Slashdot Mirror
Communication Making The World Less Tolerant
angkor writes "Interesting NY Times magazine article with a contrarian viewpoint: "In some ways, global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place." " Reg. required blah blah - but the point the author makes is interesting - what if all the hubbaloo about connecting people via the Internet makes us less likely to like each other?
If registration is no big deal, why do they make me do it, just to read the damn article?
Personally, I think the fine print says something about Satan owning your soul after the 666th web registration. Thank god, I'm only at #50something.
is that no matter how technically savvy tech-heads may be they can still be the penultimate dickheads
Never believe in anything until it has been officially denied. -Otto von Bismarck
Looks like the trolls have decided to start linking to another domain!
Video Game cheats, hints a
no text required
Sig you!
It's not the hullabaloo about the Internet connecting all of us that makes us realize that we hate each other, but the fact that we're growing up and realizing that our parents were correct: people suck, and if you can count the number of your friends on two hands consider yourself lucky.
In some small way, knowing about a culture allows some of the more unsavory types to point out that bad things and say "See, they are ALL bastards! Look at what they do!" I am always amazed at how quickly people will forget the good and look at the bad.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
"global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place." - only because by the time people stop doing one of these activities they're either
1. annoyed
2. suffering from a short attention span
or both!
Video Game cheats, hints a
No troll problem when you cruise the posts at only 2 or higher!
-YoGrark
-==Wait...how come I never see my own posts?==-
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
I've wondered this many times about how the media affects people and how instant media changes the dynamics. I remember the repeated instant images on Spetember 11th and the sheer hysteria that has occurred.
Having taken several courses on film and media, I know that all media is filtered. While we seem to find that the news is objective, we fail to understand that instant news is as subjective as possible, as instant coverage of an even often presents only one side to the story.
The sad thing is that our education systems don't teach us to question the news. I remember being in my social studies class and we read the the news and treated it like it was all the facts.
I think sites like Alternet are a great counter-culture to mass media. People need to learn to look at several news sources, as well as read up on the background behind the stories.
Perhaps in the United States, a country that seems to be involved all over the world, more emphasis should be places on world history and world cultures in education.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
NYT Random Login Generator
There ya go
Free Mac Mini
I have to disagree with the authors viewpoint. As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day, and understanding among peoples who have disagreed for tens of centuries, isn't going to go away in a decade or two.
I read a really interesting article in the Atlantic Monthly Journal, not too long ago. The article discussed how the Muslim world used to be the center of art and science in the world. They were way ahead of the rest of the world. So the article investigated why that changed.
It made a very persuasive argument that openness and freedom of expression were the primary reasons. Though it may be a coincidence, I doubt it. At the time that the Muslim world was leading art and science, it was much freer and open than other nations of the world. As west became more open and allowed more freedoms, and the Muslim nations did the opposite, the balance began to change and has been that way to this day.
Oppression doesn't work. It stifles growth and it breeds hate. Many of these countries are very successful of blaming the west for their lot in life. It's always easier to blame others for your problems than it is to look inside and see what YOU are doing wrong.
Eventually, this open communication, however, will have a positive effect, I believe. I don't expect it to happen overnight, and there will always be periods of years or decades when there will be heated differences (as we're experiencing now), but the overall trend, as seen from the point of view of a century, I believe, in the end, will show that the world will have grown closer and more enlightened because of the growth of free communication.
every since I started spending long hours on the internet I've become less tolerant of real people.
I find that if I spend a day programming or what not then I'm great with people. But as soon as I start surfing the net and chatting with people I become way less tolerant of everybody.
I think it has to do with how long it takes to communicate a thought. Online you see the entire thought in one shot, whereas in person it takes time to hear the whole conversation. Basically a speed difference. The speed is the main difference.
In terms of tolerating people of other ethnicities I notice no difference, in fact I'm more likely to talk to people within my own group of online g33k friends in real life. We talk fast and keep it short.
I think this bodes well not unless I cut down on my internet time. Perhaps all my fragging is gonna finally backfire.
internet like monkeys'
No troll problem when you cruise the posts at only 2 or higher!
First Reply proving you wrong!!!!!
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Maybe we'll be less tolerant of racism, child abuse, slavery, dictators, monopolies, pollution...
I just don't like the way the idea of tolerance has been appropriated as a good thing. Tolerance in itself has no values, its the things you choose to tolerate that do.
Baz
On a larger scale you also become aware of something which cannot be tolerated in other parts of the world. Eg. Faked elections, no human rights, unbalanced distribution on wealth, etc.
My conclusion is that the "global village" are making us more tolerant. But also more aware. And the media likes head lines like "Election scam in Albonia" instead of "Germans are just like us!"
we see the real values of humanity come through.
...but just because I'm a geek, it doesn't mean I have to be some lazy tard that can't do anything but drink coffee and read 'blogs.' Maybe I'm abnormal, but I do things outside of using a computer. I camp. I walk a lot. I bike a lot. I go take naps in the woods. I garden. I hike. I program on my iBook or my iPAQ (with Squeak) while sitting in the woods, having had to hike a few miles to get to a nice place to sit. For the biking and walking, I don't go out of my way to do it. It's just part of the way I live. When there's not snow on the ground, it's my main method of getting around. I suppose that's not possible if you're living in some gigantic post-apocalyptic hell hole, though. And for the other things, I live in a very green town, with lots of nice big parts and a sanctioned green-belt, so taking naps in the woods isn't extraordinary. Just a way of life. :)
Now, I suppose some people really strive for their activities to be labeled as something a 'geek' would do, trying to live that 'cool' middle school clique feeling that they may have missed out on the first time around. Can't say I identify with that, but to each her own.
So, I suppose you could make the above activities 'geeky' by bringing a PDA and doing something useful with it. If you're not going to do something useful with it, however, do yourself a favor and leave it at home.
For instance, I'll write a bunch of code on my iPAQ. May not be as practical for others, but the programming environment I use on my desktop is the same one I use on my PDA, so code flows back and forth easily, and I can work on the same problems as if I were at my desk. Some people think it's some disgrace to "Nature" to program in the middle of a forest. Frankly, I find it beautiful and peaceful. Especially after a mind-clearing hike. And it sure beats being stuck inside on a beautiful spring day!
Most importantly- have fun!
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
The statement isn't too surprising, but I think a distinction needs to be made between short-term and long-term effects.
... in short, an evolution of viewpoints and cultures.
In the years before the Internet, most of our communication was with people in conditions very similar to our own. Homogeneity breeds similar viewpoints.
In the short-term, as many different cultures and types of people begin to interact, there will be a lot of conflict as different viewpoints come across. In the long-term, though, as these viewpoints are reconciled, either through debate, conflict, or even violence, the community of shared viewpoints becomes larger, and the differences in opinion should lessen
The Internet should lead to a more unified world community, but certainly not in the short-term.
I'd say there is an increased risk of world propaganda with the net, also taking in account that there are now for the first time world spanning media companies like CNN, which hasnt been there before. I think it might come down to information globalisation, there are no distributed reactions, it risks pretty much to strive either all one way or the other. Saying that by default we hate each other more is a bit too much stereotypist for my taste.
A point to consider is that when there weren't so many selections to news and information outlets, news and information outlets had to be more middle of the road. Now, with so many to choose from, it is more likely that you will get your news from a site (or station) that is skewed to your perceptions of the world.
Instead of being confronted with opinions contrary to those with which you percieve the world, you can be safely confronted with the spin about the world that you already agree with.
Can 'the world be brought together' if everybody is reinforcing their own preconceptions about everyone else? Most likely not.
This article highlights the differences between television and the Internet. TV is a passive medium: you don't usually have to think much (or at all) while watching it and you don't get the whole picture because you only see what the person (or organization) that is broadcasting wants you to see (or is able to show you).
If you read about the same situation from credible sources on the Internet, it doesn't provide you instant gratification and it makes you think more (and hopefully investigate more) about the situation. You are more likely to get different viewpoints on the same topic depending on who wrote the information. While this is a longer process, I would argue it facilitates more tolerant view points from the person doing the reading and the research. Instead of taking up arms, the boy mentioned in the article may have decided to evoke change through peaceful means and become a future leader of his people instead of taking up arms and putting himself at risk of dying a senseless death.
Television is a wonderful entertainer, but a poor educator. (Are you reading this, parents?)
"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation." (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chapter 6)
Damn straight, I hate you all.
I liken the world before the Internet to a group of really small colleges, and the world after the Internet to a huge university. People come to both with their own little prejudices and idiosyncrasies. If you find people who share your prejudices or idiosyncrasises (or do not conflict with them), you enjoy their company. We call such people friends.
