Is Breitbart a legitimate news site?

  • I, of course, have heard a lot of opinions to the contrary. But I’d like to pose the question here. Is Breitbart legit?

    When I read quotes like this, from conservatives apparently held in high regard, who were on the Breitbart staff, it makes me seriously question the credibility of the site:

    Breitbart’s chairman, Steve Bannon, has turned the site “into Trump’s personal Pravda,” editor at large Ben Shapiro, who is based in Los Angeles, said in a statement on his resignation. “Andrew built his life and his career on one mission: fight the bullies. In my opinion, Steve Bannon is a bully, and has sold out Andrew’s mission in order to back another bully, Donald Trump.” Bannon couldn’t be reached for comment.

    The Andrew he is referring to is Andrew Breitbart, the site’s founder, who was a close friend of Arriana Huffington, and helped to create an early version of Huffington Post, then had a conservative epiphany and went on to start his own conservative site.

    “Some of us have been fighting behind the scenes against the party-line Trump propaganda for some time, but without any success, unfortunately,” one reporter, Jordan Schachtel, said in a statement after resigning Monday. “Breitbart News is no longer a journalistic enterprise, but instead, in my opinion, something resembling an unaffiliated media Super PAC for the Trump campaign.”

  • @approxinfinity

    I find it interesting that when a news outlet publishes stories favorable to Trump its validity is questioned but when the majority of the MSM is on the tank for Obama and Clinton and all things liberal we don’t hear a peep.

    Keep in mind that CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post are the publications that last week alone had to retract multiple false stories, CNN even had to apologize to the target of one of the fake stories.

    If you want to see bullying, see what CNN just did…where is the outrage?

    You asked the question and I simply answered but I prefer not to discuss politics, at least not on in this forum, so I will get back to commenting on KU basketball related subjects.

  • @JayHawkFanToo you completely sidestepped the question. Did the old switcheroo, business as usual. I didn’t ask about CNN. I’m well aware of the Trump administration’s ongoing crusade to invalidate the American press corps, and I don’t get news from CNN regardless. If you want to question the factual accuracy of NPR or BBC, well, that might affect my world view a bit more.

    I’m checking sources, something I should have done before blankedly rejecting Breitbart in the past, and you want to chastise me for that?

  • It was suggested to me to check out WSJ and Christian Science Monitor if I want decent reporting with a conservative lean. Thank you for that suggestion, I read neither at present and will be checking them out.

  • Who reads Breitbart? Any propaganda site will surely mislead you. The problem is they are all (Breitbart, CNBC, MSN, FOZ)pushing an agenda. You just have to figure out what’s real and what’s manufactured. I wish the “news” sites would just report the facts and leave their opinion out of it, but that’s not going to happen.

  • @approxinfinity Actually, CSM is not considered conservative. “Least biased”, though:

  • I’ll check it out regardless.

    Here’s a nice Einstein quote:

    Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perennially rejuvenated illusions.

  • @approxinfinity That site in my last post lists hundreds of news outlets rated left, left-center, least biased, right-center, and right.

    Everyone can probably find their spot somewhere on this spectrum–but they should do as you are, wondering what other ways of thinking are saying.

    Open-mindedness is great! Unless a mind is so open it just empties out…

  • @mayjay isn’t that how one achieves Nirvana?

  • The challenge is finding news that isn’t blatantly trying to mislead or espouse conspiracy.

    Has the mainstream media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc.) made mistakes? Absolutely. Have they been called out on those mistakes? Yes. Has that led to better work from them? I believe so, as noted from the retractions that several of these newsites have made over the last several months. Those retractions have been publicly embarrassing for those organizations, but I believe that it also reveals that media is working to improve.

    As for Breitbart, they are clearly linked to Trump’s inner circle. Is that illegal or unethical? Not illegal, probably not unethical, but it does create questions about the integrity of what they are doing.

