Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 19 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote: Dangermousecatdog is from the UK, so it is pretty easy for him to come up with legally enforceable metric for what constitutes hate speech.
The framing of Hate Speech as some legally unknowable is a red herring, as even the US legally defines what constitutes prohibited speech. And none of these legal metrics are applicable to the problems created by social media networks, as they are gathering places for hate groups and platforms for un-moderated harassment.
And the fear of some echo chamber a further red herring, as we already exist in siloed groups. Facebook, google and other social media keep us in software enforced echo chambers. The online reality of a Kentucky conservative does not even come close to the online reality I see every day. Any fears of an echo chamber are moot, we already live in one.
Echo chambers are natural, I agree, so that's why I said there is nothing to do about them.
I'm not sure what you mean by software-enforced echo chambers. You aren't limited to joining any specific group, only given suggestions similar to what you already consume. Basically you live in an echo chamber of your own making. You are fully free to seek out other groups, just like in real life. Plus people generally reject any dissenting viewpoint to their own, making them seek out supportive viewpoints, so I'm not sure presenting unsolicited opposing viewpoints even does anything.
Facebook and Google are already incentivized via their users to remove extremely hateful contents. It's also possible to get websites delisted through legal means. So what's the reason for additional regulation?
This argument assumes a level of computer literacy and understanding of Facebooks and Google's algorithm that the average American citizen does not have. Facebook system specifically favors engagement over all other metrics, which means that the most commented and views post rise to the top of people's feeds. Many US citizens are only passively aware of this, but receive much of their news through Facebook while being unaware that the news they are being shown is not the breaking news of the day, but the news with teh highest engagement of people in their "group". Because Facebook also groups people with similar interests for marketing purposes. This encourages a fragmenting of the population to be served up ads and news catered toward their interest. Conservatives have claimed Facebook represses their news stories, but recent reports have shown otherwise due to the sensational nature of their coverage being pushed to a hungry audience that using that as their primary news source. Which is fine, except that we are talking about our democracy, not celebrity tabloids.
Facebook peddles tabloid style news as if it is quality reporting because it has no editorial input, intentionally. Because Facebook has over 2 billion users and from reports, only 20,000 people working to moderate it world wide. Which is essentially unmoderated at that scale. But their marketing behavior makes it seem like there is some level of quality control over their news feed that simply does not exist.
And I hate to be the old man in the thread, but I used the internet when it wasn't like this. The internet as shaped by Facebook and google are not the natural progression of our online spaces. It is just the one that favors them commercially.
I posted this earlier in the thread but I think it is applicable:
Spoilers: The question the title asks is never answered. Zuckerberg is so hopelessly naive that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. He clings to the belief that he is running some scrappy start up and his ego won't let go of control to more responsible people. He is so introverted that even the highest people in Facebook can't challenge his direction for the company. These people are just the next version of Bill Gates and Steven Ballmer of the 1990s with better PR and a weaker congress.
I don't use FB much, especially not for news since like you said, it's basically tabloid content. That being said, that is no different than consuming content directly from buzzfeed, twitter, Cosmo or Vanity Fair. If people do not seek to be well informed, then democracy is already broken as is. Yes, FB should cut down on fake news for the sake of its users and its own credibility, but really shouldn't be acting as parents for adults.
Perhaps the reason the internet wasn't like this before is because only tech-savvy people used the internet initially and were more discerning about their information sources.
As an aside, I find it amusing that you called FB a tabloid and also linked an article with a very click-baity title "Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy". The article itself had some interesting anecdotes about Mark's life, but cherrypicks a few negative examples which don't quite support the article's tagline about FB. Also it's contradictory to preserve privacy and to police content, especially non-public content.
All titles are click bait. The purpose of a title is to compel the viewer to read the content. Also, it is the New Yorker, the antithesis of a tabloid.
And the article has a editorial thrust, but also conveys significant. My myself, Zuckerburg’s gross misunderstanding the history of Rome was beyond informative. He, from his own account, idolizes a completely fictional version of Augustus and freely talks about it. There is no way he has talked about that fictional idol without someone with greater historical knowledge correcting him. Yet, after all these years his views are unchanged and historical wrong. And that unwillingness to change his previous held beliefs appears throughout his management of the largest media and communications service in the world.
