Tariffs

[Analog Kid]

u don't think CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo/NPR/PBS, et al, are biased? Just a teensy weensy bit?

Yeah, these bastards always lie, unlike Murdoch’s Fox and WSJ, which always tell the truth. Ouch, wait a second…

You're missing the point. They're all biased.

[tszaboo]

Then they get sued, and have to settle for millions of dollars.

It's not safe to read anything into that. Some people use lawsuits to browbeat their opponent into submission - see SLAPPs. News media has to figure not just how much defending the suit will cost, but what may happen to them afterwards. Recall that Trump has already gone after lawyers and their companies that were engaged by his opposition. Also recall that Trump stiffed AP because they didn't use 'Gulf of America' (because they are international and it is still Gulf of Mexico to RoW). And that's a minor thing!

News media may reckon that keeping Trump sweet (at least until he loses power) is the sensible course at the moment, and just cough up to make the suit go away and let him feel he won. Certainly, the worst thing to do would be to make him think he lost.

Sure. They sound like the guys who fold in poker, and immediately go on a rant why they were going to win.

I have no idea how you managed to work that one out, but suffice to say it isn't like that at all. I suggest you follow the SLAPPs link because it seems that you don't know that forcing your opponent to capitulate through their lack of resources to fight back - regardless of the merits of the case - is a thing.

Back to tariffs - this is pretty much what Trump is trying to do with those. See, for instance, Brazil recently.

Your link is completely irrelevant to the situation and this is not what is happening.
What is happening is this:
1. They fabricate some claims.
2. Sue Trump
3. Trump takes it to court, and wins it
4. They still keep on repeating the claims
5. They get sued and have to settle for millions

Maybe the counter suing is questionable or immoral, but me personally couldn't care less. If an institution is corrupted and evil they deserve to be prosecuted or taken apart to the fullest extent of the law.

[krish2487]

Maybe the counter suing is questionable or immoral, but me personally couldn't care less. If an institution is corrupted and evil they deserve to be prosecuted or taken apart to the fullest extent of the law.

Yes...
1. deporting thousands of people (in some cases citizens and residents of US)
2. weaponizing the govt to go after enemies of one individual
3. shielding the rich and powerful from prosecution by claiming there is no epstein list (possibly the incumbent incumbent too)
4. levying tariffs as a way to force allies to bend down to your will
5. imposing a fascist rule and overriding democracy
6. holding a army parade to satisfy your ego
7. backing a known invading nation, doubling down and then backtracking on your words
8. playing footsie with known other dictators around the world

does not sound like an corrupt or evil organization at all..
smh...

[tszaboo]

Maybe the counter suing is questionable or immoral, but me personally couldn't care less. If an institution is corrupted and evil they deserve to be prosecuted or taken apart to the fullest extent of the law.

Yes...
1. deporting thousands of people

https://youtu.be/qLAJZWRHrNA?si=Kgyebj18CT4V0JXe
BTW when you called him following a mid 20 century Italian socialis politics, you lot the argument.

[PlainName]

Your link is completely irrelevant to the situation and this is not what is happening.
What is happening is this:

No easy way to put this, sorry: you are deluded. Clearly no point in continuing (not least because it's vastly off topic now).

[Zero999]

The  problem was never the so called bias from the media, but the inability of people to distinguish right from wrong.
Their non working moral compass.
Like being color blind.
However, being color blind is something that happened to you, not your own choice (born with).

But being stupid is a choice.

Is that completely true?

To some extent, one's morals are dependant on the culture they are born into. Look around the world and at history. You'll find there are/were people who do/did, things which we in the West consider to be immoral today. On the flip side, there are things we do here in the West and support, which were considered taboo or immoral in the past and are immoral in other parts of the world today.

[tszaboo]

Your link is completely irrelevant to the situation and this is not what is happening.
What is happening is this:

No easy way to put this, sorry: you are deluded. Clearly no point in continuing (not least because it's vastly off topic now).

Yeah, I'm deluded:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/19/politics/putin-trump-ukraine-war-what-matters
2023: the investigation was baseless political attack, and the even FBI forged warrants
2025: "While there was not enough evidence ... Russia actively tried to help Trump win"
And I'm deluded. You know, facts don't care about your feelings.

[Zero999]

Maybe the counter suing is questionable or immoral, but me personally couldn't care less. If an institution is corrupted and evil they deserve to be prosecuted or taken apart to the fullest extent of the law.

