Sociopath Community

Interesting topic. I don't think Internet is the be-all and end-all solution to the problems media pose. But I guess that's not what you meant, either.

Save for giving a different opinion and a different view, alternative medias don't do much in my opinion. They can be just as biased, rigged and uncaring -- if not more. The fundamental problem with it, I guess, is that they don't necessarily require any review, don't always need to back up their arguments and don't necessarily need to be responsible for what they say. Having anonymity can be either good or bad. I'm not saying that mainstream media always has to be responsible or needs to back up what they say.

I think the root of the problem has more to do with lack of media criticism. If people were able to view everything critically, know a thing or two about rhetorics and were somewhat up-to-date on the situations then there wouldn't really be a problem.

Nonetheless, I think Internet does contribute in giving people a more objective view.

smashes headfirst into brick wall

re-read what I responded to , and put the joint down for a minute brat !. ;)

I like TV. I would like to help you Luna, but doing that would be bad for my parasitic lifestyle.

ya mainstream media to me is cable tv 

by Luna Prey

I'm american, but I lived in China for a year so I consider my perspective to be different from most americans.

I'd say that the economy capitalism is taking control away from the people and policy needs to be put into place for it to be stopped, but the problem is that capitalism has taken the minds of our politicians through bribery, lobbying, and other perks. 

 I don't have any interest in the media, it's full of biased shit and I havn't watched the news in years..but this interested me. The problem isn't capitalism taking the minds of politicians, the problem is that everyone is allowed to vote and there's a high majority of stupid people voting these days based on a smile, or a personality, or a number of other things that have nothing to do with a candidates ability to run a damn country.

I think this is more of an ethical question. Right now we live in a society (at least in western society) where every life has equal value. Evidence of that value is the way the federal government handles those who commit a felony. Regardless of rich or poor, if you murder someone and there is clear evidence against you, you're going to have a bad day. The other evidence is the voting system. Everyone has a say.

Now, in the old days, communication wasn't very easy right? And, the entire world couldn't go to Washington DC, right? So what they did is each district within a state would vote, and then the governor of the state would count the districts and which ever party won would be able to choose a certain number of elector voters to go to Washington DC and cast the vote for that president which won the state.

So technicaly, the people who vote for the president aren't the entire nation, but those elector voters. We like to think they would pick smart electoral voters right?!

Additionally, most states have laws that prevent elector voters from defecting, but my brother says he knows of one who did a couple years ago, but he didn't know if it had very much impact on the results.

I never consume media lies. I only use alternative sources of information. I know they are lying puppets of the plutocracy.

"Right now we live in a society (at least in western society) where every life has equal value."

...this assumption actually had me baffled for a few minutes.


"Regardless of rich or poor, if you murder someone and there is clear evidence against you, you're going to have a bad day."

Unless you have Affluenza, the rich person's disease.

 Holy shit you're idealistic! Michael, help her come down to Earth please. She's old enough now.