Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > A Day In The Life

A Day In The Life (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 06:46 AM
 
The quick summary of the fall of the Soviet Union is the United States forced them to maintain unsustainable defense spending in the face of potential war (both conventional and nuclear), along with an endless string of actual war fought via proxy.

While this occurred over a longer period than the 8 years of the Reagan administration, he doubled-down on the policy, and managed to take the most wind out of their sails by causing the nuclear buildup, and tying them down with our pals in Afghanistan.

Bit of a "whoopsie daisy" on that last one, but seems a small price to pay for a sovereign Eastern Europe.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
If the pesky socialists had just gone away just THINK where we could be now!
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Umm... where on earth did that come from?
I think this line:

Originally Posted by subego View Post
The big benefits to society of Republicanism are its business-friendly practices, which in turn make us the world leader in innovation.
"Business friendly" typically means bad for the middle class and environment. Apple in the US employs a handful of engineers, a whole bunch of $13/hr retail workers, and a buttload of contracted Chinese labor.

I posit that you can have a flourishing business culture while still promoting a strong middle class and not dumping literal shit into the water supply.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
For the record, I got the OP from elsewhere, I didn't write it.
Yes, no one thought you wrote it. We all recognize the form from that obnoxious Facebook friend that posts one-sided, hyper-partisan garbage all of the time.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
"Business friendly" typically means bad for the middle class
This isn't even close to factual.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
"Business friendly" typically means bad for the middle class and environment. Apple in the US employs a handful of engineers, a whole bunch of $13/hr retail workers, and a buttload of contracted Chinese labor.

I posit that you can have a flourishing business culture while still promoting a strong middle class and not dumping literal shit into the water supply.
In this particular case, business friendly means we get iPhones, search, cheap servers, and a way to have affairs with people we went to high-school with.

I reject the idea making this observation is tantamount to declaring half the political spectrum as disposable.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In this particular case, business friendly means we get iPhones, search, cheap servers, and a way to have affairs with people we went to high-school with.
and in return we get zero hours contracts, MacJobs, eye watering levels of student debt and we still get companies literally pissing into our drinking water.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 02:27 PM
 
Hence the points made in the OP, which I have argued against exactly how?

The worst thing I've said about socialism in this thread is it needs to have something balanced against it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 03:44 PM
 
I mean, Christ on a cracker... I voted for Sanders for ****'s sake.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 06:23 PM
 
[QUOTE=subego;4376933I reject the idea making this observation is tantamount to declaring half the political spectrum as disposable.[/QUOTE]

My post was more a reaction to the seemingly growing number of people who think the exact opposite of that.


What percentage of people political views are a mixed grab bag of left and right? Most people I would think? Strangely this gets little traction in the media who are happy to portray the world as just black and white.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2017, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
My post was more a reaction to the seemingly growing number of people who think the exact opposite of that.
Well, it's coming off as directed to me, and really in my face about it, too.

Since I'm not guilty of what's being accused, it's a bit WTF?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 05:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, it's coming off as directed to me, and really in my face about it, too.

Since I'm not guilty of what's being accused, it's a bit WTF?
In that case, I apologise.I certainly didn't mean to be jumping down your throat.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
and in return we get zero hours contracts, MacJobs, eye watering levels of student debt and we still get companies literally pissing into our drinking water.
Eye-watering debt due to college administration (on the Left) overpricing education in upper-tier colleges (I'm paying $75k /semester to send my nephew to Vandy). On the flip side, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and making them get worthless Masters degrees in social sciences. Fortunately said nephew is getting a degree in Law (to be a tax lawyer).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Eye-watering debt due to college administration (on the Left) overpricing education in upper-tier colleges (I'm paying $75k /semester to send my nephew to Vandy). On the flip side, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and making them get worthless Masters degrees in social sciences.
Eye watering debt because once you give students guaranteed loans the price of college courses will rise to meet the amount of money that governments are prepared to allow students to sink into a hole for. Nothing to do with left or right. Seems like simple supply and demand.

Now that students have been turned into mini cash machines they get ripped for everything, fees, accommodation, books etc. You are right though no one is forcing people to go. My youngest isn't planning to while my eldest has. We'll see how that pans out longterm. Tony Blairs dream of over 50% of children going to university was a stupid, irresponsible dream that ruined the polytechnic and technical HE in the UK. Bastard!

