SaidIt Survey : Which is worse - the thought police or the tax man?

submitted by JasonCarswell from media.dhakatribune.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

Thought policing is way worse.

I'd rather pay taxes and be unhappy about it, than pay taxes and not understand why I'm giving my money away. That's the optimistic view. It could get much darker.

Like hating immigrants and blaming them for the problems with society.
Immigrants aren't trying to take anyone's guns.

Edit: I haven't read a single argument supporting the thought police over taxation.
I'm calling it:
Tax man wins the least-worse award!

Edit 2: The previous verdict was premature. Read on!!!

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

They hate us for our free dumbs.

[–]OldManCorley 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

and blaming them for the problems with society.

Above directly blaming immigrants for societies problem is the understanding that unchecked illegal immigration could lead to problems in society.

Much in the same way that above "orange man bad", there's actually arguments against president Trump.

Fundamentalizing and removing nuances in the debate IS the result of the though police.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

I thought it was (partially) because of the media wanting stories to be read, and sensationalising them to the point of meaninglessness.

[–]CA_Taxpayer 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The majority of media outlets are owned by oligarchs. The stories published are ones that somehow reinforce the system that keeps the oligarchs in power. Independent media is branded as "fake news" because the oligarchs are trying to keep control of the narrative.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

FYI: Did you know magnora7 is a Rothschild oligarch? That's why he knows so much about his family. And d3rr looks like MiniMe.

:P

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They both work out of Eglin. ;-)

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There is also a lot of fake news around, though. You used to at least be able to trust the mainstream media, which you can't as of late, so I agree that it's hypocritical and manipulative for them to do so.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The mainstream news always lied. However, public awareness of the lies is a recent development.

  • Media can never be trusted if their revenue comes from advertising.
  • Media shouldn't be trusted if their revenue is from foundations. Think tanks, PBS, NPR, Scientific journals, etc.
  • Media may be trustworthy if they are supporter funded, assuming you understand their worldview, and political agenda. Every news story is told from a perspective.

Everyone should learn intellectual self defense. I recommend" manufacturing consent" by Chomsky. He certainly has his own biases and agenda, but this book is as legit as it gets for this topic. You can become a media selfdefense blue-belt by understanding the basics.

[–]CA_Taxpayer 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You mean the "fake news" that "reputable media outlets" have been peddling for years, like Iraq had WMD's and Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with 9-11? The only difference between now and then is that nowadays the internet offers public platforms to people who used to not have a way to spread the truth. The oligarchs no longer have total control of the narrative like they used to.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Exactly like that.

Although, there is one other difference. You've got stuff thrown at you so quickly that you tend to just believe all the stories, instead of actually analysing them and checking whether they make sense. Only a simple heuristic is used, instead of the much more complex heuristics that take time and pondering. That means that you end up taking in mostly the things that you already believe in ⇒ echochamber.

[–]CA_Taxpayer 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, you are totally right about this. A lot of people get their news from headlines and sound bites of publications that produce what they WANT to hear. This self-filtering/lack of real info has a lot to do with why our country is so divided, instead of coming together to fight the oligarchs like France has. Someone posted this on Reddit and it is right on the money: https://i.redd.it/c5t956aksa821.jpg

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know most of the things on there.

[–]OldManCorley 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I agree, but what stories get sensationalised?

One very obvious example to me would be the media coverage of trump vs Clinton.

Would you say the media were pouncing on every opportunity for a sensationalised scandal for both parties or would you say the candidates were treated differently when it comes to press coverage?

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Whatever they think will work. If there are a lot of things, whatever empowers their particular political stance.

Why not both?

[–]OldManCorley 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Why not both?

Yes, why not both. Would you say both candidates were treated equally from the press??

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Which candidates?

Yes I would say both candidates were treated equally by the press.

Both Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein were treated equally terribly.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Exactly.
And Gary Johnson, and all candidates that are excluded by the duopoly.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And McGoofy.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The medias were pouncing on every opportunity for a sensationalised scandal, each organisation with a different agenda, and some were taking it further than others. I didn't really follow it though; all I got from it was that all candidates were terrible people.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

This is true. However, illegal immigration (by new arrival) is near an all time low.

The media doesn't report this inconvenient fact.
Additionally, record numbers of illegal immigrants have been deported since the beginning of Obama's presidency. Obama was called the deporter-in-chief for a reason. Bush started it. Obama, and Trump continued it. This isn't contraversial.