On October 19 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote: Dangermousecatdog is from the UK, so it is pretty easy for him to come up with legally enforceable metric for what constitutes hate speech.
The framing of Hate Speech as some legally unknowable is a red herring, as even the US legally defines what constitutes prohibited speech. And none of these legal metrics are applicable to the problems created by social media networks, as they are gathering places for hate groups and platforms for un-moderated harassment.
And the fear of some echo chamber a further red herring, as we already exist in siloed groups. Facebook, google and other social media keep us in software enforced echo chambers. The online reality of a Kentucky conservative does not even come close to the online reality I see every day. Any fears of an echo chamber are moot, we already live in one.
Echo chambers are natural, I agree, so that's why I said there is nothing to do about them.
I'm not sure what you mean by software-enforced echo chambers. You aren't limited to joining any specific group, only given suggestions similar to what you already consume. Basically you live in an echo chamber of your own making. You are fully free to seek out other groups, just like in real life. Plus people generally reject any dissenting viewpoint to their own, making them seek out supportive viewpoints, so I'm not sure presenting unsolicited opposing viewpoints even does anything.
Facebook and Google are already incentivized via their users to remove extremely hateful contents. It's also possible to get websites delisted through legal means. So what's the reason for additional regulation?
This argument assumes a level of computer literacy and understanding of Facebooks and Google's algorithm that the average American citizen does not have. Facebook system specifically favors engagement over all other metrics, which means that the most commented and views post rise to the top of people's feeds. Many US citizens are only passively aware of this, but receive much of their news through Facebook while being unaware that the news they are being shown is not the breaking news of the day, but the news with teh highest engagement of people in their "group". Because Facebook also groups people with similar interests for marketing purposes. This encourages a fragmenting of the population to be served up ads and news catered toward their interest. Conservatives have claimed Facebook represses their news stories, but recent reports have shown otherwise due to the sensational nature of their coverage being pushed to a hungry audience that using that as their primary news source. Which is fine, except that we are talking about our democracy, not celebrity tabloids.
Facebook peddles tabloid style news as if it is quality reporting because it has no editorial input, intentionally. Because Facebook has over 2 billion users and from reports, only 20,000 people working to moderate it world wide. Which is essentially unmoderated at that scale. But their marketing behavior makes it seem like there is some level of quality control over their news feed that simply does not exist.
And I hate to be the old man in the thread, but I used the internet when it wasn't like this. The internet as shaped by Facebook and google are not the natural progression of our online spaces. It is just the one that favors them commercially.
I posted this earlier in the thread but I think it is applicable:
Spoilers: The question the title asks is never answered. Zuckerberg is so hopelessly naive that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. He clings to the belief that he is running some scrappy start up and his ego won't let go of control to more responsible people. He is so introverted that even the highest people in Facebook can't challenge his direction for the company. These people are just the next version of Bill Gates and Steven Ballmer of the 1990s with better PR and a weaker congress.
I don't use FB much, especially not for news since like you said, it's basically tabloid content. That being said, that is no different than consuming content directly from buzzfeed, twitter, Cosmo or Vanity Fair. If people do not seek to be well informed, then democracy is already broken as is. Yes, FB should cut down on fake news for the sake of its users and its own credibility, but really shouldn't be acting as parents for adults.
Perhaps the reason the internet wasn't like this before is because only tech-savvy people used the internet initially and were more discerning about their information sources.
As an aside, I find it amusing that you called FB a tabloid and also linked an article with a very click-baity title "Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy". The article itself had some interesting anecdotes about Mark's life, but cherrypicks a few negative examples which don't quite support the article's tagline about FB. Also it's contradictory to preserve privacy and to police content, especially non-public content.
All titles are click bait. The purpose of a title is to compel the viewer to read the content. Also, it is the New Yorker, the antithesis of a tabloid.
And the article has a editorial thrust, but also conveys significant. My myself, Zuckerburg’s gross misunderstanding the history of Rome was beyond informative. He, from his own account, idolizes a completely fictional version of Augustus and freely talks about it. There is no way he has talked about that fictional idol without someone with greater historical knowledge correcting him. Yet, after all these years his views are unchanged and historical wrong. And that unwillingness to change his previous held beliefs appears throughout his management of the largest media and communications service in the world.
