Silicon Valley 'Divided Society and Made Everyone Raging Mad', Argues Newsweek (newsweek.com) 320
"Anyone who is pissed off can now automatically find other people that are similarly pissed off," argues author Jamie Bartlett, in a new essay shared by Slashdot reader schwit1 which calls the internet "a bottomless well of available grievance." Here's an excerpt from Newsweek:
Silicon Valley's utopians genuinely but mistakenly believe that more information and connection makes us more analytical and informed. But when faced with quinzigabytes of data, the human tendency is to simplify things. Information overload forces us to rely on simple algorithms to make sense of the overwhelming noise. This is why, just like the advertising industry that increasingly drives it, the internet is fundamentally an emotional medium that plays to our base instinct to reduce problems and take sides, whether like or don't like, my guy/not my guy, or simply good versus evil. It is no longer enough to disagree with someone, they must also be evil or stupid...
Nothing holds a tribe together like a dangerous enemy. That is the essence of identity politics gone bad: a universe of unbridgeable opinion between opposing tribes, whose differences are always highlighted, exaggerated, retweeted and shared. In the end, this leads us to ever more distinct and fragmented identities, all of us armed with solid data, righteous anger, a gutful of anger and a digital network of likeminded people. This is not total connectivity; it is total division.
Nothing holds a tribe together like a dangerous enemy. That is the essence of identity politics gone bad: a universe of unbridgeable opinion between opposing tribes, whose differences are always highlighted, exaggerated, retweeted and shared. In the end, this leads us to ever more distinct and fragmented identities, all of us armed with solid data, righteous anger, a gutful of anger and a digital network of likeminded people. This is not total connectivity; it is total division.
Meh... (Score:4, Funny)
> It is no longer enough to disagree with someone, they must also be evil or stupid...
You'd think at least *some* people would be smart enough not to jump to such conclusions. There's gotta be some middle ground somewhere. So, I disagree and this is stupid.
Oh, wait...
The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I thought that was an incredibly insightful paragraph from that book. It's said that civil wars are the bloodiest because the people are very similar and speak the same language.
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/ey0wvGiAH9g?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
I blow my nose at you!
Now go away or I shall taunt you for a second time!
Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is because different civilizations tend to see each other as barbaric or less than human, and find it more acceptable to massacre entire cities of their opponents to make room for their own. On the other hand, in a civil war, you are only fighting for the control of the nation. Once you obtain that control, you'd want everyone to stop fighting and start working for you. Killing more people at that point would be meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
I stand corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't hold true generally though. You can see it on a micro level by the way some people make generalizations about whole groups of people, until they actually meet some of those people and communicate with them, at which point they start to see them as human beings similar to themselves.
At a macro level, Europe deciding to use English and a common language was one of the key tools that helped build the EU and bring an unprecedented period of peace and integration.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's hoping. [engadget.com]
still that guys fault? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It’s the news media's fault.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, the alt-left has many of the same techniques and the same goal: power over others.
As Mr. Adams so eloquently states, "People are a problem".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: still that guys fault? (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, because it was Trump supporters who called Trump "literally Hitler" and have been in an Olympics with themselves to fabricate more and more outrageous statements ever since.
Re: still that guys fault? (Score:2, Informative)
Hitler was to the left. Ghandi, Kennedy, and Mandela were also nationalists. Using the term nationalist does not make someone similar to Hitler.
Re: still that guys fault? (Score:2, Interesting)
I can find at least 13 quotes of Trump condemning white supremacists and white nationalism EXPLICITLY.
There is not a single quote or action of his supporting anything you said. The only "evidence" is literally 4 word phrases cut out of complete sentences to strip them of all context. I dare you to provide a single statement, not paraphrased, that even remotely supports your idiotic claim.
Re: still that guys fault? (Score:2, Insightful)
The same happened to Damore. His memo was stripped of all references, and an emphasis was placed on the word "neurosis", completely taken out of its psychological context, and made to seem like he is just calling girls "neuroric". That's despicable.
I am not worried about the alt-right. They have little power over the common folks. But a "prigressive left" that is in total control of the media and without any oversight of their responsibilities... that's alarming.
It's never good enough with identity politics. (Score:3, Insightful)
What wasn't wrong yesterday is totally bigot, racist and sexist today. We live in the most sexist society ever.