In a small college, it is really hard to find people you like, especially if you deviate from the mainstream in any way [as most of us do at Slashdot ;)]. OTOH, in a big university, you are more likely to find people who share your view of the world. It's not unusual to see very weird (read: different) groups spring up in a big university, whereas each individual would probably have been a loner in a small college.
The kicker is that in a small college, you have 'x' number of people you don't like. That number is obviously magnified several-fold in a large university. It's up to you to decide how much of the world you want to make your playground, so you meet the people you want and are not so bothered by the people you don't really care for.
Genebrew
What's the URL for Slashot?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Ultimately it is the immense responsibility of the media to present a fair picture. This seldom happens. Usually, the media itself is polarized and has its own prejudices which are driven by what will bag a larger audience. I don't think therefore that communication is the root. A case in point is the portrayal of the US war on Afghanistan. Now I know, many of you out there might not agree, but I thought that CNN's coverage of the American offensive was not without fault. They chose to overlook various, "insignificant" acts of aggression and violence that I'm sure might have transpired on hapless, innocent civilians in Afghanistan.
It is easy to accuse technology for our shortcomings, but that's not true.
We must first learn to dissociate what we see on TV from what is really
happening. So, the call is for depth and objectivity instead of reach.
but who watches international tv other than those that are from those areas?
most people won't stick to a channel unless it is interesting and funny things happen to be the most interesting things. so even if you subscribe to an international channel you're only likely to see the "funny" things (and I'll admit that they're funny) and stereotype.
internet like monkeys'
The NY Times article seems to rely pretty heavily on the influence of CNN. From what I saw of the 9/11 thing, it looked to me like CNN was doing their damndest to drum up a war 24 hours after the attack. So, no surprise there. /. or the newsgroups, I think the results don't fit as well with the NY Times editorial. /. were leading to intolerance, it would be little more than trivia as far as I'm concerned.
If we look at a truly interactive forum like
Also, the premise that simply having more knowledge results in more tolerance is an ignorant and uneducated assumption at best. Simply knowing "the facts" isn't necessarily going to change anybody's thinking or behaviors. If this naive assumption were true, there would probably be more vegetarians than there are today.
However, human interaction and communication is what we, as humans, are all about and it's not as though tolerance is the yardstick by which we judge whether that is the right thing. So even if someone came up with impressively persuasive statistical evidence that communications technologies like newsgroups or
In the case of this editorial though, I don't think the examples are particularly persuasive.
I guess the solution is to stop communicating. See, T(H)GSB is a good idea after all!
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Log: slash2000
pass: slash2000
:)
--------
get jiggy w/ ayn rand!
Isn't it amazing how many people use words that they don't understand?
Hey, we're geeks, that's the way we are! But the article ain't about personal intolerance, it's talking on a global level.
It's the same problems scaling up
...and it sure seems to me that CNN us pushing Yankeeland to attack Iraq.
1) CNN definitly shows a North American view of the world. I get CNN Europe and it's still mostly USA, USA, USA.
After September 11 (even months after it) by comparison to European news networks it was extraordinary visible how much CNN concentrated on the "War on Terror" and "Live State Department Press Conferences" and "Brave American Soldiers in Afganistan" while all that time the situation in the West-Bank degraded into extreme violence (one side with Tanks, Attack-Helicopters and Fighter-Bombers the other side with Human-Bombs).
2) In order to even start to really understand a Country and it's People one has to live there. Television, magazines, radio and newspapers will NEVER give you enough of a background and people-feeling to allow you to really understand the issues. Going there on vacations doesn't work either - you will always get the "Special Turist Treatment" and the fact that you dress different, behave different and even worse - don't know the local language - will always guarantee that people (even unconsciously) will act differently towards you.
My boss pointed out this handy NYTimes Registration Generator page. Makes viewing the times online much more enjoyable.
Of course its'not. It's no magic bullet to cure humanity. When we talk of the world getting more connected, the global village, and whatnot, we are speaking of change over many, many, many years. That's where things are headed. We are not there yet. If it looks like we are, it's illusory.
The Internet does not give most a new viewpoint on foreign culture. Poeple still tend to stick to the news they know. People still worship their local news programs (Americans love CNN. BBC News in teh UK, etc). World views are still largely influenced by school and society.
The only way to truly understand and accept more cultures is to get out of your safe little homeland and go travelling.
During the last century, more people were killed by their own governments than were killed in wars. And while some of those killings were known about and the requisite attention paid, many more were purged in massive numbers while the rest of the world wasn't watching.
Stalin and Mao killed literally millions per year while US college students studied their form of government and wondered whether it wouldn't be more fair than their own. After the end of the USSR, historians went in to try to figure out how many had been purged, and literally couldn't determine whether it was 20 million or 30 million -- that's how closed their society was.
But if a government can't run tanks over students in Tiananmen Square without a camera catching the footage, something's changed.
The situation in the middle east is that some cultures are still very closed. When UBL announces on several video tapes that he WAS in fact responsible and a majority of a culture still doesn't believe that fact, something else is going on there. But this is a short-term situation. The fact that al Jazzera exists and provides even a little competition in the war for people's minds, and the net is widely available, means the culture will slowly drift towards openness. I hope...
I think NYtimes had nothing else to publish and now they are expecting us to be tolerant to their BS too !!!
This is the same problem with the media; we are always seeing the culture at it's worst or only seeing the worst parts of it's culture. You don't see the bakers, clerks, teachers, nurses, doctors, scientists of a culture you see it's brutal armies and tyrannical leaders, it's terrorists and suicide bombers.
This is the real source of intolerance -- you never see anything from the bulk of foreign cultures that are worth saving.
I hate you. But I do because you made me realize that you are not really open-minded. Just stating that people sucks is not very elaborated. You should have said who and why. And even if you had said so, your are still closed-mind cause you would be showing how much you are not wiliing to understand others. I am myself saying that one or another sucks, but then, it always make me feel bad. I try to understand the person(s) in question and to place myself in the persons place. And then, it is easier to understand why the person is acting the way it does. First of all, every one has different point of view, different opinions. Second, everyone has different level of education. And saying that one suck because they have inferior education then myself is a big No No cause someone else may have a better education then me, and I don't think that I suck. But the person with better education then me might think so. In the end, it really doesn't count anyway cause we'll all die. What's really important is if the person is a good person or not. If it is a person wich will help another one or not. And if I ever judge that one is not a good person, I try to find out what may have drived them to what they are, and try to see if they strive to be better. For them to achieve a level of perfection which may seem easy to me, doesn't meen it is easy to them. So in the end anyones achievement are all equal for the same amount of "work" (in the psychological/spiritual sense of the word. And spiritual doesn't necessarely meen to beleive in god or buda or etc etc). So after having said all that, I would rectify my words and say that you don't necessarely suck, and I shouldn't hate you for the words you have said. You probably had your reasons for saying so and I am no judge to say if those reasons were valid or not for your judgment of others. And after all, you are a human beeing, able to think and evolve and I just wish that one day you will be able to introspec yourself and be a better person. I you dont, well... you suck
In the end, we all suck. It's just that we suck differently, some do it while they stand, some other lay down to do it etc etc...
I'd rather be sailing...
One aspect of this may be that here in the USA we seldom see the non mainstream view. Most people don't use the net(or their brains) to look at a news story we see on T.V. and hear the OTHER side from the internet. The first thing I do when I see an infalitory news story is go out and look at what the other side has to say. I might not a gree with them, but i want to here their side. Ive been lied to bu the us media, or only told half the story, or only gotten the 3 second sound byte too often to trust them for ANYTHING beyond getting the time, and maybe local weather.
The other problem that may be related is a lack of language skills. I only speak english, so reading or searching for information in another language is useless to me. Yeah, theres the fish, but thats no help untill after ive found the article i need to read.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
To start off, 'the globalization of the media' means that we all watch CNN, not that we have access to different and diverse points of view as it would be desirable.
Then, we give too much credibility to the media. Think about how mainstream media covers, often, news about a technology you know well and you know the stupidities that they say, don't you feel upset and think they completely misunderstand? Why should it be different with other kind of news?
We should be able to have access to other points of view (language is a barrier here) and try to look at them with an open mind, this would be more information about one another, not what we have now.
Here in Australia, we in High School (senior year) had a term topic called "Representations of Truth" which basically drilled into us a distrust of everything the media says. Apparently, courses like this come up about every ten years or so but, usually, they're gone in a year or two. Someone doesn't like it.
