Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the same VTDigger who was trying to stir up criminal charges or worse against the Slate Ridge shooting range based on the rumors of their neighbors who hate their guts. Neighbors who it turns out were trespassing on their property and poaching deer. And they never disclosed the fact that one of their executives is head of the law firm representing the neighbors and town in a civil case. VTDigger is a far-left electronic rag. Yellow journalism is their thing. They interviewed me last year as I did a run for office but they chopped up my responses in such a way it totally distorted my answers and my positions on issues. I place a lot of blame for our current division on the media. Convincing us to hate each other takes a lot of heat off their preferred politicians I suppose.
I don't think we can ignore the fact that we are basically witnessing our country descend into civil war of some sort and VT's abundant leftists are throwing plenty of their hate into the toxic mix that is only furthering the divide in VT and outside our borders. I can say that what I've heard from my neighbors at my Essex County property (a red county as many know) is that they hate democrats and the state government more than I have ever experienced in my life at this point. Pretty normal people are stockpiling supplies, ammo, guns, etc., and talking about forming militias. If our "leaders" would use just a bit of sense and recognize the situation we're in, they'd back off and try to encourage everyone to cool off and calm down. Instead we have TJ Donovan calling for a witchhunt, the legislature passing resolutions calling for impeachment, a witchhunt now against the few dissenters, and of course it wouldn't be complete without a nice early pile of gun control bills introduced in the legislature already.
I think the majority of us could handle living with each other without all this hate but the fringes are running the show. The government has been weaponized to use it against political enemies. Historically speaking, less than 10 percent of the population has pushed for and started revolutions and civil wars when the majority were not so inclined. So it's not shocking to me we're in this situation. I do still believe rural VT will be a pretty safe place into the future even if the country as a whole gets crazier but I think it wise to not broadcast politics too much in public. I've got nothing political on display at my little homestead anymore even though most of my neighbors and I are on the same page politically.
harry chickpea, I want to thank you for expressing your views. It's both comforting and inspiring to read your take, and I wish more had your perspective.
I'm going to intentionally take something Riley said out of context, as it was a statement that resonated with me on its own:
Quote:
Vermont is not the friendly, open-minded place it makes itself out to be.
As a member of a biracial family, this has been more and more apparent to me over the last 4 years, and especially since Covid hit. I was shocked to find confederate flags coming out in Vermont of all places, and doubly shocked to find a klan statue publicly displayed near a busy road (on private property) not far from where I live, near Chittenden in Franklin County. My partner no longer goes out in public without me when she can avoid it because racially motivated micro aggressions have become regular, and there seems to be some protective factor for a person of color to be accompanied by a white person right now - though I've still heard slurs muttered under people's breath as they walk by us in places like (to use an example from last week) grocery stores.
For a long time I had a "perfect little bubble" fantasy, and that's gone now. I suppose people are people no matter where you go. It's tough to face the reality of that.
This past weekend we drove by a group of protestors (?) in Burlington holding up signs proclaiming "Hate doesn't live here". The sentiment was nice, but this was following my partner asking her supervisor at work (at a social services provider whose committee on racial issues doesn't have a single person of color), "What do I do if I have a racially motivated situation happen with a client or co-worker at the office?" and being told "I'm sure you'll figure it out, I have confidence in you." Zero support - and not for the first time. It was as if it were hard to believe for her supervisor, because how could anything like that happen here? When she brings things up, she often gets blank stares and uncomfortable silence, followed by a change in subject.
Coming around to my point, as a person living in most of the majority groups in Vermont, it's very easy to pretend we have a tolerant open-minded paradise, but it's just not the case. I've seen my partner become jaded and, to some degree, radicalized, because "your problems just don't happen here". And it's easy to say that, when you (impersonal you) aren't the discriminated party.
I try to be a moderating influence, but I have concern that one day we may just pack up and move somewhere she feels more comfortable. I don't mean to be divisive when I say this, but in her case, that's likely to be a place with even fewer (radical) conservatives, or at least where racism and hate aren't pretended out of public consciousness and can be acknowledged for what they are.
As anathema as Trump's views and actions are to me, I can sympathize with conservatives feeling disenfranchised and deplatformed.
And I suspect harry chickpea might be on to something, with regards to moderating public discourse. Things have really gotten out of hand.
When she brings things up, she often gets blank stares and uncomfortable silence, followed by a change in subject.
If you want people to speak freely they have to be able to speak without fear of reprisal for saying the "wrong" thing. That is not the case in today's society on this topic.
If you want people to speak freely they have to be able to speak without fear of reprisal for saying the "wrong" thing. That is not the case in today's society on this topic.
That may be a widespread issue, but in this case it appears to have more to do with ignorance.
It covers subjects which are subjective, where fact checking isn't really applicable, like this one:
Trump: “Not since Abraham Lincoln has anybody done what I’ve done for the Black community.”
I wouldn't blame anyone if they strongly felt that was true or false. It's an opinion, and should never have been fact checked. The fact that it was fact checked at all tells me the fact checker is politically motivated. Certainly this is not a subject that lends itself to verifiable proof.
