Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] I’d opine that the news business of the present is probably far different from that of the past, especially given the rapid encroachment of social media and the internet. The Drudge Report was certainly something of a game-changer during the CLinton Administration and I believe we’re seeing a return of the more sharp-elbowed and less objective days of the distant past……
There was an interesting series of articles following the Breivik attacks in Norway, many of which asked if the present attitudes towards Islam contributed to, or even facilitated the attack…..
I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.[/quote]This is definitely true, although I believe that the Internet “news sources” (such as Drudge), for the most part, were largely created to counter the mainstream media’s reporting of events, whether or not that reporting was accurate. I wasn’t following Drudge back in the 90s, but I’ll ask you: Was Matt Drudge responsible for keeping the Monica story going for as long as it did, or was it simply a case of the MSM attempting to keep ahead (aka, keep up with) of what was being reported on Drudge?
While I realize there are serious economic considerations, I’m disgusted by the MSM’s abdication of its responsibility to report the news in an objective way. While some of the general news stories are written in an objective manner, they are so concerned with being called “liberal” that they go to ridiculous lengths to prevent that from happening (and it doesn’t work!). Also, the news is surrounded by so many opinion pieces, and the comments of readers, that it’s difficult to discern objectivity. In addition, I find the starring roles being assumed by reporters and columnists on TV news and pundits shows, that I can’t trust anything that they write.
The whole Norway thing, with the endless speculation….no, declarations……of an Islamic perpetrator, was pretty disturbing. This was an across-the-board action on the part of all forms of media. Although I have to admit to some amusement when reading a thread on FreeRepublic.com: 150 posts of ever-escalating hate directed at the Muslim perpetrators, interspersed with declarations of the brave among them of what they would do/ what the US should do to ALL Muslims, including US citizens…..UP TO THE POINT when someone wrote in that it was a blond-haired blue-eyed native of Norway who represented a Christian militant group who had been responsible. The board immediately fell silent. It was like those old SNL Roseanne Roseannadanna skits: “Oh!….Never mind.”
As for the feeding of our confirmation bias, I think simply recognizing that we do that is a significant accomplishment. Once I realized a couple years back that I was doing it, I made an effort to stay off websites that had opinions most closely aligned with mine, and went out of my way to research those that didn’t. It can be very difficult to read some of this stuff sometimes. But I find that I’m getting a much better overall picture of what’s going on. And I also have a more accurate picture of what’s happening at the grass-roots level.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: I’d pose a question to you in response to your posting. I’m presuming you’re knowledgeable about the so-called “Brixton Uprising” in 1981. With that presumption in mind, were you at all struck by the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011?[/quote]
Not so much about the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011 as much as the backgrounds, motivations, and attitudes of 1981 vs present day protesters. I think that’s why I’m so concerned (rabid?) about the use of polarizing tactics in the media by people who should know better. In our country, we have well-organized groups with large numbers of members who are planning strategy on action to take in domestic situations they consider dangerous to the country. Many of these groups count members of the military and law enforcement agencies among their members, who are ready and willing to commit treason to carry out the “missions” of their organization. While I might admire their willingness to “fight for their country”, as they believe they are doing, their websites all contain reasons for doing so that are based on flawed or exaggerated information, or downright falsehoods.
This is what happens when a country’s leaders look the other way when one or several of their party begin to employ or engage in polarization tactics in order to enhance their chances of winning. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way, and of ignoring opportunities to challenge the hate radio hosts, political bloggers, media pundits, and lobbying organizations posing as “think tanks” on their use of clearly false information and on their employment of words and phrases meant solely to appeal to the base instincts of voters.
Combine the years of falsehoods that have become part and parcel of party lore, and combine that with the immaturity and intolerance of the spoiled, irresponsible, and uneducated youth of a nation, and voila! Justifiable (in their eyes) criminal activity in the form of rioting, looting, and mob beatings. Even if there are only a few ill-informed louts jonesing to start trouble, with the assistance of an epidemic of chronic boredom and the widespread ownership of iPhones and other devices, they can amass a veritable army of supporters within an hour. The leaders have proof that they’ve been done wrong by the government, thanks to the wonderfully efficient Internet Truth Machine (previously known as The Rumor Mill), and they are only too happy to make others true believers also.
So, yes, I do tend to overreact when confronted with gratuitous employment of polarizing headlines designed to zero in on a target audience of fevered brains already overburdened by conspiracy theories, government plots, and the like.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Not to be disagreeable, Eaves, but throughout Europe and the UK we are seeing a sea change and paradigm shift of epic proportions and to correctly assail some of the policies and programs, including emasculation of the UK police, is completely in order. You yourself opined on parenting and responsibility and to see these little shitheads running about, looking for nothing other than something to steal, does not make this a “political” riot about “cuts” or “austerity”. There might be something to that, but it isn’t the motive factor.[/quote]
Oh, Allan, you can be disagreeable. I promise that I will still love you in the morning (and that’s when I am REALLY disagreeable, to which my poor sweet husband can attest).
I actually agree with much of what Mr. Hastings says in his piece. However, I do have an issue with the implications and actual statements that the unfortunate traits are pretty much exclusive property of the “welfare” class – essentially, the poor. I realize that this is England, and it’s possible that there are distinct differences in the upbringing, discipline, training, behavior, restraint, and education levels of the poor/welfare class vs the middle class.
