Is it our new toys? Is it because we've grown tolerant of corruption and mendacity from our elected officials? Something else? As I said, it's just very frustrating. We have this system of government that could and should work pretty well if we'd just use it right, but we don't seem to be interested in doing that.
No, it's because during Watergate there were only three TV networks. Modern society is suffering from information overload. They are bombarded, so they retreat to the safety of "ignorance is bliss."
That's kind of what I meant by asking whether it was our new toys, but you made it sound better. Thanks.
Riddle me this: If the 24 hour news cycle is so desperate for stories, why doesn't it pick up stuff like this instead of constantly telling us the intimate details of some celebrity's new adopted kid from Thirdworldistan?
Riddle me this: If the 24 hour news cycle is so desperate for stories, why doesn't it pick up stuff like this instead of constantly telling us the intimate details of some celebrity's new adopted kid from Thirdworldistan?
One involves hard work, digging deep, and pissing off important people. The other involves opening up an Us Weekly.
Riddle me this: If the 24 hour news cycle is so desperate for stories, why doesn't it pick up stuff like this instead of constantly telling us the intimate details of some celebrity's new adopted kid from Thirdworldistan?
One involves hard work, digging deep, and pissing off important people. The other involves opening up an Us Weekly.
One is superficial, so people aren't afraid of it. Guess which one has real-world consequences and makes people angry and afraid.
I think that greater communication may actually have widened the gaps between left and right and made identification and party loyalty much more important than it was when Watergate happened. Back then, it was not unusual for parties to represent your interest one year and cease to the next; both sides were much more fluid on the issues and the middle was, if not larger, at least more likely to vote. As a result, the betrayal of Watergate was a betrayal from "The Government" and "The President" that disgusted people on both sides of the political spectrum. Nowadays, if it happened, the republicans would quickly justify it to themselves because of their party loyalty and the democrats would just sigh wearily and wonder how they get away with this shit. While it was a political issue back then, it wasn't a partisan issue; the right dropped Nixon like a hot potato. Now, the republicans party would prevent his impeachment and manufacture excuses that their base would eat up, and the democrats would be too cowardly to do anything about it.
Wasn't there a big discussion once where some people were defending conservative politicians by saying that it's not a lie if they believe it to be true?
That's actually a potentially very powerful tool for conservatives. Their base is all about believing, after all. It's easy to imagine a conservative pol standing before a crowd and saying, "When I said the state was broke, I believed it to be true. I also believe that we should cut taxes to 0% for Comcast and other large corporations, because I believe that they're being hurt too much by our currently high taxes."
I think that greater communication may actually have widened the gaps between left and right and made identification and party loyalty much more important than it was when Watergate happened. Back then, it was not unusual for parties to represent your interest one year and cease to the next; both sides were much more fluid on the issues and the middle was, if not larger, at least more likely to vote. As a result, the betrayal of Watergate was a betrayal from "The Government" and "The President" that disgusted people on both sides of the political spectrum. Nowadays, if it happened, the republicans would quickly justify it to themselves because of their party loyalty and the democrats would just sigh wearily and wonder how they get away with this shit. While it was a political issue back then, it wasn't a partisan issue; the right dropped Nixon like a hot potato. Now, the republicans party would prevent his impeachment and manufacture excuses that their base would eat up, and the democrats would be too cowardly to do anything about it.
This is too true. I wonder if Pete will let me go to Norway with him . . .
I think that greater communication may actually have widened the gaps between left and right and made identification and party loyalty much more important than it was when Watergate happened.
Greater exposure to new ideas and differing viewpoints = greater tendency to cling tenaciously to one's beliefs, "defending" them against the threat of new ideas?
Fuck.
You're right.
Norway it is. And yes Joe, you're welcome to come along.
Wasn't there a big discussion once where some people were defending conservative politicians by saying that it's not a lie if they believe it to be true?
Greater exposure to new ideas and differing viewpoints = greater tendency to cling tenaciously to one's beliefs, "defending" them against the threat of new ideas?
Fuck.
You're right.
I think the problem is a little more subtle. I'll bet if we were able to study media consumption habits, we'd find that moderates and people will well-formed, intelligent, defensible positions (even if they are ones that we might disagree with at some level) tend to consume news data from neutral aggregators, while partisan types more likely bookmark and read specific news sites.
Right wing idiot: Fox News only. Left wing idiot: Huffington Post only. Intelligent person: Google News and several additional point sources.
While this is true, I don't think that it's because the right wing idiot has never seen the Google News feed. The right wing idiot has probably seen Google News, disagreed violently with the stories, and gone back to what's comfortable. People usually have political views long before they actually give a shit about the news; they pick up their early views from their parents and community. Unless they are smart and awesome, they usually stick with similar views so long as they have the option to avoid being challenged. It takes a smart and awesome person to go out and deliberately challenge their own views with new information and internalize it.