75K a SEMESTER seems, pardon my disbelief, an insane amount to spend.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
75K a SEMESTER seems, pardon my disbelief, an insane amount to spend.
It absolutely is. Vanderbilt Law School is $78,060 per YEAR.

https://law.vanderbilt.edu/prospecti...aid/budget.php

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 02:29 PM
 
Plainly your link details that's the amount a student is able to borrow, not the full amount it costs to attend for a 12 hour (aka. full-time) course load. Also he's taking 18 hours (so he can get into law school a year early), which I'd forgotten. So, more accurately it's about $68k* /semester.


(*I mistakenly added the cost of his apartment too, since he complained that he couldn't effectively study in the dorms. I shouldn't have caved there, because I believe part of what builds character is learning to adapt to unwanted stress. However, the proof is in the pudding and his grades did improve substantially once he had more privacy.)
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Mar 4, 2017 at 02:41 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Eye watering debt because once you give students guaranteed loans the price of college courses will rise to meet the amount of money that governments are prepared to allow students to sink into a hole for. Nothing to do with left or right. Seems like simple supply and demand.

Now that students have been turned into mini cash machines they get ripped for everything, fees, accommodation, books etc. You are right though no one is forcing people to go. My youngest isn't planning to while my eldest has. We'll see how that pans out longterm. Tony Blairs dream of over 50% of children going to university was a stupid, irresponsible dream that ruined the polytechnic and technical HE in the UK. Bastard!

75K a SEMESTER seems, pardon my disbelief, an insane amount to spend.
I've seen worse, out of state Ivy League costs are even higher. Also, uni costs were on the rise first, followed by the increases in student loan caps, not the other way around.

Indeed, believing that half of your citizens should attend university is ridiculous, when most should be in technical schools or under apprenticeships instead. It effectively destroys certain trades/professions and devalues liberal arts education on the whole, leading to the ever growing "barista with masters in sociology" phenomenon.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Plainly your link details that's the amount a student is able to borrow, not the full amount it costs to attend for a 12 hour (aka. full-time) course load. Also he's taking 18 hours (so he can get into law school a year early), which I'd forgotten. So, more accurately it's about $68k* /semester.
No it doesn't. Really.



And Vanderbilit University undergrad is even less. So ...



http://www.vanderbilt.edu/financialaid/costs.php

And "full-time" undergrad is anywhere from 12-18 credit hours per semester. Taking 18 doesn't cost any extra. So ...

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
(*I mistakenly added the cost of his apartment too, since he complained that he couldn't effectively study in the dorms. I shouldn't have caved there, because I believe part of what builds character is learning to adapt to unwanted stress. However, the proof is in the pudding and his grades did improve substantially once he had more privacy.)
So let's split the difference and roll with your $68K/semester figure. That means half of that is going to school related expenses. And the other half is going to this "apartment". Which really doesn't even make any sense because you wouldn't incur the $9772 Residence Hall expense if that was the case. But let's roll with that anyway for the sake of discussion. Because if you are spending $68K/12 which would be $5,666.67 per month on an apartment for a college student then you are an even bigger fool than what you obviously take us for.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 4, 2017 at 03:39 PM. )
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I've seen worse, out of state Ivy League costs are even higher. Also, uni costs were on the rise first, followed by the increases in student loan caps, not the other way around.
Well over here it was blatantly the other way round. Initial fees were capped at £3000 per year. Then the government announced that "some" high performing universities could charge up to £9000, but that the vast majority would remain at substantially less than this". 30 seconds later EVERY SINGLE uk* university was charging £9000 per year for fees.
This year the government announced fees would rise to £9250 but only universities that met a "quality threshold" could charge these extra fees. 30 seconds later EVERY SINGLE uk university had met the quality threshold.

Now they have introduced £14000 fees if the university compresses the course into two years.


And that's before we get onto the government retroactively altering students loan repayment contracts to lower the thresholds that repayments kick in, up the years to write off from 30 years to 75 years of age.

It's a fine time to be a student.

* damn my Englishcentricism. Of course fees are capped at £3000 in wales and the Scottish have free university still.
( Last edited by Doc HM; Mar 5, 2017 at 05:15 AM. Reason: English world view prevailing!)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Well over here it was blatantly the other way round. Initial fees were capped at £3000 per year. Then the government announced that "some" high performing universities could charge up to £9000, but that the vast majority would remain at substantially less than this". 30 seconds later EVERY SINGLE uk university was charging £9000 per year for fees.
This year the government announced fees would rise to £9250 but only universities that met a "quality threshold" could charge these extra fees. 30 seconds later EVERY SINGLE uk university had met the quality threshold.

Now they have introduced £14000 fees if the university compresses the course into two years.