I'm not excepting Zuckerberg or anything, I thoroughly dislike the concept of FB and his attitude towards product development and user experiments. However, to say that FB is breaking democracy is misleading; it's certainly showing the cracks in our society, but it's only somewhat exacerbating existing issues. It's as accurate as saying reddit or 4chan are breaking democracy.
In other news that will boil your blood, 99% of public service loan forgiveness applications were denied this year. The entire industry is so badly mismanaged and people have thrown away 10 years of their life and are saddled with debt that cannot be discharged.
And this is likely the last time we will hear this story because Trump is soaking up all of America’s attention.
I looked into that program a few years ago and realized it only applies to a narrow group of people who plan ahead for it and meet a bunch of other criteria. Part of the problem is it gets pushed without the necessary accompanying information to determine whether or not it actually is good for you. Veteran benefits often have similar problems, although not to the tune of 99% of candidates having major problems.
This was a perfect week to start praising Giantforte's assault on a journalist, Trump must have thought. Given that's it's just some body-slamming and not body-dismembering it's all just fun and games. And the croud cheered.
On October 19 2018 02:15 Grumbels wrote: Theoretically, could they force Facebook to relinquish control of its network?. To explain: the FB app would still exist, but there could be competing interfaces for the same network.
And imo its quite obvious that all of silicon valley should break up. Windows and Office and IE should not all be the same company. facebook, instagram, whatsapp should break up. twitch should be independent from amazon. various google products should be spun off.
one big problem is how amazon can monopolize retail by subsidizing it with profits from server departnent, its unfair competition
This is incredibly short sighted to the point of idiocy. If a company gets broken up into pieces any time it produces any type of successful secondary software, innovation would literally stop dead in its tracks. It's especially ridiculous considering software like Windows, Office and IE are meant to heighten each other. So not only can you not make secondary software any more, you can't even add features to your primary one! Why waste money on anything if it's just going to split your company up?
I'm all for intervening with big companies to create competition or security, but splitting up core products from a company like that is not the way to go about it.
For what it's worth Facebook didn't invent Instagram or WhatsApp.
Also Office and IE aren't novel products, both are predated by other software that does the same thing. There's nothing innovative about either of them.
Big aquisitions are obviously something that should always be looked into as they happen. They are more often than not a bad ideas that stifles competition.
I was more thinking in terms of the Microsoft examples here. Believe it or not both Office and IE are innovative products, people just forget that they are 30 years old as well. To use to slippery slope argument, why these products? Why not split google+ from google? Should Chrome and Google search engine be the same company? If you keep going down this road, companies will simply just stop attempting to innovate in fear of just losing the product and part of their company in the process. I sure as hell wouldn't waste money down the drain like that.
I don’t see any problem with the questions you just asked. Why not split up chrome and google? How does it hurt me if suddenly the only relevant search engine doesn’t also have its own browser and massive email client? As someone who grew up in the era the pre-HTML era with BBSs and Usnet, I don’t have much a problem with an internet that sometimes fights with itself.
And internet explorer wasn’t that impressive. Netscape existed and we were all cool. And frankly, people were didn’t used to like the idea of using a browser made by the company that created the operating system. They didn’t like one company controlling every aspect of the computer they owned.
Finally, fearing the goverment isn't a bad thing. Companies should ask themselves if a product is a good idea holistically. Otherwise we get companies like Uber, who pass off regulation dodging and an unsustainable business model as innovation. Or Apple talking about the courage to remove the headphone jack.
On October 19 2018 06:11 buhhy wrote:
On October 19 2018 03:59 Plansix wrote: The reason Windows got anti-trusted by congress was because they were forcing companies to install windows internet net explorer on all machines that came with windows. And some other ways early windows was designed. Web browsers were not free in the dial up era of the internet.
In the case of Facebook, the market share of the company is so huge that is equal to one of the three major religions in size. And that doesn’t include Instagrams 800 million users. Facebook is so dominate that the best way alert people to that dominance is to post on Facebook or Instagram. There is no other media service with even close to the same reach.
Also, Facebook is designed to be addictive to use. High level managers and directors have been beating that drum for a while now. Over the years Facebook has spent a lot of money studying the physiology of using their service and creating an addictive feedback loop.
