Hate Inc. - Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another - Matt Taibbi
Language: EnglishKeywords:
Hate Inc
Journalism
Matt Taibbi
Media
News
Political Media
Political News
Politics
Shared by:A.B.B
Written by
Read by Robert Fass
Format: MP3
Bitrate: 64 Kbps
Unabridged
In this characteristically turbocharged new book, celebrated Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi provides an insider’s guide to the variety of ways today’s mainstream media tells us lies. Part tirade, part confessional, it reveals that what most people think of as “the news” is, in fact, a twisted wing of the entertainment business.
In the Internet age, the press have mastered the art of monetizing anger, paranoia, and distrust. Taibbi, who has spent much of his career covering elections in which this kind of manipulative activity is most egregious, provides a rich taxonomic survey of American political journalism’s dirty tricks.
Heading into a 2020 election season that promises to be a Great Giza Pyramid Complex of invective and digital ugliness, Hate Inc. will be an invaluable antidote to the hidden poisons dished up by those we rely on to tell us what is happening in the world.
- @Loewe The other books by Matt Tabbi will follow within few weeks.
| Announce URL: | http://googer.cc:1337/announce |
| This Torrent also has several backup trackers | |
| Tracker: | http://googer.cc:1337/announce |
| Tracker: | http://open.acgnxtracker.com:80/announce |
| Tracker: | http://tracker2.dler.org:80/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://exodus.desync.com:6969/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://open.stealth.si:80/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://opentor.org:2710/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.dler.org:6969/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.opentrackr.org:1337/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.tiny-vps.com:6969/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.torrent.eu.org:451/announce |
| Creation Date: | Mon, 10 Jan 2022 19:33:50 +0100 |
| This is a Multifile Torrent | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (01).mp3 7.94 MBs | |
| .pad 62657 61.19 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (02).mp3 15.41 MBs | |
| .pad 94913 92.69 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (03).mp3 20.25 MBs | |
| .pad 3777 3.69 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (04).mp3 40.91 MBs | |
| .pad 97601 95.31 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (05).mp3 19.37 MBs | |
| .pad 137842 134.61 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (06).mp3 12.25 MBs | |
| .pad 261185 255.06 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (07).mp3 12.41 MBs | |
| .pad 93185 91 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (08).mp3 7.93 MBs | |
| .pad 70721 69.06 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (09).mp3 13.48 MBs | |
| .pad 21825 21.31 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (10).mp3 12.46 MBs | |
| .pad 37937 37.05 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (11).mp3 15.73 MBs | |
| .pad 21681 21.17 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (12).mp3 15.29 MBs | |
| .pad 215537 210.49 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (13).mp3 14.91 MBs | |
| .pad 99249 96.92 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (14).mp3 11.94 MBs | |
| .pad 65024 63.5 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (15).mp3 12.62 MBs | |
| .pad 139953 136.67 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (16).mp3 22.73 MBs | |
| .pad 17088 16.69 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (17).mp3 28.26 MBs | |
| .pad 246464 240.69 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (18).mp3 18.38 MBs | |
| .pad 128704 125.69 KBs | |
| Hate Inc. - Part (19).mp3 20.35 MBs | |
| .pad 162481 158.67 KBs | |
| Hate Inc..jpg 37.21 KBs | |
| Combined File Size: | 324.54 MBs |
| Piece Size: | 256 KBs |
| Comment: | Updated by AudioBook Bay |
| Info Hash: | 25082f3cf9e69679060931d8a45296c37d95c29d |
| Torrent Download | Torrent Free Downloads |
| Tips | Sometimes the torrent health info isn’t accurate, so you can download the file and check it out or try the following downloads. |
| Direct Download | Start Direct Download |
| Tips | You could try out alternative bittorrent clients. |
| Secured Download | Download Files Now |
| Ad |
|
This post has 63 comments with rating of 4.8/5
January 10th, 2022
Before you chime in with your usual low-IQ bollocks Gordon, I’d like an answer to the question you’ve been dodging for weeks now: how are today’s right-wing similar to the democratic socialists of the 1930s and 1940s?
January 10th, 2022
Thank you for the upload! Just a few days ago I saw someone requesting this book in the comments of another entry. I hope he gets to find this.
Alas it seems like the torrent is not working, though. Is there an option to get it fixed?
January 10th, 2022
I don’t know who this guy is, but it sounds interesting. Glenn Greenwald has had some interesting things to say about the media lately. Non-partisan journalism seems to be a thing of the past in the US. The Associated Press is just another wing of the Democrat party.
January 10th, 2022
Wow talk about looking for a argument. No thoughts about the book hiw good the download is ect. Just hey let’s pick a fight! Way to be a Troll Jack. Not that I defend Gordon or even care about U.S politics I really don’t care. Yet I can spot a troll a mile away. Bullying someone is not the way to turn others to your side. Ty for the upload good job.
January 10th, 2022
No torrent uploaded?
January 10th, 2022
Funny some of you guys are doing the same thing this book is about.. doh lol
January 10th, 2022
Hmmm… the magnet doesn’t seem to be working, but the “Torrent Free Downloads” link does.
January 10th, 2022
Thank you for the great upload!
January 10th, 2022
@cluckers you must have missed the past few months when every single coming by Gordon was him calling myself and others ‘low IQ’ and acting like he was intellectually superior, completely unprovoked. You want to call me out for asking him to clarify his position on a ridiculous claim? Cool. I’m sure you’ve been doing the exact same thing with Gordon these past few months too, haven’t you? Or do you completely lack integrity?
