Economy Great Article Breaking Down the US Housing Crisis & Why Government Isn't Doing Anything About It

[Jack V Savage]

The anti-vaxx sentiment didnt ONLY work on rightists. That was part of my point, and if I insinuated that it did then I didnt mean to. It worked on people generally distrusting of either institutionalized medicine or the giant pharmaceutical industry, both of which have valid criticisms, and that this distrust was exacerbated to override the assurance of their Doctors. They were CONVINCED they knew better than their Doctors. Plenty of people who were moderate on vaccines, over all, went full batsh*t over the COVID vaccine. Confirmation bias plays a part, but suggesting that that's THE core of it is an oversimplification that seems to always conveniently pop up when it's time it's time absolve corporate America of any impact on society.

Is your view that "corporate America" was generally anti-vax?

My observation was that the MSM and most companies were supportive of the effort to get people vaccinated and end the pandemic. That's precisely why people who were inclined to oppose it sought out charlatans that told them what they wanted to hear.

Why do you think anti-vaxx pundits wanted to debate even vaccine scientists publicly over it? Because making a vaccine scientist look inept with rhetoric is not difficult. This why since the advent of mass media, charisma can go much further than political or diplomatic skill when it comes to candidates. Trump is a living embodiment of this, so was Reagan, neither were skilled politicians, and they managed to capture the most powerful position in the World by convincing people they would be, and even after their cataclysmic failures, people who bought into it (even those who were NOT right wingers before), have a hard time admitting they were deceived into believing it even if that revelation comes FROM someone they trust.

Note that the guy you were agreeing with has the exact opposite take. That the evil media is brainwashing people against Trump (and probably Reagan before him). How do you explain that? From my perspective, it's easy. People believe what they believe, often for tribalistic reasons, and then they assume that others who disagree with them are being brainwashed by the evil media.

Subliminal messaging is most certainly not entirely "junk science." If it was mentalists around the world would be cataclysmic failures at their jobs. It doesnt always work on highly skeptical people, or people who are paying close attention to what's happening, but the idea is that no one is always vigilant enough to ward it off entirely.

Stage magicians don't actually have magical powers, and depending how you define "works," subliminal messaging doesn't work on anyone.

Bernays didn't con my enemies. Bernays conned my people, my own grandparents to the degree that they had a healthy disdain for my Central American and Caribbean immigrant family members without knowing a single thing about them.

But they're your opponents on that. Again, Fox would probably say that people don't have enough disdain for Central Americans and that media brainwashing is the reason for that.

 

[Sinister]

Is your view that "corporate America" was generally anti-vax?

My observation was that the MSM and most companies were supportive of the effort to get people vaccinated and end the pandemic. That's precisely why people who were inclined to oppose it sought out charlatans that told them what they wanted to hear.


Note that the guy you were agreeing with has the exact opposite take. That the evil media is brainwashing people against Trump (and probably Reagan before him). How do you explain that? From my perspective, it's easy. People believe what they believe, often for tribalistic reasons, and then they assume that others who disagree with them are being brainwashed by the evil media.

Stage magicians don't actually have magical powers, and depending how you define "works," subliminal messaging doesn't work on anyone.

But they're your opponents on that. Again, Fox would probably say that people don't have enough disdain for Central Americans and that media brainwashing is the reason for that.

No, corporate America wasn't anti-vaxx, not all of it. I didnt say all of corporate America have shared interests. They pursue their own interest. Trump was good for media ratings. So are conspiracies. One of DeSantis' largest donors was the manufacturer of monoclonal antibodies, a competing interest versus the vaccine. Florida went as far as to appoint one of the most crackpot Surgeon Generals of the modern era. Some media were pushing for vaccination, Fox wasn't, the most watched channel in the US.

People believe the media is demonizing Trump because Trump used his status as a media darling to convince them of that. It's a self-licking ice cream cone. The media have handled Trump with kid gloves, which gives him wiggle room to say sh*t like that with little push-back.

