Silicon Valley 'Divided Society and Made Everyone Raging Mad', Argues Newsweek (newsweek.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Silicon Valley 'Divided Society and Made Everyone Raging Mad', Argues Newsweek (newsweek.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday October 22, 2017 @09:44AM from the demonizing-data dept.

"Anyone who is pissed off can now automatically find other people that are similarly pissed off," argues author Jamie Bartlett, in a new essay shared by Slashdot reader schwit1 which calls the internet "a bottomless well of available grievance." Here's an excerpt from Newsweek: Silicon Valley's utopians genuinely but mistakenly believe that more information and connection makes us more analytical and informed. But when faced with quinzigabytes of data, the human tendency is to simplify things. Information overload forces us to rely on simple algorithms to make sense of the overwhelming noise. This is why, just like the advertising industry that increasingly drives it, the internet is fundamentally an emotional medium that plays to our base instinct to reduce problems and take sides, whether like or don't like, my guy/not my guy, or simply good versus evil. It is no longer enough to disagree with someone, they must also be evil or stupid...

Nothing holds a tribe together like a dangerous enemy. That is the essence of identity politics gone bad: a universe of unbridgeable opinion between opposing tribes, whose differences are always highlighted, exaggerated, retweeted and shared. In the end, this leads us to ever more distinct and fragmented identities, all of us armed with solid data, righteous anger, a gutful of anger and a digital network of likeminded people. This is not total connectivity; it is total division.

320 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Newsweek is evil AND stupid by turkeydance · 2017-10-22 09:48 · Score: -1, Troll