January 10th, 2022
I do not think journalism is the problem… for one thing fox is not journalism, it’s just a bunch of opinions… for another, the republicans don’t know the difference between socialism, communism, or authoritarianism, they don’t know what it means to be a bigot, and they don’t know that clean water, good free education, and a fixing the environment are the only way for our children to have a future, and that’s not going to happen if it’s everyone for themselves.
January 10th, 2022
Holy cow, it must be to get ratings & hits. Traditional media also needs to win back all the declining attention with shock (’n aw, please stop).
January 10th, 2022
No jack I did not just call you out. I have done it before. It just annoyed me that the very frist post on a book was so was a attack. If you had responded to one of his attacks then fine. I don’t interfere. Yet you came out of the blue fighting mad. So I called you out on your bad form. What you did was rude not olny to the uploader who put his time into this but also to everyone else. Your arguments with this person have no value to me or anyone else. If you are attracted unprovoked and with out reason I will defend you. Again to to uploader thank you for the time you spent putting this up.
January 10th, 2022
No jack I did not just call you out. I have done it before. It just annoyed me that the very frist post on a book was so was a attack. If you had responded to one of his attacks then fine. I don’t interfere. Yet you came out of the blue fighting mad. So I called you out on your bad form. What you did was rude not olny to the uploader who put his time into this but also to everyone else. Your arguments with this person have no value to me or anyone else. If you are attracted unprovoked and without reason I will defend you. Again to to uploader thank you for the time you spent putting this up.
January 10th, 2022
Oops sorry about the extra post. My bad.
January 11th, 2022
@cluckers Let’s analyse what’s just happened, shall we?
I took the opportunity to pre-empt Gordon’s usual waffle about how I’m a “low-IQ window licker”, to ask him to clarify something he said but keeps refusing to elaborate on.
Then you chimed in calling me a bully and a troll, and now rude.
You’ve taken issue with me doing this once, but you’ve never passed comment on Gordon doing the exact same thing to me for the past YEAR.
Show me where I insulted anyone here? Because if your issue is with ‘low-IQ bollocks’, that’s a reference to Gordon’s favourite insult to throw at half the users of this site.
YOU are the only person who’s insulted anyone in this comment section.
January 11th, 2022
@A.B.B: while the torrent appears to be valid and seeded, you can see the site has problems displaying the content or makng a magnet link.
This may be due to it containing padding files, one for each normal file. These amount to 1.88 MB of waste space, and as they are just filler, may be discarded, making it impossible to seed. So please turn off this option in future torrents.
@Jack_Milad: Don’t try to argue with Gordon. Trolls feed on that, and nobody else wants to see it. Just rebut him if you must, but don’t think you can get him to repsond rationally.
And a comment on this book: if the cover is any guide, he’s equating Rachel Maddow with Sean Hannity.
That’s epic “both sidesism”. Or maybe it’s just the publisher ironically providing an example of the book’s thesis, I hope so. May give it a look.
January 11th, 2022
I don’t need the media to tell me who to despise. People having different opinions than me is one thing, but if their way of thinking endangers me or my family, then they can all go to h3ll.
flat-earthers and Karens will get my eye roll, cultist traitors who attack my government can all go to jail. and Antivaxxer can all just die now from COVID, no more sympathy left for idi*ts.
January 11th, 2022
Ok Jack I should called you rude. Yet I did feel it was not fair to the uploader’s hard work that that comment would be the fist thing he sees. You did annoy me by questioning my integrity. I do not know you and you don’t know me. As for this other guy I have never seen him just jump on a thread and attack. Yet I will admit I pass over most of this political stuff. Odds are I just caught you at a bad moment. Just like you caught me at a bad moment. So let’s just stop and enjoy our day. Be well and be safe.
January 11th, 2022
Dam I should not have called you rude. Dam auto correct. Now I did it twice. For this I owe a apology. I am very sorry.
January 11th, 2022
It’s because one side will lie about literally ANYTHING. Completely, totally, blatantly, outright, easily-disproved lies. The other side is conservatives.
I’ll look for some middle ground when they stop calling it a deadly insurrection. There was one, ONE, death that day and that was when Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd murdered an unarmed 5′2″ 120lb girl.
January 11th, 2022
Correct Magnet:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:6e4d266dc6fa88fad811bff300c788357c95ad82&dn=HateInc.-MattTaibbi-2020(Politics)[Audiobook](miok)&tr=udptracker.tiny-vps.com6969announce&tr=udpfasttracker.foreverpirates.co6969announce&tr=udptracker.opentrackr.org1337announce&tr=udpexplodie.org6969announce&tr=udpopen.stealth.si80announce&tr=udptracker.cyberia.is6969announce&tr=udpipv4.tracker.harry.lu80announce&tr=udptracker.uw0.xyz6969announce&tr=udptracker.dler.org6969announce&tr=udp9.rarbg.to2710announce
January 11th, 2022
@lisiva5995
Opinion is one thing, but please post your demonstrable lies elsewhere. You are nothing but a propaganda troll. In fact, I’ll bet you’re in a windowless basement somewhere in Moldova, being paid less than $1 an hour to flood forums and chatrooms with this spurious rubbish. Get a real job.
January 11th, 2022
“Part tirade, part confessional”
Maybe we’ve had enough of those. Too much of America is run on people’s feeeeelings. Demonstrable facts, reported as straight as possible, backed up with multiple sources and corrected when necessary are what is needed. It shouldn’t be that difficult.