There isn’t a part of Facebook you can dig into a feel good about. They are a service that is so data hungry that they will make data profiles for people who don’t use Facebook, but live with Facebook users. Their ad delivery programs are so complex that Facebook often can’t tell why someone received a specific ad.
So what you're actually saying here is that we should break up big religion first since it is far more influential, caused far more grief and suffering over history, and is typically used to misinform and control the population?
Facebook is ephemeral at that time frame, it will come and go. I don't really see the worry.
No.
That's exactly what I would say to your own alarmist tirade against tech companies.
The Microsoft anti-trust did absolutely nothing btw. The US one was a slap on the wrist and the EU one came too late to have any effect. You know what actually changed the browser landscape? Building a better browser. IE was actually pretty good in its heyday, certainly better than netscape, which you had to pay for. Then IE6 stagnated and Firefox started gaining steam. Then Firefox stagnated and Chrome came onto the scene. Now Chrome is starting to stagnate, and is ripe to be disrupted.
Zero government intervention needed.
This is factually incorrect. Leadership at Microsoft who have since retired have said in interviews the anti-trust case influenced the direction of the company going forward. Every decision they made was done with the intent of avoiding even the appearance of anti-competitive behaviors. It also changed the make up of Windows, since Microsoft would bury user desktop icons and short cuts for software they considered competitors before the anti-trust case. Microsoft was designing their operating system to favor their software by making it more user friendly up until that point. This is all documented in the anti-trust case and isn't disputable.
That's fair. The lawsuit was before my time and I don't know the specifics. I agree with the spirit of the anti-trust suits, including the recent Google Android and shopping ads suit, even though it personally affects me. I wouldn't go as far as saying MSFT or GOOG should be broken up. They will either collapse under their own weight once they are disrupted or start innovating again, which is a win-win from a consumer standpoint.
Regardless, you still need upstart competitors in place. If there are too many regulations in place, then the incumbents will abuse them and literally live forever. IMO, the balance does not revolve around breaking up a tech company when it gets too big.
My guess is you got tangled up in the idea that the the lawsuit would badly damage Microsoft, so thought 'Well Microsoft are still the dominant force, so that lawsuit didn't do squat!'
But the purpose of such lawsuits isn't to necessarily up-end the pyramid, it's to refine the edges. Despite what free market Capitalists think, the market trends towards a single monolithic entity at the top (computing has Microsoft, entertainment has Hollywood and Disney, videogames have Activision-Blizzard, etc. etc.). Such monoliths eventually seek to crush competition, and that's bad for the market, so it's necessary to step in and give them a little kick in the nuts to remind them to stop being dickheads.
Disney's getting very, very close to the point of needing an investigation on that front, just to make sure they're not messing about.
On October 19 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote: Dangermousecatdog is from the UK, so it is pretty easy for him to come up with legally enforceable metric for what constitutes hate speech.
The framing of Hate Speech as some legally unknowable is a red herring, as even the US legally defines what constitutes prohibited speech. And none of these legal metrics are applicable to the problems created by social media networks, as they are gathering places for hate groups and platforms for un-moderated harassment.
And the fear of some echo chamber a further red herring, as we already exist in siloed groups. Facebook, google and other social media keep us in software enforced echo chambers. The online reality of a Kentucky conservative does not even come close to the online reality I see every day. Any fears of an echo chamber are moot, we already live in one.
Echo chambers are natural, I agree, so that's why I said there is nothing to do about them.
I'm not sure what you mean by software-enforced echo chambers. You aren't limited to joining any specific group, only given suggestions similar to what you already consume. Basically you live in an echo chamber of your own making. You are fully free to seek out other groups, just like in real life. Plus people generally reject any dissenting viewpoint to their own, making them seek out supportive viewpoints, so I'm not sure presenting unsolicited opposing viewpoints even does anything.
Facebook and Google are already incentivized via their users to remove extremely hateful contents. It's also possible to get websites delisted through legal means. So what's the reason for additional regulation?
