy enough with their opinion that they want to submit it to a discussion forum for the purposes of discussion, they cannot object to it being discussed...

ScottPuss20
So do you stop people from saying things before they say it? You can't suppress a view if no one has provided one!
Click to expand...
What? Did you read the second sentence of that quote at all?
ScottPuss20
People don't talk because they know that they will be suppressed.
Click to expand...
Again, discussing and challenging "contrary" points of view is quite literally the opposite of suppression. It's engagement.

Suppression would be the removal of those posts and the banning of the people that make them (on the basis of them being contrary opinions alone). Which doesn't happen.

That these opinions are present at all here demonstrates that it isn't an echo chamber. Their frequency is a matter of choice on behalf of those who hold them, not "suppression".
 
Famine
I don't really know what this means, but if someone is happy enough with their opinion that they want to submit it to a discussion forum for the purposes of discussion, they cannot object to it being discussed...
Click to expand...
People are allowed to post their view on something, but if they don't want a discussion, don't force them into it because you say so.
Famine
What? Did you read the second sentence of that quote at all?

Again, discussing and challenging "contrary" points of view is quite literally the opposite of suppression. It's engagement.
Click to expand...
But they aren't discussions. They end up becoming arguments where it's one person's word against another.
Famine
Suppression would be the removal of those posts and the banning of the people that make them (on the basis of them being contrary opinions alone). Which doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
It has happened here many times actually.
Famine
That these opinions are present at all here demonstrates that it isn't an echo chamber. Their frequency is a matter of choice on behalf of those who hold them, not "suppression".
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
ScottPuss20
Challenging a view doesn't mean constantly trying to push it onto someone who clearly isn't interested.

So do you stop people from saying things before they say it? You can't suppress a view if no one has provided one!

People don't talk because they know that they will be suppressed.
Click to expand...
No one is suppressed here and no one is banned for having an opinion.

A perfect example of suppression and an echo chamber is the Ford forum I was in that's members started posting everything pro Trump straight from X... in a car forum!:confused:

I was one of two members that challenged their blatantly false statements, but that didn't last long. I was banned for posting this clip in defence of my statement that Trump was trying to bully Canada into becoming the 51st state, which they had been flat out denying, even though he'd said it many times at that stage. And that's when it became an echo chamber, as the other member and myself were both promptly banned for providing evidence of my statement in my case, and for adding a like in his case.

Pathetic really.
 
ScottPuss20
People are allowed to post their view on something, but if they don't want a discussion, don't force them into it because you say so.
Click to expand...
Nobody is forced into a discussion. But just dumping your opinion and then refusing to respond to critical questions about it is never going to go well. It's a discussion forum after all, not a billboard for advertising your opinions.

And I don't see why people should be afraid to engage with critical questions and challenging viewpoints. I mean, if you don't have a good answer to a sharp question about your political stance, then perhaps your political stance isn't as good as you thought it was. Wouldn't you want to know that, so you can have an opportunity to look for a better alternative?

And obviously no political position is without dilemmas. But you need to know about those dilemmas in order to fully justify your own position. If you just cherry-pick the positive sides of a political position and pretend like the negatives doesn't exist, then you are just fooling yourself as you make it much more difficult to make an informed decision.

Take tariffs for example.

Opinion: "We should impose huge tariffs on products from other countries."

Positives:
  • This could be a huge source of income for the government.
  • We might be able to cut taxes.
  • It would make it more attractive to move production to the US.

Negatives:
  • Products are going to get more expensive for the consumers.
  • It's basically a sales tax.
  • Product quality is likely to drop due to reduced competition.
  • Other countries are likely to respond by adding tariffs to our exports.
  • Businesses are likely to go bankrupt and a lot of people are likely to lose their jobs.
  • It takes a long time to build new factories in the US.
  • We don't have all the raw materials within our borders - some imports are necessary.
  • What do we do with all the stuff we have a surplus of if we won't be able to export it anymore due to tariffs?
  • What happens to the global economy?
  • What happens to our relations to other countries and our ability to influence them?

If you only look at the positives this sounds like a great idea. But it would likely have terrible consequences for you.
 