But if you look at the numbers, the real ones only thing that's happening is that over the past 30 years equality has become better.
Re: (Score:3)
But if you look at the numbers, the real ones only thing that's happening is that over the past 30 years equality has become better.
The actresses making allegations against Harvey Weinstein actually concur. The interviews I've heard have them saying basically, "look, this is kindof how it's always been. Harvey was more bold than most, but sexism is the dirty secret no one liked bringing up in public."
Re: (Score:2)
And that is how it has always been and always will be: Men with a lot of power think they can get away with it, and women that want something from these men also think these men can get away with it. As neither will change, the problem will persist. That one or the other of these men will at some time lose most of his power and then the accusations will come flying is part of the ritual and generates a nice, temporary scandal that will change exactly nothing.
This is not a problem that can be fixed. It is on
Re: (Score:2)
Naa, we have yet to see the first woman as the perpetrator in a scandal like this. Doubtlessly, it will happen eventually, as this is not about sex but power. (If it were about sex, they could just buy time from hookers. Even though most hookers will not actually tolerate such behavior...) But it has not happened yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Men use their power to get sex. Women use sex to get power.
Just as many or more women used Weinstein's cravings to advance their career as Weinstein victimized because he could. A small number of people claiming Weinstein victimized them were part of the previous group and are now using the culture of victimhood to acquire even more career advancement.
This sexist idea that women aren't predatory, or that they are in the same way as men are but less often, needs to be left in the past.
It's the economy stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's the economy stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
It's just about degree. The costs of Globalism are largely born by the blue collar workers. Outsourcing IT is nothing compared to just moving multiple industries at the same time.
They just need to adjust an exchange rate (or three) a few tens of points for the next decade.
The real problem with 'managed anger' (kept just below boil), is that all governments do it, many with multiple groups. Eventually all the governments can't manage all the groups and ugly shit happens.
Right now, the good path is all about China. But anyplace could be the trigger for the bad path. The post WWII baby boom is still a financial demographic bomb for 'the west'.
Re:It's the economy stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that neither party is remotely ready for the impact of the baby boom fully retiring. A huge day of reckoning is looming when the baby boom asks for their Social Security and Medicare and then discover that the cupboard is bare and those IOU's at the Fed are worthless because the money has been spent. I have no clue how this will get resolved, but it is not going to be pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
I know how it will be resolved. Print even more money. The first step is easy to see.
The question? What do people do when _all_ the major currencies are being printed like mad? I think 'land', but I always think 'land'. Some people always think 'gold', 'guns', 'single malt', which aren't bad ideas, if you've got land to keep them on.
The English Pound is the canary. Worst in class. They are a good decade ahead of the pack.
Re: (Score:2)
Printing money will have two effects, first, it will make the nation (and everyone else's) debt disappear. Making the debt disappear removes the interest burden from the budget freeing up money for SS/Medicare. But the second effect is a major problem, it will also make the assets of the elderly disappear which might lead to an even worse outcome. At least without high inflation, they will still have those assets to pay for things the government drops the ball on.
The only solution that makes everyone happy
Re: (Score:2)
This batch of 'elderly' aren't the same as the last. No bank CDs. Keep their assets illiquid and in a trust, just to game the tax system, Medicaid and inheritance. Last move of the baby boom. Mark my words, they will suck the government tit, till the end. Eventually they won't have enough votes to get what they want, but by then there will only be a few left.
The problem is almost universal. The baby boom was far and wide, almost no nations actually saved money for their retirement.
We don't have 20 year
Re: (Score:2)
It is political suicide to mess with the baby boom voting block. There are a lot of them and that group will turn out 90% if their benefits are going to be cut. Also, backlash like that is justified. I have been paying into SS/Medicare my entire life. I expect something back for those years of payments. If I don't get it I will certainly express my displeasure at the voting booth.
Growth can really be juiced by changing immigration policies to favor younger, educated, wealthy people, but that is apparently p
Re: (Score:2)
Look forward to inflation shrunk benes, but be glad your not getting nothing. Like later generations will.
There simply aren't lines of relatively rich, educated, professional people waiting to immigrate anymore. Which isn't to say just open the doors wide.
Our best be is some other currency going bad first. That might buy us the time we need.
Re: (Score:2)
Peak year of baby boomer power will be 2029.