January 11th, 2022
@Jack_Milad
I think Gweilo is right. Nazis aren’t to be argued with - that suggests there is an argument to be had.
There is no argument - all nazis must hang.
January 11th, 2022
Aww… bless. Look at the little monkeys, obsessed with their imaginary organ grinder.
Sorry guys, you do know that when I close the comments section, I return to a full and satisfactory life and don’t think of you loons at all, right?
I enjoyed this book by the way OP, though it got a bit tediously repetitive towards the end.
January 11th, 2022
@lisiva5995
So true, saliva5995, so true.
Whenever the Pope or the Dalai Lama need guidance on integrity and truth to power, there’s nothing more touching than watching them shuffle forward on their knees, side by side, to supplicate compassionate insight from Trump …
Do you suckle on the Teats of Trump for the milk of human kindness?
Or do you suck a little lower down? …
Reading would serve you better than sucking.
January 11th, 2022
@alomer
Thank you for a working magnet link! And thank you for uploading A.B.B!
Interested in hearing this, but I hope there’s not a false 50/50 equivalency behind it.
January 11th, 2022
Airfish always speaks truth to ABBay. Even if the form of that veracity can be somewhat, uh, graphic & fellatic. Not that I’m trying to unfairly finger him for this, or anything.
January 11th, 2022
@Ritchie88 and @Thamus Sorry, there is nothing I can do to get the magnet added. I looked for solutions, such as removal of padding files (proposed by @Gweilo) which I was not able to determine if there were any, or to remove. As others have mentioned, just download the .torrent file itself by clicking “torrent free download” and then you can add to your torrent client.
@Jack Milad Seems like people are coming in hot in the comments of every political audiobook. Even though that happens, it doesn’t mean you have to respond in the same manner. Backing down and using a less energetic and a more collaborative approach can be more effective than point scoring. Even if you believe somebody is engaging in bad faith or trolling you, it is still worthwhile to stay empathetic as that person is likely to respond in the same manner once you do. And even if you happen to get a “gotcha”, there will be no progress made. There are a million ways to which people arrive to their conclusions. Questioning as to how one did, is a lot less polarizing. The person will then actually consider your ideas as well and there will be progress made. We really do need to move away from the identity of democrat or republican, these terms are far too loaded now. The mere mention of either side creating or supporting a policy will cause many from the “opposing” side to completely ignore or vote against it, regardless of it’s efficacy. And since there are real, major issues that we need to address, we will never progress on them this way. While we spend our time arguing rather than planning and creating movements, they, the politicians controlled by corporations and industries, loot us blind. Making things harder for us and future generations. Until we unite, create movements and make a stand, just as we did back in the 1930s (that got the New Deal in place which caused wages to increase and the shuffling of the lower class into the middle class) nothing will ever improve for us again. And we’ll be here, 10 years later, still stealing audiobooks. I will attempt an empathetic and collaborative approach as an example:
Here’s something that unites us: we’re all stealing audiobooks here. Sure, most of us can afford to purchase a few, but it is not in our budget to consume them as we’d like. And even if they are, we’d take a significant punch to our future financial health. That is something major. How different can we really be if we all have to resort to this?
I like asking people, why/how did you come to this view? What convinced you? For example, neoliberalism (it’s sort of like libertarianism but only for the economy, e.g. less regulation, more privitization, more austerity which means less social programs and etc) has been the dominant policy of both sides for the last 40+ years (economically). What happened during these policies? inequality has been growing at a rapid pace while wages stagnate and even fall for lower classes. Meaning nearly all of the growth for the last 50 years went to the 1%, and not even the 1%, really the 0.1%. It is getting harder and harder for people to subsist on their wages (especially for the lower class), while the middle class has been shrinking, as well as median wages (by 2.9% according to the census in the US), national and private debt have grown, and poverty has been increasing (in the US, according to the 2019 - 2020 census poverty went up by 1% which is 3.3 million more people in poverty in the richest country on our planet - data for later years are not available). The number of full time jobs and workers have been decreasing (at least in the US - again, according to the 2019 - 2020 census. And also in the EU, I’m not aware of other continents). While people have been terrified to go to the hospital in the US. The politicians and corporations said this this is a good strategy as all the wealth will eventually trickle down. But it just does not stand up to observation. The opposite has been happening. Everything is getting worse for the majority.
I have been researching politics and economics for over a year, and the system I found that is most compelling, is a progressive one. For example if more of that growth would have went to the 99%, more people could purchase goods, meaning more jobs would exist to create those goods, further feeding into the cycle. Rather than having massive piles of cash sitting offshore or in banks and stocks which is non performing investment, it does not cause real economic growth (sometimes it causes the opposite such as companies letting thousands of employees go to increase stock price). One major observation from our history which is the most convincing to me, what makes me believe these are the policies we need to go back to, are that people, even low skill workers had the prospects of buying a house, a car, a high level education and etc. Everyone was getting shuffled into a middle class life. That was back when Bretton Woods and the New Deal were implemented in the 1930s and 40s (which all ended in the 1970s after Bretton Woods did - and neoliberalism became dominant). The system is called democratic socialism, which mixes socialism into capitalism. That was the most prosperous time for us westerners.
Keep this in mind: The divide and conquer strategy is the oldest in the book. It either has been deliberately implemented into our political system (nearly all media are owned by the most wealthy in our societies), or it’s simply a more profitable business strategy for media (as the book suggests). Whatever it is, it is far easier to control a divided population, one that fights itself. It’s important that we do not engage, and I know it is easier said than done. Just as on this website, it’s the same on websites such as Youtube. Even on a slightly political video, people begin coming in hot with immediate blaming of the opposing side and to respond in a similar manner causes immediate gratification. But again, it’s not effective, no progress is made. Even if you win that argument, they’ll let it slide and fall back on the other 99 arguments and still view the opposing side as the problem, just as you would.