And that's before we get onto the government retroactively altering students loan repayment contracts to lower the thresholds that repayments kick in, up the years to write off from 30 years to 75 years of age.

It's a fine time to be a student.
Well that's what happens when you have a 'leftist' government in power.

Wait...
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 07:23 PM
 
I mean....paying $140,000/year for some kid's tuition is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

And the guy can't even afford to get his own apartment - you've got to pay for him to move out of residence? What the **** does he do during his breaks, jack off while you pay for it?

So much for modern conservatism. Why doesn't someone take this opportunity to preach a little about the merits of hard work in a land of equal opportunity? Because it's not about the have and the have-nots - it's about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and letting your filthy rich uncle pay your entire way through the most expensive college you can find god dammit!

     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2017, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
In that case, I apologise.I certainly didn't mean to be jumping down your throat.
Accepted, and no worries!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 05:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Plainly your link details that's the amount a student is able to borrow, not the full amount it costs to attend for a 12 hour (aka. full-time) course load. Also he's taking 18 hours (so he can get into law school a year early), which I'd forgotten. So, more accurately it's about $68k* /semester.


(*I mistakenly added the cost of his apartment too, since he complained that he couldn't effectively study in the dorms. I shouldn't have caved there, because I believe part of what builds character is learning to adapt to unwanted stress. However, the proof is in the pudding and his grades did improve substantially once he had more privacy.)
Aah privilege. I wonder at what point in his career he'll start to look down on all the feckless ingrates that could have got to the same position as him if only they knew the definition of hard work?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
No it doesn't. Really.
Yes, it does.

And Vanderbilit University undergrad is even less. So ...
For the amount they're allowed to borrow.

And "full-time" undergrad is anywhere from 12-18 credit hours per semester. Taking 18 doesn't cost any extra. So ...
Nothing is said about 18 hours being the same amount as 12 in the link you provided.

So let's split the difference and roll with your $68K/semester figure. That means half of that is going to school related expenses. And the other half is going to this "apartment". Which really doesn't even make any sense because you wouldn't incur the $9772 Residence Hall expense if that was the case. But let's roll with that anyway for the sake of discussion. Because if you are spending $68K/12 which would be $5,666.67 per month on an apartment for a college student then you are an even bigger fool than what you obviously take us for.
Please cry more, there's no way I could ever portray you as a larger fool than you are behaving like right now. Do you need a diaper change?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I mean....paying $140,000/year for some kid's tuition is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.
Then you need to get out more. The most? The most? You normally roll with that much hyperbole?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Aah privilege. I wonder at what point in his career he'll start to look down on all the feckless ingrates that could have got to the same position as him if only they knew the definition of hard work?
Thankfully he only looks down on feckless reactionaries who sew outrage to feel morally superior.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 04:09 PM
 
What area is he studying?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Then you need to get out more. The most? The most? You normally roll with that much hyperbole?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
For the amount they're allowed to borrow.
I had no idea what this comment was about until I went back and looked at OAW's link. Which clearly identifies the amount of 2016-2017 Vanderbilt tuition (and there's one that shows the law school tuition as well), plus various fees, expenses, estimated cost of living, etc.

Undergrad tuition for the entire 2016-2017 school year is about $45,000, plus possibly 3-4 thousand for fees. Let's say about $50,000 even when you factor books (minus resale costs). Law school appears to be around $10k more, natch.

So at this point, by your own calculation you're paying almost $90,000 a year for his expenses, meals and apartment. Basically, not that far off a starting lawyer's salary if he actually went on to get his degree and graduate - he's getting that, as an undergrad, simply to do what every undergrad does and study?

Which.....well, yeah, that may actually be the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Da fuq?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 05:05 PM
 
^^^

Or alternatively, this could simply be yet another one of CTP's outlandish claims that doesn't stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Nothing is said about 18 hours being the same amount as 12 in the link you provided.
It doesn't have to. Anyone who has actually gone to college themselves or sent someone to college already knows that a "full-time student" is 12-18 credit hours per semester. When I was in college I needed to average 16 credit hours per semester to graduate in 4 years. With a typical 5 course semester at 3 credit hours each I had to make up for that 1 credit hour short fall. A couple of semesters I had a biology or chemistry lab that took care of some of it. But I had to pull a couple of 18 credit hour semesters to make up for the rest. And I can assure you there was no additional tuition. I have a son in college now and it's the same thing. So go ahead and keep revealing yourself to be the fraud that you are because you don't have sense enough to research Vanderbilt tuition before you go bragging about how much you are supposedly paying to send someone there.