Last edited:
ScottPuss20
You're actively suppressing them by shooting them down... Part of the reason why such pushback occurs in the first place is because you interrogate them, cross-examine them and go out of your way to prove them "wrong". Yes, viewpoints can be challenged but if people are not willing to change their viewpoint, you don't go in for the kill. I've tried with my dad and things always get out of hand.
Click to expand...
We've already explained to you how we're not your mum, apparently we need to explain that we're not your dad either.

You have a relationship that you would (presumably) like to maintain with your dad, which means that sometimes you might choose not to engage when he digs in his heels about something. But we're on the internet, and I don't know you from a bar of soap. There is no loss to me if you get mad when I point out that you're wrong about something.
ScottPuss20
Challenging a view doesn't mean constantly trying to push it onto someone who clearly isn't interested.
Click to expand...
You're the one who chooses to come here and discuss. If you don't want to discuss, then don't open the thread. The power is in your hands.

If you want an echo chamber, which is what it sounds like, then you'll have to find somewhere else and that's exactly the point.
ScottPuss20
People are allowed to post their view on something, but if they don't want a discussion, don't force them into it because you say so.
Click to expand...
This is a discussion forum, specifically the sub-section for Opinions and Current Events. If you don't want a discussion, go post on Twitter and turn replies off. Nobody's forcing you into a discussion, you're choosing to enter one and then getting mad that people are engaging.

Again, it sounds like you want an echo chamber and are annoyed that you can't find one here.
 
ScottPuss20
People are allowed to post their view on something, but if they don't want a discussion, don't force them into it because you say so.
Click to expand...
Then it would appear that person either wants a personal blog or an actual echo chamber. As posting on a discussion forum very much requires that you want to engage in discussion.
ScottPuss20
But they aren't discussions. They end up becoming arguments where it's one person's word against another.
Click to expand...
Now it could be said that an argument is simply a heated form of discussion (which is why we have an AUP), but that's not the point I want to raise issue with. Given that the site generally requires factual claims to be supported, it is very rarely "one person's word against another", quite the opposite.

As an example, less than a year ago you argued that "Trump did not break his supporters into the White House - a crazy mob comprised of all sorts broke in. Not just Trump supporters.". Should that claim have been left to stand unchallenged, or should it have been challenged (as it was) with factual information and reasoned discussion?
ScottPuss20
It has happened here many times actually.
Click to expand...
No, it hasn't, and to be honest, you do not have the access required to the site to know that.
ScottPuss20
Wrong.
Click to expand...
Then you have no idea what an echo chamber is
 
Seems that "echo chamber" is the new "toxic", as a post-rationalisation used by people encountering things they don't like and in the belief that what they think is automatically true because they think it.
ScottPuss20
People are allowed to post their view on something, but if they don't want a discussion, don't force them into it because you say so.
Click to expand...
It's a discussion forum. If they don’t want a discussion then they should not post. And it seems that's increasingly the case - which tells you a lot about the pro-Trump mindset.
ScottPuss20
But they aren't discussions. They end up becoming arguments where it's one person's word against another.
Click to expand...
Arguments are discussions, and usually occur when one party is unused to having anything they say challenged.

When you say "it's one person's word against another" you're conflating purely subjective opinion (such as which colour is best) with stuff that has actual objectivity - like whether Trump supporters tried to carry out a coup on January 6th with his backing, or whether women should have the right to bodily autonomy.
ScottPuss20
It has happened here many times actually.
Click to expand...
Actually it hasn't.

It could, for reference. If someone was posting truly reprehensible opinions - let's say they think people with disabilities belong in zoos to be rented out to prisons to satisfy the urges of rapists - and wouldn't stop doing so, then I'd want to shuffle them somewhere else (per the FAQ about "unusual rules"). Even then though, the ultimate reason would be for ignoring the instruction to stop posting this content, which is a point in the AUP.
ScottPuss20
Wrong.
Click to expand...
No u.

What are you, five? How does this pass for a sensible response?
 
Last edited:
Famine
No u.

What are you, five? How does this pass for a sensible response?
Click to expand...
Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016


Checks out.
 
UKMikey
This popped up while I was researching another post so I hope it doesn't count as doomscrolling.
apnews.com

Trump administration will provide programming from conservative network OAN for Voice of America

The Trump administration has sought to dismantle government-run news outlets like the Voice of America, in part because it believes the services that provide news to other countries operate with a liberal bias.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
I'm not kidding when I say, I feel like someone will pitch him a real The Running Man show. It just gets wilder and wilder with this presifarcey.
 