@lichgore Yes! Hopefully after listening to this audiobook, people will slow down on the impulsiveness. They’ll take a more empathetic approach, of viewing it and considering another’s point of view. Questioning why one came to such a conclusion and how to move forward. To be less ideologistic, more scientific and data driven.
January 12th, 2022
@A.B.B
You’re right. You wrote a very well reasoned piece.
You make me wish I had been kinder. I wish I believed that silence would not be seen as acquiescence or kindness weakness.
Even though you’re arguing for dialogue and not diatribe, just using the word ’socialism’, even in the careful context you employ it will be enough to damn you in the eyes of some. And everything you wrote about applying reason will be interpreted as a ploy.
I hope people saw Alomer’s working magnet address above. Copy and paste into ‘Open Torrent Address’ in my BitTorrent client, and voila!
January 12th, 2022
There is hate Dems and Rs that both represent the same large Capitalists. Clinton and Bush are the same party really.
The hate is for populists (i.e. for the people) leaders of both the left (Sanders, free health care), and right (Trump, stopped TPP).
So telling was during the Ukraine impeachment Trump was dangerous for going against the State Department Consensus.
Bush, Clinton, Obama, Romney are the same party.
Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, Gabbard. All smeared as anti-semites, Russian agents, or sexists, racists. Don’t listen to them!
The same way the whole media/government bureaucracy worked to take out Trump, they’d have done the same to Sanders.
I recommend this fellows writing (the begging is about covid, but the rest applies):
https://consentfactory.org/2021/06/29/the-war-on-reality/
January 12th, 2022
Wow @ A.B.B.
I wish I was half as smart as you. Well done. Even if I disagree with you,your well reasoned articulate comment made me think. Ty for this. You make a good example for us all
January 12th, 2022
@GordonCoon
I disagree. Without unseen libs to “own”, you’re nobody. Just another meatsack in the street that nobody cares about. It’s why you lash out on here - you’re literally nobody in real life.
January 12th, 2022
@Airfish It’s a constant battle, it really is constant effort. It’s just too easy to respond in a manner that rewards you with immediate gratification. Especially if you surround yourself with political content where that is the norm. I definitely couldn’t say that I haven’t and don’t fall pray to it. But it has just turned really nasty now, cancerous even, it’s unsustainable. So to combat it I turn my system 2 on, as Kahneman calls it. By becoming more conscious and self aware at such moments. Further helped by slowing down when reading comments/responding. Another thing I’m stepping away from is not merging with an idea which can then cause criticism of it to feel as a personal attack. By attempting to find holes and critique it myself.
Also glad to hear the magnet link is working (as provided by @alomer), sucks that there is no way to manually edit/insert it.
@AndyBook Yes. From my observation, recently both parties only have slight differences economically. The left only more commonly throws a few crumbs to the peasants. Just one to two weeks ago Nancy Pelosi said insider trading is fine as long as you’re a legislator/lawmaker (e.g. most politicians)… their portfolios outperform some of the best traders on our planet. That is such an incredible conflict of interest… We’re being held to a higher standard than those who rule us.
I checked out the article. In my opinion he needed to fledge the idea of the multiple realities more, the fake realities, by using more examples. So I could understand exactly what he meant. Also I very much doubt covid vaccines are killing hundreds of thousands as he suggests. He had references for the points he made throughout the article, but at that section there were none.
@GordonCoon Glad you enjoyed it. Personally, I don’t mind repetition. I find it’s the best way to retain information for myself. Some of the audiobooks I’ve appreciated a lot, I listen to again and again. Keep them in constant rotation.
@tenbenson I think that applies to all of us. If we were homogeneous, how would we separate ourselves? The idea of a self would be irrelevant. I think it’s that we are not homogeneous that makes us a somebody.
And you guys really go after each other here :D Hopefully some constructive conversation can begin to get these ideas can be fledged out so that we can all observe the most compelling arguments!
@cluckers I consider myself a nincompoop because of people such as Einstein. I mean what have I really done? Inhaled some books and communicated their ideas? (it’s something I practice that to put them under scrutiny, to see if anyone else can poke holes in them). I haven’t even examined the data provided by these books (most of them I listen in audio form, especially recently). There’s not a single study I have read on politics or economics. So sorry, but I must decline this generous compliment.
And I’m not set on my positions, if more compelling arguments are provided, I switch. I cannot subscribe to an ideology if they are not backed by an anchor of data. Which at that point is not an ideology anymore because you’re listening to the best available evidence rather than to a set of ideas. Ones that have been academically and thoroughly debated (I watch many academic debates to determine which positions are the most sound to me). Ideology has failed time and time again, it has caused great harm and it’s dangerous in my opinion (which I base on history). If the facts develop and we find that the new data, as it piles up, is more accurate and predictive, should we not be willing to follow it even if they are contrary to our beliefs and ideology? While I have not yet poured through the data myself on economics/politics - my solace is that the most prestigious universities and academically respected professors are communicating/supporting these ideas. Some of those professors even have Nobel prizes for progressing their fields (e.g. Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz). They are as knowledgeable and analytical as it gets. So I don’t feel as bad for currently practicing trust. That’s some of my philosophy and where I come from, and to get to the brass tacks, I’m listening.
What is it that you disagree with? what convinced you of another conclusion?
