the problem is physiological...or Why People Deny Facts

[Biff Tannen 45741]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Do we share a reality? Should we?

Without reading the rest of your post, yes. Yes we should. If not, then society ceases to exist. As we are now seeing. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

43 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Journalism went off the skids when reporters quit wearing fedoras and stopped keeping a bottle of rotgut in the bottom drawer.

You're all nodding "yes" because you know it's true.

You joke, I think, but you have a point. When Journalism stopped being a labor of love and a craft of passion, one which appealed to a certain personality driven by certain standards and ideals, and became corporations to make profits and, you lost the essence of what Journalism and the mission was professed to be.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Without reading the rest of your post, yes. Yes we should. If not, then society ceases to exist. As we are now seeing. 

You make a point that I was trying to (and failed) in three paragraphs, in two sentences. I'll sign up for your writer workshop.

[Biff Tannen 45741]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Who's reality? Yours or mine? Do we share a reality? Should we?

I guess what I'm getting at is that if we believe perception is reality, then we will necessarily be at odds with those who don't perceive-- believe, think, or have the same faiths in the same things-- as we do. 

I think that is what we are seeing with the progress made in equality. For years the shared reality was seen solely through the prism of white males. They/We set the strategy and vision and cascaded it down to the rest of society. The rest of society (a myriad of different personas, races, ethnicities, self-identifications, etc.) has pushed back and said, "hey, we have a different reality than you people and we should be able to live it out as true to ourselves as we can" or whatever. 

Now multiply that individualism or factionalism times 40 million and you have America today. What was once a patriarchal white male mirror is now millions upon millions individual shards of glass.

To tie this back to the OP and original discussion, what was once a single source of truth (Journalism) is now seen as a sham because everyone has a) a unique perspective b) desires/goals/agendas c) the ability with the advent of technology to broadcast and consume media that is custom or tailored for their consumption.

I'll say it louder for those in the back: with accessible 5G technology on the horizon, the lightning speed that is the advancement of technology is only going to exacerabte the American problem. America will further entrench as a land where a group of dozens of factions merely and begrudgingly share a geography, without any shared ethic, beliefs, goals, agendas. The manifest of true democratization of media and technology (succulent Chinese dinner reference for those paying attention at home) has come at the expense of an abstraction that, while imperfect for a lot of people, held together the idea of the United States of America.

I think technology will eventually prove that the United States of America was always doomed to fail once BIPOC gained agency on the level of their suppressors, the white European male. But isn't that okay? Nothing was built to last forever. If we take an emotional step backwards and try and be objective, what's wrong with America being a great tool and needed for what it was but having outlived her utility? 

Ok, now having read the rest of your post, it’s actually kind of interesting. Very cynical and sad and horrifying, but possibly correct. Goes along with the “america from ww2 til now has been an anomaly in human history” theory. We all gonna die. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Without reading the rest of your post, yes. Yes we should. If not, then society ceases to exist. As we are now seeing. 

he goes on to touch on that in his post, which i think has merit.

this experiment seems doomed to fail, IMO

[DonkeyCigars 143]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ok, now having read the rest of your post, it’s actually kind of interesting. Very cynical and sad and horrifying, but possibly correct. Goes along with the “america from ww2 til now has been an anomaly in human history” theory. We all gonna die. 

I think a lot of us will live. Just depends on how the battle lines are drawn, who gets the good warfare tech and generals and who does civil war better. I have no idea what that will look like, or when, or ever. While these things have historically ended in blood, there is no doubt we are in a new historical paradigm (again, thanks to technology/internet) without precedence. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Biff Tannen 45741]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think a lot of us will live. Just depends on how the battle lines are drawn, who gets the good warfare tech and generals and who does civil war better. I have no idea what that will look like, or when, or ever. While these things have historically ended in blood, there is no doubt we are in a new historical paradigm (again, thanks to technology/internet) without precedence. 

I have actually been thinking a lot lately about a civil war or whatever the  next true violent test of our democracy is going to be. I think it’s hard for people currently alive to conceive of such a thing, especially since we’ve had such a period of prosperity as Americans, so it seems to be a wild concept. But really in a historical sense, we are fairly overdue. It’s difficult to reconcile what seems to be ramping up though, since we are still in the throes of that prosperity. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I have actually been thinking a lot lately about a civil war or whatever the  next true violent test of our democracy is going to be. I think it’s hard for people currently alive to conceive of such a thing, especially since we’ve had such a period of prosperity as Americans, so it seems to be a wild concept. But really in a historical sense, we are fairly overdue. It’s difficult to reconcile what seems to be ramping up though, since we are still in the throes of that prosperity. 