But here in the states, the undesirable traits mentioned by Mr. Hastings are readily apparent in increasingly large numbers of middle class, and even well-off children. U.S. children in all socioeconomic classes are spoiled, abusive toward everyone including adults and the elderly, have an exaggerated sense that they are treated unfairly, believe themselves deserving of unearned praise, recognition, and privileges, don’t believe that rules apply to them, and aren’t studying and learning at anything close to an age-appropriate level. More and more hate crimes of a violent nature are being perpetrated by teenagers, and even preteens, both male and female. And while I realize that these students are not motivated by changes in the political landscape, I do believe that our children are being negatively affected in a very serious way by increasing polarization. We can force 14 year-olds to attend a school assembly on bullying, but is it really going to take root in a girl when she returns home and reads vitriolic posts left by her father on a political message board, or the latest installment in a nasty rumor war about a neighbor spread by her mother on Facebook.
Yes, I am in agreement that the events in the U.K are worthy of special attention. I only hope that our government, especially our Homeland Security staff, are likewise taking note.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: I’d pose a question to you in response to your posting. I’m presuming you’re knowledgeable about the so-called “Brixton Uprising” in 1981. With that presumption in mind, were you at all struck by the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011?[/quote]
Not so much about the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011 as much as the backgrounds, motivations, and attitudes of 1981 vs present day protesters. I think that’s why I’m so concerned (rabid?) about the use of polarizing tactics in the media by people who should know better. In our country, we have well-organized groups with large numbers of members who are planning strategy on action to take in domestic situations they consider dangerous to the country. Many of these groups count members of the military and law enforcement agencies among their members, who are ready and willing to commit treason to carry out the “missions” of their organization. While I might admire their willingness to “fight for their country”, as they believe they are doing, their websites all contain reasons for doing so that are based on flawed or exaggerated information, or downright falsehoods.
This is what happens when a country’s leaders look the other way when one or several of their party begin to employ or engage in polarization tactics in order to enhance their chances of winning. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way, and of ignoring opportunities to challenge the hate radio hosts, political bloggers, media pundits, and lobbying organizations posing as “think tanks” on their use of clearly false information and on their employment of words and phrases meant solely to appeal to the base instincts of voters.
Combine the years of falsehoods that have become part and parcel of party lore, and combine that with the immaturity and intolerance of the spoiled, irresponsible, and uneducated youth of a nation, and voila! Justifiable (in their eyes) criminal activity in the form of rioting, looting, and mob beatings. Even if there are only a few ill-informed louts jonesing to start trouble, with the assistance of an epidemic of chronic boredom and the widespread ownership of iPhones and other devices, they can amass a veritable army of supporters within an hour. The leaders have proof that they’ve been done wrong by the government, thanks to the wonderfully efficient Internet Truth Machine (previously known as The Rumor Mill), and they are only too happy to make others true believers also.
So, yes, I do tend to overreact when confronted with gratuitous employment of polarizing headlines designed to zero in on a target audience of fevered brains already overburdened by conspiracy theories, government plots, and the like.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Not to be disagreeable, Eaves, but throughout Europe and the UK we are seeing a sea change and paradigm shift of epic proportions and to correctly assail some of the policies and programs, including emasculation of the UK police, is completely in order. You yourself opined on parenting and responsibility and to see these little shitheads running about, looking for nothing other than something to steal, does not make this a “political” riot about “cuts” or “austerity”. There might be something to that, but it isn’t the motive factor.[/quote]
Oh, Allan, you can be disagreeable. I promise that I will still love you in the morning (and that’s when I am REALLY disagreeable, to which my poor sweet husband can attest).
I actually agree with much of what Mr. Hastings says in his piece. However, I do have an issue with the implications and actual statements that the unfortunate traits are pretty much exclusive property of the “welfare” class – essentially, the poor. I realize that this is England, and it’s possible that there are distinct differences in the upbringing, discipline, training, behavior, restraint, and education levels of the poor/welfare class vs the middle class.
But here in the states, the undesirable traits mentioned by Mr. Hastings are readily apparent in increasingly large numbers of middle class, and even well-off children. U.S. children in all socioeconomic classes are spoiled, abusive toward everyone including adults and the elderly, have an exaggerated sense that they are treated unfairly, believe themselves deserving of unearned praise, recognition, and privileges, don’t believe that rules apply to them, and aren’t studying and learning at anything close to an age-appropriate level. More and more hate crimes of a violent nature are being perpetrated by teenagers, and even preteens, both male and female. And while I realize that these students are not motivated by changes in the political landscape, I do believe that our children are being negatively affected in a very serious way by increasing polarization. We can force 14 year-olds to attend a school assembly on bullying, but is it really going to take root in a girl when she returns home and reads vitriolic posts left by her father on a political message board, or the latest installment in a nasty rumor war about a neighbor spread by her mother on Facebook.
Yes, I am in agreement that the events in the U.K are worthy of special attention. I only hope that our government, especially our Homeland Security staff, are likewise taking note.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: I’d pose a question to you in response to your posting. I’m presuming you’re knowledgeable about the so-called “Brixton Uprising” in 1981. With that presumption in mind, were you at all struck by the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011?[/quote]
Not so much about the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011 as much as the backgrounds, motivations, and attitudes of 1981 vs present day protesters. I think that’s why I’m so concerned (rabid?) about the use of polarizing tactics in the media by people who should know better. In our country, we have well-organized groups with large numbers of members who are planning strategy on action to take in domestic situations they consider dangerous to the country. Many of these groups count members of the military and law enforcement agencies among their members, who are ready and willing to commit treason to carry out the “missions” of their organization. While I might admire their willingness to “fight for their country”, as they believe they are doing, their websites all contain reasons for doing so that are based on flawed or exaggerated information, or downright falsehoods.
This is what happens when a country’s leaders look the other way when one or several of their party begin to employ or engage in polarization tactics in order to enhance their chances of winning. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way, and of ignoring opportunities to challenge the hate radio hosts, political bloggers, media pundits, and lobbying organizations posing as “think tanks” on their use of clearly false information and on their employment of words and phrases meant solely to appeal to the base instincts of voters.