IMHO, the article's right. The big problem is the one-sidedness of the media. The Egyptian youth only see pictures glorifying suicide bombers, while we only see pictures of barbarians who dared to attack the West, the torchbearer of everything that is good and just in the world </sarcasm>.
The people who said global media would bring peace weren't wrong. We just *don't have* a global media. We have two separate propaganda machines, one on the Islamic side (or wherever) and one on our side. We need full, unbiased reporting, not the fear and hate mongering that has filled our screens since September 11. The media shapes public opinion. Most people will believe what they're told to believe.
But then again, I'm just a kid. What would I know?
I think that is completely not the point. The point is not knowing details about "the other" as if they were some strange animals, the point is to accept that there IS an "other". Who cares when the Ramaddan begins. I know that hobbits have hairy feet and smoke pipe weed. I also know that hobbits don't exist. I don't know and don't care what are the hollidays and the calendar year for the muslim the jewish and whatnot. I know I'm a Christian and other people are not and that's okay for me that's all.
Nah I think he meant it this way, got to leave room for bosses and the like.
That's because those of us who saw the video excerpts noted that bin Laden never did admit responsibility, but merely applauded the efforts of those who took part in the attack. And since Bush promised to share with the American people the evidence that bin Laden was behind the attack, but then never did do so, but Administration officials yelled, 'Aha, proof at last!' every time a new bin Laden video surfaced, even though they supposedly had proof from the beginning but were never willing to keep Bush's word and share that proof, it makes one wonder if this isn't another example of creating a bogeyman for the American public so they can have a face to hate while the country goes to war.
...I hate everyone equally.
Trolling is a art,
There is no great mystery here.
Television long ago learned that the highest ratings come from controversy; people watch fights - not shows where people get along.
As a result TV stirs up controversy whenever it can to increase ratings. This is the real reason that the so called 'fairness doctrine' where both sides of any dispute are required to be presented continues; people watch conflict.
Given that TV principally shows conflict - it creates the impression in the viewers that conflict is all that exists; how could it do anything but make relations between people in the world worse?
During the last century, more people were killed by their own governments than were killed in wars.
Really? Care to back that bold assertion up with an actual fact?
But if a government can't run tanks over students in Tiananmen Square without a camera catching the footage, something's changed.
Fact: not one tank ran over a student in Tiananmen Square.
...where aliens disguised as bikers plot to exterminate humans after seeng all the horrible stuff going on there in their media and concluding that they'd be saving the universe from such evil. When one falls in love with a human girl, he soon realizes that for some unfathomable reason all the good things about humanity just aren't considered newsworthy.
I never quite understood the argument making people thinks that more comunication (Radio,TV,Internet) leads to more freedom. Or that we should wait more to see the "good" side appear while we already observed the "bad" side.
The extrem majority of the population thinks "local and self" first and then maybe "global". Thus communication is more interressant for people on what will hit them or concern them. Nobody cares or nearly nobody cares that people are dying by the 1000's of hunger, AIDS, civil unrest, slavery, in msot of the world. What people care is do they get a rise, will the weather be better on their town, will they keep their Job, and what new sort of diet soda taste is there.
And so communication on far away matter people do not care, or care in a morbid sense "Oh I am glad i am not living in Euthiopa", "gosh poor guys they lost everything in a civil war. What do we have for dinner ? OH WATCH ! THE LAST BUDWEISER ADS !". People thinking the net or TV will bring more freedom are blinding themselves or forget the nature of Man. I would rather say we see net only shopw our intrinsec nature : we want our own comfort and the rest come maybe after.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Technology sure evolved, but did you ever ask yourself if humanity has evolved?
Could it be that CNN and NYTimes are both owned by Jews?
Some of the ideas mentioned in this article support the need for reducing inequality of resources as both ideological and pragmatic. The laissez-faire idea that "a rising tide lifts all boats" may not, in fact, be true when people who are no worse off than they were before nonetheless feel "left behind."
The teenage rebel quoted in the article said, "' I see on television you have motorbikes, cars. I see some of your children on TV this high' -- he held his hand up to his waist -- they have bikes for themselves, but we in Sierra Leone have nothing.'" Is Sierra Leone worse off thanks to globalization? Probably not. But people feel worse off in comparison to the "developed world."
It seems that the overall point of the article is that media necessarily simplifies and thus lends itself to polarization. In terms of equality, it is easy for the poor to idealize what they see as the "good life" here in the U.S.
"Familiarity breeds contempt?"
Not a new idea...
-Russ
Me
Fact is that people don't like things that are different. That's why as people get older, younger people's music always sucks. The thought processes is, "if I liked X, I'd do/have/be X".
Republicans don't like Democrats, Anglophones don't like Francophones, Catholics don't like Athiests, thin people don't like fat people, vegetarians don't like omnivores, IT staff don't like lusers, and so on.
Most people have a partially tolerant view, that "as long as I don't have to hear/see/agree/participate, I guess it's okay", but that's the extent of it. As for say, racism, the rule still applies, despite all the political correctness we've tried to nurture. (Sure, things are better, but it'll never be perfect.)
Case in point: take a traditional urban black male and put him in a traditional white environment. Who's uncomfortable? Both sides. Tiger Woods aside, since he dresses, talks, and acts without any of the stereotypical "black" affectations. He doesn't "axe" people questions, and he doesn't rap through interviews. I'm deliberately exagerating the point here. While we've damped racism down enough that visible minorities CAN get ahead, they have to act like the majority to do so.
We don't LIKE different. The Internet exposes us to different. Therefore the Internet exposes us to things we don't like. Screw tolerance, I'd just be happy if all those AOL'ers out there would die, die, die.
"Oh no... he found the
- "One of my main "themes" in life is to give tools to the
world that help them express their ideas. I have this rather
utopian idea that if everyone has the tools to exchange
ideas then the world will be a better place."
I think we all have simular ideas on this subject but this author thinks the opposite. In this article in the NYT, he makes an argument, although not that deeply researched, that this "global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place" as it seems lack of context and an American centric media is the root of it. His examples are mainly the commercial media outlets (ie. CNN) and don't cover the Internet.Unfortunately that is how the popular press works. They trying to gather "eyeballs" for advertisers. Where are the most eyeballs for their advertisers? It ain't Kabul. Keep in mind that CNN also is influenced and fed by the US government for some of their programming.
This article makes an indirect argument for helping alternative media outlets that do provide news with more context and is less United States centric. Keep that in mind in choosing your news outlet as you may be helping to reduce world intolerance.
The Americans had been going after Osama for years. Clinton was trying to get him relatively early in his term. That Osama was involved in terrorist acts against the US, and that his mob were the most formidable anti-US terrorist organisation, is hardly a point of contention. If you don't believe the evidence, what are the alternative possibilities ?
Are people really less tolerant? Or could it be that the internet has allowed people to communicate and exchange ideas that have never done so before? There have always been, and will always be, different cultures in this world and those cultures have different ways of life. Those ways of life will always be controversial and conflicting to a varying degree. The internet is simply a tool that allows these cultures to electronically intermingle. To blame a tool for people's shortcomings is questionable at the very least. It is akin to blaming firearms for crime.
Exposure to others can aggravate existing prejudices. Also, though, exposure can prevent prejudices from forming.
One think worth noting, however, is the role of censorship and bias. If all anyone sees of the U.S. is what a government hostile to the U.S. wishes them to see, then the "global village" is really just a propaganda machine. Information can always be distorted to simultaneously suit opposite views -- watch any political debate and you can see that in action. And in reality, there is bias in all media (the U.S. is no exception). The stronger the bias, the greater the chances that it can be used to generate hostility.
Robotiq.com is heavily tested on animals
don't confuse Internet with slashdot...
I just read a thought-proviking article entitled "Globalization - Curse or Cure?" that addresses these same issues in a politically neutral, intelligent manner. It is the cover story of Awake! magazine, May 22, 2002 issue, printed and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses. If you don't find them, they will find you! Check it out!!!
The thing I have learnt is that there are nice people all over the world. There is also morons all over the world.
Instead use the tool as a means to end. For example, instead of showing the planes crashing into the towers over and over, show what most Muslims are like. Let the commentators inform the viewers that a billion+ Islamic followers think that what happened was a horrible tragedy, the people who did it were not Muslims but derranged heritics, and that jihad is all about your internal struggle to be right with God, and not terrorizing your fellow man.
I suppose though that this sort of tolerance breeding information is not sensational enough to be "news" worthy, and we gotta keep up those ratings.
