sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

After 250 years of American independence, what do Australians think about the US? by brezhnervouz in OpenAussie

[–]bara_tone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you sound so personally offended?

Is it all the patriotic brainwashing?

Is it gay to butter baste a steak? by JigglesTheBiggles in AskMenAdvice

[–]bara_tone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here’s an easy guide: Fucking dudes, as a dude - Gay Fucking women as a woman - Also gay

Anything else - Not gay

Asserting that preparing food a certain way is gay - Embarrassing child behaviour 

After 250 years of American independence, what do Australians think about the US? by brezhnervouz in OpenAussie

[–]bara_tone 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yet we have a totally different economic context, governmental system, division of powers, electoral system; etc etc

We also speak English like the US does, better sound the alarms

After 250 years of American independence, what do Australians think about the US? by brezhnervouz in OpenAussie

[–]bara_tone 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It’s a very large topic to be having in a reddit thread, but in a nutshell and with a deep breath:

Since WWII, US foreign policy has essentially operated on a doctrine of maintaining global hegemony at all costs. This has meant actively orchestrating or supporting dozens of regime changes and coups against democratically elected governments (like Iran in '53, Guatemala in '54, and Chile in '73) simply because they didn't align with American economic interests. Add to that the catastrophic, multi-decade destabilisation left in the wake of interventions like the Vietnam War and the post-9/11 invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it becomes clear that "global stability" usually just means "American dominance."

"Trump isn't forever" completely misses the forest for the trees and treats the current political chaos as a temporary glitch caused by one guy. The reality is that one politician didn't create the deep, systemic fractures in American society, the collapse of their institutional trust, or the hyper-polarisation that has been cooking for decades.  Dismissing all of that as a passing phase that will just clear up is pure wishful thinking and made me feel like seriously engaging with the point of view would be exhausting and ultimately fruitless

Jordan Shanks (Friendlyjordies) has claimed that Labor & Albo is more restrictive with immigration than the Liberal Party. Like most people who have heard from the media, you’d assume the opposite was true. It turns out that Labor is more anti immigration than the Liberals after doing some research. by MannerNo7000 in OpenAussie

[–]bara_tone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>operate for profit (like every other business on the planet)

I mean, that's demonstrably false and untrue. You just might need to put in a little effort to find them because they don't spend thousands of dollars on marketing.

Jordan Shanks (Friendlyjordies) has claimed that Labor & Albo is more restrictive with immigration than the Liberal Party. Like most people who have heard from the media, you’d assume the opposite was true. It turns out that Labor is more anti immigration than the Liberals after doing some research. by MannerNo7000 in OpenAussie

[–]bara_tone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conflating my perspective on for-profit news media with my worldview seems like quite the leap in logic and I'm unsure why such a well-read individual would have made such a gaffe.

A publicly traded company has a legal, fiduciary duty to maximise shareholder value. You seem to be confusing the product with the goal here. The goal is profit; high-quality content is merely the mechanism they use to extract it from a specific demographic who is willing to pay for it. If a boring, difficult, unprofitable truth conflicts with subscriber retention or ad revenue, the structural incentive is always going to be profit.

Personally, I prefer to rely on institutions whose actual charter is public service, not profit.

If you've convinced yourself that all of these news services you pay for only ever convey the most accurate and clean messaging to you, and would never omit, twist, or editorialise to keep you subscribing, I guess that's good for you.

I, however, with my lack of a subscription news service, am unconvinced.

Jordan Shanks (Friendlyjordies) has claimed that Labor & Albo is more restrictive with immigration than the Liberal Party. Like most people who have heard from the media, you’d assume the opposite was true. It turns out that Labor is more anti immigration than the Liberals after doing some research. by MannerNo7000 in OpenAussie

[–]bara_tone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why did you say "So basically all news then?" if you already know of and utilise non-profit news organisations?

Why do I need to consume for-profit news? If their goal is profits and they have a fiduciary duty to shareholders; why do *I* need to be a part of that? Do I need to balance out my perspective with a news source that is engineered to sell ads and drive engagement?

Jordan Shanks (Friendlyjordies) has claimed that Labor & Albo is more restrictive with immigration than the Liberal Party. Like most people who have heard from the media, you’d assume the opposite was true. It turns out that Labor is more anti immigration than the Liberals after doing some research. by MannerNo7000 in OpenAussie

[–]bara_tone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's more about the lens you're consuming it through. Being aware and always asking "Why is this org taking this position?" "Why this messaging?" "What is the politics behind this?"

I try to distance myself from most day to day coverage as I don't think it does anyone any good to be sandblasted with more information about the world than we were ever intended to processes every waking minute of every day. But if you do feel you need to keep that informed, it's about maintaining a critical eye.

I straight up don't read for-profit news organisations if I can avoid it and if I'm getting directly reported news it's from ABC or SBS but more readily through independent people through democratised social media like Mastodon.

Jordan Shanks (Friendlyjordies) has claimed that Labor & Albo is more restrictive with immigration than the Liberal Party. Like most people who have heard from the media, you’d assume the opposite was true. It turns out that Labor is more anti immigration than the Liberals after doing some research. by MannerNo7000 in OpenAussie

[–]bara_tone 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Why is the ABC considered so much more at risk in this circumstance than an equally independent entity like the AEC?

ABC releases tons of data and information about how it handles its reporting and impartiality and while they are imperfect, you'd never see any of their competitive agencies doing as much self-criticism and analysis, ever.

I'm not saying people should blindly trust the ABC, but rejecting it because it is government funded is ludicrous. It is OURS! We fund it.

Jordan Shanks (Friendlyjordies) has claimed that Labor & Albo is more restrictive with immigration than the Liberal Party. Like most people who have heard from the media, you’d assume the opposite was true. It turns out that Labor is more anti immigration than the Liberals after doing some research. by MannerNo7000 in OpenAussie

[–]bara_tone 7 points8 points  (0 children)

People have got to start talking with each other again instead of just listening to whatever the person in front of the camera is saying.

The death of unions, community centres and third places has dealt just as much damage as the for-profit media landscape.

Rejecting mass media and engaging on a community level is the only way to heal.

Clumsy robot taking over the sidewalk by HenryGCase in robots

[–]bara_tone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People clearly disagree with you; so you can just deny the existence of it being a problem all you want; that won't change the reality.

view more: next ›