Combine the years of falsehoods that have become part and parcel of party lore, and combine that with the immaturity and intolerance of the spoiled, irresponsible, and uneducated youth of a nation, and voila! Justifiable (in their eyes) criminal activity in the form of rioting, looting, and mob beatings. Even if there are only a few ill-informed louts jonesing to start trouble, with the assistance of an epidemic of chronic boredom and the widespread ownership of iPhones and other devices, they can amass a veritable army of supporters within an hour. The leaders have proof that they’ve been done wrong by the government, thanks to the wonderfully efficient Internet Truth Machine (previously known as The Rumor Mill), and they are only too happy to make others true believers also.
So, yes, I do tend to overreact when confronted with gratuitous employment of polarizing headlines designed to zero in on a target audience of fevered brains already overburdened by conspiracy theories, government plots, and the like.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Not to be disagreeable, Eaves, but throughout Europe and the UK we are seeing a sea change and paradigm shift of epic proportions and to correctly assail some of the policies and programs, including emasculation of the UK police, is completely in order. You yourself opined on parenting and responsibility and to see these little shitheads running about, looking for nothing other than something to steal, does not make this a “political” riot about “cuts” or “austerity”. There might be something to that, but it isn’t the motive factor.[/quote]
Oh, Allan, you can be disagreeable. I promise that I will still love you in the morning (and that’s when I am REALLY disagreeable, to which my poor sweet husband can attest).
I actually agree with much of what Mr. Hastings says in his piece. However, I do have an issue with the implications and actual statements that the unfortunate traits are pretty much exclusive property of the “welfare” class – essentially, the poor. I realize that this is England, and it’s possible that there are distinct differences in the upbringing, discipline, training, behavior, restraint, and education levels of the poor/welfare class vs the middle class.
But here in the states, the undesirable traits mentioned by Mr. Hastings are readily apparent in increasingly large numbers of middle class, and even well-off children. U.S. children in all socioeconomic classes are spoiled, abusive toward everyone including adults and the elderly, have an exaggerated sense that they are treated unfairly, believe themselves deserving of unearned praise, recognition, and privileges, don’t believe that rules apply to them, and aren’t studying and learning at anything close to an age-appropriate level. More and more hate crimes of a violent nature are being perpetrated by teenagers, and even preteens, both male and female. And while I realize that these students are not motivated by changes in the political landscape, I do believe that our children are being negatively affected in a very serious way by increasing polarization. We can force 14 year-olds to attend a school assembly on bullying, but is it really going to take root in a girl when she returns home and reads vitriolic posts left by her father on a political message board, or the latest installment in a nasty rumor war about a neighbor spread by her mother on Facebook.
Yes, I am in agreement that the events in the U.K are worthy of special attention. I only hope that our government, especially our Homeland Security staff, are likewise taking note.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: I’d pose a question to you in response to your posting. I’m presuming you’re knowledgeable about the so-called “Brixton Uprising” in 1981. With that presumption in mind, were you at all struck by the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011?[/quote]
Not so much about the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011 as much as the backgrounds, motivations, and attitudes of 1981 vs present day protesters. I think that’s why I’m so concerned (rabid?) about the use of polarizing tactics in the media by people who should know better. In our country, we have well-organized groups with large numbers of members who are planning strategy on action to take in domestic situations they consider dangerous to the country. Many of these groups count members of the military and law enforcement agencies among their members, who are ready and willing to commit treason to carry out the “missions” of their organization. While I might admire their willingness to “fight for their country”, as they believe they are doing, their websites all contain reasons for doing so that are based on flawed or exaggerated information, or downright falsehoods.
This is what happens when a country’s leaders look the other way when one or several of their party begin to employ or engage in polarization tactics in order to enhance their chances of winning. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way, and of ignoring opportunities to challenge the hate radio hosts, political bloggers, media pundits, and lobbying organizations posing as “think tanks” on their use of clearly false information and on their employment of words and phrases meant solely to appeal to the base instincts of voters.
Combine the years of falsehoods that have become part and parcel of party lore, and combine that with the immaturity and intolerance of the spoiled, irresponsible, and uneducated youth of a nation, and voila! Justifiable (in their eyes) criminal activity in the form of rioting, looting, and mob beatings. Even if there are only a few ill-informed louts jonesing to start trouble, with the assistance of an epidemic of chronic boredom and the widespread ownership of iPhones and other devices, they can amass a veritable army of supporters within an hour. The leaders have proof that they’ve been done wrong by the government, thanks to the wonderfully efficient Internet Truth Machine (previously known as The Rumor Mill), and they are only too happy to make others true believers also.
So, yes, I do tend to overreact when confronted with gratuitous employment of polarizing headlines designed to zero in on a target audience of fevered brains already overburdened by conspiracy theories, government plots, and the like.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Not to be disagreeable, Eaves, but throughout Europe and the UK we are seeing a sea change and paradigm shift of epic proportions and to correctly assail some of the policies and programs, including emasculation of the UK police, is completely in order. You yourself opined on parenting and responsibility and to see these little shitheads running about, looking for nothing other than something to steal, does not make this a “political” riot about “cuts” or “austerity”. There might be something to that, but it isn’t the motive factor.[/quote]
Oh, Allan, you can be disagreeable. I promise that I will still love you in the morning (and that’s when I am REALLY disagreeable, to which my poor sweet husband can attest).
I actually agree with much of what Mr. Hastings says in his piece. However, I do have an issue with the implications and actual statements that the unfortunate traits are pretty much exclusive property of the “welfare” class – essentially, the poor. I realize that this is England, and it’s possible that there are distinct differences in the upbringing, discipline, training, behavior, restraint, and education levels of the poor/welfare class vs the middle class.