The more I learn about Muslims around the world the less tolerant of their views I become. Other then Muslims living in Western countries the entire religion and those that follow it are responsbile for most of the violence and hatred in the world today. They should be beat down, their regimes should be crushed and they should start over again with the message of peace that Muslims in America seem to believe.
caused all sorts of wars because suddenly, after years of ineffective communication and garbled attempts to transmit meaning, suddenly peoples and races of creatures from all over the Galaxy could suddenly and accurately *understand each other.*
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Actually I don't think their is much hysteria. That is what the media wants you to think because they are sensationalists.
Isin't is funny how the media always characterizes someone as "scrambling" to correct a problem when you know full well everyone is ALWAYS dragging their feet in USA.
The sad thing about our education system is it does not teach values, only material knowledge. No class on respect, courtesy, understanding, etc.. Same with our job qualifications, only material knowledge. Thats whats wrong with the education system.
For me, just as I am writing a reply to you, most of the people I interact with I don't know. The gamers I meet and the coders I program with dont always reveal their nationality or anything like that. By the time I ask such a personal question I already have a good relationship with them. So I think again the media are just making chit up.
I don't see how anyone can claim that the world is more violent/less tolerant than it used to be. These days if 10 people die its news. 50 years ago 10,000 could die without making headlines. Millions died in the world wars. What we see today is NOTHING by comparison.
The jew thing is a sadly intriguing point, but it's also going nowhere from a rhetorical perspective because it degrades so quickly into name calling. It's not necessary to bring it to that level to argue that the editorial is poorly written. The influence of jewish interests at various levels in both organizations is, unfortunately, plausible. But focusing on that isn't going to get you very far.
Or wait, you were kidding . . . you were being devisive as a sort of topical pun.
Good one, you got me.
This is a phase the world is going through.
...
... see how the other side lives, see other beliefs, etc.
.. foreign travel involves some rude awakenings like "Oh, you do it that way, how shocking" yet the people who "do it that way" think its perfectly natural.
.. greater communication means that we're all in each others lap (so to speak) all the time.
.. tradition says that XYZ peoples are our enemy, but do we keep them as enemies, do we continue having all this bloodshed over this tradition, does this tradition make any sense, they seem like such good people, our religion preaches acceptance of others so doesn't that extend to XYZ peoples?
In the past, poor communication and long travel times around the world meant that people could do however they wished, believe whatever they wanted about their neighbors, etc, and it wouldn't have much affect. First off, you can't know much about people you've never heard of, so you don't have much opportunity to hate them. Secondly, you can develop your traditions and beliefs in greater isolation from others traditions and beliefs, and also more easily create the belief among your people that Your Way is the Best Way, and that All Other Ways are PURE EVIL.
Enter rapid communication and travel
Suddenly you can be on the other side of the planet with only a day of travel. Suddenly we can all see pictures of the planet from the outside, see clearly that the borders are mostly nonsense, etc.
Likewise, people can more easily experience other cultures
This can be good or bad depending on the individual. That is, if an individual has completely bought into "All Other Ways are PURE EVIL", then they'll travel to Merry Ol' England and get incensed at how they mash all their food on the back of their fork. Well, maybe not that, but really
Basically
The results are a matter of choice. Do people continue being closed minded about All Other Ways, and continue branding them as PURE EVIL? Or do people practice acceptance of others, loving their neighbors as themselves, etc?
What I'm saying is that there is a period of time where the people of the planet are going to face this great challenge. Namely
- David
There is evidence to suggest that military vehicles did run over students.
3 ,2 06054,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tiananmen/Story/0,276
I don't know about you, but the more people I meet in the real world, the more I know it's populated by jerks, morons, assholes, etc. that would best serve the planet by composting themselves. The same is true with the internet. I'm sure many here would like to have the goatse.cx guy and people who plant links and popups to that crap should be run through an industrial chipper-shredder.
The internet just helps confirm why groups of people don't like other groups. Only pot smoking hippies would think it would bring everyone together.
Crackfiends moderate.
Claim offtopic and flamebait....
Why do you rob me?
Aside from name calling and pointing fingers, you have to admit that Jews do show a lack of tolerance for other religions, deeming them inferior. They may not openly show it or admit but, oo yes!!!, its there.
There once was a moderator on crack...
Whose brain was located in his nutsack
He modded me unfairly,
Could control myself barely
Wish he would pull his head out of his asscrack.
... that most of it is likely to be biased, half-truths, reinforcement of stereotypes, or some times plain wrong. I believe that one needs to choose the sources of information appopriately. Likewise communicating with people too
:)
Same with any real world interaction -- e.g., if you have good friends and read "good stuff", chances are you'd turn out to be good.
Is it just me or anyone notice people going into a rage everytime they see the news or read newspapers? The same old eternal problems seem to occupy front pages every day (tanks rolling in/people bombing, people killed in communal violence, to drill or not to drill in Alaska, Microsoft says OSS is evil
Here is my attempt to "categorize" experience on the net:
News: Plusses -- Essential ; minuses -- Enraging/helplessness
Discussions: Plusses -- Sense of community, wide range of views, healthy debates, find out past discussions ; minuses -- too much content
Information: Plusses -- vital for learning, enriching, easy to get ; minuses -- might end up at the same pr0n site/games site after a few hops
Misc: Plusses -- Health tips, inspiring readings, past literature, depressing reading!
I fucking hate the yankees. Can't you call us something else? Like the Red Soxees?
Yeah I know a tired old phrase.
Perhaps in the United States, a country that seems to be involved all over the world, more emphasis should be places on world history and world cultures in education.
I bet any of you from the US don't even know what city is the capital of Canada your closest neighbour and ally.
You should know.
The Internet is the truth - how ever you look at it; as a whole it holds the truth of the majority of society on Earth. Anything your friends tell you about a specific country or people, you can verify on the 'Net and see if it is in fact what you see too. So, while in some cases the Internet can pull the people of the world apart, in most cases I believe it does the opposite. With the world freely (as in not filtered, where it is so) connected we are like one big country, Earth. As for other forms of media, this does not apply.
--- A computer without the internet is as useful as the internet without a computer!
An Arab intellectual named Abdel Monem Said recently surveyed the massive anti-Israel and anti-American protests by Egyptian students and said: ''They are galvanized by the images that they see on television. They want to be like the rock-throwers.'' By now everyone knows that satellite TV has helped deepen divisions in the Middle East. But it's worth remembering that it wasn't supposed to be this way.
The globalization of the media was supposed to knit the world together. The more information we receive about one another, the thinking went, the more international understanding will prevail. An injustice in Thailand will be instantly known and ultimately remedied by people in London or San Francisco. The father of worldwide television, Ted Turner, once said, ''My main concern is to be a benefit to the world, to build up a global communications system that helps humanity come together.'' These days we are living with the results -- a young man in Somalia watches the attack on the south tower live, while Americans can hear more, and sooner, about Kandahar or Ramallah than the county next to theirs.
But this technological togetherness has not created the human bonds that were promised. In some ways, global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place. What the media provide is superficial familiarity -- images without context, indignation without remedy. The problem isn't just the content of the media, but the fact that while images become international, people's lives remain parochial -- in the Arab world and everywhere else, including here.
''I think what's best about my country is not exportable,'' says Frank Holliwell, the American anthropologist in ''A Flag for Sunrise,'' Robert Stone's 1981 novel about Central America. The line kept playing in my mind recently as I traveled through Africa and watched, on television screens from Butare, Rwanda, to Burao, Somalia, CNN's coverage of the war on terrorism, which was shown like a mini-series, complete with the ominous score. Three months after the World Trade Center attacks, I found myself sitting in a hotel lobby by Lake Victoria watching Larry King preside over a special commemoration with a montage of grief-stricken American faces and flags while Melissa Etheridge sang ''Heal Me.'' Back home, I would have had the requisite tears in my eyes. But I was in Africa, and I wanted us to stop talking about ourselves in front of strangers. Worse, the Ugandans watching with me seemed to expect to hear nothing else. Like a dinner guest who realizes he has been the subject of all the talk, I wanted to turn to one of them: ''But enough about me -- anything momentous happening to you?'' In CNN's global village, everyone has to overhear one family's conversation.
What America exports to poor countries through the ubiquitous media -- pictures of glittering abundance and national self-absorption -- enrages those whom it doesn't depress. In Sierra Leone, a teenage rebel in a disarmament camp tried to explain to me why he had joined one of the modern world's most brutal insurgencies: ''I see on television you have motorbikes, cars. I see some of your children on TV this high'' -- he held his hand up to his waist -- they have bikes for themselves, but we in Sierra Leone have nothing.'' Unable to possess what he saw in images beamed from halfway around the world, the teenager picked up an automatic rifle and turned his anger on his countrymen. On generator-powered VCR's in rebel jungle camps, the fantasies of such boy fighters were stoked with Rambo movies. To most of the world, America looks like a cross between a heavily armed action hero and a Lexus ad.