    When you couple that with the stories that they have done - a check of the headlines on the top of the Breitbart page reveals the following:

    Scoop War: New York Times has neither seen nor read latest ‘Russia email’

    Russian Lawyer says she didn’t have Kremlin link or Clinton info

    Don Jr. was told in email of Russian effort to aid campaign

    500 police injured by left wing attacks at G20

    Liberals to Trump Supporting Tangier Island ‘We hope you drown’

    ACLU lawsuit against Trump election commission ‘Attack on Rule of Law’

    That’s six stories, with two directly smearing the “left” or “liberals”, while three of the other four attack Trump opponents or opposing issues. It’s pretty clear what the lean is here.

    All the while, the issue that is being ignored is this.

    Regardless of your partisan lean, Donald Trump said that his team “did not meet with Russians during his campaign.” This statement is clearly false. Not even Breitbart is denying that this statement is false. Instead, they are saying that the Russian that Don Jr. met with wasn’t affiliated with the Kremlin. That may be true. I do not know. But either way, Don Jr. knew that he had this meeting, and he never said, in all of these months, “hey dad, I met with a lawyer from Russia. She doesn’t have Kremlin ties, but we ought to at least clarify this so its clear to the public.”

    It was denied right up until it was discovered, and now they are saying its no big deal, and Breitbart, either with facts or with bias (the story is too new to know which at this point) is aiding in that effort. And their chairman advises the president. I wonder if that has anything to do with it…

  • Banned


    A study of Brain patterns.

    I would say that yes Breitbart is a legit news site.

    It’s all about the person. If you lean left then you will look for sites that confirm your thoughts and reject those that don’t. Same with those that lean right.

    I think the most important thing is what actions or thoughts that bring both the right and left together in agreement.

    Like the Kathy Griffin holding a severed Trump head. Both sides felt that was going to far.

    CNN Bullying a poster for what he posted about their organization. Again both sides said whoa not cool.

    A Dem shooter shooting a Rep at a baseball game. Again both sides not cool.

    I’m afraid that Dems and Reps will never think the same way. Yet maybe that is best for the country. You know keeping one party or the other from going to far in one direction or the other.

  • Banned


    I like you post but you almost speak of a smoking gun yet you ignore other smoking guns.

    Did not Hillary sell a third of the USA uranium to Russia only to receive big donations to the Clinton foundation? Where’s the investigation.

    Hey Trump Jr. maybe guilty as hell. Yet why not be fair and investigate Mrs. Hillary and her husband in Russian collusion? Just saying the Clinton foundation received some serious cash from Russia.

    Where is the investigation? I mean we are going to attack Trump Jr. for some tweets. Yet we’re going to look the other way when Russia puts some serious money in the Clinton foundation?

    And why aren’t we investigating this?

  • @approxinfinity It’s real crappy but of course it’s legit. Full of tons of unethical bs, box car loads of half truths & convoys of full blown lies, but so are most of the politicians any other new source reports on. Why the questions sports fans, politicians have been liars since the beginning of time. Throw in social media & now that’s a recipe for some disastrous reporting huh? I’ll take a baseball ⚾️ game on a radio or a fishin pole with a San Juan worm 🐛 any day over some dumbass boob tube news channel in ultra HD. This shows how badly we need some hoops & second half of the baseball season to survive… HELP, HELP SOS !

  • @DoubleDD

    Unfortunately, the deal that you are talking about is often misunderstood.

    In 2010, Hillary Clinton, as SOS, approved Russia purchasing a company called Uranium One. This is a multinational company. This deal required not just Sec. Clinton’s approval, but the approval of several other agency heads. In short two major things here:

    1. Clinton did not have the ability to push the deal through on her own
    2. The deal did not sell US Uranium, but allowed for the purchase of a uranium company with multinational assets, including assets in Kazakhstan, Canada and other places. Even by owning the company, Russia cannot legally export the US mined uranium out of the US.

    Given those two facts, sure, we could launch an investigation, but because Clinton did not have unilateral approval authority, and because the purchase was a legal purchase run through the proper channels (and not hidden from the public eye) there’s very little that is suspicious here.

    Now let’s look at the current situation and assume the facts most favorable to President Trump and his associates. Those are:

    1. The Russian government was not behind this meeting
    2. Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner were not seeking to connect with the Russian government in this meeting
    3. The conversation was supposed to be about oppo-research on Clinton and the Russian attorney changed the subject without their knowledge
    4. This meeting was 100% legal

    I don’t know if any of those four things is true, but I am assuming all of those things in this scenario.