But here in the states, the undesirable traits mentioned by Mr. Hastings are readily apparent in increasingly large numbers of middle class, and even well-off children. U.S. children in all socioeconomic classes are spoiled, abusive toward everyone including adults and the elderly, have an exaggerated sense that they are treated unfairly, believe themselves deserving of unearned praise, recognition, and privileges, don’t believe that rules apply to them, and aren’t studying and learning at anything close to an age-appropriate level. More and more hate crimes of a violent nature are being perpetrated by teenagers, and even preteens, both male and female. And while I realize that these students are not motivated by changes in the political landscape, I do believe that our children are being negatively affected in a very serious way by increasing polarization. We can force 14 year-olds to attend a school assembly on bullying, but is it really going to take root in a girl when she returns home and reads vitriolic posts left by her father on a political message board, or the latest installment in a nasty rumor war about a neighbor spread by her mother on Facebook.
Yes, I am in agreement that the events in the U.K are worthy of special attention. I only hope that our government, especially our Homeland Security staff, are likewise taking note.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: I’d pose a question to you in response to your posting. I’m presuming you’re knowledgeable about the so-called “Brixton Uprising” in 1981. With that presumption in mind, were you at all struck by the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011?[/quote]
Not so much about the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011 as much as the backgrounds, motivations, and attitudes of 1981 vs present day protesters. I think that’s why I’m so concerned (rabid?) about the use of polarizing tactics in the media by people who should know better. In our country, we have well-organized groups with large numbers of members who are planning strategy on action to take in domestic situations they consider dangerous to the country. Many of these groups count members of the military and law enforcement agencies among their members, who are ready and willing to commit treason to carry out the “missions” of their organization. While I might admire their willingness to “fight for their country”, as they believe they are doing, their websites all contain reasons for doing so that are based on flawed or exaggerated information, or downright falsehoods.
This is what happens when a country’s leaders look the other way when one or several of their party begin to employ or engage in polarization tactics in order to enhance their chances of winning. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way, and of ignoring opportunities to challenge the hate radio hosts, political bloggers, media pundits, and lobbying organizations posing as “think tanks” on their use of clearly false information and on their employment of words and phrases meant solely to appeal to the base instincts of voters.
Combine the years of falsehoods that have become part and parcel of party lore, and combine that with the immaturity and intolerance of the spoiled, irresponsible, and uneducated youth of a nation, and voila! Justifiable (in their eyes) criminal activity in the form of rioting, looting, and mob beatings. Even if there are only a few ill-informed louts jonesing to start trouble, with the assistance of an epidemic of chronic boredom and the widespread ownership of iPhones and other devices, they can amass a veritable army of supporters within an hour. The leaders have proof that they’ve been done wrong by the government, thanks to the wonderfully efficient Internet Truth Machine (previously known as The Rumor Mill), and they are only too happy to make others true believers also.
So, yes, I do tend to overreact when confronted with gratuitous employment of polarizing headlines designed to zero in on a target audience of fevered brains already overburdened by conspiracy theories, government plots, and the like.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Not to be disagreeable, Eaves, but throughout Europe and the UK we are seeing a sea change and paradigm shift of epic proportions and to correctly assail some of the policies and programs, including emasculation of the UK police, is completely in order. You yourself opined on parenting and responsibility and to see these little shitheads running about, looking for nothing other than something to steal, does not make this a “political” riot about “cuts” or “austerity”. There might be something to that, but it isn’t the motive factor.[/quote]
Oh, Allan, you can be disagreeable. I promise that I will still love you in the morning (and that’s when I am REALLY disagreeable, to which my poor sweet husband can attest).
I actually agree with much of what Mr. Hastings says in his piece. However, I do have an issue with the implications and actual statements that the unfortunate traits are pretty much exclusive property of the “welfare” class – essentially, the poor. I realize that this is England, and it’s possible that there are distinct differences in the upbringing, discipline, training, behavior, restraint, and education levels of the poor/welfare class vs the middle class.
But here in the states, the undesirable traits mentioned by Mr. Hastings are readily apparent in increasingly large numbers of middle class, and even well-off children. U.S. children in all socioeconomic classes are spoiled, abusive toward everyone including adults and the elderly, have an exaggerated sense that they are treated unfairly, believe themselves deserving of unearned praise, recognition, and privileges, don’t believe that rules apply to them, and aren’t studying and learning at anything close to an age-appropriate level. More and more hate crimes of a violent nature are being perpetrated by teenagers, and even preteens, both male and female. And while I realize that these students are not motivated by changes in the political landscape, I do believe that our children are being negatively affected in a very serious way by increasing polarization. We can force 14 year-olds to attend a school assembly on bullying, but is it really going to take root in a girl when she returns home and reads vitriolic posts left by her father on a political message board, or the latest installment in a nasty rumor war about a neighbor spread by her mother on Facebook.
Yes, I am in agreement that the events in the U.K are worthy of special attention. I only hope that our government, especially our Homeland Security staff, are likewise taking note.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Eavesdropper, that’s a pretty smooth way to avoid confronting any of the important points Hasting’s brings up — are you a politician?[/quote]
And, faterik, I am nothing if not smooth.
Seriously, I agree with a great many of the points he makes in the article (if you go back to the post, you’ll see my statement about my own feelings concerning the subject matter). The issue I have is with the source of the article, and the headline in particular. Having worked on newspapers in the past, I am aware that headlines are usually the work of editors, or someone other than the writer. However, I don’t think that is the case with this opinion columnist.
I just think that we are so incredibly polarized as it is, and I have major problems with those who add gratuitous polarizing purple prose to their writing in an effort to pull in readers whose political compasses are inoperable, their needles being stuck in one direction, leaving their owners completely unable to find their way. I am certain that the author already has a large faithful (perhaps fanatical?) following, so I fail to see why he finds it necessary to add fuel to the already out-of-control flame under the political/economic kettle. (I may not be much of a politician, but I am skilled in the abusive use of alliteration, am I not?)