January 13th, 2022
My meaning was (IF) I disagree with you. I do not disagree with you. Yet if I did you stated your opinion in a well reasoned politely worded way. I live alone work and return home I do not hold any real political opinion. I do vote for the person that affects my local Area in the best way.
All I wanted to say was I really appreciated the way you stated uou opinion. You should think about running for local office. Any country needs well informed people like you.
As for the larger issues. I subscribe to the opinion that the individual really does not matter in a democracy. My Area is strictly conservative. My one little vote in our Canadian system has no real value. Yet I vote anyway as I know it is a right I fought for in the army.
Sorry for rambling. I thought you might want to know how I think.
January 13th, 2022
@cluckers That is not rambling. And yes, I definitely do. I would also like to see a constructive conversation between those who disagree the most here, e.g. @tenbenson and @GordonCoon by laying out their positions to see where the disagreements lie, what sort of evidence most convinces them and etc.
Hmm, does the individual matter in a democracy? That is quite a question to ponder. But I’m glad to hear you still participate and vote.
Haha, there are people such as Yanis Varoufakis that are far more qualified to be politicians. They have a solid foundation of knowledge, accumulated by being academics and professors for many decades. As well as following politics for their whole lives. They understand this machine to the dot. I am barely a speck on that spectrum. If I were to consider something like that, I would need to accumulate several decades worth more of solid knowledge.
January 14th, 2022
@A.B.B
I will explain again.
GordonCoon is a nazi. Nazis are not to be argued with, because that would imply that they HAVE an argument.
Nazis are to be wiped out.
January 14th, 2022
@A.B.B
To be absolutely clear - At BEST, I want Gordon to stay in his basement where he can’t hurt another human. But, I will also settle for his arrest or, better still, his complete non-existence.
It’s nothing personal. It’s just that we had a big war where we killed (most of) the nazis. You may have read about it or seen it on television.
Anyone who is happy to continue the legacy of the EVIL, GENOCIDAL NAZI PARTY deserves to die.
Is that constructive enough for you?
January 15th, 2022
@tenbenson No, that is the opposite of constructive. All it does is justify his (supposed) hatred towards others.
You don’t know what he’s been through and what led to this. How do you even know he’s serious? maybe he’s just trying to get a reaction. And by responding in the exact manner as you have, you could be making these into real views.
You should try understanding him, and maybe he will reciprocate back and you can have an honest conversation.
People get hurt and they react in a whole manner of ways, by further pushing him away you’re making everything far worse.
Fighting fire with fire does not work. All it does is set the world on fire.
January 15th, 2022
I’d recommend watching these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw and https://youtu.be/FVdI6eJlAwY and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH5EY-W5oM
January 16th, 2022
@ABB: As for adding a magnet file, you can put it in your torrent description.
Don’t need to list all the trackers, just the infohash is enough:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:6e4d266dc6fa88fad811bff300c788357c95ad82&dn=HateInc.-MattTaibbi
January 17th, 2022
@A.B.B I can speak from experience that Gordon doesn’t respond positively to anything that contradicts how he chooses to see the world, regardless of how civil, polite, or well thought out you might present your points.
That’s how I started off, and look where we are now. There comes a point where you realise exhausting yourself trying to be civil with vile scum does nothing but exhaust energy you could be dedicating towards something more productive.
But it’s still important to remind scum that they’re scum, and decent people aren’t willing to step aside and let them normalize their horrific beliefs.
January 17th, 2022
@Jack_Milad I will once again recommend watching the videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw and https://youtu.be/FVdI6eJlAwY and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH5EY-W5oM
Nobody is saying that beliefs, which are harmful, should not be challenged. But if you come at it with a motto of, “it’s important to remind scum that they’re scum”, all you’re doing is pushing people away. How is anyone supposed to connect with you? The only path you’re giving people is to be subdued and to bow to you. Which results in nothing more than further viewing you and other groups as an enemy which further justifies such beliefs.
It just seems greedy to me, that it is your motive to feeling satisfaction, versus actually having a heart to heart and listening to attempt to create any beneficial change (just as the 3 videos point out - is the exact thing you should do).
Answer me this: When you’re being called libtard, and whatever other labels are used, do you feel the way in which you’re saying others should when you do something similar? or do you feel hostile?
January 17th, 2022
@A.B.B I have seen those videos.
It seems overly idealist and naive to me that you believe that approach will ever work on a site which at this point is essentially just 4chan. Anonymous trolls whose primary purpose is to ‘trigger the libs’.
Again, I give it less than a month before you realise you’re wasting your energy. Be as polite and considerate as you want, you’re not going to form any sort of connection with this sites regular antagonists. The only people who will show any kind of receptiveness to your attitude aren’t the same people I take issue with.
As for people who call me a libtard, it doesn’t bother me because it isn’t accurate. On this site I’m apparently a super left-wing communist, liberal, socialist, fascist, authoritarian (people have a tendency to conflate those things). Those words mean less than nothing here, they’re just insults thrown around by people who don’t understand them.
January 17th, 2022
@A.B.B
You are EXACTLY the kind of person that would entertain the views of a Holocaust denier because it’s “important to hear the other point of view”.
You are dangerous and ignorant, no matter how you cloak it in “hey guys, why can’t we all just get along?”
Enjoy licking that jackboot.
January 17th, 2022
@A.B.B
And I must add that I think, given the tone of the comments that regularly appear on here from Gordon, LeadingNorth, Apollo etc etc - the fact that you choose to concentrate on what I say and Jack and Gweilo etc is VERY suspect to me.
