Restore regulations on “news” mass media, and regulate their political advertising. Including social media.
Reform campaign financing. Apply the fixes recommended by SCOTUS in Citizens United.
State-level voting reform, including universal and automatic mail-in ballots, and ranked choice voting.
There is reality, and then there is each individual's perception of reality. Each person believes with near-absolute certainty that their personal model (based on a tiny slice of actual events, the majority of which are first run through third parties for ~interpretation and adjustment) of reality is accurate, and often enjoy chuckling at other people's models, but the unfortunate fact is that no person has an accurate model - and perhaps more importantly: hardly anyone seems to realize this (in depth, and on a continuous basis).
I suspect you actually don't, due to the underlying complexity and ineffable, counterintuitive nature of the subject matter.
> but I will not be gaslit.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes, including low self-esteem.
There is gaslighting, and then there is psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy - and then there is each individual's knowledge (actual and perceived) in each field, all of which is implemented by the human mind, which is not well understood at all, but understood well enough that it is known to be very imperceptibly deceiving.
> Some sources are better in quality than others, considering multiple sources is better, critically considering the information in those sources and discussing it is the best.
I completely agree, and nothing I said suggested the contrary. Although, you may have the intuition that it implicitly communicated it, just as you seem to have the intuition that I am gaslighting you.
> It is entirely possible to still get at the truth.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not - it depends. And sometimes, that which is considered to be true, is not actually true.
> The propaganda is the USA is bordering absurdity in its believability.
100% agree - to me, it passed surreal levels years ago. Even more surreal is the percentage of intelligent people who seem to believe that they have a firm lock on "the truth" about a system this complex, despite often having extensive background knowledge in the complexity that lies within far simpler systems.
> The president says exactly what he means, and his words are interpreted by others like a horoscope to mean whatever they want.
Serious question: how is it that you came to know the beliefs of other people? Trace the lineage of that belief in your own mind, and see what you come up with.
This is not conspiracy theory or trolling, it is the result of scientific investigations performed over decades by specialists in various overlapping fields, who are doing their best to understand the mysteries of the human mind. And scientists aren't the only source of substantiation - not that long ago philosophy and literature were very seriously by a lot of serious people, and may have a thing or two worth learning.
https://thundergodblog.com/2015/07/26/a-brief-history-of-the...
https://www.azquotes.com/author/6592-Frank_Herbert
It's hard to resist picking a side and getting down into object level mudslinging in the information war currently playing out in the media (mainstream and social), I'm very often guilty of it myself. But I propose that there is another alternative available: that of a disinterested (as possible) 3rd person observer who engages his/her mind with the abstract perspective of the battle, observing with playful curiosity the rhetorical strategies, strange supernatural beliefs, and various other absurd behavior that until recently only the human mind was capable of producing. Not only is this perspective far more interesting, but once you do it for a while some interesting new thoughts might come to mind, like "Just what exactly is going on on this planet? These humans have the ability to have a realtime video conversation with someone half way around the world, or deliver a package there by the next day, yet at the same time millions of their offspring die every year due to a lack of the basic essentials required to sustain their lives, and all they seem to do is post short "tweets" to each other lamenting that "nothing can be done". What mysterious force underlies this madness?"
Agreed, which is why I believe we should take a more scientific approach to discussions. For example:
>>> Those adults watch a few conspiracy YouTube videos and Fox News and consider themselves educated and informed.
Is this statement True? At best, it has some truth. But this type of language and thinking is incredibly common right here on HN, a place we consider to be a place of quality discussion. For sure, things are better here than most other places, but it is still chock full of objectively incorrect statements and erroneous thinking, much of it being very nuanced and easily dismissed by "don't be pedantic", "you know what I meant", etc.
Science does not operate by ignoring details or requiring listeners to infer things from vague messages, and this is why it produces successful results. The way we manage and discuss affairs on planet earth however, is almost entirely operated in this non-scientific, error-riddled form.
To be clear, this is my personal opinion (an estimate) about reality. What matters is what the true state of reality is, and almost no one seems to care about that, at least based on discussion and voting patterns here.
I wonder if some sort of a browser addon that added a metadata layer to forums would be helpful in surfacing these things, such that patterns could be recognized over time, which might bring to mind ideas of how we could improve our thinking and discourse.
My money and politics teacher @ CMU - John Delano said something that has always stuck with me when in doubt about motivations - “in politics, follow the money”.
Passing and extending the Patriot Act was bipartisan.
I'm not so sure about that. Especially given that only ~42% of eligible voters cast votes in the 2016 US elections[0].
What's most troubling about that statistic is that more eligible voters did not vote than voted for any of the presidential candidates.
Without ascribing motives or intentions, it's not clear that your statement is supported by the facts.
I don't know what the motives/intentions of those non-voters might be. Given that I always vote in every election, because I see it as my duty and responsibility as a citizen, and because that's how we choose the path our government (and, more broadly our society) will take. Especially in local and state elections, where my vote (given the smaller size of electorates in such elections) is more consequential.
In any case, while voter suppression and disenfranchisement are all too common in the US, such activity doesn't explain why nearly half of eligible voters abdicated their responsibility and gave away their opportunity to create the government they want to have.
[0] https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/post-election-2016/voter-tu...
You have that backwards. 42% did not vote; 58% did.
Still way too low, though.
>You have that backwards. 42% did not vote; 58% did.
>Still way too low, though.
Yes, you're absolutely correct, and I got it backwards. I need to proofread better.
Thanks for calling me out on this.