not or.
1. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  not or.
  How is the summary incorrect? Our divisions are growing wider and it is easier to find like minded people.
  I seriously think that if impeachment starts Trump will go nuclear, possibly with nuclear weapons to distract or such, but more likely by ramping up the us vs them stuff to infinity and beyond until there is blood in the streets. He used the divisions and furthered them for his own end, but the divisions were there. Make America Great Again is just a polite way to blame everyone that isn't like them. It is at its heart exploiting deep seated racism and hate for political power.
  I very much fear that this is going to all end badly. The expression fiddling while Rome burned is apt and seems to apply here. Winning at all costs is not winning at all.
  Leaders must have a moral center, else our society suffers. They must have a sense of decency. I knew Donald Trump was the lowest form of life I've ever seen as a presidential candidate when he approved shoving Bill Clinton's mistresses in Hillary's face. Hillary is not Bill. That was beyond despicable.
  The fact that so many people in America think that kind is okay if they just get their guy is well, truly sad.
  What has happened to us? Wearing a flag pin does not make you patriotic. Preaching of your religion does not make you moral. The ends does not and never will make the means morally right.
  You can't build a country on a stack of sinful decisions and expect good to flourish. I had thought we were better than this, but I'm less sure these days.
2. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Congratulations on demonstrating the article's main thesis. You are part of the problem.
  I'll also be part of the problem now when I call you out for being a fucking moron.
3. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Congratulations on demonstrating the article's main thesis. You are part of the problem.
  I'll also be part of the problem now when I call you out for being a fucking moron.
  This is just lovely. I suppose your theory is that people that don't support your side are the problem, which would make you correct in that you are part of the problem, but also misses the main point.
  The divisions exist, of that there is no doubt, and unless we call out and condemn those who make them worse, there is also no hope of fixing them, though I will give you credit for doing your best to make them worse. Top form there.
  A democratic and republican ex president both gave similar speeches last week, but it seems very few actually listened.
4. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Wow did you even read the article? It talks exactly about people like you. People just like you that are unable to see the bigger picture. Self reflection is clearly not your strong point.
5. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:41 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Bill Clinton's mistresses
  It disgusts me that you would demean the victims of Bill Clinton's rapist tendences as "mistresses."
6. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Wow did you even read the article? It talks exactly about people like you. People just like you that are unable to see the bigger picture. Self reflection is clearly not your strong point.
  So what is your solution? What is the bigger picture? Saying that identify politics exists is basically like saying that water is wet.
  The good old days are gone. We aren't going to all identify with the same news show or such anymore. If you have a better solution for a more ethical and honest world, well I'd like to hear it. I can't see how it is going to be built if we refuse to call out those that are not honest and not ethical, but perhaps there is some secret I don't know about.
7. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  Now why else would they make an Oval Office if it wasn't the place you're supposed to fuck mouths at?
8. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-10-22 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  What a fucking ridiculous claim. The article never said the problem was that some people know and write the truth. The point is that people like you, when faced with it, will choose to run from it to the bullshit. Good job proving it BTW.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
9. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Bill Clinton's mistresses
  It disgusts me that you would demean the victims of Bill Clinton's rapist tendences as "mistresses."
  Bill is not and never has been Hillary. I dug up what I could of the case, which isn't much, and certainly isn't proven.
  link
  The best we have is Broaddrick claiming that Hillary said, "Do you understand everything you do?" I just can't see that proving anything, other than perhaps she was defending her husband, which you can't fault her for, unless you can prove that rape actually occurred and Hillary knew about it, and if they could prove that, Bill would be locked up. Oh I know they continually have all these stories saying the Clinton's did everything in the book, but, well, none of them have withstood scrutiny. Donald's stunt with the women was designed to throw Clinton off her game by any means possible. The SNL skit on this was apt. Hillary was stronger than that. She is largely irrelevant now, but the stunt was still despicable.
  In the end I'll end with my first point. Hillary was not Bill. Had Bill been somehow running for president (or anything) again, then maybe the women would have been fair game. He was not. It was just Donald showing how low he can go.
10. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Rakarra · 2017-10-22 11:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is just lovely. I suppose your theory is that people that don't support your side are the problem, which would make you correct in that you are part of the problem, but also misses the main point.
  The "Trump will go nuclear!" thing is hyperbole; it means you've fallen for the demonization. 'Our side' always tells us the people on the 'other side' are absolutely the worst, that there's nothing that they wouldn't do if we let them. We convince ourselves about it -- I heard it about Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump. It's always, always the most important election in our lifetime, always the time to vote for the leader of the primary opposition party, never for anyone else because, dammit, this is too important to waste a vote.
11. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Rakarra · 2017-10-22 11:01 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Sexual harassment is horrible and inexcusable. But it's not rape.
12. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  Its not a problem for everyone, most of the population doesn't care about identity politics and sees straight through it. It has become a bigger problem with the advent of social media but its still the same age old issue that has been documented since Roman times at the very least and probably a lot longer.
  There are generally 2 kinds of people that do care about identity politics: The people at the top / in control that have something to gain or something to hide by using identity politics as a strategy and the useful idiots that they brainwash into doing the dirty work for them. Outside of that almost nobody cares.
  Clearly you fall into the brainwashed useful idiot category.
13. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  But Bill did have mistresses also.
14. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:21 · Score: -1
  
  Leaders must have a moral center, else our society suffers. They must have a sense of decency. I knew Donald Trump was the lowest form of life I've ever seen as a presidential candidate when he approved shoving Bill Clinton's mistresses in Hillary's face. Hillary is not Bill. That was beyond despicable.
  Why is Hillary still married to the cheating bastard? If she had a "moral center" and a "sense of decency," she'd dump that adulterous bastard. The fact that she stays married to him tells me something is very wrong with her, something that makes me very leery of her as a leader.
15. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  It has often been said that if a Frenchman finds somebody he agrees with they will inevitably for a political party.
  Political parties cost money but Facebook groups are actively encouraged.
16. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 12:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm not the OP, but I too think Trump would nuke NK as a distraction. I read his book the art if the deal and that is exactly the kind of thing you would expect from the person who authorized that ghost written biopic.
17. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck off tit
18. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 14:34 · Score: 0
  