And here is my hot political opinion that I hope doesn't tailspin us here-- you are right that a true violent test is not improbable which is why it's all the more-- I'll choose my word diplomatically here-- unwise, let's say, to characterize, exaggerate and hyperbolize a couple dozen mentally ill far right people terrorizing the capital building as an "insurrection". The insurrection, if it ever comes, will be a very, very scary and well monied and executed tragedy IMO.

[Biff Tannen 45741]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

And here is my hot political opinion that I hope doesn't tailspin us here-- you are right that a true violent test is not improbable which is why it's all the more-- I'll choose my word diplomatically here-- unwise, let's say, to characterize, exaggerate and hyperbolize a couple dozen mentally ill far right people terrorizing the capital building as an "insurrection". The insurrection, if it ever comes, will be a very, very scary and well monied and executed tragedy IMO.

Couple dozen?  Cmon man. Also, it’s not as important how many people actually participated in said insurrection as much as it is how many people on the sidelines support it. Which is in the millions. Literally. Millions. That’s a problem. 

[Brisketexan 105336]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

And here is my hot political opinion that I hope doesn't tailspin us here-- you are right that a true violent test is not improbable which is why it's all the more-- I'll choose my word diplomatically here-- unwise, let's say, to characterize, exaggerate and hyperbolize a couple dozen mentally ill far right people terrorizing the capital building as an "insurrection". The insurrection, if it ever comes, will be a very, very scary and well monied and executed tragedy IMO.

Oh, it was an insurrection.  Kind of like Kristallnacht was an act of ethnic cleansing.  Both are true....and both acts were mild dress-rehearsals for what was/is to come.

The next act of political violence aimed at overthrowing lawful authority will make January 6th look like a kids party at Chuck E Cheese.  Just like the Holocaust made Kristallnacht look painfully quaint.

The road we are on, pressing down on the gas pedal even harder, ends with horrific political violence.  Some of us think that's a bad idea.  We are clearly a minority voice, and repeatedly demeaned as alarmists, ledge-dwellers, etc.  In reality, we're just capable of reading a map, and stating plainly where this road takes us.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, it was an insurrection.  Kind of like Kristallnacht was an act of ethnic cleansing.  Both are true....and both acts were mild dress-rehearsals for what was/is to come.

The next act of political violence aimed at overthrowing lawful authority will make January 6th look like a kids party at Chuck E Cheese.  Just like the Holocaust made Kristallnacht look painfully quaint.

The road we are on, pressing down on the gas pedal even harder, ends with horrific political violence.  Some of us think that's a bad idea.  We are clearly a minority voice, and repeatedly demeaned as alarmists, ledge-dwellers, etc.  In reality, we're just capable of reading a map, and stating plainly where this road takes us.

Fair enough, and I think this is the point I was trying to make.

What is the alternative in your view to horrific political violence, as you said, in your opinion? Bonus points for an answer that addresses the physiological problem as outlined in the OP.

[Dahobbs 17682]

8 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

And here is my hot political opinion that I hope doesn't tailspin us here-- you are right that a true violent test is not improbable which is why it's all the more-- I'll choose my word diplomatically here-- unwise, let's say, to characterize, exaggerate and hyperbolize a couple dozen mentally ill far right people terrorizing the capital building as an "insurrection". The insurrection, if it ever comes, will be a very, very scary and well monied and executed tragedy IMO.

Couple dozen:

 

[Captainant 27771]

14 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

And here is my hot political opinion that I hope doesn't tailspin us here-- you are right that a true violent test is not improbable which is why it's all the more-- I'll choose my word diplomatically here-- unwise, let's say, to characterize, exaggerate and hyperbolize a couple dozen mentally ill far right people terrorizing the capital building as an "insurrection". The insurrection, if it ever comes, will be a very, very scary and well monied and executed tragedy IMO.

You need to study history closer my friend. Fascist insurrections rarely work on the first attempt. It's only after the first attempt fails and there is no consequences that the second attempt happens with well monied and executed plans. 

Also, outright lies like "it was only a couple dozen people involved in the capitol attack" is really not helpful to the conversation. Did you even fucking pay attention that day?