That's just factually incorrect to say that subliminal messaging works on no one:

Subliminal messages exert long-term effects on decision-making

Subliminal manipulation is often considered harmless because its effects typically decay within a second. So far, subliminal long-term effects on behavior were only observed in studies which repeatedly presented highly familiar information such as single ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

UCL study: subliminal messaging 'more effective when negative'

Links:

www.ucl.ac.uk

The effects of an auditory subliminal message upon the production of images and dreams - PubMed

The purpose of this research was to investigate what effect an auditory subliminal message, produced by speeding up the rate at which it was recorded, would have upon the imagery and dreams of a group of normal subjects. The auditory subliminal message was produced by speeding up a message that...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Derren Brown is a renowned mentalist, and demonstrated this numerous times for his show:





And those were educated people. It's not a magic power, which should be used to debunk people who think men have magic powers as opposed to just using basic trickery.

But they're not my enemies. They never were. They've been propagandized into taking that position by people who appeal to grievances. And this all lines up perfectly with Bernays' methods as most of those grievances have directly to do with their perceived social status. Which is the thing he targeted the most.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, corporate America wasn't anti-vaxx, not all of it.

I would say almost all of corporate America wanted to get past the pandemic and supported vaccinations. And the MSM was definitely pro-vax. So how was that not effective if your theory is that the media and academia have so much influence over people's thoughts that they can be said to "control" people?

I didnt say all of corporate America have shared interests. They pursue their own interest. Trump was good for media ratings. So are conspiracies. One of DeSantis' largest donors was the manufacturer of monoclonal antibodies, a competing interest versus the vaccine. Florida went as far as to appoint one of the most crackpot Surgeon Generals of the modern era. Some media were pushing for vaccination, Fox wasn't, the most watched channel in the US.

I am not denying that rightists have become anti-vaccination. I'm saying that people look for messaging that agrees with them rather than that they're mass brainwashed by the media. The role that Fox would play here is simply signaling to viewers that the proper Republican-approved position is to oppose the vaccine.

That's just factually incorrect to say that subliminal messaging works on no one:

Disagree. What you want here is meta analysis. Lots of studies that don't replicate going in different directions.

But they're not my enemies. They never were. They've been propagandized into taking that position by people who appeal to grievances.

But they disagree with you there. That's the point. Lots of people think that the only reason others disagree with them is mass brainwashing. But people on multiple sides think that.

BTW, this is another issue on which I can kind of detect the stench of Chomsky.

 

[Sinister]

I would say almost all of corporate America wanted to get past the pandemic and supported vaccinations. And the MSM was definitely pro-vax. So how was that not effective if your theory is that the media and academia have so much influence over people's thoughts that they can be said to "control" people?


I am not denying that rightists have become anti-vaccination. I'm saying that people look for messaging that agrees with them rather than that they're mass brainwashed by the media. The role that Fox would play here is simply signaling to viewers that the proper Republican-approved position is to oppose the vaccine.

Disagree. What you want here is meta analysis. Lots of studies that don't replicate going in different directions.

But they disagree with you there. That's the point. Lots of people think that the only reason others disagree with them is mass brainwashing. But people on multiple sides think that.

BTW, this is another issue on which I can kind of detect the stench of Chomsky.

You are resorting to strawmanning me, like throwing in "academia" when I've only ever spoken of the media, which I have experience in. I also said not all of the media was anti-vaxx, but noted that the media whose agenda feeds its ratings machine definitely was pushing that narrative WHILE having a vaccine mandate of their own.

And I'm saying that the propaganda didnt ONLY effect rightists, it effected people not of that particular political ilk. But this is getting in the weeds, my main contention was that propaganda on the National scale was initially used to advertise completely different ways of life. The nuclear Family, consumerism, use of Nationalism to bolster support for optimization of affairs in other Countries for Corporate interests (United Fruit Company). This is all well-documented and verified, and is much of what advertising is based on currently.

Meta-analysis is reliable in some contexts. That's just an excuse to be dismissive of empirical evidence that you're wrong. There's a saying about meta-data, which is you have to be careful of it "because with a large enough data pool, you can find any correlation you want." Subliminal messaging has a measurable effect.

I dont care how people use the "mass brainwashing" argument. We live in a highly propagandized society, corporations and the wealthy spend billions each year on these measures to influence social thought. You're essentially saying it's a waste of money and they dont know what they're doing because a guy wrote a book about confirmation bias. Lol Confirmation bias is a cog in the wheel.