Like others on this thread, I agree with many of the author’s points, and believe that others should think seriously about some of them. I just don’t see the need in presenting them under a headline meant to incite those who need no additional encouragement. And I see definite potential for great harm if writers, news reporters, bloggers, and pundits persist in doing so, no matter what their particular political persuasion (jeez!! I’m doing it again!!)
Content-wise, I appreciate your link to this article, faterik.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Eavesdropper, that’s a pretty smooth way to avoid confronting any of the important points Hasting’s brings up — are you a politician?[/quote]
And, faterik, I am nothing if not smooth.
Seriously, I agree with a great many of the points he makes in the article (if you go back to the post, you’ll see my statement about my own feelings concerning the subject matter). The issue I have is with the source of the article, and the headline in particular. Having worked on newspapers in the past, I am aware that headlines are usually the work of editors, or someone other than the writer. However, I don’t think that is the case with this opinion columnist.
I just think that we are so incredibly polarized as it is, and I have major problems with those who add gratuitous polarizing purple prose to their writing in an effort to pull in readers whose political compasses are inoperable, their needles being stuck in one direction, leaving their owners completely unable to find their way. I am certain that the author already has a large faithful (perhaps fanatical?) following, so I fail to see why he finds it necessary to add fuel to the already out-of-control flame under the political/economic kettle. (I may not be much of a politician, but I am skilled in the abusive use of alliteration, am I not?)
Like others on this thread, I agree with many of the author’s points, and believe that others should think seriously about some of them. I just don’t see the need in presenting them under a headline meant to incite those who need no additional encouragement. And I see definite potential for great harm if writers, news reporters, bloggers, and pundits persist in doing so, no matter what their particular political persuasion (jeez!! I’m doing it again!!)
Content-wise, I appreciate your link to this article, faterik.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Eavesdropper, that’s a pretty smooth way to avoid confronting any of the important points Hasting’s brings up — are you a politician?[/quote]
And, faterik, I am nothing if not smooth.
Seriously, I agree with a great many of the points he makes in the article (if you go back to the post, you’ll see my statement about my own feelings concerning the subject matter). The issue I have is with the source of the article, and the headline in particular. Having worked on newspapers in the past, I am aware that headlines are usually the work of editors, or someone other than the writer. However, I don’t think that is the case with this opinion columnist.
I just think that we are so incredibly polarized as it is, and I have major problems with those who add gratuitous polarizing purple prose to their writing in an effort to pull in readers whose political compasses are inoperable, their needles being stuck in one direction, leaving their owners completely unable to find their way. I am certain that the author already has a large faithful (perhaps fanatical?) following, so I fail to see why he finds it necessary to add fuel to the already out-of-control flame under the political/economic kettle. (I may not be much of a politician, but I am skilled in the abusive use of alliteration, am I not?)
Like others on this thread, I agree with many of the author’s points, and believe that others should think seriously about some of them. I just don’t see the need in presenting them under a headline meant to incite those who need no additional encouragement. And I see definite potential for great harm if writers, news reporters, bloggers, and pundits persist in doing so, no matter what their particular political persuasion (jeez!! I’m doing it again!!)
Content-wise, I appreciate your link to this article, faterik.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Eavesdropper, that’s a pretty smooth way to avoid confronting any of the important points Hasting’s brings up — are you a politician?[/quote]
And, faterik, I am nothing if not smooth.
Seriously, I agree with a great many of the points he makes in the article (if you go back to the post, you’ll see my statement about my own feelings concerning the subject matter). The issue I have is with the source of the article, and the headline in particular. Having worked on newspapers in the past, I am aware that headlines are usually the work of editors, or someone other than the writer. However, I don’t think that is the case with this opinion columnist.
I just think that we are so incredibly polarized as it is, and I have major problems with those who add gratuitous polarizing purple prose to their writing in an effort to pull in readers whose political compasses are inoperable, their needles being stuck in one direction, leaving their owners completely unable to find their way. I am certain that the author already has a large faithful (perhaps fanatical?) following, so I fail to see why he finds it necessary to add fuel to the already out-of-control flame under the political/economic kettle. (I may not be much of a politician, but I am skilled in the abusive use of alliteration, am I not?)
Like others on this thread, I agree with many of the author’s points, and believe that others should think seriously about some of them. I just don’t see the need in presenting them under a headline meant to incite those who need no additional encouragement. And I see definite potential for great harm if writers, news reporters, bloggers, and pundits persist in doing so, no matter what their particular political persuasion (jeez!! I’m doing it again!!)
Content-wise, I appreciate your link to this article, faterik.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]Eavesdropper, that’s a pretty smooth way to avoid confronting any of the important points Hasting’s brings up — are you a politician?[/quote]
And, faterik, I am nothing if not smooth.
Seriously, I agree with a great many of the points he makes in the article (if you go back to the post, you’ll see my statement about my own feelings concerning the subject matter). The issue I have is with the source of the article, and the headline in particular. Having worked on newspapers in the past, I am aware that headlines are usually the work of editors, or someone other than the writer. However, I don’t think that is the case with this opinion columnist.
I just think that we are so incredibly polarized as it is, and I have major problems with those who add gratuitous polarizing purple prose to their writing in an effort to pull in readers whose political compasses are inoperable, their needles being stuck in one direction, leaving their owners completely unable to find their way. I am certain that the author already has a large faithful (perhaps fanatical?) following, so I fail to see why he finds it necessary to add fuel to the already out-of-control flame under the political/economic kettle. (I may not be much of a politician, but I am skilled in the abusive use of alliteration, am I not?)