[DonkeyCigars 143]

I apologize, I should have looked up the number 400-500, let's call it based on the last thing I read about the folks who were charged for the extremely foolish and stupid actions. I guess I let the photos of those who made it deep inside to the chambers and rooms etc. color my thinking there-- again, apologize.

Edit to add: I, in no way, shape or form endorse those deranged people's actions on that day and want to go on record as thinking they are very, very stupid and wrong.

Edited June 3, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Brisketexan 105336]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Fair enough, and I think this is the point I was trying to make.

What is the alternative in your view to horrific political violence, as you said, in your opinion? Bonus points for an answer that addresses the physiological problem as outlined in the OP.

The alternative is for people not to choose that path.  People have to actually be open to the possibility that they are wrong about certain things, listen to evidence, and change their minds.

They will not do so -- at least, not enough will.

So, in reality, there is no alternative.  The die is cast, and the ending has already been written.

[Biff Tannen 45741]

I do want to take a second to thank Donkey for being a (most of the time) good faith poster. He actually advances some conversations in here, unlike the majority of right wing trolls and/or morons on this site. It’s not that hard when you argue in good faith. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I do want to take a second to thank Donkey for being a (most of the time) good faith poster. He actually advances some conversations in here, unlike the majority of right wing trolls and/or morons on this site. It’s not that hard when you argue in good faith. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The alternative is for people not to choose that path.  People have to actually be open to the possibility that they are wrong about certain things, listen to evidence, and change their minds.

They will not do so -- at least, not enough will.

So, in reality, there is no alternative.  The die is cast, and the ending has already been written.

But again, this is where the rub comes in:

There is a real possibility (and it is, again, my hypothesis) that because technology has allowed merit to every voice and point of view, that we are living in the beginnings of something like a multi-verse where being "right or wrong" is too binary. Everyone has their own versions of what is right and wrong-- there is no shared value because we all have different perceptions and realities. The old model of shared societal thinking is dead and broken. Maybe to keep pining for it is romance and vanity.

"Listening to evidence" doesn't mean anything anymore, in the way you are using it, because there is no shared trust in institutions that were built to provide that for society-- like Journalism as we are talking about here. Science being another-- there are now many subverticals and microverticals of all these once monolithic shared values-- journalism, science, government, politician, celebrity, warriors/soldiers, heroes, businessmen, etc. There is a flavor for everyone, each monetized to maximize profit and each in conflict with the others. Sounds like a bad lyric from RHCP's Californication, but I think that is where we are.

Edited June 3, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[washparkhorn 9939]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

But again, this is where the rub comes in:

There is a real possibility (and it is, again, my hypothesis) that because technology has allowed merit to every voice and point of view, that we are living in the beginnings of something like a multi-verse where being "right or wrong" is too binary.

That's why we have a social compact with one another. Little things - like respect election results - matter when trying to hold it all together - as a society. 

[Biff Tannen 45741]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

But again, this is where the rub comes in:

There is a real possibility (and it is, again, my hypothesis) that because technology has allowed merit to every voice and point of view, that we are living in the beginnings of something like a multi-verse where being "right or wrong" is too binary. Everyone has their own versions of what is right and wrong-- there is no shared value because we all have different perceptions and realities. The old model of shared societal thinking is dead and broken. Maybe to keep pining for it is romance and vanity.

"Listening to evidence" doesn't mean anything anymore, in the way you are using it, because there is no shared trust in institutions that were built to provide that for society-- like Journalism as we are talking about here. Science being another-- there are now many subverticals and microverticals of all these once monolithic shared values-- journalism, science, government, politician, celebrity, warriors/soldiers, heroes, businessmen, etc. There is a flavor for everyone.

GAAAAHHHHH!!  But that is not how actual reality works. There isn’t a flavor for everyone. There is only one truth, at least in terms of events that actually occur. This is why the current environment is unsustainable. A fuck ton of people have said, “nope”. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

That's why we have a social compact with one another. Little things - like respect election results - matter when trying to hold it all together - as a society. 

Yes, and what I'm thinking is that the social contract or compact as you call it, is fraying and disconnecting at the fabric. The social contract/compact was between those with influence and power-- as more and more formerly marginalized people gain agency and demand to become stakeholders to the contract, the old contract (and old model/way of thinking as discussed with Brisket) needs to be ripped up and a new one needs to be formed. Or else we will continue even further on the path of living in an unlawful, breach of contract America.