    If all of that is true, why was President Trump not forthcoming and transparent when he said that neither he nor his associates met with any Russians during the campaign (something we already know was untrue from the other meetings that Sessions, Flynn and Manafort had that they did not reveal)? Or, if the President (then candidate) was unaware of the meeting, why was he not informed that his statement was untrue so that he could correct the record for the American people?

    Remember, Sessions said in his confirmation hearing that he hadn’t had any such meetings, then had to correct that statement (because he was under oath). Flynn was fired because he was not forthcoming. This is at least the third time someone within the Trump team has had meetings that they did not disclose. If it was completely legitimate, why not be transparent, especially when the questions came out?

    And once it did come out, why continue to deny until the proof (the content of the emails) was leaked? Remember, the Trump team has said from the start that they did not work with Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. Nearly every member of the team has said that either explicitly or implicitly on multiple occasions. Now there are emails of Don Jr. accepting a meeting with a Russian lawyer to get information that may be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

    As I said, we are assuming here that that was the intent of the meeting and that the Russian government was not backing this meeting (i.e. the lawyer was acting independently). But the emails basically confirm that the Trump team was open to accepting foreign help to defeat Ms. Clinton, the very thing they have denied for the last 9 months! You can’t just reverse position on that. There’s no question that Trump Jr. knew this was a foreign actor, even if this person was acting independent of the Russian government.

    We are assuming the meeting was for the purpose that Trump Jr. says, and that he was not aware of the switch that he claims the lawyer pulled on him until it happened in the meeting. But the purpose was to get foreign help to take down Ms. Clinton, the very thing Trump, his campaign, his surrogates, Fox News, Breitbart, half the GOP and many voters in America have argued did not happen. He would have been better off saying that the meeting was to discuss the Magnitsky Act sanctions (a foreign policy issue that you could argue a Russian lawyer would have interest in if they have a client that is caught up in those sanctions). But he didn’t. The emails are clear. This was to get dirt on Clinton.

    They always say its not the initial act, but the cover-up that often brings people (and organizations) down. So what act are they trying to cover up? It’s already taken down Flynn. They (Trump, his surrogates and his inner circle) know the stakes. So why keep denying, unless there is really something there? Why deny this meeting if it was a waste of 20 minutes? It’s either an attempt to cover up something major, or an appalling lack of awareness and judgment.

  • Banned


    Yea, but you left out the large amounts of cash that rolled in from Russia into the Clinton foundation. All donors where involved in this so called legit dealings with Russia.

    So why is it ok for Clinton and the Dems to talk and deal with Russia yet we have to have an investigation of Trump and is team just for talking with the Russians? Seems a little hypocritical to me. Then you have Obama on tape telling a Russian Official I’ll have more leeway to do what I want after my election victory.

    As someone that is quite familiar with investigations. I can tell you if dig hard and long enough you’ll find dirt or wrong doing on anyone, especially a politician.

    I’m not against investigating Trump and his team. I find it quite funny though that every time a perceived smoking gun produces it’s self the Left dances in the street claiming they finally got Trump. It is quite humorous.

    However if you going to investigate Trump, then you have to investigate Hillary, Lynch and yes even Obama. I mean you have Bill and Lynch having a private meeting on a runway in Arizona. You have all kinds of leaking and names that have been unmasked. You have Comey saying under oath that Hillary broke the law but wouldn’t bring charges because he couldn’t find any intent. Are you kidding me? This is all just begging for an investigation.

    All I ask for is fairness.

  • @DoubleDD

    Clinton was investigated - for Whitewater, for Lewinsky, for Benghazi, for emails, etc. It’s not like her and former President Bill Clinton’s dealings were not looked into. They very much were. That’s what I don’t understand. It seems like people are saying Clinton got a free pass, when I can name four things off the top of my head that were investigated and that had Congressional hearings on. You’re at least as old as I am, so I can’t imagine you don’t remember those investigations, particularly the last two since they were both talked about quite a bit over the last 18 months.