January 17th, 2022
@tenbenson Can’t say I disagree. I’ve had my approach policed more by people ‘on my side’ (read as: whose viewpoints on topics are fairly close to my own), than anyone else.
Being an idealist is nice. But when it comes at the expense of turning a blind eye to what’s going on over there, it’s doing more harm than good.
Say you get your way @A.B.B and if I can’t say anything nice, then I don’t say anything at all. Pretty soon it’s just going to be you on this site trying to talk reason into a bigoted echo chamber. Hop on the Republican subreddit and try to engage with people rationally, you’ll get an idea of how well that’ll go.
January 17th, 2022
@Jack_Milad I view it the other way. That it is idealistic to consider the labeling of people as dumb, and whatever else, such as telling them you hope they get exterminated, as effective. It does nothing but push someone even further, while allowing one to feel as though their actions in this manner are, and have been justified. There’s absolutely no considering that you’re communicating with humans who are malleable, who grow, change, and etc, who are willing to reciprocate.
Maybe people, which you mention 4chan, that lash out, need this sort of communication the most?
If you are unable to say anything nice, I would suggest re-watching the videos and trying to understand the why’s. Why does one think like this? What is the most effective way to approach this, and am I actually listening to what they are saying? (”hmm okay, the person in the video gives this and this reason, and uses this approach, I will try it out!”)
@tenbenson It seems that you have just visited this site and wrote some comments. After looking at a few of them, what comes through them, is rage. Why is that not suspect? Why unleash all of that on everyone else? Does that cause anything positive for anyone?
The way that I communicate in, is the opposite of ignorant. It is scientifically supported. It is your way that is ignorant. If you don’t believe so, I am proposing a challenge: Back up your claim with a reference!
January 17th, 2022
@A.B.B
“I view it the other way. That it is idealistic to consider the labeling of people as dumb, and whatever else, such as telling them you hope they get exterminated, as effective”
You’re so close to actually seeing my point, it’s maddening.
YES. YOU’RE RIGHT. I AGREE.
Thing is, I’m not the one going around saying “Everyone with a different political opinion is dumb and I hope they all die”. I’m the one who’s been told repeatedly on this site that I’m dumb for having a different political opinion (even those I haven’t voiced), and there have been a few people here who’ve actually wished death upon me.
The people you see me responding to are the people with a history of doing exactly that to entire groups of people based on their race, belief, nationality, or any number of arbitrary factors. People who outright deny reality in order to justify their prejudices. The same people who say “facts don’t care about your feelings” one second, then conveniently ignore established fact when it suits them. Who’ll do mental gymnastics to twist their world view just to weaponize it against a person or group of people.
I’m not going to suddenly believe that X race of people are inherently criminal on a genetic level just because someone presents the argument to me in a tolerant, understanding and kind manner. If that’s how it worked, I’d have been radicalized a dozen times over already. I honestly believe that’s ridiculous.
But hey, I’m more than open to the idea of being proven wrong. I’d love that. So I’m going to watch your interactions with the likes of Highlandcharge, eyeballs, lisiva5995, leadingnorth, GordonCoon and the like. You might have some civil conversation with alnilam, but you’ll never change his stance on a topic.
Overall, I disagree with your opinion and attitude. I don’t think it’ll go too far. There’ll come a point where you realise you’re wasting your energy. But even then, you’ll likely continue in an attempt to remain civil. Not because it gets the desired result, but because you see it as a sign of integrity. It’ll be more for your own self-gratification than because anyone is genuinely receptive.
But like I said, I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
January 18th, 2022
@A.B.B Additionally, I’d like to add that the logic you used to reach your conclusion that kindness and civility are the best course of action is inherently flawed, and rather similar to survival bias/fallacy.
You see the people with the inspiring story “I changed someones mind through kindness and civility”. But it’s not likely Tedx would go ahead with a talk that had the message “I tried kindness and civility, but it didn’t work”. Which is what the vast majority of people will experience. You look at Ted Talks, see the exception, and believe it to be the rule. That’s idealism.
January 18th, 2022
@Jack_Milad If I stop communicating it’ll be due to a lack of time. As for the other points, I’d just be reiterating what I said above.
If that were the case, yes, you’d have a point with the survivorship bias. But I used Tedx to make the point rather than listing research, because those videos display what has been shown to be effective.
Here’s some questions to ask yourself: Why not ask questions? Why not question the persons reasons and etc? What has your direct confrontation accomplished here?
Here’s what asking why will accomplish: Instead of a statement, it will be turned to reflection. You’re no longer making anyones mind for them. Do you resist your own thought?
January 18th, 2022
Here’s a bit of a thought experiment:
- Have you ever changed your behaviour because someone mocked you?
What was it? A piece of clothing that you thought looked cool, then the first time you wore it in public someone commented on how ridiculous it looked, so you put it away and never wore it again because that experience tainted it for you?
- Did you stop styling your hair a certain way because you were mocked for it?
- Did you ever do something ridiculous because other people your age were doing it? Smoking, drinking, getting high, or any number of daft ‘hobbies’?
- When you were new to relationships, did you partner ever criticize something you were doing ‘wrong’ due to your lack of inexperience? Did you feel embarrassed, then change the way you did it from then onward?
- Did you ever express an opinion that someone ripped into you for, and that made you second guess expressing it again in the future?
- Did you change your behaviour around children out of fear of being judged negatively by peers and/or strangers?
- Have you ever done a complete one-eighty on an opinion you held deeply, just because a stranger politely explained how they believed you were wrong?