Edited June 3, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Biff Tannen 45741]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Yes, and what I'm thinking is that the social contract or compact as you call it, is fraying and disconnecting at the fabric. The social contract/compact was between those with influence and power-- as more and more formerly marginalized people gain agency and demand to become stakeholders to the contract, the old contract (and old model/way of thinking as discussed with Brisket) needs to be ripped up and a new one needs to be formed. Or else we will continue even further on the path of living in an unlawful, breach of contract America.

Ok I think I see what you are getting at here, which is essentially saying that because we are now all instantly connected globally, the village idiots have as much influence over information as do the actual experts.  I would advocate for destroying the internet, but that’s clearly not a realistic solution. So yes. We have to figure out how to keep the dumbest among us from destroying society. I didn’t think it would be this big of a problem. But it fucking is. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

6 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Yes, and what I'm thinking is that the social contract or compact as you call it, is fraying and disconnecting at the fabric. The social contract/compact was between those with influence and power-- as more and more formerly marginalized people gain agency and demand to become stakeholders to the contract, the old contract (and old model/way of thinking as discussed with Brisket) needs to be ripped up and a new one needs to be formed. Or else we will continue even further on the path of living in an unlawful, breach of contract America.

How about we just abide by what we have as a starter. Then we can entertain fantasies of ripping it up and reverting to primitive forms of governance. Deal?

[mchookem 16386]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ok I think I see what you are getting at here, which is essentially saying that because we are now all instantly connected globally, the village idiots have as much influence over information as do the actual experts.  I would advocate for destroying the internet, but that’s clearly not a realistic solution. So yes. We have to figure out how to keep the dumbest among us from destroying society. I didn’t think it would be this big of a problem. But it fucking is. 

i don't know why, because it's true and it's really a fucking tragedy...but this literally made me lol.

i still am 😂

i may be losing it...😜

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

How about we just abide by what we have as a starter. Then we can entertain fantasies of ripping it up and reverting to primitive forms of governance. Deal?

Toothpaste is out of the tube. Pandora's box. Whatever other idiom you need to hear to understand that we cannot be sufficiently governed and regulated by an old model that does not factor in for the rise of a paradigm where every single person is their own little emperor. 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

The root cause of this is people basing their entire identity on their thoughts and beliefs. 

Meditation helps with this. 

[Captainant 27771]

12 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Yes, and what I'm thinking is that the social contract or compact as you call it, is fraying and disconnecting at the fabric. The social contract/compact was between those with influence and power-- as more and more formerly marginalized people gain agency and demand to become stakeholders to the contract, the old contract (and old model/way of thinking as discussed with Brisket) needs to be ripped up and a new one needs to be formed. Or else we will continue even further on the path of living in an unlawful, breach of contract America.

It's fascinating that you attribute the degradation of discourse to the mere existence of the internet, rather than the concerted efforts to disseminate and propagate misinformation and lies that muddy the water. It may be "toothpaste out of the tube" now that's it's happening, but it's been the concerted strategy of republicans (not conservatives) in the country to say one thing and mean another. It's the backing behind the southern strategy. It was accelerated with the repeal of the fairness doctrine in the Reagan admin. It was made into policy by gingrich and the 1990s GOP caucus in the house. And it has been enshrined into dogma by trump.

The internet isn't the cause of the downfall. It's just a tool being expertly used by intellectually dishonest forces to destabilize institutions and push through foundational changes against the consent of the governed. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

It's fascinating that you attribute the degradation of discourse to the mere existence of the internet, rather than the concerted efforts to disseminate and propagate misinformation and lies that muddy the water. It may be "toothpaste out of the tube" now that's it's happening, but it's been the concerted strategy of republicans (not conservatives) in the country to say one thing and mean another. It's the backing behind the southern strategy. It was accelerated with the repeal of the fairness doctrine in the Reagan admin. It was made into policy by gingrich and the 1990s GOP caucus in the house. And it has been enshrined into dogma by trump.

The internet isn't the cause of the downfall. It's just a tool being expertly used by intellectually dishonest forces to destabilize institutions and push through foundational changes against the consent of the governed. 