I'm not very familiar with Chomsky's sentiments because I've never idolized the guy. This whole time I've been speaking from experience in the actual profession. You know what causes Ad Execs huge amount of anxiety? The thought of taking chances on anything creative and having to earn genuine regard from tentative clients. Instead they find something catchy (even if its irritatingly so, I cant tell you how many god awful pitches I heard), and recycle it a bazillion times until the Company dies. So no, this has nothing to do with Chomsky, but your argument is par for the course with your storied "I dont think corporations can be blamed for this" narrative.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You are resorting to strawmanning me, like throwing in "academia" when I've only ever spoken of the media, which I have experience in.

Fox listed the media and academia together in the post that started this. I didn't and wouldn't strawman you, and I don't appreciate the accusation. Also, I'm pretty sure I have more experience in the media.

I also said not all of the media was anti-vaxx, but noted that the media whose agenda feeds its ratings machine definitely was pushing that narrative WHILE having a vaccine mandate of their own.

But remember the discussion. If the media (and academia, per Fox) controlled people, there wouldn't be so many anti-vaxers. You're saying that media brainwashed people the other way, but more media was pushing vaccinations.

And I'm saying that the propaganda didnt ONLY effect rightists, it effected people not of that particular political ilk.

Well, it was mostly rightists who converted to anti-vaxism. Again, not because they were brainwashed by the media but because it became part of rightist identity (probably in part because the MSM supported vaccination).

But this is getting in the weeds, my main contention was that propaganda on the National scale was initially used to advertise completely different ways of life. The nuclear Family, consumerism, use of Nationalism to bolster support for optimization of affairs in other Countries for Corporate interests (United Fruit Company). This is all well-documented and verified, and is much of what advertising is based on currently.

I do not find it plausible that any of those things are a result of mass brainwashing.

Meta-analysis is reliable in some contexts. That's just an excuse to be dismissive of empirical evidence that you're wrong.

Well, empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports me. I think dismissing meta analysis and cherry-picking studies that support preconceptions is a worse approach.

There's a saying about meta-data, which is you have to be careful of it "because with a large enough data pool, you can find any correlation you want." Subliminal messaging has a measurable effect.

But it really doesn't. You won't find reproducible studies showing that it does.

 

[brothir]

But this is getting in the weeds

Fuck me, not this phrase again. It always appears when someone's unhappy about the details of a discussion not working in his favor.

 

[Sinister]

Fuck me, not this phrase again. It always appears when someone's unhappy about the details of a discussion not working in his favor.

Yeah I dont think my replies were devoid of any details. That phrase is appropriate when a conversation gets focused on the validity of a single compartment when a larger contention was the original point.

 

[brothir]

Yeah I dont think my replies were devoid of any details. That phrase is appropriate when a conversation gets focused on the validity of a single compartment when a larger contention was the original point.

You're contradicting yourself, using a rephrasing as a rhetorical device. "The validity of a single compartment" means "a detail", and you're admitting to avoiding it. Correct arguments are built on details, and in the event a single one is false the entire argument can be. You're trying to rework your opinion as a metaphorical truth by using "a larger contention" as an escape mechanism.

 

[Sinister]

Fox listed the media and academia together in the post that started this. I didn't and wouldn't strawman you, and I don't appreciate the accusation. Also, I'm pretty sure I have more experience in the media.


But remember the discussion. If the media (and academia, per Fox) controlled people, there wouldn't be so many anti-vaxers. You're saying that media brainwashed people the other way, but more media was pushing vaccinations.

Well, it was mostly rightists who converted to anti-vaxism. Again, not because they were brainwashed by the media but because it became part of rightist identity (probably in part because the MSM supported vaccination).

I do not find it plausible that any of those things are a result of mass brainwashing.

Well, empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports me. I think dismissing meta analysis and cherry-picking studies that support preconceptions is a worse approach.

But it really doesn't. You won't find reproducible studies showing that it does.

I'm not arguing his particular position, I am making my own independent contention. Taking his overall perspective and continuously ascribing it to me is strawmanning, because I dont have to agree with every contention he made, or his larger position. And I dont appreciate the suggestion that I do.