Joey D
I posted something that wasn't the status quo and was told I was talking like a MAGA person
Click to expand...
You used MAGA reasoning. If you don't want to hear it when you do that, go to an echo chamber. Whether you like Trump is irrelevant.

Edit:

Here it is:
Joey D
But all the government does is take, take, take and throw peanuts out there to "worthy" causes while funneling most of the money into the pockets of the wealthy through grants, government contracts, bailouts, tax breaks, and subsidies.
Click to expand...
me
This line is straight MAGA. If it were spoken by someone wearing a red hat, I would not bat an eye. It is one of their arguments practically verbatim. I need to change nothing about it, not one word, to make it a Trump supporter argument.
Click to expand...

It literally is - the government is useless, it just takes our money and gives it to the elites and deadbeats. That is literally the "drain the swamp" mentality behind dismantling the government right now. This is what they elected Trump to stop. They want him to stop the government from functioning, no more contracts, no more grants, no more worthy causes - because they assume all of it is deep state elites and deadbeats lining their pockets on the other side. Trump's whole campaign is basically that the government is corrupt, so you need someone to wreck it. That is the position you intimated.

This is not an argument that you're a Trump supporter, don't mistake it for that. It's an attempt at getting you to see that you're painting with too broad a brush, and using the same kind of conspiratorial thinking and anti-social thinking that is used by the red hat crowd.
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
Give him a break, guys... poor lad's probably plumb tuckered out from relaying our responses back to his dad and then ferrying the old man's counter arguments back to the forum. No wonder he feels put upon.
Click to expand...
Bro I can hardly talk to my dad. I can promise you without a shadow of a doubt that I’m not parroting his views. Most of them I completely disagree with.
 
ScottPuss20
Bro I can hardly talk to my dad. I can promise you without a shadow of a doubt that I’m not parroting his views. Most of them I completely disagree with.
Click to expand...
I'm curious whether the response you got from @UKMikey is what you were talking about when you said:
ScottPuss20
You're actively suppressing them by shooting them down...
Click to expand...
When you said that, above, you gave a bunch of examples that were just active and engaged discussion (on a discussion forum). What UKMikey did was an unfavorable assumption about what was happening. In this case, you're saying he's wrong. If you have one person do that, it can be difficult to counter the assumption. If you have 10 people doing that, it can be impractical to respond, and make the whole discussion feel hostile.

Human beings are wired to spot patterns. When they see part of a pattern (like a particular argument), they'll fill in the rest based on what they're used to. It's happened to me a million times on this board and elsewhere. You have to expect it, and when you take up a difficult position, you have to know that you'll spend some time unraveling that.

You happened to take up a particularly laughable position in this case, which is that people shouldn't expect discussion on a discussion forum. You have to know it's an uphill battle from there.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
You happened to take up a particularly laughable position in this case, which is that people shouldn't expect discussion on a discussion forum. You have to know it's an uphill battle from there.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a laughable position. I guess talking to my dad is not the same as talking in a place specifically designed for discussion. I think what I tried to say is that if someone who does NOT know how a discussion forum works says that they don’t want their view discussed, they aren’t worth wasting your time on. Although having said that, if someone doesn’t want a discussion, they shouldn’t post in a discussion forum. I suppose moderators are not creating echo chambers by going after people who intentionally misinterpret the point of a discussion forum and get angry. A lot of them just happen to be Trump supporters… which I am not no matter what people say.
 
Last edited:
ScottPuss20
Yes, it is a laughable position. I guess talking to my dad is not the same as talking in a place specifically designed for discussion. I think what I tried to say is that if someone who does NOT know how a discussion forum works says that they don’t want their view discussed, they aren’t worth wasting your time on. Although having said that, if someone doesn’t want a discussion, they shouldn’t post in a discussion thread. I suppose moderators are not creating echo chambers by going after people who intentionally misinterpret the point of a discussion forum and get angry. A lot of them just happen to be Trump supporters… which I am not no matter what people say.
Click to expand...
I appreciate it when I see someone move off of a position they can't defend. You used to be more Trumpy too, and I've seen you move off of that as well.
 

Latest Posts

Back