You will get no disagreement from me on the applications you just described, all I was stating was that the ability to execute so effectively on these stated strategies (and really any strategy where you are giving voice and power to hitherto disconnected and otherwise marginalized people on all sides) was because seemingly overnight the interoperability and connectivity-- the ability to reach, communicate, share-- was decentralized, democratized and at the finger tips of everyone.

It would be like giving everyone a gun and then saying why are you blaming the gun for all the gun violence happening with a bunch of factions of people who aren't on the same page of hardly anything and are in conflict with each other that's only ratcheting up in emotion and gravity? It's only a tool. 

[mchookem 16386]

12 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It would be like giving everyone a gun and then saying why are you blaming the gun for all the gun violence happening with a bunch of factions of people who aren't on the same page of hardly anything and are in conflict with each other that's only ratcheting up in emotion and gravity? It's only a tool. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by mchookem

[Captainant 27771]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

You will get no disagreement from me on the applications you just described, all I was stating was that the ability to execute so effectively on these stated strategies (and really any strategy where you are giving voice and power to hitherto disconnected and otherwise marginalized people on all sides) was because seemingly overnight the interoperability and connectivity-- the ability to reach, communicate, share-- was decentralized, democratized and at the finger tips of everyone.

It would be like giving everyone a gun and then saying why are you blaming the gun for all the gun violence happening with a bunch of factions of people who aren't on the same page of hardly anything and are in conflict with each other that's only ratcheting up in emotion and gravity? It's only a tool. 

Well and again - my opinion and view is that it's very much only one party in our media environment that so thoroughly abuses the internet and launders credibility through a network of blogs, op-eds, and "news" networks. The republicans are STILL using a mountain of hearsay (lol irony) and mommy blogs to back their legal challenges to the 2020 election. During the Obama years, it was a nearly daily occurrence that fox would find some obscure blog or writer who raised "new questions around Obama's birthplace". You are right that the internet gives us a truly novel level of interconnectedness - but the damage comes from the lies that are being spread and whose credibility is laundered by "news" networks that will publish any outrageous headline or let any prime-time host repeat it. It's very much NOT an issue on #bothsides in this regard, at the very least in terms of degree, severity, and frequency of occurrence.

I called it out in the DT thread, but it all comes down to the fact that we as a citizenry lack the ability or will to actually take ownership of our own knowledge. As easy as it is to eat shit and breath disinformation (just ask GRUHorn or WWS), it's equally accessible to follow through and check sources. Ultimately, the lies tend to win in this system though. Whoever speaks first gets to set the dialogue, and if you have to first start every discussion with checking their flawed sources - like in the CRT thread for example, where a """whistleblower""" was the author's own personal blog - they simply outrun you and muddy the waters with a constant stream of lies.

Which leads otherwise earnest folks like yourself to find yourself distrustful of media in general. And so the beat goes on.

[washparkhorn 9939]

13 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

. . . I was stating was that the ability to execute so effectively on these stated strategies (and really any strategy where you are giving voice and power to hitherto disconnected and otherwise marginalized people on all sides) was because seemingly overnight the interoperability and connectivity-- the ability to reach, communicate, share-- was decentralized, democratized and at the finger tips of everyone.

So you have paternalistic concern for those you "other."

 

 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

So you have paternalistic concern for those you "other."

Are you accusing me of being a Centrist Democrat? 

[Biff Tannen 45741]

1 hour ago, mchookem said:

i don't know why, because it's true and it's really a fucking tragedy...but this literally made me lol.

i still am 😂

i may be losing it...😜

Lol.  I mean, I guess, yeah, truth sucks and is hilariously awful sometimes.

[washparkhorn 9939]

19 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Are you accusing me of being a Centrist Democrat? 

I think you and your ilk might enjoy this app:

 

[Biff Tannen 45741]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

I called it out in the DT thread, but it all comes down to the fact that we as a citizenry lack the ability or will to actually take ownership of our own knowledge. As easy as it is to eat shit and breath disinformation (just ask GRUHorn or WWS), it's equally accessible to follow through and check sources.

This is what kills me the most.  It's not that difficult to seek out other sources or have your main source of information not be a piece of shit.  But apparently it is for a fuck ton of people.  