So there were media pushing both things, and the largest and most watched media out of all of the media had an anti-vaccine agenda, and we're wondering why there are so many anti-vaxxers and particularly new ones. Seems like the answer is in the question. Yes it was MOSTLY rightists, Republicans, but not exclusively. Some because they are against MSM, and some because they got caught up in the right wing information silo either beginning at Faux News, or supporting what Faux News was doing (and sometimes making it worse). This same thing happened with the "the election was stolen" notion as well, which if you'll remember had a lawsuit in which Faux News conceded they were definitely intentionally misleading audiences and internally discouraging honest reporting, which is what media companies warned the Government would happen in the Fairness Doctrine hearings.

You dont have to find it plausible that consumer culture, suburban living, and the nuclear family were made palatable by giant National advertising campaigns, it is well-accepted fact among Government and media. Americans needed to be convinced these things were good ideas, and they were convinced of that. Turns out they weren't very good ideas.

I don't think empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports you. And its interesting to make such a grandiose statement, then accuse me of cherry-picking data while having cited one book and been vaguely hand-waving at the existence of meta-data ever since. Especially after I took the effort to directly engage with statements made BY the author of that book. Submiliminal Stimulition is an accepted field in scientific research, if it weren't a thing, that wouldn't even be the case.

Here is meta-data from the fMRI field identifying which centers of the brain subliminal stimulation activate from 2012:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811911011529?via%3Dihub

Replicated in 2023:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032723006821?via%3Dihub

Data showing it can influence choices even when people are sure they are making free choices:

Masked prime stimuli can bias “free” choices between response alternatives - Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Stimuli presented below the threshold of awareness can systematically influence choice responses determined by the instructed stimulus-response (S-R) mapping (task set). In this study, we investigated whether such stimuli will also bias a free choice between two response alternatives under...

link.springer.com

There is definitely discourse within the field of psychology about the conditions that make subliminal stimulation more or less effective, but your initial claim that its junk science that doesnt work on anyone is not correct. Though I'm sure you'll figure out a reason to be dismissive of the meta-analysis you said would never be found.

 

[Sinister]

You're contradicting yourself, using a rephrasing as a rhetorical device. "The validity of a single compartment" means "a detail", and you're admitting to avoiding it. Correct arguments are built on details, and in the event a single one is false the entire argument can be. You're trying to rework your opinion as a metaphorical truth by using "a larger contention" as an escape mechanism.

Except I didn't avoid the compartmentalized argument, it's just going in circles. I made the statement after I had already engaged with it more than once. It's also a rhetorical device to drag discourse into circular contentions that consist of "yes it is, no it isn't." The details have been hashed out, if the opposing person doesnt want to accept them then there is no sense on continuing down that line.

There's no re-working of an opinion, my opinion has remained the same and is based in accepted historical events. Supported by more details after the single phrase you're taking exception to.

 

[blackheart]

Jack might be the first guy I've ever known to actually make himself dumber through education

"Money doesn't influence politics"
"Mass persuasion doesn't work"

Oh wow really? So these profit seeking corporations that have legal mandates to maximize returns just pour billions and billions of dollars into politics (legalized bribery aka "lobbying") and billions of dollars into advertising, just for the fun of it? Imagine how fucking naive and how dense you would have to be to believe that. Profit seeking multinational corporations spend billions on bribery and advertising for absolutely no tangible benefit. LOL. Yeah ok.

 

[RoastBeast]

Reading this thread, it's easy to see who worked hard their whole lives to save up and buy a house in a nice neighborhood and the people who, well.....didn't.

They're currently trying to build a low income apartment complex about 2000ft from where I live after I worked my ass off to finally get out of the shitty part of town and into the nice part of town. You're damn right I'm going to do what I can to stop them from bringing in a bunch of shitty people into my neighborhood who are more likely to steal and break into vehicles and homes.

Low income apartments belong in low income areas. The land there is also much cheaper. This is just a way to stuff the pockets of real estate moguls while subsidizing shitty people into nice areas to disrupt the peace in those areas.