This argument assumes a level of computer literacy and understanding of Facebooks and Google's algorithm that the average American citizen does not have. Facebook system specifically favors engagement over all other metrics, which means that the most commented and views post rise to the top of people's feeds. Many US citizens are only passively aware of this, but receive much of their news through Facebook while being unaware that the news they are being shown is not the breaking news of the day, but the news with teh highest engagement of people in their "group". Because Facebook also groups people with similar interests for marketing purposes. This encourages a fragmenting of the population to be served up ads and news catered toward their interest. Conservatives have claimed Facebook represses their news stories, but recent reports have shown otherwise due to the sensational nature of their coverage being pushed to a hungry audience that using that as their primary news source. Which is fine, except that we are talking about our democracy, not celebrity tabloids.
Facebook peddles tabloid style news as if it is quality reporting because it has no editorial input, intentionally. Because Facebook has over 2 billion users and from reports, only 20,000 people working to moderate it world wide. Which is essentially unmoderated at that scale. But their marketing behavior makes it seem like there is some level of quality control over their news feed that simply does not exist.
And I hate to be the old man in the thread, but I used the internet when it wasn't like this. The internet as shaped by Facebook and google are not the natural progression of our online spaces. It is just the one that favors them commercially.
I posted this earlier in the thread but I think it is applicable:
Spoilers: The question the title asks is never answered. Zuckerberg is so hopelessly naive that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. He clings to the belief that he is running some scrappy start up and his ego won't let go of control to more responsible people. He is so introverted that even the highest people in Facebook can't challenge his direction for the company. These people are just the next version of Bill Gates and Steven Ballmer of the 1990s with better PR and a weaker congress.
I don't use FB much, especially not for news since like you said, it's basically tabloid content. That being said, that is no different than consuming content directly from buzzfeed, twitter, Cosmo or Vanity Fair. If people do not seek to be well informed, then democracy is already broken as is. Yes, FB should cut down on fake news for the sake of its users and its own credibility, but really shouldn't be acting as parents for adults.
Perhaps the reason the internet wasn't like this before is because only tech-savvy people used the internet initially and were more discerning about their information sources.
As an aside, I find it amusing that you called FB a tabloid and also linked an article with a very click-baity title "Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy". The article itself had some interesting anecdotes about Mark's life, but cherrypicks a few negative examples which don't quite support the article's tagline about FB. Also it's contradictory to preserve privacy and to police content, especially non-public content.
All titles are click bait. The purpose of a title is to compel the viewer to read the content. Also, it is the New Yorker, the antithesis of a tabloid.
And the article has a editorial thrust, but also conveys significant. My myself, Zuckerburg’s gross misunderstanding the history of Rome was beyond informative. He, from his own account, idolizes a completely fictional version of Augustus and freely talks about it. There is no way he has talked about that fictional idol without someone with greater historical knowledge correcting him. Yet, after all these years his views are unchanged and historical wrong. And that unwillingness to change his previous held beliefs appears throughout his management of the largest media and communications service in the world.
I'm not excepting Zuckerberg or anything, I thoroughly dislike the concept of FB and his attitude towards product development and user experiments. However, to say that FB is breaking democracy is misleading; it's certainly showing the cracks in our society, but it's only somewhat exacerbating existing issues. It's as accurate as saying reddit or 4chan are breaking democracy.
Reddit? No. 4Chan? Maybe. If you dig into the stuff that's come out of 4Chan you uncover some pretty dark things. r/thedonald is mostly just scary and/or amusing, but if they switched over to aggressive activism they'd get dangerous in a hurry.
@FueledupandReadytogo: I mean... what did you expect? It's the Trump era. There is no such thing as common decency, or even decency anymore.
What I expect is for the law and order politicians to bitch slap the president for making these kind of comments. Though perhaps it is more a wish than an expectance. I still don't understand why everyone threw away personal integrity to stand behind this moral trainwreck. Why do you want to hammer on safety and security so hard and then cheer for random beatings of journalists by a guy with bad temper. Journalists should be able to feel safe too.
Poor people, who are scared of poor people from other countries, cheering on the aggressive ill-tempered multimillionaire for assaulting a journalist asking about him taking away their healthcare.
On October 19 2018 19:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: What I expect is for the law and order politicians to bitch slap the president for making these kind of comments. Though perhaps it is more a wish than an expectance. I still don't understand why everyone threw away personal integrity to stand behind this moral trainwreck. Why do you want to hammer on safety and security so hard and then cheer for random beatings of journalists by a guy with bad temper. Journalists should be able to feel safe too.