    As for Obama being investigated, trust me when I say, there are people in the GOP that hate him enough that they would investigate him for anything if they thought they could make it stick. There was a GOP Congress for six of the eight years Obama was in office. Perhaps if they hadn’t spent time on over four dozen attempts to repeal legislation that opened up health insurance for over 20 million people, they could have found time to investigate him for something (not sure what you have in mind here - no one has ever pointed to a scandal within the Obama White House, not even conspiracy sites can point to anything with legs).

    And all of this fails to address the key point. Trump and his associates have continually denied any contact with Russians. If it was legal, that’s great for the country, there’s no scandal and we can all move along with our daily lives. But they denied it. Up until last week, they said it didn’t happen at all. That’s the issue here. Regardless of if you think this meeting was legal or illegal, there’s no question that the Trump team denied that it happened when its clear that it did occur. If the meeting was legal (and for the good of the country, I hope that there was no collusion between Trump’s campaign and the Russians) then why not just admit it happened, say that you met to get oppo research, she pulled the switcheroo and wanted to talk sanctions, you walked away with nothing helpful and moved on with the campaign. If you do that, the story is in the news for a day or two, then fades away as irrelevant.

    The meeting is not the story. THE COVER-UP IS THE STORY

  • @justanotherfan Thanks scoop, now stick to sports talk & let all this other useless horseshit 💩 go.

  • @justanotherfan “As for Obama being investigated, trust me when I say, there are people in the GOP that hate him enough that they would investigate him for anything if they thought they could make it stick.”

    Let’s not forget how our current President, now claiming a 7 month investigation is the greatest witchhunt in history, promised for 5 years to provide evidence he claimed his investigators had uncovered proving that Obama was not born in the US.

    As to the Clintons, don’t forget Hillary’s commodity trading. I spent almost three days reviewing tens of thousands of pages of investigative records of her trading advisor to determine (at the behest of GOP senators) whether any of her trades were involved in some of the things he had done. They weren’t, but my agency alone spent about $25,000 just answering the fruitless fishing expedition. Hillary is literally the most investigated politician in history.

    For all the crying by the right wing about resources sidetracked by this investigation, I urge a jump into the wayback machine to that urgent GOP-led impeachment trial about 18 years ago. Yep, certainly saved our country from clear and present danger there. What’s a little foreign interference with our elections compared to that?

  • The most neutral place I’ve found is NY Times or USA today. WSJ has moved very far left. DJT deserves most things coming to him. But the man can’t even eat without WSJ writing and article on how his diet is bad for America.

    NY Times, for the most part, simply states facts and lets you form your own opinion. WSJ tries, but their headlines are all clickbait at this point. So you go in with a preconceived notion before you even have read the article.

  • Banned


    So you’re ok with Hillary selling 20% of US uranium to Russia, and then receive millions from Russians into her and Bills foundation? If you are ok with that then I guess you’re ok with the Dems fixing their election, and Hillary destroying and bleaching her illegal server. You know the one she refused to turn over to the FBI. And what about taking a hammer to all those cell phones?

    Yet your upset that Russians tried to effect the US elections? And you blame Trump. So are you ok with Obama trying to effect the Jewish nation elections with American Tax payers money?

    So let me get this straight. Our intelligence agencies have said Russia has tried many time to effect our elections over many years and decades. Yet here we have Hillary selling 20% of the US uranium to Russia. So if Russia is so evil and so wrong for trying to effect the US election process. Why is Hillary selling 20% of US uranium to Russia and then gladly receives millions donated to the Clinton foundation from Russians that benefited from the uranium deal?

    I also have to ask if Hillary is willing to sell America to the Russians then why would they not want her president versus a wild card like Trump?

    OK my friend lets fry those Republicans and give the Dem party a free pass. Cuz you know those Dems really care.

    Also by the way Bill got impeached because he was getting blow jobs and bonking the interns. Maybe your ok with that?

  • Banned


    Well lets uncover the story? It appears that the Russian lawyer that met with Trump Jr. had received special treatment from Obama and Lynch. UMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

    Makes one think.

    Yet I get it we don’t investigate Dems we fry Reps.

  • @DoubleDD LOL …Cigar anyone ? After 8 years of you know who, we probably even have some authentic Cuban Cohibas in the desk? So lets have the intern check on that … Now ya best lay off DD you mangy dog - these guys will just bite you in the ass when your backside gets turned …

  • Banned


    For you I’ll drop it. I feel better anyway.