But for the record .....



http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/admin-...n_and_fees.php

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 5, 2017 at 05:32 PM. )
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Thankfully he only looks down on feckless reactionaries who sew outrage to feel morally superior.
Not to worry. If this tale turns out to be at all true you'll soon have him thinking like a proper heir to...

It certainly sounds like he's going to be in no danger of touching base with the real world any time soon.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 07:16 PM
 
Going back in the direction of the OP, can we all happily agree that Republicans are basically bad and have achieved little or nothing positive for the people of America in fifty years or so and Democrats are basically good and responsible for virtually every positive change to society and the law for the last half century?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Going back in the direction of the OP, can we all happily agree that Republicans are basically bad and have achieved little or nothing positive for the people of America in fifty years or so and Democrats are basically good and responsible for virtually every positive change to society and the law for the last half century?
You're as insane as the rest of them. If you truly believe this then you're a complete idiot and not just a total troll, then.

One mark of a smart person is someone who realizes that people with opposing viewpoints can also have good ideas. Please. Be a smart person for once.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Also note the model which preceded the internet explosion, national television, is very poorly suited to echo chambers. It needs to appeal to everyone.

That was the model from before I was born, so it feels like that's the way it should be, but it wasn't always that way, and it seems like it's over now. As awful as television is, I think it was responsible for a golden age of journalism, which had many positive effects on the way society developed during that period.

If there's any hope I guess, it's that we survived and grew during the time before the golden age. There are still remnants of it around. For example, local newspapers which have the word "Democrat" in the name were at one time intentionally identifying themselves as an echo chamber.
I tend to think of it as 'appearing' like a golden age because it was a time when people didnt question journalism. There wasnt an easy path to question it. This didnt mean it was "real" news. Whether TV or paper, there were very limited accessible media sources; allowing media to twist & control literally everything into the perspective they wanted you to see. This had the effect of reinforcing a very nationalistic non-polarized culture. In world affairs, America was always portrayed as the good guys who were out saving the world with freedom, liberating nations from dictators and evil ideology, donating money and feeding the impoverished all while expecting nothing in return. I dont recall seeing many if any articles about all the covert regime changes the US was involved in, or the theft of natural resources, or dirty deals with dictators to exploit their people so we could have cheap imports.

The space of the net exposed the ugly side of reality. With lack of trust people began questioning our roll in world affairs more than ever. Untrustworthiness became targeted internally as well against politicians and everybody. There's no longer that superman perception of morality people saw in our rulers and nation back when ignorance was bliss. It's basically become information overload. Few know what to trust or believe anymore; they're not willing to put the effort into figuring it out, if it's even possible. So they just pick a team and tribally rally for that. It's easy because it gives people an out to blame someone else for all their problems. "My life sucks Im poor, BECAUSE CAPITALISM", or "BECAUSE WACIST GLOBAL WARMING LGBTQQP", or if you're republican "My life sucks and my freedom, BECAUSE MUSLIMS BIN LADEN REFUGEES MEXICANS".

Maybe withholding information to control the masses produces a better society. The Putin thread is a great example. Everybodys' got what appears to be a highly thought-out educated intellectual psychological profile of Putin - and yet nobody really knows whats going on.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 10:08 PM
 
I was specifically thinking in terms of partisanship when I said golden age. I agree the media used to face less scrutiny, and this was to our detriment.

However, I don't think it was the lack of questioning which led to the media being unpolarized. Follow the money. The top news organizations in America were the loss leaders for giant entertainment conglomerates. The job of the news was to drive traffic to the entertainment, and it did so by appealing to as many people as possible. Any other approach would have been counter-productive.

On top of prevailing market forces, the unavoidable bottom line was pull a fast one and the FCC crushes the golden goose's skull with a mallet.


As for what makes society better, my anarchist libertarian tendencies lean me towards pro-information and anti-gatekeeper, but that isn't exactly a smooth ride.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2017, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I was specifically thinking in terms of partisanship when I said golden age. I agree the media used to face less scrutiny, and this was to our detriment.

However, I don't think it was the lack of questioning which led to the media being unpolarized. Follow the money. The top news organizations in America were the loss leaders for giant entertainment conglomerates. The job of the news was to drive traffic to the entertainment, and it did so by appealing to as many people as possible. Any other approach would have been counter-productive.
I don't think the media is polarized, it is the electorate. New media outlets such as Breitbart have just capitalized on that market. When I was in the US the first time, papers like the Wallstreet Journal or Financial Times had the reputation of having a conservative slant. But this no longer seems to be the case, Fox News has been normalized.