 

[blackheart]

Reading this thread, it's easy to see who worked hard their whole lives to save up and buy a house in a nice neighborhood and the people who, well.....didn't.

They're currently trying to build a low income apartment complex about 2000ft from where I live after I worked my ass off to finally get out of the shitty part of town and into the nice part of town. You're damn right I'm going to do what I can to stop them from bringing in a bunch of shitty people into my neighborhood who are more likely to steal and break into vehicles and homes.

Low income apartments belong in low income areas. The land there is also much cheaper. This is just a way to stuff the pockets of real estate moguls while subsidizing shitty people into nice areas to disrupt the peace in those areas.

"fuck you I got mine"

You have to be pretty dumb to automatically associate people renting apartments with "shitty people".

Your country is experiencing a housing crisis. Tens of millions of your fellow Americans can't afford to rent or buy homes.

"who gives a fuck I'm doing okay" - Republicans in a nutshell

 

[RoastBeast]

"fuck you I got mine"

You have to be pretty dumb to automatically associate people renting apartments with "shitty people".

Your country is experiencing a housing crisis. Tens of millions of your fellow Americans can't afford to rent or buy homes.

"who gives a fuck I'm doing okay" - Republicans in a nutshell

Yeah there are more shitty people in apartments than there are in neighborhoods where homes cost close to a million dollars. It's really not even debatable. Your neighbor that has a nice house, a wife and kids, an acre lot and an RV is not going to break into your car but some guy who sells weed out of his 1bd apartment just might.

It's not "fuck you I got mine", it's pay your dues, work your way up and save your money and you can get something in a nice area.

When I was making minimum wage and working my way through college, I never once thought for a second that I should be afforded a nice apartment in one of the nicer areas in town.

I also don't think I should be able to drive a Ferrari or be able to live in Beverly Hills or any other shit that I can't afford.

I'm for more housing being built but you don't build low income shit in high income areas. There's plenty of cheaper land in lower income areas for apartment complexes. You wouldn't build a mansion in the ghetto so you shouldn't build low income apartments in high income areas either.

 

[blackheart]

Yeah there are more shitty people in apartments than there are in neighborhoods where homes cost close to a million dollars. It's really not even debatable. Your neighbor that has a nice house, a wife and kids, an acre lot and an RV is not going to break into your car but some guy who sells weed out of his 1bd apartment just might.

It's not "fuck you I got mine", it's pay your dues, work your way up and save your money and you can get something in a nice area.

When I was making minimum wage and working my way through college, I never once thought for a second that I should be afforded a nice apartment in one of the nicer areas in town.

I also don't think I should be able to drive a Ferrari or be able to live in Beverly Hills or any other shit that I can't afford.

I'm for more housing being built but you don't build low income shit in high income areas. There's plenty of cheaper land in lower income areas for apartment complexes. You wouldn't build a mansion in the ghetto so you shouldn't build low income apartments in high income areas either.

The problem is systematic, not individual.

 

[RoastBeast]

The problem is systematic, not individual.

Nice pivot. Your original post was pointed directly at me, the individual.

I'm sorry if you are an 18 year old, fresh out of high school who thinks that shit should just be given to him for free because he's special but that's not how the world works.

Yeah the system is fucked but lets start by not allowing corporations to use family homes as investment properties and lets start building appropriate homes in appropriate neighborhoods instead of building apartment complexes in nice neighborhoods and then subsidizing poor people so they can move into areas that they would never be able to afford in the first place.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not arguing his particular position, I am making my own independent contention. Taking his overall perspective and continuously ascribing it to me is strawmanning, because I dont have to agree with every contention he made, or his larger position. And I dont appreciate the suggestion that I do.

I didn't make that suggestion. We've been discussing that original point throughout. If you want to step back and acknowledge that academia doesn't control the population while still insisting that the media does, that would be helpful.

So there were media pushing both things, and the largest and most watched media out of all of the media had an anti-vaccine agenda, and we're wondering why there are so many anti-vaxxers and particularly new ones.

I don't see the analytic value of separating Fox. In total, the media was very supportive of vaccines. People who are inclined to seek out partisan media had partisan takes--which *at least* suggests a possible problem with your argument that you should address and consider. Specifically, it lines up with the theory that people seek out media that tells them what they want to hear better than the theory that people are "controlled" by the media.