Poor people, who are scared of poor people from other countries, cheering on the aggressive ill-tempered millionaire for assaulting a journalist asking about him taking away their healthcare.
Because they don't care about law and order? Because they don't care about integrity? Because the hammering on safety and security is pure show for the voters?
On October 19 2018 19:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: What I expect is for the law and order politicians to bitch slap the president for making these kind of comments. Though perhaps it is more a wish than an expectance. I still don't understand why everyone threw away personal integrity to stand behind this moral trainwreck. Why do you want to hammer on safety and security so hard and then cheer for random beatings of journalists by a guy with bad temper. Journalists should be able to feel safe too.
Poor people, who are scared of poor people from other countries, cheering on the aggressive ill-tempered millionaire for assaulting a journalist asking about him taking away their healthcare.
Because they don't care about law and order? Because they don't care about integrity? Because the hammering on safety and security is pure show for the voters?
I think its more that it pisses off the libtards. This is the explanation for 100% of republican policy in 2018.
On October 19 2018 19:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: What I expect is for the law and order politicians to bitch slap the president for making these kind of comments. Though perhaps it is more a wish than an expectance. I still don't understand why everyone threw away personal integrity to stand behind this moral trainwreck. Why do you want to hammer on safety and security so hard and then cheer for random beatings of journalists by a guy with bad temper. Journalists should be able to feel safe too.
Poor people, who are scared of poor people from other countries, cheering on the aggressive ill-tempered millionaire for assaulting a journalist asking about him taking away their healthcare.
Because they don't care about law and order? Because they don't care about integrity? Because the hammering on safety and security is pure show for the voters?
That would just make them comically evil. I prefer to believe most are just spineless sellouts to policy or too scared to go against the seemingly unstoppable Trump vehicle. But they need to take responsibility because ideas like it being ok, or even admirable, to beat up certain groups of people is a dark fucking road.
On October 19 2018 19:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: What I expect is for the law and order politicians to bitch slap the president for making these kind of comments. Though perhaps it is more a wish than an expectance. I still don't understand why everyone threw away personal integrity to stand behind this moral trainwreck. Why do you want to hammer on safety and security so hard and then cheer for random beatings of journalists by a guy with bad temper. Journalists should be able to feel safe too.
Poor people, who are scared of poor people from other countries, cheering on the aggressive ill-tempered millionaire for assaulting a journalist asking about him taking away their healthcare.
Because they don't care about law and order? Because they don't care about integrity? Because the hammering on safety and security is pure show for the voters?
That would just make them comically evil. I prefer to believe most are just spineless sellouts to policy or too scared to go against the seemingly unstoppable Trump vehicle. But they need to take responsibility because ideas like it being ok, or even admirable, to beat up certain groups of people is a dark fucking road.
They are comically evil then.
The Republican Party hasn't really pushed for law and order for a long time. Hell, the terms 'law and order' are verging on a dogwhistle as they normally get used in response to black people complaining about being shot by cops.
It works better if you realise they were simply saying things that the voters respond well to without ever intending to act on them, or to seem to possess those qualities without ever possessing them.
On October 19 2018 19:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: What I expect is for the law and order politicians to bitch slap the president for making these kind of comments. Though perhaps it is more a wish than an expectance. I still don't understand why everyone threw away personal integrity to stand behind this moral trainwreck. Why do you want to hammer on safety and security so hard and then cheer for random beatings of journalists by a guy with bad temper. Journalists should be able to feel safe too.
Poor people, who are scared of poor people from other countries, cheering on the aggressive ill-tempered millionaire for assaulting a journalist asking about him taking away their healthcare.
Because they don't care about law and order? Because they don't care about integrity? Because the hammering on safety and security is pure show for the voters?
That would just make them comically evil. I prefer to believe most are just spineless sellouts to policy or too scared to go against the seemingly unstoppable Trump vehicle. But they need to take responsibility because ideas like it being ok to beat up certain groups of people is a dark fucking road.