A lot has to do with what are perceived to be the demarkation lines of the political parties and the sports team mentality. Things like global climate change were not partisan, but now if you voice support for it happening, in the eyes of many you can't be a conservative. (Ever wonder why many scientists “slant left”? Perhaps it's because of where you draw the dividing line.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 12:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Not to worry.
Indeed, I don't. People like you aren't worth worrying about.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 12:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
It doesn't have to. *IBS sounds*
and you're still whining about what someone else is spending...

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
What area is he studying?
Law.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 05:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Untrustworthiness became targeted internally as well against politicians and everybody. There's no longer that superman perception of morality people saw in our rulers and nation back when ignorance was bliss. It's basically become information overload. Few know what to trust or believe anymore; they're not willing to put the effort into figuring it out, if it's even possible. So they just pick a team and tribally rally for that. It's easy because it gives people an out to blame someone else for all their problems. "My life sucks Im poor, BECAUSE CAPITALISM", or "BECAUSE WACIST GLOBAL WARMING LGBTQQP", or if you're republican "My life sucks and my freedom, BECAUSE MUSLIMS BIN LADEN REFUGEES MEXICANS".

Maybe withholding information to control the masses produces a better society. The Putin thread is a great example. Everybodys' got what appears to be a highly thought-out educated intellectual psychological profile of Putin - and yet nobody really knows whats going on.
It does seem to be like that. The level of trust in sources, in fact in anything that is connected to "authority" is diminished. Politicians, teachers, doctors, news sources. While the deluge of information erodes trust it also brings change. While we trust less, we also see where those who have been leading us are less worthy of trust. I imagine there was similar seismic shift after the end of WW1 when the average (male at that time) person returned from seeing first hand where the old world order had got them and what happened when those in charge had scant regard for the lives of those below them. In that case the information was provided by experience. Again after WW2 there was a sea change in how government and people related, again bought about by overwhelming new information about how things could be improved. IN the UK we got an NHS and pensions etc out of that. I'm sure the US got similar changes for the better.

This time we get the information but we don't have a coherent force moving us forward. I'm sure something will develop, it always does, people are people still. I have no idea how it will go. I really think that as it currently stands, we really don't have any idea where the internet will take us societally. what we have now is just a start based on the old 1960s tech that birthed the internet and what we see around us is simply flailing around looking for the new world. Certainly I doubt any politicians really understand whats changing. In 100 years our leaders will HAVE to act substantially differently from how they act now.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 05:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Thankfully he only looks down on feckless reactionaries who sew outrage to feel morally superior.
I have a quilt of outrage and a scarf of superiority. I also macrame.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 05:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
You're as insane as the rest of them. If you truly believe this then you're a complete idiot and not just a total troll, then.

One mark of a smart person is someone who realizes that people with opposing viewpoints can also have good ideas. Please. Be a smart person for once.
I'm talking about decent acts, not good ideas.
By all means, please feel free to add to the list of decent things the Republicans have done in the last few decades. Everyone else seems to be struggling. Bonus point if you can think of one that isn't about profit or military action since no-one else has yet.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 06:47 AM
 
On the issue of trustworthiness and the media, things seem to have devolved to a point where whoever gets the most attention wins, regardless of whether its praise or criticism. There has always been an element of this because politics can very swiftly propel someone who 80% of the population have never heard of to a front runner for POTUS or Prime Minister and if yo have zero public profile you were always going to lose votes for that but its now becoming dangerously extreme. The rest of the world though you couldn't possibly reelect W, now you have Trump. Who's next and how low will they have to sink to get the exposure they need to win?

I can already hear the groans at me saying this but its worth pointing out which side is still actively telling the people not to listen to experts or the media. Its only one side.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think the media is polarized, it is the electorate. New media outlets such as Breitbart have just capitalized on that market. When I was in the US the first time, papers like the Wallstreet Journal or Financial Times had the reputation of having a conservative slant. But this no longer seems to be the case, Fox News has been normalized.

A lot has to do with what are perceived to be the demarkation lines of the political parties and the sports team mentality. Things like global climate change were not partisan, but now if you voice support for it happening, in the eyes of many you can't be a conservative. (Ever wonder why many scientists “slant left”? Perhaps it's because of where you draw the dividing line.)
The electorate has always been polarized, though as I said, 9/11 turned up the gas. What's changed are the sustainable business models.