  The "Trump will go nuclear!" thing is hyperbole; it means you've fallen for the demonization. 'Our side' always tells us the people on the 'other side' are absolutely the worst, that there's nothing that they wouldn't do if we let them. We convince ourselves about it -- I heard it about Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump
  Bush was a lousy choice, but infinitely better than Trump. Trump is something else, and while I'll agree in general that hyperbole is a problem, so it the attack on truth itself, and likely a far more important problem. On Bush's watch they did some truly stupid things like letting the Iraqi army disband, and apparently trying various right wing policies in iraq that didn't always work. When it comes down to it though I think he is a good man with a basically moral center.
  As for the nuclear weapons go, well the original poster was thinking more of Trump eventually stirring up riots, but didn't rule out that he might use one if it helped him. It is notable that we now have a slashdot article mentioning that our nuclear assets are now back to a higher alert status.
  The danger with Trump and nuclear weapons is he wants to be seen as strong and, well, his supply of dead cats might run out. I'd say we are less likely than more that he will use them, but if he does, we will likely survive it for the most part.
  The problem is, every time a weapon is used, it is that much easier for that weapon to be used again. I don't think Trump understands that, not really. Several times we have heard Trump talk about using them, now maybe all the anonymous sources are wrong. I tend to doubt it, but it could be possible... Certainly if a news service uses anonymous sources for a story that turns out to be a lie then we should stop trusting that news service so much.
19. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Antique+Geekmeister · 2017-10-22 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm old enough to remember, very well, the politics of the impeachment of President Nixon. The man was more competent, politically, than President Trump. But he was _lethally_ dangerous to thousands in southeast Asia with illegal attacks against Cambodia, and corrupt in abuse of Vietnam protesters, both of those grounds for impeachment before the discover of illegal taping in the White House and abuse of political opponents exposed at the Watergate Hotel.
  The point learned there is that impeachment of a dangerous leader is feasible. But it takes exposure of a criminal offense that Congress is willing to investigate. We've had other treats of impeachment in my lifetime: it would take President Trump doing something not only blatantly criminal, but something that offended Congress sufficiently.
20. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 15:19 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  10 years ago you were calling Bush a racist white supremacist, Hitler, warmonger, Islamophobe, and the end of the world.
  You assholes have literally done this before. It's the same tired appeal to emotion, devoid of fact. The same smears. The same smug condescension that ignores legitimate concerns to favor bumper sticker insults.
  I'm a liberal on almost every issue. I was a straight ticket Democrat voter my entire life. Never again. Consider me Woke. I'd rather vote beside Bible thumping racists than stand beside you ever again.
21. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-10-22 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  The "Trump will go nuclear!" thing is hyperbole; it means you've fallen for the demonization
  Trump does not even have the authority to initiate a nuclear attack. It would require careful consideration by a team of designated strategists. This was also the case all the way back to Truman.
22. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by mentil · 2017-10-22 17:13 · Score: 2
  
  Would've modded you up if you'd given a citation. The President has the Football and AFAIK can use it at any time for any reason.
  
  --
  Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
23. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Trump's strategy is to ALWAYS double down because he is ALWAYS playing with the house's money. "What have you got to lose?"
24. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  Having nuclear weapons is useless as a deterrent if you do not maintain the will to use them. Part of the reason we lost so much international clout during Obama's eight years was hit taking so many tools off the plate (not just nuclear, but several other strong tactics). No one feared us on his watch and they were emboldened. The firm deadline to remove troops from Iraq. The line in the sand for Assad. No backbone allowing Russia to roll in to Ukraine. Sometimes tough talk is required to hold the peace.
  As for the above comment claiming America First is some sort of racist slogan. It's not. It's about putting our country's interests first in all international negotiations. The exact same thing every other country in the world does. Another of Obama's blunders was capitulating to everyone. His foreign policy was based on the thought that if you're overly generous, others will magically do right by you. That train of thought projects no strength and you get taken advantage of. You can still have win-win agreements going forth with a me first approach. It's a matter of both sides finding things to give to the other that mean less to them, but more to the other party. Rather than just giving everything and more for nothing of value in return.
25. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 18:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The problem is people are diving in to ideological bubbles and hear nothing but the echo chamber. The fact that you chose the words "honest" and "ethical" shows your bias. You're so buried in a world of group think you believe that anyone that thinks differently is automatically dishonest and lacks ethics. The entire point of this article is that we as a society need to intermingle. Hear differing points of view. Have honest debate (that means actually listening). People on the right are very much as guilty as well of searching for those they agree with.
  We're stronger as a people when we have mutual respect and work together. All we're doing by being smug and thinking we're smarter, more ethical and have all the answers is tearing ourselves apart.
  This article is an interesting read on perspective. I can't vouch for how authentic it is though. I didn't bother researching the author. http://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/
26. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by thinkwaitfast · 2017-10-22 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Saying that identify politics exists is basically like saying that water is wet.
  Back in the 70's, they used to run public ad campaigns with Saturday morning cartoons.Wagon Wheel, I'm only a Bill, conjunction junction, what's your function. One of the ads that I remember stressed that people were not labels. Brown, black, tall, short, handicapped, four eyes, etc. Today, everyone wants to be a label,
27. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations on proving the main thesis is flawed.
  When your arguement is that anyone who disagrees with you proves you correct, you have a flawed arguement. I believe this is called "begging the question" but I'm not good with naming falacies.
  There are so many assumptions that were made to "prove" this article the I doubt anyone with any sense could believe it. You could say that having access to information makes us violent, so we need to ban libraries, using this logic. If this is even remotely true, then it's not a problem with the Internet but human psychology. Which would be almost unethical to test. So good luck there. So this whole article should be ignored, as it contributes nothing to the pool of information. And at best is click bate.
28. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  You blame Trump and Republicans for using identify polictics to sow division between groups? You havenâ(TM)t been paying attention.
29. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 23:08 · Score: 0
  