Above directly blaming immigrants for societies problem is the understanding that unchecked illegal immigration could lead to problems in society.

Unemployment figures are currently low, so that cannot be a significant issue.

What adverse effect is the result of the illegal immigrant population? Where are the existing problems?

[–]OldManCorley 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

However, illegal immigration (by new arrival) is near an all time low.

  1. That's not a counterargument.

  2. Even if it were, I'm not from the US so it's not a valid counterargument to my statement.

Unemployment figures are currently low, so that cannot be a significant issue.

Does those figures include those who aren't registered?

What adverse effect is the result of the illegal immigrant population? Where are the existing problems?

If you see no negative sides to illegal immigration, does that include human trafficking and exploitation of illegal immigrants as a particularly vulnerable group for both physical labour and sex work through economical slavery?

tut tut

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

However, illegal immigration (by new arrival) is near an all time low.

That's not a counterargument.

I was unable to find recent chart that showed figures for illegal immigrants in the US (2014 was the most recent). The lack of current figures isn't surprising as these figures wouldn't support the right narrative. If you can find them, then I'd love to see them.

Even if it were, I'm not from the US so it's not a valid counterargument to my statement.

Please clarify your statement.

Unemployment figures are currently low, so that cannot be a significant issue.

Does those figures include those who aren't registered?

No. It includes the individuals that are counted in the US as unemployed. I was under the impression that this was not an epistological debate, be but a debate of facts.

What adverse effect is the result of the illegal immigrant population? Where are the existing problems?

If you see no negative sides to illegal immigration, does that include human trafficking and exploitation of illegal immigrants as a particularly vulnerable group for both physical labour and sex work through economical slavery?

There are plenty of US citizens that are suffering from these same issues. Will deporting more illegal immigrants solve these issues you've cited? Nope. It's easy to self deport in the US, if things are worse here.

Deporting illegal immigrants to their home country is guaranteed to send them back to the conditions that they fled to escape. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants would prefer to stay in the US. They do not want to be deported.

Then there's the economic argument, where illegal immigrants do work Americans have little or no interest in doing.
Hotel cleaning, meat packing, migratory farm work, etc.

Hotels are desperate to find workers. Alabama had to quietly change their laws, because of desperate outrage from the agriculture industry. Fruit is dying on the vine.

I'm debating the facts on the ground. Obviously, human trafficking, etc. is awful. Is it reduced by hasher immigration policy? Where is the evidence? Do you have evidence to present that disputes my assertion?

tut tut.

Your condescension is premature.

Edit: formatting

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

In the US the unemployment numbers are rigged in how they count them. If you've been unemployed for more than 6 months or 2 years I think they stop counting you, even if you're still looking for work. Whatever the timespan, that's just one way to skew the count. If you're old "retired" or disabled they may not count you because you're collecting or out of the work force - but maybe you want or even need to work in hard times. Maybe you had a temp job for a week. They stop counting you. There are lots of ways the count is rigged. They want to look more successful than they are while they're dismantling the system.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I understand this. However, this is another red herring.

Do you agree that in January of 2019 (USA) most people can find work if they are looking to enter the job market? Is this the standard of specificity that is now required now to discuss immigration in the US? You realize that this is intended to derail the conversation..

What alternative would you propose? If we're discussing facts and we change the metrics, then there's no baseline measurement to refer to.

Are you aware of any preferable alternative to unemployment figures that won't be picked apart?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Find what kind of work? Sustainable work? Part time work? Work that demands you also get food stamps? Work with out benefits? Temp work? Seasonal work? In the debt slavery job market?

Can you consider these work? Are they insults or survival?

This isn't a Trump thing. Bush and Obama were fudging the numbers too. I'm saying there are not legit baselines because "they" don't want them known. Like enemy casualty numbers.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We're in agreement. You are making my point for me.

Having stated that unemployment was low, I had to use the generally accepted unemployment standard (which has inherent obvious flaws; of which I was fully aware of), as a baseline for the sake of consistency. I don't think accurate figures are documents for the 'actual' unemployment. Even if I found them from a source, then they could easily be picked apart for including/excluding X, Y, or Z.

To avoid 'this' I referred to the generally accepted standard; flaws and all. :-/.

My friend, at this point you surely realize this. ;-)

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Now I do. LOL. I thought you were defending their figures.