How many times does someone need to betray the principles they claim to stand for before you realize they just don't give a shit? And yes at times some of the GOP comes off as comically evil, because that's how they act. I mean, you remember the Kavanaugh situation right? happened very recently and involved a Senator publicly threatening the opposition with fake sexual assault allegations if they didn't stop investigating their candidate for all the shade shit they tried to cover up.
If you asked a writer to think of some up the wall crazy book of fiction about politics 4 years ago they wouldn't have come up with half as insane shit as the last 2 years have given us.
On October 19 2018 20:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On October 19 2018 19:22 Gorsameth wrote:
On October 19 2018 19:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: What I expect is for the law and order politicians to bitch slap the president for making these kind of comments. Though perhaps it is more a wish than an expectance. I still don't understand why everyone threw away personal integrity to stand behind this moral trainwreck. Why do you want to hammer on safety and security so hard and then cheer for random beatings of journalists by a guy with bad temper. Journalists should be able to feel safe too.
Poor people, who are scared of poor people from other countries, cheering on the aggressive ill-tempered millionaire for assaulting a journalist asking about him taking away their healthcare.
Because they don't care about law and order? Because they don't care about integrity? Because the hammering on safety and security is pure show for the voters?
That would just make them comically evil. I prefer to believe most are just spineless sellouts to policy or too scared to go against the seemingly unstoppable Trump vehicle. But they need to take responsibility because ideas like it being ok to beat up certain groups of people is a dark fucking road.
How many times does someone need to betray the principles they claim to stand for before you realize they just don't give a shit? And yes at times some of the GOP comes off as comically evil, because that's how they act. I mean, you remember the Kavanaugh situation right? happened very recently and involved a Senator publicly threatening the opposition with fake sexual assault allegations if they didn't stop investigating their candidate for all the shade shit they tried to cover up.
If you asked a writer to think of some up the wall crazy book of fiction about politics 4 years ago they wouldn't have come up with half as insane shit as the last 2 years have given us.
Sometimes reality is stranger then fiction.
It'd be very hard to write a president in fiction that behaved like Trump without everyone declaring that character to be unbelievable. He's practically the Joker from Batman (Nicholson version; 'money money money, who do you love?'.
Bolsonaro in Brazil is another “law and order” type who thinks everyone should be armed, the only good criminal is a dead criminal, and the police should be a paramilitary organisation with license to kill. In practice this leads to violence against minorities. Is that the intent? Probably some voters genuinely believe “toughness” will make the world safer, even though it’s wrong, but politicians have to know it’s nonsense.
People love the Joker the same way some love and want to be Tony Soprano. Objectively shitty, unhappy or straight up insane characters are still seen as desirable by some who are willing to ignore all of that for the parts they like. It is why I am always conflicted about shows like Breaking Bad when they reach mass market popularity. Because no matter how subversive the show is, there are still tons of people that miss the point. And that sort of uncritical lionization of anti-heroes, without a firm focus on the people they victimize, really resembles the way people lionize Trump.
A lot of that has to do with our piss poor humanities education, particularly as it relates to critically evaluating narratives and characters, but I digress :D
But the Humanities are bad and filled with those emotions, you need to take lots and lots of science for that rational thinking that only science has. /s
It is sad that the fictional character Dr. Ian Malcolm had firmer grasp of the humanities and their merits than most folks do today. In a movie about cloning dinosaurs.
On October 19 2018 23:18 Grumbels wrote: The actress that played Skyler on Breaking Bad received a lot of hate from fans over the years for getting in the way of Walter White.
These people are the same people who think Lisa Simpson sucks, rather than being the coolest character on that show.
On October 19 2018 22:45 Grumbels wrote: Bolsonaro in Brazil is another “law and order” type who thinks everyone should be armed, the only good criminal is a dead criminal, and the police should be a paramilitary organisation with license to kill. In practice this leads to violence against minorities. Is that the intent? Probably some voters genuinely believe “toughness” will make the world safer, even though it’s wrong, but politicians have to know it’s nonsense.
Maybe the know,maybe they don't. Its not the most important thing for policitians anyway. Most important thing is getting elected,and after that it is getting re-elected. His campaign got him elected,so by all measures it was a good campaign bringing forward good points.
Voting for toughness is at least partially a protest vote I think,people vote for the extreme candidate which often comes with thoughness. Sometimes thoughness does work,zero tolerance was a success in new York.
EPT