  The President canâ(TM)t order nuclear war âoeat any time for any reasonâ.
30. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  ...I knew Donald Trump was the lowest form of life I've ever seen as a presidential candidate when he approved shoving Bill Clinton's mistresses in Hillary's face. Hillary is not Bill. That was beyond despicable.
  The fact that so many people in America think that kind is okay if they just get their guy is well, truly sad.
  Speaking of truly sad, let me point out a relevant fact here. America has been forced to elect the lesser of two evils for its leader for as long as I can remember.
  The fact that Trump was chosen should tell you something as to just how fucking bad Hillary Clinton is. Sadly, I'd rather deal with an idiot than worry what the Wicked Witch of Corruption is getting us into. Trump wears his decisions on his Twitter sleeve. Clinton made a fucking career out of hiding and denying hers.
31. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  The illusion is that there is that side and this side.
32. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by thegarbz · 2017-10-23 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's always, always the most important election in our lifetime
  Well of course it is. The basis of that is: Previous candidate was mediocre, didn't cause a nuclear winter, however we don't know what the next candidate will do. That's why this is the most important election.
  Remember Clinton is a war monomerer, or so I was told prior to the election.
33. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by gnick · 2017-10-23 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  The President canâ(TM)t order nuclear war âoeat any time for any reasonâ.
  I guess he can't declare war, but he can order a nuclear strike. I'd imagine that if he nuked somebody, the chances of that leading to war are pretty good.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
34. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  Instead of calling out people who make divisions worse (dissenters) let's address the arguments from both sides in a structured and logical fashion instead of trying to shame dissent.
35. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  I think the argument is that a nuclear strike is inherently an act of war and therefore without an officially declared war the president can't attack first.
36. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  ...therefore without an officially declared war the president can't attack first.
  Wouldn't it be nice if that was true?
37. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by cyberchondriac · 2017-10-23 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Making a tough business deal, and outright nuking tens of thousands or millions of people are two very different things, and Trump knows that. As should you. It is hyperbole.
  This great division began during the last administration, notably with Mike Brown and the BLM movement. It's snowballed from there with the vast majority of the democrat entrenched media backing Hillary and being pissed off that she lost the election, thus, the "resistance".
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
38. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Keith+Henson · 2017-10-23 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  "What has happened to us?"
  Same thing that happened in Germany back in the 1920 and a million other times through human history.
  Back in the stone age (when our psychological traits evolved) a bleak future outlook could always be solved by a reduction in the local population. The bleak outlook was almost always due to population growth that strained the environment to provide enough food. The evolutionary response was for xenophobic memes to be intensively circulated till the warriors were hyped up enough to go kill the neighbors.
  Like much else in psychological (or physiological) responses, the perception of a bleak future is relative. It depends on what people are used to. It is also a matter of perception, people are psychologically affected by bleak predictions. This is basic evolutionary psychology. Unfortunately, while EP helps a lot to understand what is going on, it isn't much use to fix things. It's hard to imagine the Arab world dropping to replacement fertility or becoming much more productive. (It's not entirely an Islamic culture thing because Iran has reached the two children per woman point.)
  There is lots more on this topic. One place to start is the Wikipedia articles on Azar Gat and Steven A. LeBlanc.
  
