pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 06 Dec 2008 11:57:23
From: Kingo Gondo
Subject: Obama conspiracy k00ks: Your friends on the right have a message for you....
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGY0OTgxYWYzYTJmOTVjODhjYWFmZDQ0ZWQzMzFhYzQ=

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/28935/

Here's the executive summary:

You're nuts.






 
Date: 06 Dec 2008 14:06:51
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Obama conspiracy k00ks: Your friends on the right have a message for you....
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 11:57:23 -0500, "Kingo Gondo"
<kingo_nospam_gondo@gmail.com > wrote:

>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGY0OTgxYWYzYTJmOTVjODhjYWFmZDQ0ZWQzMzFhYzQ=

>http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/28935/

I can't believe you're relying on a biased liberal like Michelle
Malkin or a moonbat lefty outlet like National Review.


 
Date: 06 Dec 2008 13:19:23
From: John the Savage
Subject: Re: Obama conspiracy k00ks: Your friends on the right have a message
Kingo Gondo wrote:
>
> Here's the executive summary:
>
> You're nuts.
>
>

I caught this article in the school paper yesterday, and found it pretty
interesting. It certainly applies to what we see on RGP:

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2008-12-05/law-expert-sunstein-speaks-dangers-polorization

I wish I had more time to present this in depth and give it a thread of
its own. However, I'm in the middle of the busiest week of my life; I
have four finals Monday and Tuesday, two papers due Wednesday, the GRE
to take on Thursday, and several grad apps due on the 15th. Whee going
back to school is fun, although I guess it beats still working at Ford
right now, eh?

Anyway. The moral is that the internet may not be the boon for democracy
and information people have thought it was. This is a Harvard Law Prof
who was done some research on the internet, and the way it can actually
polarize political groups, leaving no middle ground and leading to
dangerous extremism, on both sides.

A snip:
====================
In the lecture, Sunstein stressed the importance of avoiding the
dichotomization of ideas, arguing that the Internet can lead people to
become too insulated from the variety of beliefs and opinions needed for
rational political discourse. Diversity of thought is critical to the
success of democracy, he said, citing a study he conducted in which
liberals and conservatives were separated into groups and told to
discuss issues including climate change, affirmative action and gay
marriage.

Over the course of the study, the groups became increasingly radicalized
in their respective views on the issues.

“Social pressures can create polarization machines,” Sunstein said.“It
was as if the groups occupied two different political universes.”

Through his research, Sunstein has developed a theory that if people are
only exposed to news and information targeted at their preexisting
interests and political beliefs, society will become polarized along
ideological lines.

Sunstein said his theory, “The Daily Me,” has potentially harmful
effects for dissent and open political discourse because it promotes the
radicalization of viewpoints on both ends of the political spectrum.

The explosion of Internet news outlets like the Huffington Post and
highly personalized blogs, have reduced what Sunstein called the
“architecture of serendipity,” or the unexpected exposure to a person,
topic or viewpoint.

Sunstein said the “architecture of serendipity” formed in the 20th
century when newspapers, radio and television news outlets presented a
broad range of issues and viewpoints to their audiences.

He said public protests and demonstrations are now one of the few ways
in which Americans are exposed to a diversity of opinions.

“So long as the streets and parks are open, we have a duty to be exposed
to people who disagree with us,” Sunstein said.

Terrorism, according to Sunstein, is a prime example of sociopolitical
polarization gone horribly awry. He refuted the widely held views that
terrorism is driven by poverty or a lack of education, instead arguing
that “what terrorism seems to be fueled by is polarization.”
====================

There certainly is plenty of this phenomenon to go around here on RGP,
where many of our political pundits get their information nearly
exclusively from blogs or polarized websites which present only
reinforcing viewpoints, targeting only an audience that already agrees
with them.



  
Date: 06 Dec 2008 14:46:33
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Obama conspiracy k00ks: Your friends on the right have a messagefor you....
On Dec 6 2008 1:19 PM, John the Savage wrote:

<snip >

> There certainly is plenty of this phenomenon to go around here on RGP,
> where many of our political pundits get their information nearly
> exclusively from blogs or polarized websites which present only
> reinforcing viewpoints, targeting only an audience that already agrees
> with them.

While you're correct than people gravitate towards the kind of rhetoric
and political discourse that most reinforces their own ideologies, I think
it's pretty hard to argue that having more information, and more points of
view, so easily accessible is a bad thing. While the Internet (and RGP in
particular) certainly suffers from some pretty extreme viewpoints on both
sides of the isle (of which I'm as guilty as the next guy), some of these
conflicts have actually changed my worldview quite remarkably. For
instance, I used to be a staunch gun control advocate. A few years
trolling this newsgroup, though, has completely changed my perspective.