  • There’s always the Financial Times or the BBC… but some would say they slant. Economist is well written but considered on the conservative side. Then there’s Al Jazeera if you want to look at another view. Switching between Fox and CNN is interesting, but they are both virtually caricatures of ‘news’ providers.

    In the last 20 years, the work required to have a balanced information diet has increased dramatically. And confidence that the ‘truth’ is identifiable in what is published has nearly evaporated.

  • Ay yi yi.

  • The 3 most controversial topics that are bound to create arguments are politics, abortion and religion…we really should avoid all of them.

    Should we get back to KU basketball?

  • @JayHawkFanToo It’s in the general discussion section. It was a controversial topic to begin with. I kind of think it should just be allowed to play out.

    Not like people are throwing F-Bombs (unless I missed something). I like getting people’s political views only to see how different their basketball views are. These are the types of threads we get to know everyone better.

    Plus, its the summer time. Not much basketball to talk.

  • This post is deleted!

  • This post is deleted!

  • This post is deleted!

  • @DoubleDD Why would you put something like this on a KU Basketball fan website? Is this the venue that you’d like to use to promote a political vent? Please, for the love of God, keep this to your other web sites.

  • Banned


    Sorry I didn’t start this topic. The person that started this topic owns and runs this sight.

    Go talk to him.

  • I will throw this out there. If there is a group of people with a spectrum of political opinions that runs the gamut capable of engaging in amiable productive discourse about the topic, this group is it. There are many indications in our society that our unwillingness to discuss our differences is in fact the greatest of problems we face. I believe in you all as individuals and as a group to be able to bridge the divide with people of dissenting opinions and find common ground, not only by blissfully losing ourselves in the passions we share (rock chalk) but also in forging new middle ground in areas where there is none. That ability to find a new and better way together is something this country desperately needs to embrace.

  • @approxinfinity If you want all Americans to get along you need a powerful enemy threatening our safety. When things are too good we tear ourselves apart…Win 13 straight conference championships but only one National Championship and one other final four in that run…fire the coach. Win 2-3 in a row and flame out in the tourney every stinking year…cry when that coach leaves… smh

  • Respect. That and remembering that we are all on the same side in the end. Those are the two things that strengthen a country. Those are really the only ideologies that matter. Not right. Not left. Not conservative or liberal or libertarian or red or blue or whatever other descriptions are out there.

    Do I agree with our current president - not on many things. I want America to be great, but I also recognize that his idea of what is great doesn’t line up with my idea of great. I don’t want him to be an enormous failure, just like I didn’t want the current governor of our great state to fail. I just fear that some of his policies are likely to end in disaster.

    I am especially wary of what’s going on now because the president has effectively de-legitimized any criticism of him. That’s very dangerous because, no matter how good he is as president (and we all have our various opinions on that) the ability to criticize is foundational to a democratic society. Throwing away that disagreement as illegitimate undermines the principles on which democracy is built. That doesn’t mean, of course, that President Trump will ruin the country. That’s hyperbole. What it means is that it could erode some of that foundation, in the same way that blindly following a leader (any leader, whether it be a politician, or a coach, or a pastor, or anyone) erodes the healthy skepticism that leads to the best choices.

    I’m a boss at work. I manage a small staff. I tell everyone when they are hired that they are always allowed to respectfully question the decision making, provided that they can provide a reason for their questions (I just don’t like it doesn’t count). Sometimes, based on that criticism, we change paths. Sometimes, we don’t because on further review, that criticism isn’t as big a worry as they may have thought. But each criticism helps ensure that we cover every angle and that we don’t get a “herd” mentality right off a cliff. Sometimes it shows that my original idea wasn’t the best one. That doesn’t undermine my leadership. It enhances it because I have the confidence to lead to the best solution, not just my solution.

    But that only works if there is a channel for respectful dissent.

    The major problem in today’s politics (both sides are to blame here) is that there is a lot of absolutism and villainization without any room for the type of respectful dissent and discourse that promotes problem solving. My way or the highway is no way to lead.