Meanwhile, in this country the aperture for news from elsewhere has widened considerably since Sept. 11. And how does the world look to Americans? Like a nonstop series of human outrages. Just as what's best about America can't be exported, our imports in the global-image trade hardly represent the best from other countries either. Of course, the world is a nonstop series of human outrages, and you can argue that it's a good thing for Americans, with all our power, to know. But what interests me is the psychological effect of knowing. One day, you read that 600 Nigerians have been killed in a munitions explosion at an army barracks. The next day, you read that the number has risen to a thousand. The next day, you read nothing. The story has disappeared -- except something remains, a thousand dead Nigerians are lodged in some dim region of the mind, where they exact a toll. You've been exposed to one corner of human misery, but you've done nothing about it. Nor will you. You feel -- perhaps without being conscious of it -- an impotent guilt, and your helplessness makes you irritated and resentful, almost as if it's the fault of those thousand Nigerians for becoming your burden. We carry around the mental residue of millions of suffering human beings for whom we've done nothing.
It is possible, of course, for media attention to galvanize action. Because of a newspaper photo, ordinary citizens send checks or pick up rocks. On the whole, knowing is better than not knowing; in any case, there's no going back. But at this halfway point between mutual ignorance and true understanding, the ''global village'' actually resembles a real one -- in my experience, not the utopian community promised by the boosters of globalization but a parochial place of manifold suspicions, rumors, resentments and half-truths. If the world seems to be growing more, rather than less, nasty these days, it might have something to do with the images all of us now carry around in our heads.
George Packer is the author of ''The Village of Waiting'' and, most recently, ''Blood of the Liberals.''
Regardless of the technological mumbo-jumbo, one thing remains clear to me: all humans are essentially similar.
Humans are generally narrow-minded, self-centered, jealous assholes. I'm not happy about that fact, but there it is. There's little joy in finding out more about people far away, only to learn that they're just like people that irritate me close to home.
And, I expect, they feel exactly the same about me.
I think tolerance is a constant. I think the thing that changes is awareness. As we become more aware of other cultures we also become aware of the flaws in those cultures. Through seeing the flaws in other cultures one hopes that we see the same flaws within our own. Often that awareness causes loathing of the negative behavior and through transference we cast off our anger toward the other culture instead of rectifying the flaw in our own.
People do this all the time. Strong headed people dislike other strong headed people, models dislike other models, fat people dislike other fat people, selfish people see other selfish people as "MORE" selfish. It's a coping mechanism to avoid addressing the problems with oneself.
As we become more aware of what we are doing the "appearance of intolerance" will decrease.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
because this fucking place has taught me to hate MOST of you fucking wrongheaded fucktards.
/. as performing a public service. heh.
but i still get the odd bit of usable or interesting info here.
and i can take out my aggression on shitforbrains reactionary assholes.
i guess that qualifies
Tolerance is _not_ based on aggreement. Thinking that it is spawned many of the problems mentioned here. Tolerance is definitely not defined by selective application of censorship. Tolerance is also not based upon the notion that it can itself be selectively applied. If someone gets on the air or net and says they disagree with a particular lifestyle, a particular policy or a particular action then it is entirely possible that if those opinions are not in sync with the elitists that set our 'open minded policy', that person will most likely get beaten, slandered, cursed, looted and at the very least censored. When this happens it creates a further divide. People who did not have much of an opinion previously are now galvanized, with the majority of those on the side of the victimized person. This process repeats itself at varying levels throughout the country and world at large, thus acting as a force that backs many into a corner. If you ever want to be surpised, back a 'harmless' little animal into a corner and watch how it will rip you a new one.
On a related note is the distribution of resources. I love charities. I think that they give hope and more physical resources to those that need it the most. I also know that they are addictive and contagious, which adds to their merit. However they are the results of all good things in the world... ACTION. However, many feel like everything in life, including choices, opinions and thought, is taken care of for them. The become sheep who give credence to the saying that 'there is life then there is living.'
If you choose to give to charities, you are doing a great service. If you choose to give of yourself (work instead of just passing cash) you are even better, and will get a much better reward. (That proud feeling that you made a positive difference, instead of just the fire and forget aspect that apathetically hopes something good will come of your dollar). However the line is drawn when you in _ANY_ way try to force others to give to your cause. Yes, folks that means taxes... which means any governmental funding. And here is a hint... remember that topic about a cornered animal? That happens here. You will drive away those that would normally give of their resources and themselves.
Congratulations liberal, you are your own worst enemy, and especially are the worst enemy of the causes and people you _claim_ to champion.
Since such events are staggered across the continents you can get quite a rose coloured view of the world if you just pick your route carefully! :-)
I also get to talk to a lot of people that way and get to hear their points of view, from funloving lumpenproleteriat to funloving CEOs.
I was an asocial geek long before the internet... :(
Actually, thanks to the Internet, I think I like Microsoft less than I would if I weren't connected.
Give ignorant people better communication, and they spread ignorance.
Hate is a disease of ignorance.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
..no...lol...i have been leading a dev team for the past 2.5 years on the development of a few different programs, only 2/11 of the people are from the us(when you include myself), i don't really care about anyones race or gender or nationality as long as they can code and are fun to talk to.
The Truth: There is no string:)
Most people are just too ignorant to think for themselves, they have to be told how to think and what to believe in.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
After using the internet about 6 hours a day, and using it as the primary method to talk to my friends, i can barely talk to them face to face without misunderstanding something and insulting them or something :S, as for sattilite TV, well, i only have an aerial that gets 5 stations, so at least i'm safe there, lol
Reece,
"Can't we all just shut-up and listen to me!"
For several decades we have tried being more tolerant of other cultures. As t.v. brings other nations into our homes, we see the results of our tolerance. We see the murder of innocent civilians by religious fantatics in the name of their god. We see women flogged by the police because they were raped. We see teachers sentenced to death for discussing historical facts in the classroom.
We aren't less tolerant. We our outraged by barbarism.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Why oh why do people think hate is caused by ignorance. Hate = perception of threat. Knowing more about something can strengthen hate, powerfully.
Globalised media has made the whole world relevant to everyone. Would the Arabs hate America so much if TV and radio wasn't around? Of course not, because it would seem further away and therefore less relevant & therefore less threatening.
And what is this talk of "intolerance"? It doesn't make sense to me, it's like talking about being half pregnant. We're all "intolerant" of many things, such as slavery etc. And would you be "tolerant" towards an ethnic group which factually enthusiastically wishes to kill you? Sometimes we need to be realists and forget the buzzwords.
This article is way off. Beware of any editorialist's thesis when it begins, "In somy ways..."
Globalized instant communication is a wonderful thing. It does not make us like one another less. The truth is, we barely know one another.
I remember talking to a Chinese person and her saying, "You Americans really think we're so utterly suppressed over here. I love China." And I remember talking to a person from the Middle East (maybe Turkey?). He said, "I really thought you would be a lot more arrogant, but you aren't at all."
After that, we struck up a conversation about stereotypes we have of one another's countries (of course he had a lot more of America than I did of Turkey). So I'm not a rich, imposing, arrogant Cowboy after all! Good to know.
On the other hand, I once talked to a Palestinian who was so angry I could barely have a conversation with him. He wanted me dead, seriously. And I got angry too.. REAL angry. Of course, I believe this to be a special incident due to our nation's rather unbalanced policy over there.. (in my opinion, don't flame me..) so I don't fault him for it.
You can't stop globalization, and it simply shouldn't be stopped. I think we need to talk more, rather than less.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
- Douglas Adams, THGTTH
Considering that nearly all of the evidence was processed through the government, which is also the accusing party...
Nearly anything is possible. Can you prove that all of the evidence that we have seen (such as it was) wasn't faked? Can you prove that the government didn't do it itself?
I can't.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I didn't think it was a secret that everyone's an asshole on the Internet. I hate you all!!
I remember hearing on NPR last year that the rise of the internet and the ease with which researchers and scientists can now share their data and results had led to less diversity in scientific ideas.
It used to be that people all over would do the same thing in their own way, oblivious to how others were doing it.
Now, with the internet, people discovered one promising way of doing something and then everyone does it that way instead of continuing to pursue multiple paths.