It's not the medium (the Internet), it's just human nature, I think.
Reasonable people will assimilate available information and (usually) make
reasonable conclusions; for these folks, more information is a good thing.
Dumb people will internalize extremism and stupidity, and will remain
dumb. And I think as a general rule people, overall, are getting dumber by
the day. Don't blame the messenger.

________________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 06 Dec 2008 23:19:09
From: Kingo Gondo
Subject: Re: Obama conspiracy k00ks: Your friends on the right have a messagefor you....

"ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:9vbr06x7lu.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 6 2008 1:19 PM, John the Savage wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > There certainly is plenty of this phenomenon to go around here on RGP,
> > where many of our political pundits get their information nearly
> > exclusively from blogs or polarized websites which present only
> > reinforcing viewpoints, targeting only an audience that already agrees
> > with them.
>
> While you're correct than people gravitate towards the kind of rhetoric
> and political discourse that most reinforces their own ideologies, I think
> it's pretty hard to argue that having more information, and more points of
> view, so easily accessible is a bad thing. While the Internet (and RGP in
> particular) certainly suffers from some pretty extreme viewpoints on both
> sides of the isle (of which I'm as guilty as the next guy), some of these
> conflicts have actually changed my worldview quite remarkably. For
> instance, I used to be a staunch gun control advocate. A few years
> trolling this newsgroup, though, has completely changed my perspective.
>
> It's not the medium (the Internet), it's just human nature, I think.
> Reasonable people will assimilate available information and (usually) make
> reasonable conclusions; for these folks, more information is a good thing.
> Dumb people will internalize extremism and stupidity, and will remain
> dumb. And I think as a general rule people, overall, are getting dumber by
> the day. Don't blame the messenger.

Ever see Idiocracy?

Bad movie, good premise.




    
Date: 06 Dec 2008 22:27:52
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Obama conspiracy k00ks: Your friends on the right have a messagefor you....
On Dec 6 2008 11:19 PM, Kingo Gondo wrote:

> "ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:9vbr06x7lu.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Dec 6 2008 1:19 PM, John the Savage wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > There certainly is plenty of this phenomenon to go around here on RGP,
> > > where many of our political pundits get their information nearly
> > > exclusively from blogs or polarized websites which present only
> > > reinforcing viewpoints, targeting only an audience that already agrees
> > > with them.
> >
> > While you're correct than people gravitate towards the kind of rhetoric
> > and political discourse that most reinforces their own ideologies, I think
> > it's pretty hard to argue that having more information, and more points of
> > view, so easily accessible is a bad thing. While the Internet (and RGP in
> > particular) certainly suffers from some pretty extreme viewpoints on both
> > sides of the isle (of which I'm as guilty as the next guy), some of these
> > conflicts have actually changed my worldview quite remarkably. For
> > instance, I used to be a staunch gun control advocate. A few years
> > trolling this newsgroup, though, has completely changed my perspective.
> >
> > It's not the medium (the Internet), it's just human nature, I think.
> > Reasonable people will assimilate available information and (usually) make
> > reasonable conclusions; for these folks, more information is a good thing.
> > Dumb people will internalize extremism and stupidity, and will remain
> > dumb. And I think as a general rule people, overall, are getting dumber by
> > the day. Don't blame the messenger.
>
> Ever see Idiocracy?
>
> Bad movie, good premise.

Sorry, I changed the channel before I could detect any sort of premise at
all, frankly.

________________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 08 Dec 2008 10:06:23
From: Kingo Gondo
Subject: Re: Obama conspiracy k00ks: Your friends on the right have a messagefor you....

"ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:807s06xmf1.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 6 2008 11:19 PM, Kingo Gondo wrote:
>
>> "ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:9vbr06x7lu.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> > On Dec 6 2008 1:19 PM, John the Savage wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > > There certainly is plenty of this phenomenon to go around here on
>> > > RGP,
>> > > where many of our political pundits get their information nearly
>> > > exclusively from blogs or polarized websites which present only
>> > > reinforcing viewpoints, targeting only an audience that already
>> > > agrees
>> > > with them.
>> >
>> > While you're correct than people gravitate towards the kind of rhetoric
>> > and political discourse that most reinforces their own ideologies, I
>> > think
>> > it's pretty hard to argue that having more information, and more points
>> > of
>> > view, so easily accessible is a bad thing. While the Internet (and RGP
>> > in
>> > particular) certainly suffers from some pretty extreme viewpoints on
>> > both
>> > sides of the isle (of which I'm as guilty as the next guy), some of
>> > these
>> > conflicts have actually changed my worldview quite remarkably. For
>> > instance, I used to be a staunch gun control advocate. A few years
>> > trolling this newsgroup, though, has completely changed my perspective.
>> >
>> > It's not the medium (the Internet), it's just human nature, I think.
>> > Reasonable people will assimilate available information and (usually)
>> > make
>> > reasonable conclusions; for these folks, more information is a good
>> > thing.
>> > Dumb people will internalize extremism and stupidity, and will remain
>> > dumb. And I think as a general rule people, overall, are getting dumber
>> > by
>> > the day. Don't blame the messenger.
>>
>> Ever see Idiocracy?
>>
>> Bad movie, good premise.
>
> Sorry, I changed the channel before I could detect any sort of premise at
> all, frankly.