  • In a country of 321 million people, we ultimately all have to choose between 2 people. Absolute lunacy.

  • New subtopic if anyone has any thoughts: Would you rather have had Obama introduce subsidized education or healthcare during his tenure?

    Personally, I think Obamacare was a huge mistake simply because it was rushed and not thought out. Between that and Social Security, millennials are so screwed when we retire…

  • subtopic, Zone or Man-to-Man.

  • " Is Breitbart a legitimate news site?l –@approxinfinity

    No, it does not appear to be.

    But none of the others appear to be either. Not one.

    The moment our information systems fully migrated to digital, and the Pentagon and National Security State committed to full spectrum dominance after 9/11, news was unfeasible and so effectively extinct.

    There is no way to tell what is true and what is not. There are only narratives that seem more probable, or less probable.

    All “news,” and “information” are hackable in untraceable ways by all sides. Even news that starts as factually verified and confirmed by two sources is useless, because it can be hacked untraceably inside a reporters lap top, or phone, wifi or cloud locations. Hence, a reporter can only prove what is reported by producing the sources in a room full of witnesses and cameras. But the moment the witnesses and cameras reduce appearances to digital content everything becomes hackable again.

    It’s going to take decades, maybe centuries, for human beings to understand and compensate institutionally for the loss of verifiability.

    Everything broadcast, cabled, printed, or internetted by an incorporated entity using digitalization at any step of its processes is agenda driven propaganda by definition.

    No exceptions.

    The effect is now normalizing, too.

    Getting caught digitally red handed at anything now means nothing, because every case starts out with reasonable doubt.

    Hilary and Podesta getting caught for all the apparent criminality in the leaked emails means zero, because in court the jury would be shown how easily the emails could have been substantially altered before during and after they were sent. It doesn’t matter that she apparently also destroyed 30k+ emails. There are explanations justifying that, too.

    Almost nothing digitally is likely to be successfully actionable with deep enough pockets. ALMOST NOTHING.

    Unverifiability is the new “true” among private oligarchies and their governments and their captive media oligopolies. They have for centuries been able to lie in analog more than is good for most of us. Now they can lie with impunity all the time, even when they don’t need to. And appear to do so.

    The next step is for the accreting lying to finally lead to a population that can recall nothing but lies.

    That’s where this is all heading, until cultures institute strict, enforceable standards, like US GRADE A PRIME INFORMATION, or something. And that will bring the peril of censorship.

  • Intelligence organizations themselves appear no longer in the business of discovering the truth about opponents. I suspect this is because they concluded long ago that whatever they find is not trustworthy at a digital level. I suspect the realize nothing they store digitally, no matter how encrypted, is trustworthy.

    Intelligence organizations now appear effectively 100% focused on creating illusions to fool others with, not seeking truthful intelligence. They apparently lost faith in the truth. If they were actually looking for truth, the last thing they would do is run torture prisons to try to extract it. Torture prisons are apparently strictly for terror and intimidation of domestic and foreign adversaries, especially, we citizens. The function of torture prisons is apparently to experiment in mind control, terrorize us all, and to recruit dirty informants with coercion.

    All is not lost. Many before us in totalitarian countries have had to learn to operate on an Orwellian diet of private oligarchic lies.

    The news in our world is apparently strictly for driving agendas, not for providing an objective summary of what happened that day.

    The only room for discussion on this point appears to be the start date of when ALL news became totally agenda driven propaganda pretending to be news. I hypothesize 9/11, because that is the day that our media told us everything had changed, and since then I find no evidence of anything but agenda driven propaganda on most events. But I am open to other start dates.

  • If one is to understand “the great mystery” one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic narrow view of one political party.

    I guess that makes me a Sith Lord…

  • I was looking at the pew research stats re: state of news media here

    Did you know that cable news viewership was up 55% for CNN / FOX / MSNBC in 2016? See here. I guess it is to be assumed that it will always go up being an election year, but it seems that there is an increased hunger for political news that is finding its way to a pantry full of junk food journalism.

    Thats a combined $600 million increase in profit for CNN / FOX / MSNBC year over year.