I think the problem is a little more subtle. I'll bet if we were able to study media consumption habits, we'd find that moderates and people will well-formed, intelligent, defensible positions (even if they are ones that we might disagree with at some level) tend to consume news data from neutral aggregators, while partisan types more likely bookmark and read specific news sites.
Right wing idiot: Fox News only. Left wing idiot: Huffington Post only. Intelligent person: Google News and several additional point sources.
I try to go the 3rd route you mentioned as much as possible, though I still hit up CNN out of force of habit (I still take most stuff I read there with a decent sized grain of salt, however).
However, this does remind me of what a friend of mine said during the early days if the Iraq war. He basically stated that if you really want to know what the situation is like there, you watch both Fox News and Al Jazeera and take the average of what they are claiming.
Al Jazeera is not terribly biased, actually, they just have a rather specific geographical and cultural focus. Their international news feeds are considered second only to BBC World for people who really have to know the world situation.
Al Jazeera is not terribly biased, actually, they just have a rather specific geographical and cultural focus. Their international news feeds are considered second only to BBC World for people who really have to know the world situation.
That's true, though Al Jaz does outshine them for live coverage of breaking news lately, such as the riots and Japan situation.
Al Jazeera is not terribly biased, actually, they just have a rather specific geographical and cultural focus. Their international news feeds are considered second only to BBC World for people who really have to know the world situation.
Supposedly their English service isn't as biased as their Arabic service. Granted, they didn't even have an English service back during the initial stages of the Iraq War.
Supposedly their English service isn't as biased as their Arabic service. Granted, they didn't even have an English service back during the initial stages of the Iraq War.
It's true - I linked an example in the "fail of your day thread" a while back - some Lybian rebels found an unexploded parachute illumination flare made to be fired from an 81MM mortar - a french made round, with a Star and parachute symbol on it to notify as such to anyone who doesn't read english or french. They took this to mean the round was made in Israel, and was therefore proof that Israel supported the Gadaffi loyalists - when in fact, it's a pretty standard ammo marking, which about three seconds on google would reveal. Arabic service ran it straightfaced, and the English service never said a word.
Al Jazeera is not terribly biased, actually, they just have a rather specific geographical and cultural focus. Their international news feeds are considered second only to BBC World for people who really have to know the world situation.
Supposedly their English service isn't as biased as their Arabic service. Granted, they didn't even have an English service back during the initial stages of the Iraq War.
I have been watching the English Al Jazzeera service feed on my Roku box lately, and they don't seem overly biased. Just a shame I can't get a CNN live feed on my Roku box. That would just be one more nail in the coffin for cable, for me.
The right wing idiot has probably seen Google News, disagreed violently with the stories, and gone back to what's comfortable.
This isn't just a right-wing thing, but it does seem to be very prevalent in that group. Left-wing idiots are equally likely to cling to what they find comforting.
It's a by-product of being a social animal. We build communities based around common values and ideas. Anything that threatens to undermine those values or ideas could potentially destabilize the community, so the community bands together and rejects the "threat" in order to preserve themselves. This really isn't new. It is, however, profoundly irritating.
I was using the right-wing guy as an example, though I probably picked the right wing guy specifically because of my dislike for conservative thinking. :P
I was using the right-wing guy as an example, though I probably picked the right wing guy specifically because of my dislike for conservative thinking. :P
It's funny how the far right fringe and the far left fringe actually believe many of the same crazy conspiratorial things. They're more similar than either realizes.
Of course, social liberalism in general is a fairly universally positive movement, in that there are few arguments stemming from logic (i.e., not religion, ignorance, prejudice, or begged questions) that can be made against it. The far left fringe is stupid and wrong by and large, but happens to be on the right side in the same way that a stopped analog clock is correct one or twice a day for a brief moment.
It's funny how the far right fringe and the far left fringe actually believe many of the same crazy conspiratorial things. They're more similar than either realizes.
Of course, social liberalism in general is a fairly universally positive movement, in that there are few arguments stemming from logic (i.e., not religion, ignorance, prejudice, or begged questions) that can be made against it. The far left fringe is stupid and wrong by and large, but happens to be on the right side in the same way that a stopped analog clock is correct one or twice a day for a brief moment.