Yes...
1. deporting thousands of people (in some cases citizens and residents of US)
2. weaponizing the govt to go after enemies of one individual
3. shielding the rich and powerful from prosecution by claiming there is no epstein list (possibly the incumbent incumbent too)
4. levying tariffs as a way to force allies to bend down to your will
5. imposing a fascist rule and overriding democracy
6. holding a army parade to satisfy your ego
7. backing a known invading nation, doubling down and then backtracking on your words
8. playing footsie with known other dictators around the world

does not sound like an corrupt or evil organization at all..
smh...

Who are you taking about?

1. Obama deported more.
2. Biden tried to imprison his opponent.
3. Which administration hasn't done that?
4. Again, not unique to the current administration.
5. Oh not the f-word. Do you know what it means? There are no fascist leaders in the West. What you probably mean is authoritarian and yes, the previous administration have done that too; refer to the Twitter files.
6. Military parades are nothing new.
7. Look at the history of the US.
8. Ditto.

[PlainName]

Your link is completely irrelevant to the situation and this is not what is happening.
What is happening is this:

No easy way to put this, sorry: you are deluded. Clearly no point in continuing (not least because it's vastly off topic now).

Yeah, I'm deluded:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/19/politics/putin-trump-ukraine-war-what-matters
2023: the investigation was baseless political attack, and the even FBI forged warrants
2025: "While there was not enough evidence ... Russia actively tried to help Trump win"
And I'm deluded. You know, facts don't care about your feelings.

Durham only secured one conviction: the guilty plea of a low-level FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who avoided jail after admitting to doctoring an email about a surveillance warrant. Durham’s other two prosecutions – against a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer and the primary source for the Trump-Russia dossier – ended with embarrassing acquittals.

 

[tggzzz]

u don't think CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo/NPR/PBS, et al, are biased? Just a teensy weensy bit?

Yeah, these bastards always lie, unlike Murdoch’s Fox and WSJ, which always tell the truth. Ouch, wait a second…

Many media outlets have a standard sport over here, highlighting the differences between what T'rump says/does and what Faux News and Pravda Truth Social[1] don't report about him.

[1] just as Orwellian a name as the Soviet Pravda/Izvestia, for the same reasons.

[tggzzz]

News is basically repeating what the White House says; ...

That depends on which country you are living in.

[PlainName]

News is basically repeating what the White House says; ...

That depends on which country you are living in.

Don't think so. If it's not a straight report it's not news. So, for instance, The Guardian will report that Trump is going to put 20K% tariffs on penguins. That's news. In another article they will take the piss, be gobsmacked, analyze how many penguins will suffer or whatever. That's opinion.

[tszaboo]

Your link is completely irrelevant to the situation and this is not what is happening.
What is happening is this:

No easy way to put this, sorry: you are deluded. Clearly no point in continuing (not least because it's vastly off topic now).

Yeah, I'm deluded:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/19/politics/putin-trump-ukraine-war-what-matters
2023: the investigation was baseless political attack, and the even FBI forged warrants
2025: "While there was not enough evidence ... Russia actively tried to help Trump win"
And I'm deluded. You know, facts don't care about your feelings.

Durham only secured one conviction: the guilty plea of a low-level FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who avoided jail after admitting to doctoring an email about a surveillance warrant. Durham’s other two prosecutions – against a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer and the primary source for the Trump-Russia dossier – ended with embarrassing acquittals.

 

That's irrelevant, and my point still stands. CNN keeps repeating the lie even after a thorough investigation, and a second investigation condoning the first one.
They just can't quit.
You can't see it. They say, "they didn't find the evidence" while there wasn't crime.

[vad]

Who are you taking about?

1. Obama deported more.
2. Biden tried to imprison his opponent.
3. Which administration hasn't done that?
4. Again, not unique to the current administration.
5. Oh not the f-word. Do you know what it means? There are no fascist leaders in the West. What you probably mean is authoritarian and yes, the previous administration have done that too; refer to the Twitter files.
6. Military parades are nothing new.
7. Look at the history of the US.
8. Ditto.

I love this.

So, since Andrew Jackson owned hundreds of enslaved people and openly supported slavery, I assume you’d have no issue if the current president signed an executive order to reinstate it. After all, it wouldn’t be without precedent, right?

Just curious. Did you apply the same standards when supporting previous administrations on issues like inflation? Since inflation was even higher under Nixon and Reagan, I assume you were fully on board with Biden’s policies too, right?

[Sorama]

The  problem was never the so called bias from the media, but the inability of people to distinguish right from wrong.
Their non working moral compass.
Like being color blind.
However, being color blind is something that happened to you, not your own choice (born with).

But being stupid is a choice.

Is that completely true?