    2015: $2,071,300,000 2016:$2,670,400,000

  • @approxinfinity That seems to prove Trump is entertaining if nothing else. I personally cut cable a couple of years ago and don’t miss it one bit. Esp. all the manufactured news. As an added bonus the print paper doesn’t yell at me every 8 minutes to buy something I don’t need. (Not a big commercial fan) 🙂

  • @approxinfinity

    Being born and raised in a family where politics and all controversial subjects were encouraged to be discussed, and in a state that was born in the most politically controversial period of American history, II thoroughly enjoy political, media, religious, abortion, conspiracy, et al, discussion and welcome it at our site.

    But I also understand that others do not, and do not want their joy of KU Basketball discussion diluted by shunting into other tracks of subject matter.

    I think we already have the solution at hand. We have created Royals and Chiefs categories that have nothing to do with KU Basketball, other than being sports.

    Why not create a category called politics, too? It would be just like the Royals and Chiefs categories. No one that was not interested in the category would go to it. I rarely, if ever, go to the Royals, or Chiefs, categories, and it does not bother me that all kinds of opinions are being expressed there. A political category seems similarly benign.

    One more thing I would suggest, based on what has been learned (at least by me) over the years by our online community. It might be good to institute up front that the point of the discourse is to “discover” and “learn” about issues, rather than to argue to be right, and so engage in to marginalizing and smearing others. Simply agree to ban all the techniques of thread cracking and smearing and trying to be the one that is right. In fact, AGREE TO ELIMINATE THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF DECLARING ONE POV IS RIGHT. This would completely eliminate 99% of contentiousness from the git-go. These kinds of discussions never get anywhere and are a waste of everyone’s time. If I have learned anything from this web site it is that I never change anyone else’s mind, and neither does anyone else. Each persons changes his own mind here when he/she is good and ready to change it. And they do so when they have participated in gathering information and processing it on their own. Individuals change their own minds. Thus it is fruitless and naive to waste time “winning” arguments. The object of discourse is to come away with more knowledge than what one started with. This new knowledge can include: facts, logics, hypotheses and assumptions about the topic being discussed. Anytime someone enters the realm of “I’m right because,…”, or asserts class prejudices like “All liberals are…(fill in the blank),” or “All Republicans are…(fill in the blank),” then participants simply respond with “That’s the I’m Right fallacy,” and continue introducing and discussion the meaning and utility of new facts, new logics, hypotheses, and assumptions.

    This way we actually come away from discussions knowing more and more, rather than being bored and assaulted and disrespected by dolts endlessly engaging in the vanity of trying to show everyone else they don’t know what they are talking about. Everyone knows something worth knowing, or else the only point to communicating is pulling the wool over their eyes with propaganda and the current 25-30 techniques for thread cracking and site destabilization and smearing to try to proselytize for one stupid agenda, or another.

    Why talk politics in a subcategory of a basketball web site? Because it is a group of aliases one already has a frame of reference with and knows to some degree their genuineness in discourse and their ways of communicating. What more reason does one need? It could be very fruitful to discuss politics with such aliases. We have become a very knowledgeable community about KU basketball and college basketball and the college sports industry by exploring and learning. Wouldn’t it be marvelous if we were able to create a model for talking about politics similarly. We keep getting better at talking about sports. Why not start getting better at talking about politics? It seems to me that our nation needs to rediscover how to talk about politics, after the long assault on political discourse by the propagandists and mind controllers with unlimited Federal Reserve funny money budgets.

  • @jaybate-1-0 💯 . I have been thinking about starting a political version of this board, but I keep coming back to the fact that we know each other, have history here, and it would be nice to keep it a one stop shop for fruitful discussion with a small group of friends. I’m excited at that possibility. I might also look at a bigger picture site, but I think your idea makes perfect sense and jives with what I was hoping for as well. Looking into it now.

  • @approxinfinity I agree with you. Im open to discussing any topic. Nothing wrong with conversing amongst people you know and appreciate.

  • @wrwlumpy From Joe Diffie’s “My Give a Damn’s Busted” "Well, maybe Oprah’s got time to listen … ? "

  • “I’m against cats in the house !”

  • @globaljaybird we need to take this cat thing to the other site! I had to take care of a few last week, they are gross! I gagged.

Log in to reply