  --
  End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
39. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  The arrogance of people telling me what kind of president I should vote for is why I voted for Trump. I honestly don't care what kind of cunt he is, so long as he's a different kind of cunt from the ones we've had the last twenty years. Fuck your two party partisan bullshit. I'll vote for my garbage truck driver before I ever vote for the people that represent what the last four presidents did.
40. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by The+Grim+Reefer · 2017-10-23 05:32 · Score: 2
  
  I'm old enough to remember, very well, the politics of the impeachment of President Nixon.
  I'm old enough to remember Nixon too. However your memory is faulty. Nixon was never impeached. He resigned, which put an end to the impeachment process. He was later pardoned by Ford, which allowed Nixon to also avoid any criminal prosecution as well.
  Granted, after the House judiciary committee investigation, the impeachment process was formally initiated for three counts. But his resignation put an end to it. There was debate on charging him for the bombing of Cambodia, but that never passed the vote. So he was never in any danger of being impeached for actually killing people.
41. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by shpokas · 2017-10-23 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  > Bush was a lousy choice, but infinitely better than Trump. Trump is something else Things change and without Bush there would be no Trump. One inevitably leads to another.
42. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  You manage to make the article's point AND yourself look like an ass
  not or
43. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by orgelspieler · 2017-10-23 06:34 · Score: 2
  
  Do I understand your argument correctly? "This great division began during the last administration," because BLM? You really think that's what the great division is? What about: Roe v. Wade, the War on Drugs, the Red Scare, intelligent design, bra burning, flag burning, AIDS, assault weapons, lynchings, Prohibition, internment camps, slavery, etc. ad nauseam? America always has strife and divisions. These divisions are stoked by those seeking power.
  Of course, they don't hide it or even pretend anymore. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Not "govern well" or "fix the tax code" or "end the war in Iraqistanya" or even "do what's best for our constituents for the next couple of years." The only way people stay in power or gain power is by demonizing something else.
  Coming up with solutions and doing good governance will not bring millions of grumpy old white men to the polls. But whipping up a frenzy because "Your trans neighbor is gay married to a free-range emu and wants to take away your guns while doing ecstasy until you sacrifice an American flag to Satan!" will turn them out in droves.
44. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not OP. But if you can't objectively examine Trump's rhetoric and see the underlying issue with how he operates, then you're delusional and using the articles conclusions as a defense where one shouldn't be.
45. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by werepants · 2017-10-23 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Making a tough business deal, and outright nuking tens of thousands or millions of people are two very different things, and Trump knows that.
  Citation needed. Every time Trump has gotten even vaguely near the nuke topic, it has been a disaster. He claimed he can learn everything there is to know about nuclear missiles in an hour. When asked about the topic, he goes on bizarre tangents about a smart uncle. After meeting with nuclear security experts, many of them expressed grave concerns about his temperament and ignorance on the topic. All of the existing evidence suggests that Trump is both ignorant about nuclear weapons and impulsive in the extreme - about the most dangerous combination you could ask for.
46. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  because you won't find smug condescension from bible thumping racists. Riiiight.
47. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Rakarra · 2017-10-23 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  10 years ago you were calling Bush a racist white supremacist, Hitler, warmonger, Islamophobe, and the end of the world.
  No I was not. I didn't like a lot of his policies. But I didn't say those things. Try again.
48. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Altus · 2017-10-23 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  But then what you are saying is that the status quo is, in fact, honest and ethical, which the GP clearly dissagrees with. So do you have any evidence that society as it stands is honest and ethical or is it just that you identify with the status quo and believe that anyone who disagrees with it is dishonest and unethical?
  