It feels reasonable to say that humiliation, shame, ridicule, peer pressure and a number of other negative emotions shape our behaviours and beliefs just as much as positive things do. The main reason it isn’t often acknowledged is because it’s seen as manipulative and unethical to do so. If the goal of an interaction with someone is to change their opinion or behaviour, then by definition that’s an intent to manipulate, and the ethics of manipulation are grey at best.
Are you asking questions with the intention of obtaining information you previously didn’t have? Are you genuinely making an attempt to understand my thoughts and motives? Or are you making assertions and phrasing accusations in the form of questions, in the hope that I’ll re-evaluate and change my behaviour and opinion to something more in line with how you believe people ought to act?
It doesn’t seem like you’ve presented me with a single honest question.
Speaking of which: do you believe that in our conversation so far, you’ve handled yourself in the same manner you believe is most conducive to productive conversation?
It’s come across to me like you’ve done a lot of jumping to conclusions, presuming to know how I think and what my motives are, and lecturing. It’s all come across as quite insincere and condescending. Doubly so now that you’ve seen and mostly ignored far worse comments than my own.
January 18th, 2022
@A.B.B.
I can answer all of your questions with the same answer:
BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE FAR-RIGHT SH1TPOSTERS.
You are assuming there is a good-faith argument to be had. There is none. All there is left to do is record STRENUOUS opposition to the fascism that is posted on this site without moderation.
Your approach is worse than useless, it legitimises fascism. And no, I will not watch your Youtube videos.
It must be uncomfortable for you with that fence-post jammed so far up your as$.
January 18th, 2022
@A.B.B.
Don’t bother responding to me again. You’re a waste of my time at best, and an enabler of fascism at worst. You have no conception of the damage you do, and until you realise that it’s best for everyone if you just shut up.
January 18th, 2022
@Jack_Milad Even if the answer was yes to every question, what wouldn’t follow is that including abuse would cause the same outcom. E.G. If it were to be changed to the situation here, it’d be more like this: “Have you ever done a complete one-eighty on an opinion you held deeply, just because a stranger called you very dumb and explained that you’re very dumb and said you’re despicable, implying that you should probably die and that their statement (which you can find many avenues to pick apart, and ignore - something which honest conversation and questions tackle) proves you are wrong?”
As for your lasting points, please quote me and give examples from above so I could understand what you mean. I didn’t know I was coming off like that because it was not my intention.
I just think if we made the conversation more productive here, given that we share so much, it would be much more beneficial than replicating the impulsive and toxic conversation that is happening all around in politics (we’re literally all stealing audiobooks - how much different can we really be? To the point where we make the complete opposite conclusions given the same data? I doubt it. There has to be a lack in some area which can be tackled with honest conversations, questioning and etc. Where one can realize that maybe the foundation for ones statement is flimsy. That it is not ones final view and that ones stance needs to be updated, and etc. I just don’t think that is accomplished with attack. By making one self defensive. By making one fall back on built in psychological and logically fallacious defenses (which I will reiterate, can be bypassed with honest conversation - just as pointed out in the video by the white supremacist - rather than attacking himself, he began honestly challenging his own view).
January 19th, 2022
That’s the second time you’ve implied that I think people are dumb and want them to die. That isn’t the case, and it would benefit this conversation greatly for you to recognize that.
And again, there have been a few examples of precisely that attitude by others within the past day which you haven’t felt the need to pass comment on.
You’re approaching this from the perspective that my initial comment was completely unprovoked. It wasn’t. When compared the posts directed towards me by the person I was addressing, I was positively civil.
Did you actually read my responses to @cluckers before writing a thousand words about how I was in the wrong and why? Did you get the context as to why I commented what I did? I was asking a question in order to try and understand how someone had reached the conclusion they did. Considering this same person has been taking every opportunity to call me “Low IQ” for months, I’d say I’m displaying more than my fair share of tolerance.
If we’re rephrasing the question to try and guide towards a specific conclusion: “did you ever realise that commenting somewhere was useless, because for the most part your opinions were only met with hostility?”
You should already know there are subreddits where your opinions, however well reasoned, aren’t welcome. And recognizing that, you don’t post in them. That’s what meeting bigotry with hostility can achieve.
You’re really pushing the point that you’re right, and there’s no possible circumstance that anything I’m saying might have any merit. You want me to reconsider my own position without shifting a step in your own.
I’m not saying your preferred approach can’t or doesn’t work. That’s a middle ground I’d be far happier to concede if you’d have the courtesy of acknowledging that it isn’t the only option. It’s just the one you believe will be most likely to work.
I’m saying that the closer this site gets to an anonymous right-wing echo-chamber, the closer to impossible that’s going to become.
If you think the outcome of your conversation with @tenbenson was less than desirable, just wait until you engage with some of this site’s real uglies.
Time is going to be the real deciding factor in this one. I’ve been where you’ve been, and believed what you believe. It’s an important trait to be able to admit when you’re wrong, and I was wrong.
January 19th, 2022
@Jack_Milad It is obvious that people here now express opinions just because they know you, specifically, will not like those opinions. Seeing as these have been the communication methods here, doesn’t look they work.
If you are looking for a concession that attacking people is an effective way to get them to change their opinions, provide evidence.
January 19th, 2022
@A.B.B You’re failing to acknowledge the majority of what I have said, and arguing points that I haven’t actually made.
Where did I say that my approach changes anyones mind? I specifically stated behaviour.
My evidence is the same as yours. Largely hypothetical.