Wait! What??? On what planet is that a subjective statement?
I'm getting pretty fed up with this whole "alternative facts" thing. I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of a number of issues but they generally don't simply make ish up to have it suit their narrative.
That may be a widespread issue, but in this case it appears to have more to do with ignorance.
It's not ignorance. It's the willingness to believe in mythology. Easter Bunny. Tooth Fairy. Santa Claus. The earth was created in 7 days. Man and dinosaurs roamed the planet at the same time. If the whole basis of your reality is mythology, it's totally plausible to believe that an election was stolen. Or that black people and brown people are going to steal your job. Critical thought is not accepted.
Wait! What??? On what planet is that a subjective statement?
I'm getting pretty fed up with this whole "alternative facts" thing. I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of a number of issues but they generally don't simply make ish up to have it suit their narrative.
Trump did things that affected the AA community, just as all presidents do. What is the relative weight of importance of each of those things? Were all of them beyond debate unequivocally good or bad for that community?
The relative weights are subjective. Whether any particular action was good or bad is subjective. It would be possible to get any order of presidents one wanted by making valid yet subjective choices.
And I would say you've illustrated my point. What the minimum wage is today is a fact. Whether or not raising the minimum wage is good is subjective, it has some good outcomes and some bad outcomes. How each of those is weighted determines the overall goodness. But if someone doesn't recognize that, they will be convinced their subjective opinion is fact.
You have to have faith that the fact-checkers are basing their statements on nothing but facts for this to work. Otherwise it's just one more institution being bent to political philosophy. Do you have faith in the media to do this? What about a technology company, like Google? This is where bending what should be non-political institutions to political objectives in the short run hurts in the long run. It destroys trust.
Question: Do Supreme Court Justices base their rulings strictly on the law, or do they bend their rulings based on their political philosophy?
...
Journalism is a selective telling of events to promote a particular view or understanding. "Spin" is part of that. Would I expect those engaged in journalism to fact-check without bias? No. That does not preclude "best practices" oversight. The medical community has gatekeepers and review boards that have the purpose of keeping lousy doctors from killing people. Is there bias there as well? Of course, but it does serve the purpose. Law enforcement actually has a national "best practices" group that reviews and certifies departments. Regrettably, it is voluntary and many departments refuse to participate. Among those that are reviewed, abuses drop and professionalism rises. Again, it works. The internet has a governing body for best and consistent technical practices. It works.
The idea of a certification group for news media factuality is long overdue. Bias in individual outlets would still remain and be safe, but the egregious claims and statements would be exposed so that people would have a better idea of which sources could be believed. Currently, there is little or no trust in media, but sadly a lot of this distrust is not because of failure to present factual information, but failure to follow party lines. No amount of fact checking will satisfy a fantasist. I'll provide an example, that you can follow up on if you wish to verify:
A few months ago in Madison Alabama there was a black man in a van that was acting in a way that people going to a Planet Fitness called the police. That man subsequently went for a gun (that he denied he had) and tried to kill the officers. The entire sequence of events was recorded on security and body cameras. The facts of his actions were clear. The event had an internal police investigation, an investigation by the state attorney, and camera images were released to the public. To this day, the family of the man continues to cry out that he did no wrong and that there was an injustice. The black community at large has distanced itself from them.
Simply put, the bias of the family is so strong that facts are not relevant to their grief and feelings of hurt. To accept reality is not possible for them. As humans, we are all subject to such breaks with factual reality. Our slight insanities help keep us more sane. When this happens on an individual basis, the import of the fantasy is usually minimal. When a large group is engaged in a group fantasy, it becomes far more dangerous.
Whatever fact checking group is formed, it will be subject to numerous claims that it is biased and untruthful - by people who harbor pet fantasies, by groups that would deny reality for their own purposes. A properly constructed group that has checks and balances will have fewer claims against it, but it will not be popular with the most vocal or extreme.
To sum that point up, your concerns of bias in such a group are largely esoteric and obstructionist. Holding media accountable is not a restriction of free speech. Having basic standards is not burdensome except to liars and fantasists. Reality somehow seems to exist whether we like it or not. Admitting that is not a big problem for most of us.
You'll note it covers a very wide array of subjects.
It covers subjects which are subjective, where fact checking isn't really applicable, like this one:
Trump: “Not since Abraham Lincoln has anybody done what I’ve done for the Black community.”
I wouldn't blame anyone if they strongly felt that was true or false. It's an opinion, and should never have been fact checked. The fact that it was fact checked at all tells me the fact checker is politically motivated. Certainly this is not a subject that lends itself to verifiable proof.
The statement you selected is not an opinion. "I have done" is a declaration, pure and simple.
That you interpret it as an opinion shows how the constant barrage of misleading rhetoric has affected your critical thinking. Bear with me, please. You areclosing in on the right track. The Digger made a similar error in the way it approached and attacked the statement.
“Not since Abraham Lincoln has anybody done what I’ve done for the Black community.”