Which baby boom are you talking about? Most baby-boomers are around 65-70 right now. They will be dead by 2029.
Re: (Score:2)
Most baby-boomers are around 65-70 right now. They will be dead by 2029.
That will only make them 77-82 which is hardly out of line for still being alive.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect it to be much earlier. I am a boomer, from the UK, so it might be different where you are, but ...
The majority of the people my age that I have stayed in contact with for over 20 years have died, despite the fact that we have the NHS (poor lifestyle choices but mostly not really bad - cancer the biggest killer for those that survived the rock and roll era).
Our "Social Security" system was a Ponzi scheme from day one, and was started by our grandparen
Re: (Score:2)
Governments don't "print more money". They borrow more money from the international bankers and add it to the national debt. Then taxes have to be raised to pay the interest on this debt. Plus the world economy has grown around the servicing of this debt through issued bonds, so even if the USA had the ability to pay off the national debt, it would nuke all those third world countries lending money to the USA.
Re:It's the economy stupid (Score:5, Informative)
That's a massive amount of wrong condensed into a single paragraph.
1. Social Security and Medicare are paid out of two different funding sources.
2. Medicare has no expected shortage despite the Baby Boomers retiring. The taxes paid by GenX and Millennials will cover it, just like GenX and Boomer taxes paid for Silent/WWII-generation's Medicare.
3. The Social Security Trust Fund is supposed to go bankrupt.
It was created in 1983 in anticipation of the Boomers retiring. In the original design, Social Security benefits are paid out of the taxes collected today. That works as long as each generation is larger than the previous. When GenX turned out much smaller than the Boomers, there was a problem. Enter the trust fund. Boomers, GenX and now Millennials have been paying higher taxes over the last 34 years to build up a trust fund to cover the Boomers. And only the Boomers.
After the Boomers, we go back to each generation being larger than the last. So we can go back to the ~2 younger generations funding the one older generation. (Technically, this will depend on how many kids the Millennials end up having. So far, so good on that front.). Under current projections, the Trust Fund will last until virtually all the Boomers have died of old age.
4. There will not come a day where we suddenly have to pay the Social Security Trust Fund back, because we've already been paying the Trust Fund back. The Social Security Trust fund can only invest in US Bonds. Those bonds have a maturity date where the money has to be paid back. And that maturity date has already passed for some of the bonds. (The principal and interest were used to buy more bonds initially, at the moment some of the interest is being paid as benefits. Just as planned)
So no, there will not be a sudden need for more money. There has been and will continue to be a gradual reduction in how many bonds the trust fund can buy. That could theoretically increase the deficit, but if you give a damn about that then fix it via the general fund instead of a Rube Goldberg design involving Social Security.
6. If you really want the trust fund to continue to exist, the fix is incredibly easy - raise the cap on FICA taxes. Back when Social Security started, about 95% of income was subject to FICA taxes. Thanks to the growth of income inequality, only 70-someodd percent of income is subject to FICA taxes. The difference is caused by the wealthy making more money.
In 2017, the cap is $127,200. $127,201 and up are not subject to Social Security taxes. So raise that cap to ~$200-250k and the trust fund lasts forever...not that it would actually be needed.
7. Remember point 1 about Medicare and Social Security having different funding streams? Medicare taxes don't have the cap mentioned in 6. That's why it doesn't have a near-term funding problem.
8. Attempting to balance the budget 30 years from now is an incredibly stupid exercise. We can't predict the economy 10 years from now with reasonable accuracy. You think we can nail 30 years?
In summary, any pundit or politician giving dire warnings about insolvency and sudden repayment are lying to you in an attempt to convince you to support cuts.
Re: (Score:2)
The assumptions built into these systems require that the economy grows at a steady rate.
We can grow the economy through labor pool growth, or through increasing labor productivity. Population growth is not the same thing as either of these things. Natural population growth is also not actually happening, we have sub-replacement birth rates in the US (this happens often). Our population growth is driven since the boomers mainly by immigration, which makes maintaining or growing our labor productivity very
Re: (Score:2)
Natural population growth is also not actually happening, we have sub-replacement birth rates in the US (this happens often)
Nope. The US is one of the few western nations that is above replacement rate.
Replacement rate is about 2.1 children per woman. The US is at about 2.3.