To some extent, one's morals are dependant on the culture they are born into. Look around the world and at history. You'll find there are/were people who do/did, things which we in the West consider to be immoral today. On the flip side, there are things we do here in the West and support, which were considered taboo or immoral in the past and are immoral in other parts of the world today.

Don’t you see the difference???

[tggzzz]

The  problem was never the so called bias from the media, but the inability of people to distinguish right from wrong.
Their non working moral compass.
Like being color blind.
However, being color blind is something that happened to you, not your own choice (born with).

But being stupid is a choice.

Is that completely true?

To some extent, one's morals are dependant on the culture they are born into. Look around the world and at history. You'll find there are/were people who do/did, things which we in the West consider to be immoral today. On the flip side, there are things we do here in the West and support, which were considered taboo or immoral in the past and are immoral in other parts of the world today.

Don’t you see the difference???

I don't think he can.

There's a famous song that I first liked as a teenager. One phrase as stuck in my mind and has guided my life in a small way...

I am just a poor boy
Though my story's seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest

[Zero999]

The  problem was never the so called bias from the media, but the inability of people to distinguish right from wrong.
Their non working moral compass.
Like being color blind.
However, being color blind is something that happened to you, not your own choice (born with).

But being stupid is a choice.

Is that completely true?

To some extent, one's morals are dependant on the culture they are born into. Look around the world and at history. You'll find there are/were people who do/did, things which we in the West consider to be immoral today. On the flip side, there are things we do here in the West and support, which were considered taboo or immoral in the past and are immoral in other parts of the world today.

Don’t you see the difference???

Difference between what? Right and wrong? Well yes, but my idea of right and wrong, stems from the culture I've been raised in.

I don't think he can.

There's a famous song that I first liked as a teenager. One phrase as stuck in my mind and has guided my life in a small way...

I am just a poor boy
Though my story's seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest

The Boxer by Simon Garfunkel.

Thore lyrics are apt for many people here, who appear to be incapable of changing their minds in light of new evidence.

Yes, it is difficult to change one's long, hard, held beliefs, but Ive done it before. If you look at some of my posts from 5 or 10 years ago, you'll find I've changed my mind about many things.

[Sorama]

Don’t you see the difference???

Difference between what? Right and wrong? Well yes, but my idea of right and wrong, stems from the culture I've been raised in.

[/quote]
Again,
It has nothing to do with culture but with ones mind, (lack of) morality and (bad) character.
Stop blaming others.

[SteveThackery]

Those lyrics are apt for many people here, who appear to be incapable of changing their minds in light of new evidence.

Yes, it is difficult to change one's long, hard, held beliefs, but Ive done it before. If you look at some of my posts from 5 or 10 years ago, you'll find I've changed my mind about many things.

Me too, and I'm proud of it.

I am emphatically not talking about anyone in this thread, and I don't have anyone in mind when I say the following. Like you, I've noticed how very resistant the majority of people are to changing their mind when new evidence comes along. The whole of science works on that principle, but I don't think people with science-based careers - such as most people in this forum - are much different from anyone else.

I think it's because a person's opinions and beliefs are a fundamental part of their identity, so letting go of an opinion or belief is like letting go of a part of who you are. No wonder it's difficult.

Furthermore, there is the matter of right and wrong, ego, and self-esteem. If you change your position on some long-held belief, that is like admitting you were wrong all that time. Having to admit that you were wrong about something is really tough on the ego, even when it comes to opinions, where right and wrong don't really apply. It goes without saying that we want our beliefs and opinions to be "right", otherwise why would we hold them?

Admitting you were wrong, and letting go of part of your identity..... it's difficult; very difficult. But we must, surely, because we are scientific people, are we not?

And yet, Max Planck observed about scientists: "Science proceeds one funeral at a time". This is what he wrote in his autobiography:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Clearly even the strongest advocates of the scientific method struggle to change their minds. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[Zero999]

Don’t you see the difference???

Difference between what? Right and wrong? Well yes, but my idea of right and wrong, stems from the culture I've been raised in.

Again,
It has nothing to do with culture but with ones mind, (lack of) morality and (bad) character.

Yes it does. For example, go to China and you're find that racism is not deemed to be immoral, whilst here in the West it's deemed to be one of the worst sins.

Because I've been raise in the West I think subjugating women and believing I'm superior to other from other countries are bad, but they're not universally deemed to be bad all over the world.

[Stop blaming others.

Blaming others for what?
What's your point/problem? You haven't made it clear.

[Sorama]

 

Don’t you see the difference???

Difference between what? Right and wrong? Well yes, but my idea of right and wrong, stems from the culture I've been raised in.