Like others on this thread, I agree with many of the author’s points, and believe that others should think seriously about some of them. I just don’t see the need in presenting them under a headline meant to incite those who need no additional encouragement. And I see definite potential for great harm if writers, news reporters, bloggers, and pundits persist in doing so, no matter what their particular political persuasion (jeez!! I’m doing it again!!)
Content-wise, I appreciate your link to this article, faterik.
Participant[quote=Arraya]As secular as I am, I 100% agree with social conservatives that society is in decay. We have ALL the signs of it. At this stage, it is terminal. I agree, It is a values problem….. it’s having a value system based on economics. But many misplace cause and effect – they think the moral decay is causing economic decay – when it is the opposite. Modern economics has caused moral decay – because it is our value system.
[/quote]Arraya, you make salient points here with which I agree. I’m a boomer, but over half my life has been spent in an environment in which personal contact with others has been deemphasized, and information sources are of a non-human nature. This change has given marketing professionals the keys to our brains. They’ve used this to determine what makes us tick, and utilized the that information to market directly to us, or to tailor a marketing campaign to our psychological weaknesses, in essence creating a market for goods and services.
Media has also given us a look into the lives of the “haves”, and the credit culture that resulted, in large part, from the Fed’s policy, caused us all to believe that we deserved it and could afford it simply because we had a legal way to leave the store or dealer with it. For half my life, I was well aware of my socioeconomic class because of my purchasing power; since then, it has taken conscious effort to remind myself that, although I have moved in a somewhat upward direction, I am still a middle-class working American. My experiences in the socioeconomic culture of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s enabled me to keep a firm grip in the years since then, while narcissistic consumerism and economic reality engaged in a tug of war for my soul.
People born from the late 1970s on were, essentially, christened into the Church of Consumerism. Unless their parents made a conscious effort to instill the same values with which many of them had been raised, such as earning your own way, not taking charity except in dire circumstances, living within your means (not your credit limit), saving a portion of the money you earn, and honoring your obligations, these children grew to adulthood entirely ignorant of the tools necessary to survive in the real world.
The introduction and subsequent wildfire-like popularity of reality TV shows served only to exacerbate the problem. Not only did children grow up believing that they were entitled to everything they wanted, but reality shows served as a source of learning communication methods and coping mechanisms.
You have a huge segment of the population, age 30 and below, who have been raised in this manner, and the segment born from 1970 through 1980 are at risk, depending on their early childhood experiences. They were taught that acquisition of money and goods was paramount, yet they were not taught any of the skills involved in acquiring money and goods, nor instructed in the NECESSITY of doing so.
Over the last 15 years, I’ve become immune to the looks on my friends’ faces when I opine that euthanasia of the elderly will be legal by the year 2025. It was probably not a coincidence that they were the same looks they gave me when I insisted that the fantastically healthy economy of the mid-aughts was anything but. As the economy got “healthier”, I became more and more concerned about the intensity of the “readjustment” we could expect in the near future. I also realized that we not only had spoiled our kids rotten, but had neglected to teach them, in word or deed, anything about caring for others, family obligations, evaluating non-monetary value, and the basics such as do not cheat or steal. In essence, we spawned offspring, but didn’t raise them. We taught them to want things, and that they deserved things, but neglected to give them even the most basic of the tools of acquisition. In a normally-functioning economy, many of these people will survive due to manpower demands. But in the opposite scenario, they can only rely on what they’ve been given in the way of survival skills. In the realities of this economy, it’s their conviction that they are “special” and above the rules, combined with a nonfunctioning moral compass, thanks to the parents who “raised” them.
It’s funny: Here on Piggs, there have been, of late, a number of links to articles about the lack of jobs for new college graduates. Time-permitting, I try to make a point of reading through the readers’ comments at the article’s close. I am shocked by the intensity of the accusations made by 22, 24, and 28 year-old recent grads, but not by the accusations themselves. Virtually every one states that, as far as they are concerned, they can’t get jobs because of the economy that the baby boomers messed up. There are obvious flaws in that line of reasoning, but not to people who were raised to believe that they were “special” without having to provide evidence, who were provided with everything they wanted, or who learned to manipulate when they did not, whose parents encouraged them to cheat under the guise of attaining academic excellence, and who forced school administrations to “adjust” their subpar grades, and who attended law school because they were guaranteed to get a $160K/yr job when they graduated. These people are totally self-focused and concerned solely with their own wants and needs. That, in itself, does not bode well for those of us over the age of 50, who screwed up the economy for them. Our goose is cooked.
[quote=Arraya] These riots are a prime example of feral consumerism. Or what early economic theorists considered the true “nature” of man – That of a ruthless genetic self-maximizer with no regard to surroundings, whose sole purpose is acquisition of resources for survival and sexual selection purposes – which is why we need a strong government(to protect from mans “natural” passions), with capitalism as the “bloodless” and “enlightened” competition system to channel these “natural” passions, of which all progress flows.
Interestingly, their rapaciousness is practically identical to the financial sector. Just pure ego-driven greed with no regard for law. It’s fascinating that the top and bottom of society are mirrors of each other. [/quote]
Arraya, some brilliant observations! I particularly like your use of the term “feral consumerism”, which captures the essence of not only the current events in Britain, but our socioeconomic behavioral model of the aughts. Even now, despite greatly reduced economic circumstances, there are those in whom this tendency appears to be part of their neurobiological makeup.
And I was particularly struck by the similarities you cite in your comparison of these angry rioters and the “stars” of the financial sector. But, after all, the “haves” (or “mega-haves”) were the role models for the “have-nots”. I think that the problem lies in the uncomfortable truth that the “have-nots” didn’t actually see or think of themselves as such. They were convinced of their “have” status until incontrovertible evidence emerged that they were not, an event dfor which they were not, in any way, prepared.