GenX is much smaller than Millennials, and so far Millennials are producing a generation larger than themselves. Assuming this trend continues, we're good for the roughly 3 generations we can count after the Boomers. Obviously the children of Millennials could produce a small generation, but that is not something we can know for about 20 years.
As a result
Re:It's the economy stupid (Score:5, Informative)
The taxpayers paid into Social Security. The money paid was treated like general revenue and spent.
False
In its place there is an IOU from the treasury called a US Bond.
False
How does the treasury repay these bonds in the future?
Same way we've been repaying the bonds for the last 30 years. Again, there will not be some sort of sudden payment coming due.
The scheme keeps working until China stops buying treasuries.
False.
First, China stopped buying significant amounts of US bonds in 2006. They were trying to use these transfers to keep the Yuan low versus the Dollar, but you can only make a river flow upstream for so long. They currently use other, more direct methods. So if China not buying bonds was supposed to be a disaster, we'd have started that disaster a long time ago.
Second, countries are not the only entities that can buy government bonds. In fact, about 80% of US federal debt is owned by Americans and American corporations. And considering inflation-protected bonds are selling at close to 0% interest, we're not in danger of that drying up overnight.
Re: (Score:3)
But you got one important point wrong - the money collected WAS spent when collected. There's no giant piggy bank holding all those people's money collected as FICA over the years. Just IOUs from Uncle Sam.
This is utterly and completely false. It can not possibly be more wrong without invoking the Earth being flat or anti-vaxx theology.
The Social Security Trust fund is a giant piggy bank. Like all sensible savings plans, it invests the money. The money was invested in US government bonds. Those bonds are not "IOUs". They are savings instruments just like bonds issued by companies or states or cities or banks. They have a maturity date, at which time the government has to pay the money back, along with i
The cupboard isn't bare (Score:2)
Let me ask you this: If America is supposed to be the greatest country in history why the hell can't we take care of our old? A: We don't want to. And by 'we' I mean our ruling elites, who have been pitting us against each other for thousands of years.
Re: (Score:3)
This makes me think of the movie "Hypernormalization" which is based on a faulty premise but which brings up the concept of "managed outcomes": Basically society falling apart and unmanageable but they just do minimal things to keep things from getting too extreme.
Hence more and more criminals are being released on the streets. People are increasingly victimized by crimes committed by people who should never have been out of prison, and this is considered an acceptable consequence to the powers that be. M
Re:It's the economy stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The other big problem is that the internet is entirely impersonal. If you put 99% of people who get pissed off at each other on the internet together in the real world, they'd be a lot more civil. It's pretty easy to forget that there's another human being at the other end of the online conversation when you're just starting at a screen. When there's a real person there, you start to pick up on all manner of body language cues that just don't exist online and can't just mentally write them off as Satan.
Re:It's the economy stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, you can't physically assault me online. That's why people say whatever they want whenever they want. In real life, you start spouting enough stupid shit at enough people and eventually someone is going to punch you in the face.
Most of us just walk away, but eventually someone won't.
Re:It's the economy stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... now, why would American society be divided?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
For those who can't afford health care though working two jobs, the only way to keep them docile is to turn them against imaginary bogey men. This works, because they don't have an inkling as to how obscenely wealthy [theguardian.com] the 0.01% are.
Re: (Score:2)
The "elites" aren't one group though.
Take Brexit, some really want it and think their wealth will be increased by it. Maybe the European market is too saturated for them and they want trade deals with other countries, maybe they want wages to be forced down further than austerity managed, maybe they are just idiots.
Others are shitting themselves about the potential consequences, already moving parts of their business to the continent, desperately trying to get the government to steer us away from the cliff
Re: (Score:2)
Nyet, tovarishch.
Re: (Score:2)
You call earning over $50K per year "the working class"?
He said the opposite, he was calling them out as not the working class.
But of course it depends on where you live. In a rural area where cost of living is low, $50k/yr lets you live really comfortably.
In a city where the cost of living is high, especially housing, that $50k doesn't go very far.
Re: (Score:2)
It was stupid to nominate a candidate even worse than Trump, but they did.
You sure got that backwards (Score:2)
There are plenty of people with money too stupid to figure out what Trump is and can't see that he literally is a sociopath
Here's something that will blow your mind - what if EVERY SINGLE TRUMP VOTER understood exactly that, and the intent was simply to send a sociopath into DC that all of the professional politicians would have to deal with.