[Nivek 16986]

i appreciate your response here...i understand the point you're making and in a way i agree with you.
i often - i mean really often - look at my friends that are extremely religious and i envy them greatly, as they do not seem to have a care in the world. i mean, i'm sure they do...but they are definitely not engaged by the monumental happenings in the world that impact others' lives so significantly. just to keep it here... voter suppression, police militarization and use of force, mass shootings, etc... they are aware of these things, but, as you say, those are things 'of this world' and that's a shame, let's say a prayer about it, pour another glass of wine and do the next chapter in our bible study...
i just think that's a copout. i find it 'simple minded', not in being stupid or uneducated, just in not engaging deeply about the human condition and being motivated to respond, etc.
everybody's mind works differently...and i actually have these friends because there was a period in my life when i tried, for years, to get my mind in that state. church, bible study, small groups, etc...for many years...i envied the simplicity and ease with which some people looked at life. i wanted that badly.
but i finally realized i was the odd one out in these settings, i wasnt 'getting' it, i just couldn't relate to the vast majority of the people i encountered...i wanted to, so badly...but i constantly felt like an interloper. the only way i can really state it is...i found the majority 'simple minded' (again, i am not saying they were stupid). 
i've often described it as someone just floating through life, la-de-da. and i envy that to this day. i fully acknowledge i would probably be a much 'happier' person if i could just get there...and when my heart is breaking over a terrible injustice, when i am moved to tears by empathy for others...yes, i still often think 'my god i wish i could just coast through this life and not care so much!' i really do.
but it is not me. i have this brain that engages in critical thinking and deep thought, that reacts emotionally to vast events well beyond my circles of control, power, and influence.
i could, if i were so inclined, even say God made me this way. following that...he's the one that put us all here. it seems quite the waste to just look beyond the human experience to only focus on what's next. 
i guess i'm saying i envy you your ability to not be bothered or 'not care less' about others thoughts or feelings bc it makes you happier, but that is just anathema to me.

Something something about a monk reaching enlightenment, and another monk asks him how it feels. Enlightened monk responds, terrible.

[Pods 7586]

6 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is what kills me the most.  It's not that difficult to seek out other sources or have your main source of information not be a piece of shit.  But apparently it is for a fuck ton of people.  

We're even more fucked than that. Even when someone else close to them debunks their source and shows them numerous accurate ones, they continue to accept the position that makes them feel good and are now pissed at the person that made them feel bad by having to think about it. Any attempts to help them see reality makes you an enemy.

One hell of a Doomsday Device we have ticking here. 

[Anastasis 23485]

I just ask for a world with mirrors. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

10 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

Journalism went off the skids when reporters quit wearing fedoras and stopped keeping a bottle of rotgut in the bottom drawer.

You're all nodding "yes" because you know it's true.

Which coincided with the rise of journalism schools and advanced degree programs....Gone were the days when you'd sign up as a copy boy, lorded over by a Fedora-wearing bourbon-breathed tyrant, who himself was slave to a man in a bigger Fedora with more expensive bourbon on his breath. You'd cut your teeth writing obits and covering house fires instead of wasting your time in classes being pontificated to about journalistic ethics or learning antiquated layout skills (seriously, in the 1990s, I had to take a class that involved glue sticks, PICA poles, and X-acto knives). If ever there was a trade better served by apprenticeship than classroom instruction, I am not sure what that might be. 

[TwiceHorn 31536]

15 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Which coincided with the rise of journalism schools and advanced degree programs....Gone were the days when you'd sign up as a copy boy, lorded over by a Fedora-wearing bourbon-breathed tyrant, who himself was slave to a man in a bigger Fedora with more expensive bourbon on his breath. You'd cut your teeth writing obits and covering house fires instead of wasting your time in classes being pontificated to about journalistic ethics or learning antiquated layout skills (seriously, in the 1990s, I had to take a class that involved glue sticks, PICA poles, and X-acto knives). If ever there was a trade better served by apprenticeship than classroom instruction, I am not sure what that might be. 

Sidebar.

I am fairly astonished at the number of journalists and other "able writers" with no formal training beyond high school.  Not so much that I value the education part of it, a lot of writing is basically sheer talent.  But, the opportunity to practice the craft (i.e. write papers and assignments) and expand one's vocabulary and so on and so forth that occurs during four years of "writing education," whether that be journalism or English literature or whatever.  Not to mention that many of those "early" journalists demonstrate remarkable clarity of thinking in addition to writing skill, which again is sort of bred or refined by the college education.

It says a lot for the quality of education in English in the late 19th and early 20th century.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sidebar.