Quite understandable, sad to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy




  
Date: 06 Dec 2008 13:35:42
From: Kingo Gondo
Subject: Re: Obama conspiracy k00ks: Your friends on the right have a message for you....

"John the Savage" <savage0000@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:ueSdndEsY7jaX6fUnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@giganews.com...
> Kingo Gondo wrote:
>>
>> Here's the executive summary:
>>
>> You're nuts.
>
> I caught this article in the school paper yesterday, and found it pretty
> interesting. It certainly applies to what we see on RGP:
>
> http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2008-12-05/law-expert-sunstein-speaks-dangers-polorization
>
> I wish I had more time to present this in depth and give it a thread of
> its own. However, I'm in the middle of the busiest week of my life; I
> have four finals Monday and Tuesday, two papers due Wednesday, the GRE to
> take on Thursday, and several grad apps due on the 15th. Whee going back
> to school is fun, although I guess it beats still working at Ford right
> now, eh?
>
> Anyway. The moral is that the internet may not be the boon for democracy
> and information people have thought it was. This is a Harvard Law Prof
> who was done some research on the internet, and the way it can actually
> polarize political groups, leaving no middle ground and leading to
> dangerous extremism, on both sides.
>
> A snip:
> ====================
> In the lecture, Sunstein stressed the importance of avoiding the
> dichotomization of ideas, arguing that the Internet can lead people to
> become too insulated from the variety of beliefs and opinions needed for
> rational political discourse. Diversity of thought is critical to the
> success of democracy, he said, citing a study he conducted in which
> liberals and conservatives were separated into groups and told to discuss
> issues including climate change, affirmative action and gay marriage.
>
> Over the course of the study, the groups became increasingly radicalized
> in their respective views on the issues.
>
> “Social pressures can create polarization machines,” Sunstein said.“It was
> as if the groups occupied two different political universes.”
>
> Through his research, Sunstein has developed a theory that if people are
> only exposed to news and information targeted at their preexisting
> interests and political beliefs, society will become polarized along
> ideological lines.
>
> Sunstein said his theory, “The Daily Me,” has potentially harmful effects
> for dissent and open political discourse because it promotes the
> radicalization of viewpoints on both ends of the political spectrum.
>
> The explosion of Internet news outlets like the Huffington Post and highly
> personalized blogs, have reduced what Sunstein called the “architecture of
> serendipity,” or the unexpected exposure to a person, topic or viewpoint.
>
> Sunstein said the “architecture of serendipity” formed in the 20th century
> when newspapers, radio and television news outlets presented a broad range
> of issues and viewpoints to their audiences.
>
> He said public protests and demonstrations are now one of the few ways in
> which Americans are exposed to a diversity of opinions.
>
> “So long as the streets and parks are open, we have a duty to be exposed
> to people who disagree with us,” Sunstein said.
>
> Terrorism, according to Sunstein, is a prime example of sociopolitical
> polarization gone horribly awry. He refuted the widely held views that
> terrorism is driven by poverty or a lack of education, instead arguing
> that “what terrorism seems to be fueled by is polarization.”
> ====================
>
> There certainly is plenty of this phenomenon to go around here on RGP,
> where many of our political pundits get their information nearly
> exclusively from blogs or polarized websites which present only
> reinforcing viewpoints, targeting only an audience that already agrees
> with them.

That is why I tried citing to people on "their side". But it won't matter.
Loons always have avoiding inconvenient facts. When the Supreme Court dumps
the case (probably Monday), wait for the new outbreak of conspiracy
looniness.

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never
reasoned into”--Swift




 
Date: 06 Dec 2008 12:01:03
From: blank
Subject: Re: Obama conspiracy k00ks: Your friends on the right have a message
Kingo Gondo wrote:
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGY0OTgxYWYzYTJmOTVjODhjYWFmZDQ0ZWQzMzFhYzQ=
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/28935/
>
> Here's the executive summary:
>
> You're nuts.
>
>

Fire cannot melt steel unless it is a temperature *far*
above that which could have been possible in the towers.