  --
  "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
49. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  You are pathetically irresponsible. The job is too important, and too difficult to leave to an idiot like Trump.
50. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Antique+Geekmeister · 2017-10-23 13:26 · Score: 2
  
  You've mentioned some of the reasons I did not call it a _successful_ impeachment. The case did involve the _politics_ of impeachment. Part of the point I was trying to make is that he killed thousands but was charged on relatively trivial grounds, grounds that offended the sensibilities of Congress and were exposed to the voting American public. I considered his illegal attacks on Cambodia to be far worse offenses because of the deaths of thousands. But as your point about Cambodia attacks outlines, there was no political will to charge him for those impeachable offenses.
51. Re:Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Joosy · 2017-10-23 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hear, hear!
  
  --
  I'm sick and tired of these hip, "ironic" sigs. This is an actual, honest-to-goodness no-nonsense sig!
52. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that you chose the words "honest" and "ethical" shows your bias.
  It's interesting that you chose those words as demonstrating a bias. Surely we should be calling-out dishonest and unethical behaviour from those we agree with politically even more vigorously that from those that we do not? It does, after all, weaken our case.
53. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by cyberchondriac · 2017-10-24 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  We've had those divisions in the past, certainly, but in the *recent* decades they were not daily front page news like they are today. Everything now is muh victimhood and hate, even on small levels.
  People don't even feel relevant today if they can't find something to be victimized by, or point someone else out doing purported victimizing. Those are the ones going into a frenzy with riots and protests in the streets, burning cars, attacking people, and damaging businesses, and I'm looking at other groups besides just BLM.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
54. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by david_thornley · 2017-10-24 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  How young are you? You could use a little historical perspective. Nothing you are talking about is new. We had race riots for at least as long as I've been paying attention (starting in the 1960s), front page news about relations with minority groups (defined by power, not by number), etc.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
55. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by cyberchondriac · 2017-10-24 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Oh that's funny. I was born in 1962, don't be presumptuous. I've been around, but you've totally missed my point. I never said this was "new"; I said, there have been no major, extended race riots and nationwide feelings of division "in recent decades", which I see as the past 10, 20, and 30 years. Even going back 35 years takes us back to 1982, not the '70s and '60s. Those decades were the last ones where you really saw civil and social unrest.
  BTW, if you consider the 1960s a "recent" decade, you must be really, really, old, and you make me feel young, thanks.
  Now, there was the Rodney King affair, and the OJ Simpson trial, but they utterly pale in comparison to the BLM movement and Antifa. It was not like this in the eighties or nineties, nor even the 00s, and I remember that very well.
  Today, it's like the '60s all over again.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
56. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, thanks for dropping some names. I will have a look and maybe even learn something.
57. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by david_thornley · 2017-10-25 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  There are race riots on the order of the ones we had when I was young? I hadn't noticed any. Got any examples?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
58. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by cyberchondriac · 2017-10-25 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  BLM in Baltimore and Ferguson: torching and smashing in cars, windows, businesses. Marches and riots in other cities too, shutting down traffic on major highways. I don't need to search for you, you know those examples are there, you're being disingenuous.
  Cops being being shot dead on sight for just being cops, 5 in Dallas in one night, July 2016.
  Antifa clashing with NeoNazis in Charlettesville?
  At least MLK preached peaceful protests.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
59. Re: Newsweek is evil AND stupid by david_thornley · 2017-10-26 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, you don't have anything comparable to the race riots of the 60s.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 09:51 · Score: 4, Funny

> It is no longer enough to disagree with someone, they must also be evil or stupid...
You'd think at least *some* people would be smart enough not to jump to such conclusions. There's gotta be some middle ground somewhere. So, I disagree and this is stupid.
Oh, wait...
1. Re: Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot being the gold standard example sadly.
2. Re: Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 21:53 · Score: 0
  