I am fairly astonished at the number of journalists and other "able writers" with no formal training beyond high school.  Not so much that I value the education part of it, a lot of writing is basically sheer talent.  But, the opportunity to practice the craft (i.e. write papers and assignments) and expand one's vocabulary and so on and so forth that occurs during four years of "writing education," whether that be journalism or English literature or whatever.  Not to mention that many of those "early" journalists demonstrate remarkable clarity of thinking in addition to writing skill, which again is sort of bred or refined by the college education.

It says a lot for the quality of education in English in the late 19th and early 20th century.

I was editor of my HS newspaper my junior and senior years.  I was editor of the daily newspaper at Missouri Boys State.

I seriously considered the Mizzou J-School, one of the oldest and most prestigious departments in the country.  At the time, it was hyper-competitive and very cutthroat.  "Old school" journalism was still in style.  I cannot adequately express how glad I am that I chose another career path, because being an old-school journalist in today's environment must truly suck ass.

[TwiceHorn 31536]

One point I think that DonkeyCigars is trying to make is that various societal forces have operated to make people, individuals, "seek their own truth."  And that is a bit of a problem even without extensive bad information on which to base that "truth."

Before the internet came along, or social media and the ability for any dim bulb to become a "journalist," there was already a decay in culture, I think primarily related to a sense of community, of shared values, being replaced by "self-seeking" and "self-regard."

As much right as various factions have to be pissed off at other factions, I think we still fundamentally share some values.  But most ability to focus on that has been lost.

 

[Pods 7586]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I just ask for a world with mirrors. 

Go fuck off in a funhouse then. You'll feel quite at home thanks to your pathological need to distort reality and project bullshit that's not really there. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One point I think that DonkeyCigars is trying to make is that various societal forces have operated to make people, individuals, "seek their own truth."  And that is a bit of a problem even without extensive bad information on which to base that "truth."

Before the internet came along, or social media and the ability for any dim bulb to become a "journalist," there was already a decay in culture, I think primarily related to a sense of community, of shared values, being replaced by "self-seeking" and "self-regard."

As much right as various factions have to be pissed off at other factions, I think we still fundamentally share some values.  But most ability to focus on that has been lost.

 

I read something tonight that further accentuates the points I've tried to make around a) monolithic, institutional "truths" we historically bought in with trust were always only meant for the white/male and for equality/inclusiveness to work in modernity, these things must be broken up like Ma Bell into factional flavors for all representation and b) the paradox of creating more equality and inclusiveness has only served to further divide and entrench us against one other as balkanized fiefdoms of conflicting core beliefs.

There is a book called Americanon, which is about how seemingly innocuous bestselling books have served quietly as blueprints for "the good American," molding our common language, culture, and customs. The critique is that there are 13 American canon books that synthesize our national shared thought and ethic historically. They are the best selling books in history as well: Webster's Dictionary, Emily Post's Etiquette, Betty Crocker's Cookbook, Old Farmer's Almanac, Everything You wanted to know about Sex, Dale Carnegie's How to win friends, etc. These are not books as much as utilities to be used, it is argued.

The article goes on to show how the strategy of attacking current inequities in American life is done by attacking prior representations of those inequities. Or for the purpose of our conversation, these monolithic, exclusive to white/men/cis/middleupperclass institutions in favor of subverticals and microverticals that provide a lid for every one of the 380mm pots in America.

I'll quote some of the article and link it for those who have the time and inclination. I just happened to stumble upon it tonight and thought it topical:

Quote

McHugh is also annoyed that all her books seem to ratify existing social arrangements. (This appears to contradict her complaint about arbitrariness.) And they do. But isn’t that their raison d’être? “We cannot entirely blame Post for not revolutionizing etiquette in a way that shattered old ways of doing things,” McHugh says. Certainly, etiquette and “shattering old ways of doing things” are not exactly congruent concepts. People buy an etiquette manual in order to learn how things are done, not why they shouldn’t be done, or how they might be done. Even iconoclasts need to know that much.

Quote

 

Since the United States was founded on the principle of “no aristocracy of birth,” which was supposed to distinguish the New World from the Old, it makes sense that how-to and self-help should be central to American life—and that a book about those books should be called “Americanon.”