I haven’t kept track of all the people who I’ve responded to in a hostile manner who I’ve never seen comment on this site again. There are definitely a few. There’s an argument as to whether that was correlation or causation, sure. But either way the desired effect was achieved.
Have you had any interactions on this site where you’ve successfully changed someones mind? I’m not talking about someone outright just agreeing with you, or conceeding that one of your points was valid but ultimately failing to change their minds on a topic.
That’s your claim. When you have a conversation with Highlandcharge, eyeballs, lisiva5995, leadingnorth, GordonCoon or Apollo60 and prove me wrong, get them to communicate with you civilly and consider a new perspective, I’ll be more than happy to admit you were right.
Then when I’m proven wrong, I’ll apologise to each and every one of them and make an effort to be more civil and follow your example.
I’d like to present you with a bit of constructive criticism first. If you’re going to advocate communication skills, you really need to make more of an effort to acknowledge points raised by the person you’re talking to. Because as it stands, you’re arguing against what you anticipate I’ll say rather than engaging with what’s actually being said.
I asked you these questions because I genuinely wanted to know the answers:
Are the questions you’ve asked going to provide you with knowledge you previously didn’t have?
Are you genuinely trying to understand my thoughts and motives?
Did you read my responses to @cluckers?
Did you understand the context behind my original comment?
While we’ve been having this conversation, do you feel that your approach has been consistent with the methods you’ve been advocating?
I don’t want to assume I already know the answer. That’s why I’m asking.
January 19th, 2022
@Jack_Milad This is becoming defensive, which is not productive. It’s not worthwhile taking it in that direction, so let’s move on to something productive: evidence.
As I have mentioned, communicating as shown in the Tedx talks is consistent with the science. It is not hypothetical. Which is why I ask for a reference, as communication in a manner which uses attack would be the recommended method if it were to be found to be effective. But it’s the other way around. It showns that such a method only further pushes one away, and can make one dig deeper.
So is there any scientific support that can be referenced that says otherwise?
January 19th, 2022
@A.B.B What’s the point in trying to communicate with you when all you’ve done is ignore and dismiss everything I’ve said?
It’s not worth my time or energy to type another sentence to you when you’ve proven repeatedly that you’ll ignore everything except what you want to hear.
January 19th, 2022
@A.B.B But here we go anyway.
You’re accusing me of becoming defensive. I’m not. I’m becoming increasingly frustrated that I’m spending time and energy trying to engage in a discussion with you, only to have everything I say ignored by the same person who advocates “a collaborative approach” and questioning how a person arrived at the conclusions they’ve reached.
The questions I asked were relevant for the following reasons:
Are the questions you’ve asked going to provide you with knowledge you previously didn’t have?
This would explain how important my responses would be. If you’re asking questions with the intention of getting an answer and adjusting your reponses accordingly, or whether the questions you’re asking are solely for the purpose of guiding me towards the same conclusions as you.
Are you genuinely trying to understand my thoughts and motives?
This would help me to understand how important you believe the human element is to your process. Whether you’re genuinely receptive to anything I’m saying, or if asking someone to share their perspective is mostly illusion, that by simply allowing them to share their opinion without acknowledgement might be enough.
“Did you read my responses to @cluckers?” and “Did you understand the context behind my original comment?”
Knowing you understand the context of what I initially said helps me to gauge what you believe could be considered ‘hostility’. Your first response felt extremely disproportionate to what had actually been said. It would help to know whether or not you’ve got an extremely low standard for what you believe to be hostility. It also helps in understanding just how willing you might be to concede even the smallest point.
While we’ve been having this conversation, do you feel that your approach has been consistent with the methods you’ve been advocating?
Probably the most important question. You can advocate that a method works without actually employing it. If you’re advocating its usage but not employing it, then there’s the question of why not? If you feel that everything you’ve said so far is consistent with what you believe, then I feel the need to question whether it’s actually working. If you’re trying to put it into practice and falling significantly short, how open are you to constructive criticism which may help you to grow and improve as a person?
There’s a significant disconnect between what you’re advocating and what you’re actually doing. I’d like to understand why. Whether it’s because you’ve misunderstood the complexities required to have the type of conversation which could change somebody’s mind, whether you’ve dramatically over-estimated your conversational abilities, whether you see it as more a scientific process to be followed, whether we’re only having this conversation so that you can score points and say you’re right.
It’s coming across that you just want to bypass all the complicated nuance of conversation and actually engaging with someone, and skip right to the gratification part where they admit you’re right. But your unwillingness to concede (or even acknowledge) even the smallest of points that inconvenience you is holding you back.
All cards are on the table, I’d appreciate if you would be so kind as to answer my questions please.
April 16th, 2022
Ding. Ding. Round 12
September 26th, 2022
@A.B.B Hard disagree with the bedrock of your arguments which seems to be some mix between the marketplace of ideas and the inherit value of every human life. There are billions of us. Some of us are, inherently, disposable. Worrying about individual connection and paths towards working together is a selfish individual take. Looking at it from the perspective of the whole (social group or household, community or family, state or region, nation and species) it is more effective and efficient on the metrics of time and energy to excise cancerous growths than to treat them. You may not like how that makes you feel emotionally but if there is anything that the history of our species tells us, it is that this is our most popular tactic when splitting social groups wont’ work and that it is, in fact, extremely effective.
When you engaging your system 2 can get other people to engage their system 2 (maybe post-neuralink), then you’ll have a point. Until then, you’re banging your head against the wall, hoping it will make your migraine go away.
Add a comment (please log in before commenting)