Trump's victory has been a raging success from that standpoint, even including your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, then you are simply wrong instead of educated.
Alvin Toffler/John Brunner (Score:3)
The future shock/shockwave rider effect writ large.
I love how this effect was predicted in the late 60's
ARPANet? (Score:2)
(D)ARPA developed the Internet without the help of Silicon Valley, which didn't exist (was named, for the pedantic) then.
So, it's really a plot of the Military-Industrial Complex, who bought off universities to do the actual work!
The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitwit. (Score:5, Interesting)
However it rewards them if they try.
Specifically social media, which is a massively distributed operant conditioning [wikipedia.org] machine which rewards people to conformity. Conformity to what? Here's the novel wrinkle: anything. The owners of social media don't really care where the bandwagon you jump on is going, as long as a lot of people jump on; people whom they will be able to sell.
It's not access to information. It's the intrusion of information designed to trigger montetizable responses that's the problem.
Re:The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitwi (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting operant conditioning basiclly describes perfectly shows like John Oliver.
It goes like this:
fact
fact
fact, with a sincere face
lie
joke
loud pun or shout something
serious face
EXAMPLE:
polar bears are cute
polar bears are important
here's a picture of a polar bear
republicans want to kill all polar bears
TIMOTHY STOP TRYING TO FUCK THE POLAR BEAR!
But seriously, here's a picture of a dead baby seal
This is how we consume 'news'. These shows have embraced the quick bites of youtube and twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how we consume 'news'. These shows have embraced the quick bites of youtube and twitter.
This is really only a problem if that type of show is our primary (or worse, only) source to your news. It's why I got pretty worried when people told me they really only watch the Daily Show or thought it was a great news show with jokes. It wasn't supposed to be, it publicly claimed that's not what it was, but people used it that way anyway. Any infotainment / opinion show has similar problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Seinfeld (Score:2)
The internet is a bottomless well of available grievance.
SERENITY NOW! [wikipedia.org]
It's not Silicon Valley, it's the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Behold, the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com].
We've got you covered (Score:2)
Fight, flight, or fornicate: 4chan, Travelocity & match.com.
We thought we were building a WWW, but we ended up with an FFF.
Quinzigabytes ?!? (Score:2)
Twitter is for lazy reporters (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter is the ultimate source for lazy reporters. Need an opinion? Find it on twitter. They can find anyone saying anything and use them as a source.
Twitter should be banned from reportage, period.
Guess who feels threatened? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anyone who is pissed off can now automatically find other people that are similarly pissed off," argues author Jamie Bartlett, in a new essay...
This used to be the prerogative of essayists in newsmagazines. Now they feel marginalized by public access to rich sources of information and online pulpits far bullier than any fora they had available to them in the days when freedom of the press was only available to those who owned presses.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically the main annoyance they have, is they no longer get to control what (or who) people are pissed of *at*.
And likewise . . . (Score:2)
People who are pissed on . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Smart idealistic types (Score:2)
"identity politics gone bad" (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it inherently *is* bad. It's inhuman, as it distills individual human identities into one monolithic gestalt where individuals are told who they must be and what they must do; and if they're not, then they're ostracized as "evil" and/or "stupid," who don't know and can't believe in what they're saying. "Identity" politics erases all identity in the service of low politics.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it inherently *is* bad. It's inhuman, as it distills individual human identities into one monolithic gestalt where individuals are told who they must be and what they must do; and if they're not, then they're ostracized as "evil" and/or "stupid," who don't know and can't believe in what they're saying. "Identity" politics erases all identity in the service of low politics.
So, you're saying "identity politics" is the politically correct term for "religion"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh come on, it's a comedy (Score:3)
Silicon Valley's sense of humor is not for everyone, but come on, Newsweek, this is taking it a little too far.
I mean, I'm not so sure either about the next season given that it will be the first one without T.J. Miller, but I'm willing to give it a shot.
No. It just made the problem more obvious. (Score:2)
In particular, social media made it much more obvious, how stupid, uneducated, anti-fact, anti-rational, self-absorbed, vivious and generally failures at existing many people are by giving them a low-effort way to spread their perverted views. But leave it to a journalist to blame the messenger. Incidentally, blaming the messenger is one of the most stupid acts known.