[quote=Arraya] http://transitionvoice.com/2011/08/shopocalypse-now/%5B/quote%5D
Thank you for this great link. I think this one may be a keeper.
Participant[quote=Arraya]As secular as I am, I 100% agree with social conservatives that society is in decay. We have ALL the signs of it. At this stage, it is terminal. I agree, It is a values problem….. it’s having a value system based on economics. But many misplace cause and effect – they think the moral decay is causing economic decay – when it is the opposite. Modern economics has caused moral decay – because it is our value system.
[/quote]Arraya, you make salient points here with which I agree. I’m a boomer, but over half my life has been spent in an environment in which personal contact with others has been deemphasized, and information sources are of a non-human nature. This change has given marketing professionals the keys to our brains. They’ve used this to determine what makes us tick, and utilized the that information to market directly to us, or to tailor a marketing campaign to our psychological weaknesses, in essence creating a market for goods and services.
Media has also given us a look into the lives of the “haves”, and the credit culture that resulted, in large part, from the Fed’s policy, caused us all to believe that we deserved it and could afford it simply because we had a legal way to leave the store or dealer with it. For half my life, I was well aware of my socioeconomic class because of my purchasing power; since then, it has taken conscious effort to remind myself that, although I have moved in a somewhat upward direction, I am still a middle-class working American. My experiences in the socioeconomic culture of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s enabled me to keep a firm grip in the years since then, while narcissistic consumerism and economic reality engaged in a tug of war for my soul.
People born from the late 1970s on were, essentially, christened into the Church of Consumerism. Unless their parents made a conscious effort to instill the same values with which many of them had been raised, such as earning your own way, not taking charity except in dire circumstances, living within your means (not your credit limit), saving a portion of the money you earn, and honoring your obligations, these children grew to adulthood entirely ignorant of the tools necessary to survive in the real world.
The introduction and subsequent wildfire-like popularity of reality TV shows served only to exacerbate the problem. Not only did children grow up believing that they were entitled to everything they wanted, but reality shows served as a source of learning communication methods and coping mechanisms.
You have a huge segment of the population, age 30 and below, who have been raised in this manner, and the segment born from 1970 through 1980 are at risk, depending on their early childhood experiences. They were taught that acquisition of money and goods was paramount, yet they were not taught any of the skills involved in acquiring money and goods, nor instructed in the NECESSITY of doing so.
Over the last 15 years, I’ve become immune to the looks on my friends’ faces when I opine that euthanasia of the elderly will be legal by the year 2025. It was probably not a coincidence that they were the same looks they gave me when I insisted that the fantastically healthy economy of the mid-aughts was anything but. As the economy got “healthier”, I became more and more concerned about the intensity of the “readjustment” we could expect in the near future. I also realized that we not only had spoiled our kids rotten, but had neglected to teach them, in word or deed, anything about caring for others, family obligations, evaluating non-monetary value, and the basics such as do not cheat or steal. In essence, we spawned offspring, but didn’t raise them. We taught them to want things, and that they deserved things, but neglected to give them even the most basic of the tools of acquisition. In a normally-functioning economy, many of these people will survive due to manpower demands. But in the opposite scenario, they can only rely on what they’ve been given in the way of survival skills. In the realities of this economy, it’s their conviction that they are “special” and above the rules, combined with a nonfunctioning moral compass, thanks to the parents who “raised” them.
It’s funny: Here on Piggs, there have been, of late, a number of links to articles about the lack of jobs for new college graduates. Time-permitting, I try to make a point of reading through the readers’ comments at the article’s close. I am shocked by the intensity of the accusations made by 22, 24, and 28 year-old recent grads, but not by the accusations themselves. Virtually every one states that, as far as they are concerned, they can’t get jobs because of the economy that the baby boomers messed up. There are obvious flaws in that line of reasoning, but not to people who were raised to believe that they were “special” without having to provide evidence, who were provided with everything they wanted, or who learned to manipulate when they did not, whose parents encouraged them to cheat under the guise of attaining academic excellence, and who forced school administrations to “adjust” their subpar grades, and who attended law school because they were guaranteed to get a $160K/yr job when they graduated. These people are totally self-focused and concerned solely with their own wants and needs. That, in itself, does not bode well for those of us over the age of 50, who screwed up the economy for them. Our goose is cooked.
[quote=Arraya] These riots are a prime example of feral consumerism. Or what early economic theorists considered the true “nature” of man – That of a ruthless genetic self-maximizer with no regard to surroundings, whose sole purpose is acquisition of resources for survival and sexual selection purposes – which is why we need a strong government(to protect from mans “natural” passions), with capitalism as the “bloodless” and “enlightened” competition system to channel these “natural” passions, of which all progress flows.
Interestingly, their rapaciousness is practically identical to the financial sector. Just pure ego-driven greed with no regard for law. It’s fascinating that the top and bottom of society are mirrors of each other. [/quote]
Arraya, some brilliant observations! I particularly like your use of the term “feral consumerism”, which captures the essence of not only the current events in Britain, but our socioeconomic behavioral model of the aughts. Even now, despite greatly reduced economic circumstances, there are those in whom this tendency appears to be part of their neurobiological makeup.
And I was particularly struck by the similarities you cite in your comparison of these angry rioters and the “stars” of the financial sector. But, after all, the “haves” (or “mega-haves”) were the role models for the “have-nots”. I think that the problem lies in the uncomfortable truth that the “have-nots” didn’t actually see or think of themselves as such. They were convinced of their “have” status until incontrovertible evidence emerged that they were not, an event dfor which they were not, in any way, prepared.