  I beg to differ. Slashdot has the most balanced reader base, which includes the most matured people in tech (folks over 50). They have seen more shit than the punks who work for Gizmodo or Vox. They won't buy your sjw nonsense and identity politics. Sorry.
  Now git off mah lawn!
3. Re: Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  I find it strange that someone supposedly over 50 would see "social justice" as a bad thing. What, you prefer "social injustice"?
4. Re: Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  "Social Justice" as used by the left IS injustice.
The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by locater16 · 2017-10-22 09:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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."
1. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by sysrammer · 2017-10-22 10:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yeah, I thought that was an incredibly insightful paragraph from that book. It's said that civil wars are the bloodiest because the people are very similar and speak the same language.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
2. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-22 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  https://youtu.be/ey0wvGiAH9g?t...
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
3. Re: The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:18 · Score: -1
  
  Unchecked breeding of bastards and abominations in silicon valley is good - let them fags die naturally.
4. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by Krishnoid · 2017-10-22 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Here's hoping.
5. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by sysrammer · 2017-10-22 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  I blow my nose at you!
  Now go away or I shall taunt you for a second time!
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
6. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by djinn6 · 2017-10-22 13:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't think that's actually true, looking at this list, for every civil war, there's a bigger international war that killed more people.
  
  I think this is because different civilizations tend to see each other as barbaric or less than human, and find it more acceptable to massacre entire cities of their opponents to make room for their own. On the other hand, in a civil war, you are only fighting for the control of the nation. Once you obtain that control, you'd want everyone to stop fighting and start working for you. Killing more people at that point would be meaningless.
7. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by sysrammer · 2017-10-22 15:40 · Score: 2
  
  I stand corrected.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
8. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, that list includes colonizations as war and outside of those, all the big wars are civil, rebellion or north vs. south China. They are also quite numerous. I would also propose that the thirty years war was essentially a civil war, but anyway. So.... I think you might need to rethink that statement.
9. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 16:42 · Score: 0
  
  These adages about human nature sure are novel to deconstruct. Most of them turn out to explicitly be artifacts of perceptual fallacies, effectively of availability and sampling biases.
  The internet has done a few things, functionally, at a fundamental societal level... one of those things is the lowering of barriers to complex global communication. People, however, mostly haven't caught up quite yet from the time when most mainstream information was (intentionally or otherwise, but without necessary suggestion of conspiracy) channeled through a series of normalizing gates we call 'reporters' and 'editors'... so we get people getting upset that the information they consume isn't as polished as it used to be without necessarily realizing that the people who reported it aren't being paid for it & don't necessarily have training in the role. Et Cetera.
10. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 17:15 · Score: 0
  
  no, civil wars are the bloodiest because all of the deaths which get counted are on the same side.
  see American Civil War. (more American deaths than any other American conflict)
11. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by AmiMoJo · 2017-10-22 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't hold true generally though. You can see it on a micro level by the way some people make generalizations about whole groups of people, until they actually meet some of those people and communicate with them, at which point they start to see them as human beings similar to themselves.
  At a macro level, Europe deciding to use English and a common language was one of the key tools that helped build the EU and bring an unprecedented period of peace and integration.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
12. Re:The Hitchhiker's Guide on the Babelfish by cyberchondriac · 2017-10-23 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Familiarity breeds contempt.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Recency illusion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 09:56 · Score: 0

A lot of these complaints about online tribalism and incivility come across as naive.
These problems were already here!
It's like you folks don't remember the world before Eternal September. How old are you?
1. Re:Recency illusion by DevNull127 · 2017-10-22 10:02 · Score: 2
  
  So are you calling me evil -- or stupid?
2. Re:Recency illusion by Rockoon · 2017-10-22 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  Yes.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
3. Re:Recency illusion by fazig · 2017-10-22 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the article does state that these tendencies have been there for a long time. The main point is that the possibilities of internet combined with the comfortable, intellectual laziness of people apparently exacerbates these issues.
  