That's HIS opinion. I disagree (Score:2)
Better communication leads to better understanding. The original tower of Babel story, is that mankind was punished by being divided by many languages.
True a dangerous enemy can unite a tribe, but it is much easier to paint an unknown group as dangerous than one that you can communicate with.
Witness the story of the first world war where the Allied and German rank and file started exchanging Christmas gifts and singing carols. This so scared the officers (on both sides?) that they deliberately broke the tru
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see that happening. We are on the Internet, not in forced misery in the trenches.
When face physical danger together, we are bound by our humanity to choose survival. Military discipline exists to overcome this, reinforcing your tribal loyalties and antagonism against the enemy.
Being detached from physical contact on the Internet, we can let our darkest thoughts take over and run rampant.
Newsweek is FAKE NEWS (Score:2)
(and if you don't agree with me, you are evil and an idiot)
It isn't just internet media (Score:2)
Traditional media has been taking a side more and more as well.
Partisan organizations shouldn't be able to masquerade as impartial news organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example when you look through online communities you see steaming rage about SJW, MRA, alt-right, communists, BLM, LGBTx, feminism, veganism, religious extremism as in Jihadists, Christians evangelists, militant atheists and what not. And all of these are portrayed to b
Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
not or.
How is the summary incorrect? Our divisions are growing wider and it is easier to find like minded people.
I seriously think that if impeachment starts Trump will go nuclear, possibly with nuclear weapons to distract or such, but more likely by ramping up the us vs them stuff to infinity and beyond until there is blood in the streets. He used the divisions and furthered them for his own end, but the divisions were there. Make America Great Again is just a polite way to blame everyone that isn't like them. It is at its heart exploiting deep seated racism and hate for political power.
I very much fear that this is going to all end badly. The expression fiddling while Rome burned is apt and seems to apply here. Winning at all costs is not winning at all.
Leaders must have a moral center, else our society suffers. They must have a sense of decency. I knew Donald Trump was the lowest form of life I've ever seen as a presidential candidate when he approved shoving Bill Clinton's mistresses in Hillary's face. Hillary is not Bill. That was beyond despicable.
The fact that so many people in America think that kind is okay if they just get their guy is well, truly sad.
What has happened to us? Wearing a flag pin does not make you patriotic. Preaching of your religion does not make you moral. The ends does not and never will make the means morally right.
You can't build a country on a stack of sinful decisions and expect good to flourish. I had thought we were better than this, but I'm less sure these days.
Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Congratulations on demonstrating the article's main thesis. You are part of the problem.
I'll also be part of the problem now when I call you out for being a fucking moron.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Congratulations on demonstrating the article's main thesis. You are part of the problem.
I'll also be part of the problem now when I call you out for being a fucking moron.
This is just lovely. I suppose your theory is that people that don't support your side are the problem, which would make you correct in that you are part of the problem, but also misses the main point.
The divisions exist, of that there is no doubt, and unless we call out and condemn those who make them worse, there is also no hope of fixing them, though I will give you credit for doing your best to make them worse. Top form there.
A democratic and republican ex president both gave similar speeches last wee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just lovely. I suppose your theory is that people that don't support your side are the problem, which would make you correct in that you are part of the problem, but also misses the main point.
The "Trump will go nuclear!" thing is hyperbole; it means you've fallen for the demonization. 'Our side' always tells us the people on the 'other side' are absolutely the worst, that there's nothing that they wouldn't do if we let them. We convince ourselves about it -- I heard it about Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump. It's always, always the most important election in our lifetime, always the time to vote for the leader of the primary opposition party, never for anyone else because, dammit, this is to
Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not the OP, but I too think Trump would nuke NK as a distraction. I read his book the art if the deal and that is exactly the kind of thing you would expect from the person who authorized that ghost written biopic.
Re: (Score:3)
Do I understand your argument correctly? "This great division began during the last administration," because BLM? You really think that's what the great division is? What about: Roe v. Wade, the War on Drugs, the Red Scare, intelligent design, bra burning, flag burning, AIDS, assault weapons, lynchings, Prohibition, internment camps, slavery, etc. ad nauseam? America always has strife and divisions. These divisions are stoked by those seeking power.