Again,
It has nothing to do with culture but with ones mind, (lack of) morality and (bad) character.

Yes it does. For example, go to China and you're find that racism is not deemed to be immoral, whilst here in the West it's deemed to be one of the worst sins.

Because I've been raise in the West I think subjugating women and believing I'm superior to other from other countries are bad, but they're not universally deemed to be bad all over the world.

[Stop blaming others.

Blaming others for what?
What's your point/problem? You haven't made it clear.

 

[Zero999]

Don’t you see the difference???

Difference between what? Right and wrong? Well yes, but my idea of right and wrong, stems from the culture I've been raised in.

Again,
It has nothing to do with culture but with ones mind, (lack of) morality and (bad) character.

Yes it does. For example, go to China and you're find that racism is not deemed to be immoral, whilst here in the West it's deemed to be one of the worst sins.

Because I've been raise in the West I think subjugating women and believing I'm superior to other from other countries are bad, but they're not universally deemed to be bad all over the world.

[Stop blaming others.

Blaming others for what?
What's your point/problem? You haven't made it clear.

 

What a thorough rebuttal of my points. ★★★★★ debating technique.

[tggzzz]

I am emphatically not talking about anyone in this thread, and I don't have anyone in mind when I say the following. Like you, I've noticed how very resistant the majority of people are to changing their mind when new evidence comes along. The whole of science works on that principle, but I don't think people with science-based careers - such as most people in this forum - are much different from anyone else.

"Evidence" alone is insufficient.

Too many people accept what they read on social media as evidence.
Ditto from a pretty and trustworthy face, with a voice that is trained to sound authoritative.
Ditto from news sources that have disguised funding and are probably beholden to their backers and/or to people in power.

Science doesn't work on evidence alone. Science requires (1) observation (2) formulation of a hypothesis (3) prediction of the consequences of the hypothesis being true (4) definition of a test for that hypothesis which can falsify the hypothesis (5) running the test and evaluating the results.
Note the key words, which are often forgotten, sometime deliberately.

Without prediction, there can be no science. Hence post-processing existing data to draw a conclusion is insufficient - witness the gross failures of LLMs in that regard.

Without it being able to fail a test, there can be no science. That's the downfall of many alternative mystics/therapists etc.

[themadhippy]

Looks  the usa dont want any tourist from certain country's with its plans to introduce a $250 visa integrity charge (tariff on tourists)  on top of the normal visa fees

[SteveThackery]

"Evidence" alone is insufficient.

Too many people accept what they read on social media as evidence.
Ditto from a pretty and trustworthy face, with a voice that is trained to sound authoritative.
Ditto from news sources that have disguised funding and are probably beholden to their backers and/or to people in power.

Science doesn't work on evidence alone. Science requires (1) observation (2) formulation of a hypothesis (3) prediction of the consequences of the hypothesis being true (4) definition of a test for that hypothesis which can falsify the hypothesis (5) running the test and evaluating the results.
Note the key words, which are often forgotten, sometime deliberately.

Without prediction, there can be no science. Hence post-processing existing data to draw a conclusion is insufficient - witness the gross failures of LLMs in that regard.

Without it being able to fail a test, there can be no science. That's the downfall of many alternative mystics/therapists etc.

I think we agree. You have simply enlarged upon my position where I was using the term "evidence" for brevity. 

However, you say "post-processing existing data to draw a conclusion is insufficient", but that over-simplifies things too much. It is totally legitimate to look again at data to see if it supports a different scenario better than the existing one. This is how law courts work: the same evidence is interpreted (at least) two different ways, and the jury gets to decide if the prosecution's version is credible "beyond reasonable doubt".

Let's be realistic: in our personal life we don't go about invoking the entire scientific method to satisfy ourselves that biscuits go soggy when dipped in coffee. And when we find a biscuit that doesn't, we happily change our mind to "some biscuits go soggy when dipped in coffee", and we don't usually invoke the entire scientific process to do that.

I would also point out that clinging on to an old opinion because the new one hasn't been rigorously scientifically tested only makes sense when your old opinion was tested with that degree of rigour. And in 99% of cases it wasn't, of course.

Remember that most opinions and beliefs are not based on outcomes of the scientific method. Science doesn't deal in beliefs and opinions, it deals with theories and proofs. So your argument that opinions and beliefs should only change when the scientific community says so is applying the wrong criteria.

If your argument helps you feel better about not changing your mind on something, then you are just rationalising an instinctive resistance to change. We humans are experts at that!

Finally, I am not advocating gullibility, I'm advocating open-minded scepticism.