The statement structure falls under a number of linguistic constructs.
On the surface, "I've done" is an action statement. We are used to statements like "I've turned off the stove burner." Declarations of action are typically seen in a positive light. Politicians know that.
"Anyone" is a reference to the group that includes all people on the planet from the time of Lincoln's death to the present. That is preening, sometimes called self-aggrandizement. To those who hold an individual in good regard, it is supportive of their existing views of the person. To those that don't, it comes across as inflation, buffoonery, and narcissism. See the divisiveness inherent in that simple claim?
The lead-in of Abraham Lincoln is invoking of a common authority figure. Technically, it is one of the logical fallacies, but a minor one in this context.
"for the Black community" appeals subtly to the idea that as a white male, he grants largess to a subservient group of blacks. Most people miss this, as it is so deeply embedded in our various cultures that it gets passed over.
"what I've done" is an action statement that has no tangible object to the clause. This is common political speak. If T brought five black congresscritters into the white house as a group, and no one else since Lincoln had brought in exactly five, his statement would be factually correct. Meaningless, but correct.
What the Digger did was try to rebuff insubstantial fluff, rather than calling it out as fluff.
There are other language tricks in the way the statement is constructed that are the mark of a skilled rhetorician, but the above points out how a flooding of words and claims can off-balance critics and send them skittering off on tangents.
The greater "fact-checking" has bias and fluff of its own. Who really cares if Biden came from Scranton?
IIRC, the one recent article in the Digger that was worthy of writing was the one on the farm workers from Mexico. The one on the group occupying Battery Park was hilarious in ineptitude and paybacks - something I couldn't share in detail on the forums, but did with my brother. Digger, to me, is somewhat typical in small town journalism trying to be big. Its bias seems on a par (but opposite aisle) with the old Burlington Free Press in its prime.
In response to jdhpa and his statement:
If you want people to speak freely they have to be able to speak without fear of reprisal for saying the "wrong" thing. That is not the case in today's society on this topic.
The fear of reprisal has always been a part of free speech. Completely unfettered speech is monkey screech. Get up in town meeting and start to ramble on about your neighbor's dog poo and you'll get shut down and your neighbor will glare at you. Actions have consequences. Words have consequences. If you start lobbing around words like hand grenades in your "free speech" there can and will be reprisal.
The key to productive free speech is to engage the mind fully before engaging the voice box or keyboard. A personal opinion might be free speech, but meaningless and a distraction in a larger discussion. Free speech is not freely speaking whatever comes to mind. That is just blathering. Speech that has a primary purpose of putting other people down is not free speech, but hate speech. A lot of us are fed up with it.
That is hardly a subjective claim. It is easy to prove that other presidents since Abraham Lincoln did more for the Black community as the fact checkers did in your example.
You'll note it covers a very wide array of subjects.
It covers subjects which are subjective, where fact checking isn't really applicable, like this one:
Trump: “Not since Abraham Lincoln has anybody done what I’ve done for the Black community.”
I wouldn't blame anyone if they strongly felt that was true or false. It's an opinion, and should never have been fact checked. The fact that it was fact checked at all tells me the fact checker is politically motivated. Certainly this is not a subject that lends itself to verifiable proof.
To sum that point up, your concerns of bias in such a group are largely esoteric and obstructionist.
No, my concerns are practical. There are already many fact checking organizations. They aren't trusted by one side or the other because they don't stick to genuinely verifiable facts, and as soon as they veer from verifiable facts they lose trust. Creating one more such organization won't change that. There is no harm in creating one more. But I would expect there to be no benefit either, since as soon as it veers from verifiable facts it will not be trusted any more than the existing organizations. It will be just one more [left,right]-wing organization.
I will use my example of the "fact check" from vtdigger above to illustrate. Please see my earlier response to another poster explaining why it is an opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
What the Digger did was try to rebuff insubstantial fluff, rather than calling it out as fluff.
Precisely right. You recognize that it's "fluff", it has no substance, it only exists to sound good. I.e., it is not a verifiable fact, it's the speaker's opinion. It's like saying "I've done a wonderful job." If an organization attempts to fact check statements like "I've done a wonderful job", there's a 0% chance they're going to be viewed as objective verifiers of fact. That's just a simple, practical reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
The fear of reprisal has always been a part of free speech. Completely unfettered speech is monkey screech.
I said nothing about completely unfettered speech. I said speak freely - the ability to say what you believe to be true without fear of reprisal.
Does that mean the person saying something you disagree with is right? No. They could easily be wrong. But if there are reprisals to anyone who disagrees with you, whether they're right or wrong, it won't be long before no one says anything to you that you disagree with. You'll be enjoying your echo chamber, and you'll never correct anything you believe that's wrong, no matter how much damage your wrong understanding is causing you in life. Which is fine with me, but not so good for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
Speech that has a primary purpose of putting other people down is not free speech, but hate speech. A lot of us are fed up with it.
Again, I said absolutely nothing of the sort. This is you putting words in my mouth and then attacking me for it. And that is something that I am fed up with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