The non-polarized model worked because people didn't have alternatives, and the news was subsidized by entertainment. Neither of those things are true anymore.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm talking about decent acts, not good ideas.
By all means, please feel free to add to the list of decent things the Republicans have done in the last few decades. Everyone else seems to be struggling. Bonus point if you can think of one that isn't about profit or military action since no-one else has yet.
And here we have it.

Decency in government is only achievable through social programs. Get on board or be adjudicated as morally deficient.

What a nice little racket.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The electorate has always been polarized, though as I said, 9/11 turned up the gas.
But not to this degree, that's been well-researched. There used to be an overlap of Democrats and Republicans, and that has disappeared.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's changed are the sustainable business models.
You are right that it got worse after 9/11, but Fox News was around before that. Honestly, I think if there was money to be made in the center, most companies would aim for the center.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The non-polarized model worked because people didn't have alternatives, and the news was subsidized by entertainment. Neither of those things are true anymore.
The “non-polarized model” worked, because newspapers were making very good money before people turned to the internet for news. They didn't have to become more click-baity and spice up headlines.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 07:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
And here we have it.

Decency in government is only achievable through social programs. Get on board or be adjudicated as morally deficient.

What a nice little racket.
Granting women choice over their bodies or equal rights for gay or transgender people are social programs?

Profit is all well and good and if it profits the nation so that taxes can be reduced for those that genuinely need it or to pay for programs that take care of the veterans who fought the wars to secure those profits (for just one example) then I will absolutely include something like that on the "nice" list. If its just fact cronies lining each others already bulging pockets the way our conservatives often do then I'm not cheering for that and why the hell would you?

Let me be clear: I have a very strong tendency to exaggerate for comedic effect but I have not done so here. I don't pretend for one second that US politics is a case of 100% good vs. 100% evil. But its maybe 80% vs. 40%. Wherever you draw the lines, its nothing like "they are all as bad as each other" and it really is massively one sided and I think this thread has demonstrated that very well.
I'm seeing resistance because some of my statements are too 'extreme' or perhaps 'insanely partisan', or some of my points are too one sided but I'm offering justifications for all this all the way through and so far I'm getting a lot of "You're wrong" and not a whole lot of "You're wrong and heres why." What I'm not seeing is as many outright dismissals as I thought I would get.

I feel like in this thread I might actually be getting my point some way towards home for a change because it feels like I'm asking questions which Republicans/conservatives cant answer and I really hope its making a few people think.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 07:48 PM
 
I want to further address this notion that "only social programs are good".

Programs to reduce crime rates, to improve infrastructure (without just being an excuse to award fat construction contracts to your buddies), business regulations to encourage fairer practices, these are all non-social programs that could go on the "nice list" if they exist. If tighter immigration controls had a positive effect on some aspect of the country, that absolutely qualifies too.
You suggested expanded 2A rights but I think thats a whole can of worms where positive is difficult enough to measure in the first place and will be almost impossible for us to agree on.
You could have education reforms if Republicans championed science and technology instead of helping push religious crap into schools and writing off colleges and liberal indoctrination centres.
You could protect the environment instead of selling it to the highest bidder. I started this post in order to try to help you come up with programs and policies to score in the Republicans favour but somehow we keep coming back to the fact that their core policies or values (however you prefer to think of them) are not the core policies of people of good conscience. The conclusion is inescapable.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 07:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
And here we have it.

Decency in government is only achievable through social programs. Get on board or be adjudicated as morally deficient.
I wouldn't go as far Waragainstsleep, but it is not just social programs, it includes the GOP's refusal to address global climate change and accept change in societal norms. They have bet a substantial portion of the farm on the wrong topics, and are apparently working on replacing the things that were good and future-oriented (such as replacing free trade with 1930s-style protectionism or walking back on financial responsibility by increasing the budget deficit by increasing spending and reducing tax revenue).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 08:28 PM
 
@Waragainstsleep

The resistance from me is because claims of decency on behalf of the Republicans are being met with "that's not decency because it's not like Democratic decency".

Going up against the Soviet Union was decency. Believing in free trade is decency. Creating jobs through innovation is decency. Innovation is decency.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 08:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I wouldn't go as far Waragainstsleep,
That's the crux, innit?

I'm open to fair criticism. That one party lacks decency isn't a fair criticism, so I object.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The “non-polarized model” worked, because newspapers were making very good money before people turned to the internet for news. They didn't have to become more click-baity and spice up headlines.
How is this different from the assertion the non-polarized model no longer works because it is an unsustainable business model?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2