It is no surprise, therefore, that McHugh’s chief criticism of her canon is that these books do not represent America, only a select portion of it. They are not inclusive. More pointedly, they are fake-inclusive. They are written as though anyone could profit from their advice, even though Americans are differently situated according to race, class, religion, immigration status, sexuality, and gender, and, for most of American history, those have been barriers that no amount of bootstrap pulling could overcome. Although she does not use the term, McHugh basically argues that her books represent the ideology of the Wasp ascendancy. They promulgate the values of what she calls the “white, Protestant, and physically and mentally fit.” They erase difference. They are mechanisms of assimilation.

 

Quote

 

The diversity critique is now ubiquitous, and there seem to be two approaches to dealing with it. One is to acknowledge the biases and prejudices of the times in which a book was written but to assume that we can hold our own values constant as we encounter minds from an earlier era. This is another way of acknowledging difference, with the recognition that some differences are not so desirable, but that differences from our own ways of thinking ought not to put a work on the Index of Forbidden Books. The other approach is more a (figuratively) “Ban the books” strategy. Just stop recirculating prejudice.

McHugh is a “Ban the books” person. Even Noah Webster and Betty Crocker, she thinks, are guilty of pretending that the way they and people like them pronounce words or cook dinner is the American way of doing those things. She argues that her writers do not merely ignore diversity; they actively seek to marginalize it and stamp it out. She believes, for example, that the definition of “immigrate” in the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary as “to remove to a country for the purpose of permanent residence” has had the effect of stigmatizing the foreign-born.

Actually, the case of a dictionary or an etiquette manual is a lot simpler than, say, the case of a novel by William Faulkner. You can’t change Faulkner, but user manuals are built to be updated. Betty Crocker now has international cookbooks—not what McHugh has in mind, probably, but headed in the right direction. The online Merriam-Webster has pretty much the same definition of “immigrate” as the 1828 edition. But how else should it be defined? Should we just not have a word for this phenomenon? To the degree that the national consensus is now centered on diversity, and that the national consensus is “there should be no national consensus,” you would expect successful how-to and self-help books to reflect that.

One reason the “Americanon” books, and books like them, have been so popular in the United States may be that they fill a vacuum left by the absence of civic education, or what McHugh calls “civic religion”—that is, a widely understood account of the privileges and responsibilities that come with living in our version of a democracy. If you don’t have the Bible, which is civic religion enough for many Americans, there is not a lot of guidance out there. The Declaration of Independence, after a few inspiring sentences at the start, is just a list of grievances against George III. The Constitution is a rule book.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/06/07/what-our-biggest-best-sellers-tell-us-about-a-nations-soul

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sidebar.

I am fairly astonished at the number of journalists and other "able writers" with no formal training beyond high school.  Not so much that I value the education part of it, a lot of writing is basically sheer talent.  But, the opportunity to practice the craft (i.e. write papers and assignments) and expand one's vocabulary and so on and so forth that occurs during four years of "writing education," whether that be journalism or English literature or whatever.  Not to mention that many of those "early" journalists demonstrate remarkable clarity of thinking in addition to writing skill, which again is sort of bred or refined by the college education.

It says a lot for the quality of education in English in the late 19th and early 20th century.

HL Mencken: not a day of college. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The critique is that there are 13 American canon books that synthesize our national shared thought and ethic historically.

For the sake of precision: "13 American canon books" ≠ Western Canon. Separate species. One is a cultural self-help book and the Western Canon does not judge; it merely provides glimpses of age old wisdom through model works.

Brass Tacks: Many Americans rely on disingenuous charlatans. The charlatans have sufficiently confused masses of Americans. 

Spoiler

 

Real newsrooms have faced austerity cuts for decades now.

Too many people confuse entertainers for fact-tellers.

Paywalls to news are contributing to ignorance. 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31536]

4 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Paywalls to news are contributing to ignorance. 

 

Interesting.

Newspapers have always cost money though.  Probably more in adjusted dollars in the paper days than the online days.

But, seems like you could always find a paper, used or some other way, for free.  

Speaking of which, nowadays, you don't even need to leave your house to access the library.  

[Anastasis 23485]

6 hours ago, Pods said:

Go fuck off in a funhouse then. You'll feel quite at home thanks to your pathological need to distort reality and project bullshit that's not really there. 

Sorry if that struck a nerve.  It wasn't really directed at you.

[Biff Tannen 45741]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I just ask for a world with mirrors. 

Preferably one with both sides.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

52 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Preferably one with both sides.

You need two mirrors, like when you are finished with a haircut so you can see the back of the head.