It's the Political horseshoe. the ends are closer then they think
I wish more people realized how a person agreeing with you is not the same thing as that person being right. As a profeminist, one of the biggest issues I see in the modern feminist movement is this tendancy for feminist groups to ally themselves with crazy people because they happen to wear the feminist or profeminist label. Then these intelligent, rational feminists wonder why people don't get where they are coming from, failing to notice it's because they proudly associate with seperation feminists or wierd hippies. When you think about it, that's basically how the modern republican party runs, with alliances of convencience between groups of people who have wildly different viewpoints but stick with each other just because they are "right wing".
The only people I can't stand are those who refuse to debate. ScoJo had an acquaintance at some party I attended where, before she arrived, everyone was adamant that no politics be discussed. She had pathetically indefensible conservative beliefs, and would become angry if they were challenged in any form. As a result, we had to avoid just about everything we would otherwise have discussed.
Anyone who will state an opinion or perceived fact and become angry if it is challenged is unbearable company.
Why even invite someone to the party if everyone else has to be on eggshells for them?
My point exactly.
I would invite such a person anyway, but no eggshells would be available. In the same manner, if person A is angry at person B, and doesn't want to see them, this will in no way affect my invitation of both persons to a party.
I would invite such a person anyway, but no eggshells would be available. In the same manner, if person A is angry at person B, and doesn't want to see them, this will in no way affect my invitation of both persons to a party.
I would note, that I would place Atheism books all over the place when she comes over. I never said you shouldn't bring up politics only that there was no point in having the discussion if you wanted to have fun doing other things :-p
I would note, that I would place Atheism books all over the place when she comes over. I never said you shouldn't bring up politics only that there was no point in having the discussion if you wanted to have fun doing other things :-p
I would note, that I would place Atheism books all over the place when she comes over. I never said you shouldn't bring up politics only that there was no point in having the discussion if you wanted to have fun doing other things :-p
We've been down this road many times with Scott. He sees redeeming qualities in everyone, to a fault.
Well, at least, to the annoyance of the rest of us. :P
I still hang out with you guys don't I?
To quote Rym:
Right wing idiot: Fox News only. Left wing idiot: Huffington Post only. Intelligent person: Google News and several additional point sources. (I do the same thing with friends)
So I hang out with people who occasionally disagree with me, in the case of the person mentioned, she is pretty ignorant, she will talk with me but if you aggressively gang pile on her, she'll shut down (as will most people). Plus people can be extremely nice people and still be wrong.
(plus she was a coworker and a friend of my ex at the time, so it's not like I hang out with her regularly..)
Comments
Riddle me this: If the 24 hour news cycle is so desperate for stories, why doesn't it pick up stuff like this instead of constantly telling us the intimate details of some celebrity's new adopted kid from Thirdworldistan?
That's actually a potentially very powerful tool for conservatives. Their base is all about believing, after all. It's easy to imagine a conservative pol standing before a crowd and saying, "When I said the state was broke, I believed it to be true. I also believe that we should cut taxes to 0% for Comcast and other large corporations, because I believe that they're being hurt too much by our currently high taxes." This is too true. I wonder if Pete will let me go to Norway with him . . .
Fuck.
You're right.
Norway it is. And yes Joe, you're welcome to come along.
Right wing idiot: Fox News only.
Left wing idiot: Huffington Post only.
Intelligent person: Google News and several additional point sources.
However, this does remind me of what a friend of mine said during the early days if the Iraq war. He basically stated that if you really want to know what the situation is like there, you watch both Fox News and Al Jazeera and take the average of what they are claiming.
It's a by-product of being a social animal. We build communities based around common values and ideas. Anything that threatens to undermine those values or ideas could potentially destabilize the community, so the community bands together and rejects the "threat" in order to preserve themselves. This really isn't new. It is, however, profoundly irritating.
Of course, social liberalism in general is a fairly universally positive movement, in that there are few arguments stemming from logic (i.e., not religion, ignorance, prejudice, or begged questions) that can be made against it. The far left fringe is stupid and wrong by and large, but happens to be on the right side in the same way that a stopped analog clock is correct one or twice a day for a brief moment.
Anyone who will state an opinion or perceived fact and become angry if it is challenged is unbearable company.
I would invite such a person anyway, but no eggshells would be available. In the same manner, if person A is angry at person B, and doesn't want to see them, this will in no way affect my invitation of both persons to a party.
Well, at least, to the annoyance of the rest of us. :P
To quote Rym:
Right wing idiot: Fox News only.
Left wing idiot: Huffington Post only.
Intelligent person: Google News and several additional point sources. (I do the same thing with friends)
So I hang out with people who occasionally disagree with me, in the case of the person mentioned, she is pretty ignorant, she will talk with me but if you aggressively gang pile on her, she'll shut down (as will most people). Plus people can be extremely nice people and still be wrong.
(plus she was a coworker and a friend of my ex at the time, so it's not like I hang out with her regularly..)