Of course, they don't hide it or even pretend anymore. "The
Re: (Score:2)
The "Trump will go nuclear!" thing is hyperbole; it means you've fallen for the demonization
Trump does not even have the authority to initiate a nuclear attack. It would require careful consideration by a team of designated strategists. This was also the case all the way back to Truman.
Re: (Score:3)
Would've modded you up if you'd given a citation. The President has the Football and AFAIK can use it at any time for any reason.
Re: (Score:2)
The President canâ(TM)t order nuclear war âoeat any time for any reasonâ.
I guess he can't declare war, but he can order a nuclear strike. I'd imagine that if he nuked somebody, the chances of that leading to war are pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always, always the most important election in our lifetime
Well of course it is. The basis of that is: Previous candidate was mediocre, didn't cause a nuclear winter, however we don't know what the next candidate will do. That's why this is the most important election.
Remember Clinton is a war monomerer, or so I was told prior to the election.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm old enough to remember, very well, the politics of the impeachment of President Nixon. The man was more competent, politically, than President Trump. But he was _lethally_ dangerous to thousands in southeast Asia with illegal attacks against Cambodia, and corrupt in abuse of Vietnam protesters, both of those grounds for impeachment before the discover of illegal taping in the White House and abuse of political opponents exposed at the Watergate Hotel.
The point learned there is that impeachment of a dang
Re: (Score:3)
You've mentioned some of the reasons I did not call it a _successful_ impeachment. The case did involve the _politics_ of impeachment. Part of the point I was trying to make is that he killed thousands but was charged on relatively trivial grounds, grounds that offended the sensibilities of Congress and were exposed to the voting American public. I considered his illegal attacks on Cambodia to be far worse offenses because of the deaths of thousands. But as your point about Cambodia attacks outlines, there
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sexual harassment is horrible and inexcusable. But it's not rape.
Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is people are diving in to ideological bubbles and hear nothing but the echo chamber. The fact that you chose the words "honest" and "ethical" shows your bias. You're so buried in a world of group think you believe that anyone that thinks differently is automatically dishonest and lacks ethics. The entire point of this article is that we as a society need to intermingle. Hear differing points of view. Have honest debate (that means actually listening). People on the right are very much as guilty as well of searching for those they agree with.
We're stronger as a people when we have mutual respect and work together. All we're doing by being smug and thinking we're smarter, more ethical and have all the answers is tearing ourselves apart.
This article is an interesting read on perspective. I can't vouch for how authentic it is though. I didn't bother researching the author. http://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that identify politics exists is basically like saying that water is wet.
Back in the 70's, they used to run public ad campaigns with Saturday morning cartoons.Wagon Wheel, I'm only a Bill [youtube.com], conjunction junction, what's your function. One of the ads that I remember stressed that people were not labels. Brown, black, tall, short, handicapped, four eyes, etc. Today, everyone wants to be a label,
Newsweek made "Alt-media" credible (Score:2)
Yes, seriously. If they had chosen to report the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky story then Matt Drudge would never have gotten his big break. http://www.drudgereportarchive... [drudgereportarchives.com]
> At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a
> story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White
> House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!
There are a lot of wacko conspiracy theories out there. Unfortunately, the Lewinsky/
Re: (Score:3)
And the internet is no different: It accelerates and amplifies. People who couldn't find information in a library can't find information on the internet. People who believe biased newspaper articles believe biased blog entries. To people who use and value information, the internet is a great resource. Some of the stress that the internet causes is just seeing the stupid that would normally be filtered out by more restrictive media.
Great summary of the issue.
But it also enables great talents that we'd never know without it: Organized media brought us Payola [wikipedia.org] and heavy rotation [wikipedia.org].
Yep, follow the stupid, er, follow the money!
"There's a sucker born every minute", and they have a spare buck that they're willing to toss on the stage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someday, hopefully we can accept that we, as humans, are just a thin layer on top of millions of years of evolution. Once we recogn
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the problem is serious, look at all the unsuitable people in high political and economic positions that got there by basically the same process, even if often more refined in appearance. The ones in social media are just a side-show from those that are bitter because they did not make it. The effect is well known though, and it is a kind of mental defect. It is called "Negative Attention-Seeking Behavior". It is made worse because there is another mental defect (IMO) where people actually admire the o
Re: (Score:2)
The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content," that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
I think "Follow the monkey" is currently more popular in the USA.