A definite double-edged sword in this case, since it can lead to the avoidance of wasted time and resources on lousy research, but it can also stifle creativity.
This is the NFL, which stands for "Not For Long" if you keep making those bulls*** calls.
From the article "The globalization of the media was supposed to knit the world together. The more information we receive about one another, the thinking went, then more international understanding will prevail. An injustice in..."
The point is "an injustice" is still "an injustice", how are you suppose to predict how people will react when they discover they are at the bottom of the heap - when you are at the bottom you don't have much to lose.
The solution is "hope", to give people at least the possibility of at least a way out/up.
Television: A medium. So called because it is neither rare nor well done." --ERNIE KOVACS
It is very very very easy to find websites that support your own views and beliefs on the internet. You spend perhaps one day or one week finding such websites then you bookmark them and those become your favorite sites. This is all the mental effort one has to expend. How is this any different from turning to your favorite channel on the television? If one is a conservative and watches TV all they have to do is turn on the FOXNews network. If they are online instead of in front of the tube all they have to do is enter www.foxnews.com into their browsers.
When and where does motivation to "investigate more" on the internet come from? You said the internet makes people "think more". Thats great speculation but can you back it up with any fact? A study perhaps? Or is it just anecdotal evidence? Whats even worse is the internet may simply be filled with vocal people who merely think they are more intellectually active than the TV viewing public but are actually just as mush brained.
Ranting on Slashdot, or K5 or whatever blog does not make you superior to people who watch TV. Just different.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
... in my opinion, why we all seem to be so intolerant of each other online, is that we are now able for the first time ever to speak with lots of people from other cultures whom we've never ever been in contact with before in the history of earth. There are A LOT of preconceived notions we all have about one another and the only solution is to have us all continue to speak and write with each other. We are in the initial stages of communication and we have a lot of fears and uneasiness to get past. Until that is done, all our intolerances will continue to thrive. The internet hasn't made us *more* intolerant. It's just allowed our intolerances to come to light in global grandness. Our intolerances are not hidden anymore. But at least now that they are out in the sunshine, we will more easily be able to fight them and create a more understanding and enlightened world.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
There is a large arugment amoung sociologists about what the exact outcome of globalization will be. To simplify, those who look at the process from a modernist perspective believe that globalization will create one monoculture because it leads to efficiency. Those with a more postmodern approach say that globalization will actually work to make new kinds of cultures and increase cultural diversity. In fact, the "geek" culture can be seen as a new kind of culture that has appeared as a resulut of technologies such as the Internet.
If you really want to get the skinny on globalization, you should go find some good academic sociology journals that address the issue. NYT certainly can't go into any depth on such a complex subject.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
Just look at the comments surrounding any Jon Katz article! =8)
Fuck you!
No, Clinton was too busy trying to pull his dick out of some intern's mouth. The only thing he put out of commission was an aspirin factory and some obscure Yugoslavians. Leading the nation was not his primary concern. Clinton should be held at least partially responsible for the Sep. 11 incident.
I agree - FFVI was the best. Kefka was the only enemy in the series that actually made me want to hunt him down - I hated him. Yep, the PSX version was a sack of crap, but that's what I play now, because my SNES version was valuable enough to fetch me almost $100 on eBay. *grin*
FFX is cool, with amazing music and graphics, but it was way, way, way too linear.
(* That's because those of us who saw the video excerpts noted that bin Laden never did admit responsibility *)
Osoma *did* indirectly admit it. I don't remember the exact wording (a translation anyhow). It was something like, "We teach *our* youth the truth about America, and then the anger drives them to commit these acts."
He never outright denied it either. He could have easily said, "I nor Al Qeda had anything to do with those acts, although we are glad they happened because you arrogant pigs deserve it."
Besides, it was not a trial but an indictment. Few require strong evidence to make an initial arrest. We were not putting him on trial just yet, so complaints about evidence are premature.
Table-ized A.I.
There is a problem when you send signals accross cultural borders, no matter how "neutral" those signals look: the interpretation of the said signals are always culture-dependent. So, unless you favour a unified global culture (and this is not only unattainable in any forseeable time-frame, but probably also undesired), an American-centric global media (and that is what we mostly have) will cause all sorts of problems.
Let me pick some of your own examples to try to explain it.
Child abuse is hot topic everywhere. But then one must define a child. An 8 years old is probably a child everywhere, but eleven year old girls are eligible for marriage in many parts of the world. Is this good? I don't think so, but that is the way things are in those regions.
Dictatorships are usually violent and always inefficient in the mediun/long run. But the definiton of what is a dictatorship is much, much harder to achieve. Just last week the US government was pretty busy first denying then spinning all they could, their clear involvement in a coup the took down for 48 hours the democratically elected president of Venezuela. And during the brief "provisional" government, during which the coup leaders tried to dissolve the Congress and the Supreme Court, the US government and the IMF treated those guys as the de facto Venezuelan government. And the US press, CNN International in Spanish leading them, concurred all the way with the Washington view and with the provisional government view (to the point of hiding up to the last minute the mass protests that defeated the coup and brought back the elected president).
Pollution is another problem very linked to eye of the beholder. After Bush's pullout from the Kyoto Treaty, we in the rest of the world find it very amusing when CNN talks about pollution problems elsewhere. Sounds pretty like "Do what I say, not what I do". Naturally, the same goes for a lot of things.
So, there is a fundamental problem with US dominated news. And when a non-American media organization gains some proeminence, as Saudi Arabian Al-Jazeera network did during the months after September 11th, the reaction showed that Americans are not better than anyone when it comes to dealing with alternate points of view.
(* It blew my mind the first time I talked to a programmer from over there. I thought they were all militia men, but it turns out he goes to night clubs, watches TV, and fantasizes about chicks too. Imagine that. *)
Yeah, "chicks" as in 73 virgins in the afterlife if he blows himself up for the "sake" of Allah.
Okay, I am exaggerating.
(* Depending on who you ask, the strife in the middle east is all the United States' fault, damn those dirty scumbag Republicans. It's a series of knee jerk reactions that only escalate.*)
I don't think it is always knee-jerk. What I find is that people find news sources that reflect their *existing* opinion. Liberals read liberal magazines and listen to lefter radio stations, and visa versa.
More sources mean customizing your view to fit our existing view. How many liberals pick up conservative magazines and visa versa?
Tim VcVey kept watching conspiracy videos sent to him by his group.
Table-ized A.I.
(* Perhaps in the United States, a country that seems to be involved all over the world, more emphasis should be places on world history ... *)
That is the *last* thing we need. "Your ancestors killed my ancestors 300 years ago, and I am still pissed!"
Perhaps we need "getoverit" training.
Table-ized A.I.
What the media provide is superficial familiarity -- images without context, indignation without remedy. The problem isn't just the content of the media, but the fact that while images become international, people's lives remain parochial
The author is (I think) talking about passive media here: sattelite broadcasts and CNN.com. The real value of an interconnected globe will only be realized when individuals worldwide are engaged in creating the media discourse, not merely consuming it.
As has already been noted the current "golbal media" is more like a series of biased propaganda machines with a global scope than anything else. I can read kavkaz.org and get a different viewpoint from CNN.com, but I don't know where I can log into a chat room and actually talk with a real person "over there".
It goes all the way back to the cluetrain: until the people are interconnecting and building the discourse with their own hearts and minds and stories, we will never create a social fabric that can resist being torn by demogaguery, be it from facistic leaders or bias news outlets.
Hopefully this interconnection is already happening, but it's going to take time. We (America/The West) are fairly settled into our consumer culture mode. Unless we really decide to take it upon ourselves to become citizens of our own nation and the world, we're not even going to be able to approach the utopian ideal of a global community.
Howard Dean for president
No.
No registration without representation.
[ This goes for Slashdot too ]
Toon Moene.
Repeating propoganda from Newsmax isn't going to make it true. You're dead wrong here. Allow me to interrupt with some facts:
... TV stirs up controversy whenever it can to increase ratings. This is the real reason that the so called 'fairness doctrine' where both sides of any dispute are required to be presented continues; people watch conflict.
Unfortunately for your argument, the "fairness doctrine" (a former FCC regulation) was deleted as a government requirement quite a few years ago. This was in response to complaints from the networks that minor parties were demanding equal time as a result of every news item showing a major party politician, and covering them was not practical and distracted from coverage of the "important" news.
Immediately after the fairness doctrine was removed the electronic media began a massive and unified move to the far left - in news, entertainment, and even children's cartoons.