[quote=Arraya] http://transitionvoice.com/2011/08/shopocalypse-now/%5B/quote%5D
Thank you for this great link. I think this one may be a keeper.
Participant[quote=Arraya]As secular as I am, I 100% agree with social conservatives that society is in decay. We have ALL the signs of it. At this stage, it is terminal. I agree, It is a values problem….. it’s having a value system based on economics. But many misplace cause and effect – they think the moral decay is causing economic decay – when it is the opposite. Modern economics has caused moral decay – because it is our value system.
[/quote]Arraya, you make salient points here with which I agree. I’m a boomer, but over half my life has been spent in an environment in which personal contact with others has been deemphasized, and information sources are of a non-human nature. This change has given marketing professionals the keys to our brains. They’ve used this to determine what makes us tick, and utilized the that information to market directly to us, or to tailor a marketing campaign to our psychological weaknesses, in essence creating a market for goods and services.
Media has also given us a look into the lives of the “haves”, and the credit culture that resulted, in large part, from the Fed’s policy, caused us all to believe that we deserved it and could afford it simply because we had a legal way to leave the store or dealer with it. For half my life, I was well aware of my socioeconomic class because of my purchasing power; since then, it has taken conscious effort to remind myself that, although I have moved in a somewhat upward direction, I am still a middle-class working American. My experiences in the socioeconomic culture of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s enabled me to keep a firm grip in the years since then, while narcissistic consumerism and economic reality engaged in a tug of war for my soul.
People born from the late 1970s on were, essentially, christened into the Church of Consumerism. Unless their parents made a conscious effort to instill the same values with which many of them had been raised, such as earning your own way, not taking charity except in dire circumstances, living within your means (not your credit limit), saving a portion of the money you earn, and honoring your obligations, these children grew to adulthood entirely ignorant of the tools necessary to survive in the real world.
The introduction and subsequent wildfire-like popularity of reality TV shows served only to exacerbate the problem. Not only did children grow up believing that they were entitled to everything they wanted, but reality shows served as a source of learning communication methods and coping mechanisms.
You have a huge segment of the population, age 30 and below, who have been raised in this manner, and the segment born from 1970 through 1980 are at risk, depending on their early childhood experiences. They were taught that acquisition of money and goods was paramount, yet they were not taught any of the skills involved in acquiring money and goods, nor instructed in the NECESSITY of doing so.
Over the last 15 years, I’ve become immune to the looks on my friends’ faces when I opine that euthanasia of the elderly will be legal by the year 2025. It was probably not a coincidence that they were the same looks they gave me when I insisted that the fantastically healthy economy of the mid-aughts was anything but. As the economy got “healthier”, I became more and more concerned about the intensity of the “readjustment” we could expect in the near future. I also realized that we not only had spoiled our kids rotten, but had neglected to teach them, in word or deed, anything about caring for others, family obligations, evaluating non-monetary value, and the basics such as do not cheat or steal. In essence, we spawned offspring, but didn’t raise them. We taught them to want things, and that they deserved things, but neglected to give them even the most basic of the tools of acquisition. In a normally-functioning economy, many of these people will survive due to manpower demands. But in the opposite scenario, they can only rely on what they’ve been given in the way of survival skills. In the realities of this economy, it’s their conviction that they are “special” and above the rules, combined with a nonfunctioning moral compass, thanks to the parents who “raised” them.
It’s funny: Here on Piggs, there have been, of late, a number of links to articles about the lack of jobs for new college graduates. Time-permitting, I try to make a point of reading through the readers’ comments at the article’s close. I am shocked by the intensity of the accusations made by 22, 24, and 28 year-old recent grads, but not by the accusations themselves. Virtually every one states that, as far as they are concerned, they can’t get jobs because of the economy that the baby boomers messed up. There are obvious flaws in that line of reasoning, but not to people who were raised to believe that they were “special” without having to provide evidence, who were provided with everything they wanted, or who learned to manipulate when they did not, whose parents encouraged them to cheat under the guise of attaining academic excellence, and who forced school administrations to “adjust” their subpar grades, and who attended law school because they were guaranteed to get a $160K/yr job when they graduated. These people are totally self-focused and concerned solely with their own wants and needs. That, in itself, does not bode well for those of us over the age of 50, who screwed up the economy for them. Our goose is cooked.
[quote=Arraya] These riots are a prime example of feral consumerism. Or what early economic theorists considered the true “nature” of man – That of a ruthless genetic self-maximizer with no regard to surroundings, whose sole purpose is acquisition of resources for survival and sexual selection purposes – which is why we need a strong government(to protect from mans “natural” passions), with capitalism as the “bloodless” and “enlightened” competition system to channel these “natural” passions, of which all progress flows.
Interestingly, their rapaciousness is practically identical to the financial sector. Just pure ego-driven greed with no regard for law. It’s fascinating that the top and bottom of society are mirrors of each other. [/quote]
Arraya, some brilliant observations! I particularly like your use of the term “feral consumerism”, which captures the essence of not only the current events in Britain, but our socioeconomic behavioral model of the aughts. Even now, despite greatly reduced economic circumstances, there are those in whom this tendency appears to be part of their neurobiological makeup.
And I was particularly struck by the similarities you cite in your comparison of these angry rioters and the “stars” of the financial sector. But, after all, the “haves” (or “mega-haves”) were the role models for the “have-nots”. I think that the problem lies in the uncomfortable truth that the “have-nots” didn’t actually see or think of themselves as such. They were convinced of their “have” status until incontrovertible evidence emerged that they were not, an event dfor which they were not, in any way, prepared.
[quote=Arraya] http://transitionvoice.com/2011/08/shopocalypse-now/%5B/quote%5D
Thank you for this great link. I think this one may be a keeper.
-
AuthorPosts