Seems like the answer is in the question. Yes it was MOSTLY rightists, Republicans, but not exclusively.

What are you trying to say here? The power of Fox's propaganda also forced non-rightists into being anti-vaxxers?

You dont have to find it plausible that consumer culture, suburban living, and the nuclear family were made palatable by giant National advertising campaigns, it is well-accepted fact among Government and media.

This is an argument from (imagined) authority as well as a circular argument (it's true because it's a fact, and it's a fact because I say the authorities say it is).

I don't think empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports you. And its interesting to make such a grandiose statement, then accuse me of cherry-picking data while having cited one book and been vaguely hand-waving at the existence of meta-data ever since.

Well, I recommended a book that lays out the case and cites a lot of data. Pointing you in the direction of data isn't cherry-picking.

Especially after I took the effort to directly engage with statements made BY the author of that book. Submiliminal Stimulition is an accepted field in scientific research, if it weren't a thing, that wouldn't even be the case.

Here is meta-data from the fMRI field identifying which centers of the brain subliminal stimulation activate from 2012:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811911011529?via%3Dihub

Did you read that? What they conclude is that showing a visual stimulus "subliminally" (defined) probably can cause a neurological response (e.g., a flash of an angry face could slightly cause arousal even if you don't notice it). It's a very weak effect (much less than, say, a frowning person getting in your face). That's why I said it depends how you define "works." Subliminal messaging isn't going to drive your decisions, and to the extent it has any effect at all, it's much weaker than more obvious stimulus.

Data showing it can influence choices even when people are sure they are making free choices:

Masked prime stimuli can bias “free” choices between response alternatives - Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Stimuli presented below the threshold of awareness can systematically influence choice responses determined by the instructed stimulus-response (S-R) mapping (task set). In this study, we investigated whether such stimuli will also bias a free choice between two response alternatives under...

link.springer.com

Again, not a meta analysis. The reason I point that out is that in psychological studies particularly, you can find all sorts of crazy effects in any particular study, and then they don't replicate. There are lots of websites devoted to that. I think a single study is useful for identifying a potential effect to look into, but it's not going to be the last word on anything. And when you have an issue that gets studied a lot, that's particularly a problem. Also an issue in health studies (e.g., you'll find lots of health studies showing that homeopathic medicine works, even though there is no plausible mechanism by which it does, and meta analysis doesn't support it). "Subliminal messaging" is on a level with homeopathic medicine.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack might be the first guy I've ever known to actually make himself dumber through education

"Money doesn't influence politics"
"Mass persuasion doesn't work"

Oh wow really? So these profit seeking corporations that have legal mandates to maximize returns just pour billions and billions of dollars into politics (legalized bribery aka "lobbying") and billions of dollars into advertising, just for the fun of it? Imagine how fucking naive and how dense you would have to be to believe that. Profit seeking multinational corporations spend billions on bribery and advertising for absolutely no tangible benefit. LOL. Yeah ok.

Well, those childish personal attacks and strawmen are really convincing, but not as much as the evidence. Sorry.

 

[brothir]

Except I didn't avoid the compartmentalized argument, it's just going in circles. I made the statement after I had already engaged with it more than once. It's also a rhetorical device to drag discourse into circular contentions that consist of "yes it is, no it isn't." The details have been hashed out, if the opposing person doesnt want to accept them then there is no sense on continuing down that line.

There's no re-working of an opinion, my opinion has remained the same and is based in accepted historical events. Supported by more details after the single phrase you're taking exception to.

I disagree that there's no sense in pursuing discussion of evidence just because the one you're arguing didn't accept it. The first thing to consider is of course that the evidence actually isn't evidence. If someone contends that's the case and you retort "getting into the weeds" then you've closed yourself off from admitting error. That in itself would lead to a repetitive discussion, and it'd be your fault.

 

[brothir]

The biggest discrepancy I've found with the argument that brainwashing is real is why we're even having this conversation. If it was the case, we'd already be in a Nineteen Eighty-Four type situation, unless the people capable of brainwashing are all somehow really nice.