The change was so universal, extreme, and consistent that now even a moment of air time covering a centerist or moderately conservative view brings complaints that the network has gone to the far right. Actual right-wing viewpoints just don't make it to the air on television, nor do libertairan views, nor anything from most non left-wing-urban-US cultures.
The only exceptions are the exposure of Moderate Conservative (as opposed to right-wing) viewpoionts in talk radio and as PART of the coverage on cable television's Fox News. (The latter has led to some coverage of Conservative views on other cable news channels.)
Now if the media were after REAL conflict they'd be busy covering all sides of the issues, to maximize it. Instead the mainstream media still cover coastal urban and inner-city issues and viewpoints exclusively, with others merely characatured when they appear at all.
The exception of the Moderate Conservative coverage in talk radio and cable news appears to have occurred solely as an economic fallout from the US's culture war: With the Progressive side covered and the Pluralist not, about half the potential audience was not served at all by the mainstream media. Conservative talk radio tapped into this potential source of advertising revenue, as did Fox News when it provided SOME coverage of their cultures' issues and news items.
But you're still on target with the observation that "people watch conflict". It's just that dramatized artificial conflict is much more eye-grabbing than the real thing. So the media plays to their target audiences' biases with stereotypes and fictions, rather than risking offending them or making them more diverse and harder to predict by exposing them to accurate coverage and portrayals of other viewpoints and cultures.
Meanwhile the officials who make the laws and policies are largely isolated from the actual people, but exposed to the media's news coverage. So the media can obtain considerable political power by feeding them false information about the opinions and likely voting behavior of the country's population. Thus they have a strong incentive to avoid any (non-belittling) mention of any political or social viewpoints other than their own and to run rigged public opinion polls whose results can be misrepresented.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Abstract: The following is indirectly related to the article and is a reponse to the actions of fanatics, namely the Islamic extremists we have been hearing about in the media...
Look at yourselves. You extremists are fucking idiots. Why? What good does blowing yourself up really do for you? You are an idiot because you are brainwashed by a BOOK! A book written by a HUMAN! You dedicate your life to this BOOK...a material thing. You believe in a deity/demi god/figure-head...whatever...you can call him/her/it Mohammed, Jesus Christ or whatever you want...but in any case you are a FOLLOWER. You do not have the mentality to think on your own. It is just sad.
So you think that blowing yourselves up in the name of Allah will guarantee you paradise in the afterworld. Well you jackass, prove to me your paradise. Show me that you have real proof of it...show me it's not based on faith. If you can't, then you only believe in things that someone else told you. Well, listen to this then...BLOWING YOURSELF UP DOES NOT GUARANTEE PARADISE. There, now you can follow MY words and teachings. Every evening you can face my house and worship me because I said those profound things. What makes the teachings of Koran better than my teachings? Nothing. Religion is a farce. Especially a religion that calls upon "jihads" or wars based on religion! How fucking stupid is that idea? A religion that resorts to war?...bah. Sounds like someone wrote that book so that they could control idiots like you. And how stupid are you for following this idea?
What you disagree with me now? Are you gonna blow yourself up to kill me because I have a dissenting opinion? I inivite you to come...I'll stick that bomb up your ass and see how much paradise you get after you're dead. Keep blowing yourselves up, the world is better off without idiots like you. Except blow yourselves up in your own home. Take your whole family with you.
Wake up, live for YOURSELF! Don't live by a BOOK, live by your own intuitions, use your BRAIN! You may live longer.
Oh, Christianity is no better either. Look at those blowing up abortion clinics! I thought those pro-life people were...well...pro-life! Isn't it ironic that these extremist pro-lifers kill people to support their cause? You people are friggin rednecks. So are you Islamic extremists. What do you hope to accomplish? Is the rest of the world going to cave into your demands because you blow yourself up? Do you know what the rest of the world thinks when you blow yourselves up in the middle of town? Here is what they think..."What an idiot."
If there ever was a time that I feel justified in genocide, then this is it. I propose that "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" that decide to use violence as a means to an end, should be killed. That will get you into paradise pretty quickly I would say. Funny thing is, I am against capital punishment...except in this case.
Too many atrocities have been commited in the name of religion, isn't it time that you religious idiots quit being part of the problem. Yes, that includes you Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamics, etc. Quit living in your hypocrisy. Reject your religious upbringing. See the REAL light...the light of truth and logic. Not some book based fable. Quit living the life of a Christian, Jew, whatever...give all that up, and live the life of a human.
"But if a government can't run tanks over students in Tiananmen Square without a camera catching the footage, something's changed."
Has it? Last week some rich Venezuelan company owners, backed by some sectors of the Armed Forces AND by the US government, took down the democratically elected president and put in his place the president of the Venezuelan Federation of Industries.
In 48 hours the so-called "provisional" government was taken down by massive popular protest in Venezula's capital, Caracas. The Venuzuelan private networks AND CNN (both Spanish CNN and International CNN) never broadcasted the protests that brought the legitimate government back while they were happening. And not for the lack of cameras, the rich-people staged protests that some days before led to the coup were lavishly covered.
So, what good is the camera if the networks will not let it turn to the real facts when the real facts disagree with the "correct" point of view?
Things are getting less tolerant as a result of the connectivity that all of us would be loathe to relinquish --- That is it is making us all less tolerant of many of the things that traditional media are so accustomed to our acceptance.
Just look at the replies to this article. Not many of us are all that tolerant of the almost predictable response of the NY Times to the internet now that it is no longer being seen as a vehicle for the most powerful.
There have been a variety of economics articles published over the last few years (sorry, no links readily at hand) that attempt to make the point that the undeveloped portions of the world are becoming more and more angry at the developed world as global satellite television distribution makes it easy for them to see directly, on a regular basis, just how much richer the developed nations are. And not just richer in a direct material sense, but the richness of opportunity that's available to individuals.
And, of course, there is serious doubt as to whether the world has sufficient cheap energy and other raw materials to ever raise the undeveloped countries up to the current level of the United States, Canada, or western Europe.
Agreed about the linearity, but they made the tradeoff for an excellent storyline, in my opinion. For me, the tradeoff was worth it, as all the PSone Final Fantasy games severly lacked any real depth in story, in my opinion. I was worried the same would be true with FFX, but was very happy when they actually got back to what counts- the story.
The reason that some are surprised that communication doesn't lessen tension is because of a false premise. Many people have the erroneous belief that conflict is the result of misunderstanding.
This soft-headed concept, a belief that Ted Turner apparently subscribes to, is just plain wrong!
You think that the guy who demands your wallet at gunpoint is unaware that you'd rather keep it? That the group who insists that your land in fact belongs to them doesn't know it's yours? That WW2 Germany was operating under the belief that Poland wanted to be a German possession?
Conflict is opposing interests, pure and simple. We don't how to stop conflict so we redefine it as ignorance and prescribe education and communication as the cure.
Come on, people, this ain't the Age of Aquarius! A touchy-feely devotion to understanding is not going to stop people from acting in what they perceive to be their own interests.
I was just reading one guy's travelogue about his time in China, and I was amazed at how little he understood. Sure, he saw some local people and ate some local food, but you can do that and still understand little about your environment. When you've got a job, more-than-aquantainces-friends, and deal with one area for an extending amount of time, lots of the nuances of the culture unfold before your eyes.
For those that teach English in foreign countries, I recommend you guys get out as much as possible, and have local friends from varying social strata, not just other foreign friends. Living in expat-society is a bit unnatural, and if you don't break free or mingle, you'll never see the country you've come to see (even though you'll probably meet some nice Australians and Americans, and that British guy with the local wife and lots of locals who don't like their home country, etc).
Rambling, sorry.
there is no thing
what else could you want?
Shut the hell up, bignose!
I don't think that I could like any of you any less.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
Just a thought:
You're shown what the media owners want you to see. If the media owners happen to want wars, it makes sense that the world will not be a global village.
Hell, we've been in an undeclared war against Iraq ever since Desert Storm, at least if you count the embargo, air patrols, explicit support for anti-Saddam movements, winking at Turkish violations of Iraqi sovereignty, the Iraqi plot to assassinate Bush the Elder when he visited Kuwait, the Iraqi bounties on American pilots...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Stream of conscious writing -er typing - is very theraputic isn't it? ;-)
This is a fairly obvious statement, but I've noticed that people are far more aggressive and willing to criticize and be utterly cruel online as opposed to face to face.
Face to face communication, and even voice communication enforces a certain degree of civility, but online, there is a great degree of abstraction between the real person you're talking to and the Internet handle you're writing to.
"what if all the hubbaloo about connecting people via the Internet makes us less likely to like each other?"
Hmm. I used to spend waaaay too much free time on IRC. I visited austnet a lot and made quite a few friends. I've even been to Australia and met quite a few of the people I useta talk to.
That comment in the heading of this article kind of surprised me. I found the internet to be a better way to find out more about people. I was able to ask people questions on IRC that I just couldn't ask in real life. Persoanlly I think that lead to better understanding and to stronger friendships.
But you know, I think the NYT was talking about the media. The media has a way of rubbing people the wrong way. When I was in Australia, it was during Clinton's impeachment. Oh my... I could not get away from that, even in Austrlia! I could certainly imagine nobody thinking very highly of us when our president's in the news for being human, but there's missiles being fired in the middle east. That did get a little coverage, but not a whole lot.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think people will know each other better when talking 1 on 1, but you get the media involved, and I think their twisted values will taint everybody's opinions.
"Derp de derp."
Or maybe just shithead.
Because of its enormous disparities in wealth, and because of the phantasy world portrayed in the media, the US is a particularly bad example to the world.
Living in the West, we have two choices: either we keep our wealth secret, or we work more strongly towards equality, opportunity, and wealth in all the nations of the world. But if we flaunt our wealth and don't share it, the consequences are predictable.
In my opinion, the worst thing about television news is that it is so instant and that a lot of it is American-based. I am constantly telling my non-Western (i.e. Saudi, Iraqi, etc.) friends to not trust television news. It is very important to supplement what you see on television with other outlets (major newspapers, disinterested sources, etc.). It is also very important to train yourself to recognize logical fallacies and the like. Classes on critical thinking are pretty helpful.
Joseph Kalange, Boise, ID, USA
private hate campaign agaisnt Microsoft, the
RIAA, Ashcroft, Senators, and now any Queue which I
may have to wait in which I wouldn't have thought about today
I was much happier before all this information became available and made me think I was starting to care.
-J
When did he say that? I've seen a couple tapes, but nothing where he says he did it. Perhaps people read in what they want to.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Without the Internet, I wouldn't know of, nor hate, some guy named Jon "Globalization" Katz.
Just because I might not like you, doesn't mean I won't respect your right to an opinion. I might disagree with everything that you say, and loudly so, but I won't deny you the right to say it.
There is a big difference between really communicating with someone on the other side of the globe, and the propaganda being sold to you over the tv. tv isn't there to make the world better - it's there to make tv corp money.
Go travelling and see things for yourself. Chat to foriegners online. The more you see for yourself, the more real understanding there will be.
try to remember that, and try to keep it in perspective.
If 2 people, cultures, etc are leaning towards friendly relations, more contact and communication will likely reinforce that tendency.
If they are leaning towards unfriendly relations, then that tendency will likely be reinforced.
It depends on the situation, whether communication and contact have a good effect or not. It appears that it tends to push people away from neutrality and reinforces any current leanings.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
That goes for tolerate or understand as well. Those who are right will live, those who are wrong will perish. Those without purpose are doomed. Might makes right is often bandied about, but they have it wrong... It is right that makes might. That which is wrong is neither to be tolerated nor liked. Woe to the mighty who fail to adhere to what is right, for they shall soon be brought down, for their might came from their previous correctness. Do you think that Hitler was mighty because he was a Nazi. No, he was mighty becase he was rightly concerned for the German people, and brought down because he was a Nazi and hated others who did not fit his narrow specifications. Whether history creates the future or is merely a testament to it, we should act in accordance with that which affirms the future we seek.
Afterall Canada's just another US state.
Really Canadians are just a slower, less pushy, better mannered sub-species of Americans. Even though the occasional Quebecois throwback pops up (for novelty value these throwbacks arn't culled)
If you want a sound-byte, this one's a perfect summary of how the rest of the world views the US. The poster unlike most USAians has obviously lived outside the US for a while, and has a valuable perspective.
My 2 kopins worth: After WW2, the spectacle of GIs truly liberating much of the civilised world from tyranny, and then spending vast quantities of wealth to help Europe re-build gave the USA more good Karma than you could poke a stick at. But right now, it seems there are more people who think life is a zero-sum game: that if one wins, others must lose. A rich US must have stolen goods meant for them. This "Cargo Cult" thinking is encouraged by the rapacious conduct of some unethical US megabusinesses, and the hypocracy of US tarrifs. DMCA extra-territoriality etc.
So what's the solution? As we say in Australia, bugadifino. But the first step is understanding the problem.
Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
They're just pissed that lots of people can now get together and compare how crappily they perform their mandate as journalists. For instance, how is it that they failed to notice that 50,000 people were in DC on 4/20 raising hell about our ignorant President and his minions?
but I think that the Internet surely made the world more tolerable.
What color is the sky in your world?
The concept of objective reporting has been nothing but fiction for at least 30 years.
"People suck" should be better defined. I agree. But that would take up too many pages.
If we look at a generalized history of the world, we'll see that before the advent of the Internet, people enslaved one another and committed acts of genocide -- such as the African slave trade and Holocaust to name but a few.
If we look at what's happened after the advent of the Internet, and even the WWW, the biggest case-in-point is Rwanada.
The point is: humanity is brutal, and it's naive to think that just because we're "all connected" anything's different. As Paul Simon says, "after changes upon changes we are more or less the same."
Maybe we'll be less tolerant of racism, child
abuse, slavery, dictators, monopolies,
pollution...
Curiously, most of those things are a form of intolerance themselves. Racism is an intolerant disrespect for members of another race. Child abuse is often due to an intolerance of a child's innocent behavior that provokes the abuser. Dictators are intolerant of the democratic wishes of the people. Monopolies are intolerant of competition.
I admit I become intolerant when faced with intolerance. I do try to be reasonable with intolerant people, but it doesn't usually last long, partly because the intolerance is often so irrational that there is little room for reason. So I end up angry and frustrated.
My hope is that more communication will at least get people thinking about more variety of ideas at an earlier age, and they will thus be more open to thiking about the alternatives. But it may take a couple more generations of global communication before we see much visible effect in the average level of civilization.
Although the information age may encourage more moderation over time, it could also foster more extremists, because more people will be able to find a community of support for exactly their brand of extremism.
Daniel LaLiberte https://www.facebook.com/daniel.laliberte
"While we seem to find that the news is objective, we fail to understand that instant news is as subjective as possible, as instant coverage of an even often presents only one side to the story."
That reminds me of an interesting situation I had while visiting some friends in Brazil.
We were talking about the airplane (I don't know why) and one of my American friends told me he'd show me something interesting. So, he asked our friend Douglas who invented the airplane. To my suprise he didn't say the brothers Wright, but some other name that escapes me at the moment.
I asked others we visited as well, and most of them confirmed it wasn't the Wrights, but it was some guy who flew around in France. I don't remember the details exactly (this being some time ago), but the idea was present that history is not always as we are taught it.
*sigh* I know, it's off topic...
There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
The last report that I heard from the Palastinian media was the the Jews needed to kill little children because they needed their blood for the Jewish recipes. I'm not kidding. This was reported in the Wall Street Journal but I can't find the link.
Both from geek friendly sources:
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
When I was recently in Amsterdam, I was talking to my Dutch friend and I asked him "Why does your country have such liberal laws?"
His reply: "Because the alternative is chaos."
You see, the Netherlands is very similar to the US. It has a very diverse group of people living there, all with different ethnicities and viewpoints. If laws didn't "tolerate" certain behaviors, the result is they piss off all of the people all of the time. Instead, the have a much more liberal policy on some things and they wind up promoting true tolerance. (ie: tolerance means putting up with something that you don't necessarily agree with).
Why? Their plane COULD NOT TAKE OFF
without external help (it had to be pushed)
The people who first managed to take off without
external help (propeller force only)
were Santoz Dumont and Traian Vuia; they both
worked in France, but they were not French
(I think Santos Dumont came from Argentina
and Vuia from Austria)
Why? Their plane COULD NOT TAKE OFF
without external help (it had to be pushed)
The people who first managed to take off without
external help (propeller force only)
were Santoz Dumont and Traian Vuia; they both
worked in France, but they were not French
(I think Santos Dumont came from Argentina
and Vuia from Austria)
Liar!
"Keep an Open Mind, and People will throw 90% garbage in it"
(unkown copyright holder... Sue Me 8)
Well, my parents taught me to have a critic mind.
Less pains in the long run.
Also, I've grown cynic 8)
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Oh, for pete's sake!
The airplane is like the Higgs Boson: every country (allegedly) discovered it first.
Table-ized A.I.