  For example when you look through online communities you see steaming rage about SJW, MRA, alt-right, communists, BLM, LGBTx, feminism, veganism, religious extremism as in Jihadists, Christians evangelists, militant atheists and what not. And all of these are portrayed to be very serious things, spelling destruction by threatening the way of life as you know it. But if you compare it to what happens in the actual world around you, in cities on the streets and so forth and judge people by their actions, you'll find a rather different picture. The conclusion that contemporary usage social media serves to distort our perception in a negative way does not seem to be off.
still that guys fault? by AndyKron · 2017-10-22 10:00 · Score: 1, Funny

Well I'm glad that's all figured out. It's Obama's fault, right?
1. Re:still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:10 · Score: -1
  
  No, not Obama's fault at all.
  It's Trump's alt-right base that did this. By and large, the right-wing nuts, conservatives, and republicans are the most negative people on Earth. Every single word out of their mouth is a complaint or diatribe against "libtards" and "snowflakes". And yet, the irony that such knee-jerk negativity makes THEM a "snowflake" is completely lost on them. And whatever you do, never, ever confront them with facts.
  In fact, I would wager that "finding other people that are similarly pissed off" is exactly what drives conservatives flock to their propaganda echo chambers.
2. Re:still that guys fault? by sysrammer · 2017-10-22 10:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sadly, the alt-left has many of the same techniques and the same goal: power over others.
  As Mr. Adams so eloquently states, "People are a problem".
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
3. Re: still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Right, because it was Trump supporters who called Trump "literally Hitler" and have been in an Olympics with themselves to fabricate more and more outrageous statements ever since.
4. Re:still that guys fault? by Kohath · 2017-10-22 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  It’s the news media's fault.
5. Re:still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:48 · Score: -1
  
  There is no such thing as the alt-left.
  That you would use a term invented by Twitler to make stoke his own ego shows what a fascist cockholster you really are.
6. Re: still that guys fault? by Rakarra · 2017-10-22 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  Right, because it was Trump supporters who called Trump "literally Hitler" and have been in an Olympics with themselves to fabricate more and more outrageous statements ever since.
  Literally Hitler is obviously hyperbole, and of course, factually incorrect.
  You can make a half-hearted comparison though, given his support for the White Nationalism and the national populism that Hitler used to his benefit so effectively.
7. Re: still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  You can make a much bigger and better comparison between the socialist left and Hitler. They have much more in common. But as you fall into the useful fucktard group you find it impossible to see the truth.
8. Re:still that guys fault? by TapeCutter · 2017-10-22 13:29 · Score: 2
  
  The only people who can't see that left and right extremist are cut from the same cloth are left and right extremists.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
9. Re: still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  American nationalism isn't necessarily white nationalism you tool. Except in your feverish little useful idiot mind.
10. Re: still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 13:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Hitler was to the left. Ghandi, Kennedy, and Mandela were also nationalists. Using the term nationalist does not make someone similar to Hitler.
11. Re: still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 15:28 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I can find at least 13 quotes of Trump condemning white supremacists and white nationalism EXPLICITLY.
  There is not a single quote or action of his supporting anything you said. The only "evidence" is literally 4 word phrases cut out of complete sentences to strip them of all context. I dare you to provide a single statement, not paraphrased, that even remotely supports your idiotic claim.
12. Re:still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 18:04 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, both members of the alt-left are a problem.
13. Re: still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 22:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The same happened to Damore. His memo was stripped of all references, and an emphasis was placed on the word "neurosis", completely taken out of its psychological context, and made to seem like he is just calling girls "neuroric". That's despicable.
  I am not worried about the alt-right. They have little power over the common folks. But a "prigressive left" that is in total control of the media and without any oversight of their responsibilities... that's alarming.
14. Re: still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  If you're talking about Donald J. Trump, the man who has received rewards from Jesse Jackson of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and the man who has a Jewish son-in-law and a daughter who has also converted to Judaism, your white nationalist comment is obviously a troll or proof of the article's point.
15. Re: still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Given how transparent the playbook is, failing to see the parallels indicates either a severely deficient understanding of history and sociology, or willful ignorance.
16. Re:still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  I tend to agree with this. They word their headlines to be as inflammatory as possible as to draw viewers to drive ad revenue (see click bait). The number of headlines I'll read that will get me angry, then go in and read the article and find that the story is actually quite uninteresting and benign is border line uncountable. And seeing how many people only read headlines....
17. Re:still that guys fault? by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-10-23 03:58 · Score: 2
  
  There is some truth to this. But there is a pretty serious difference between the far left and the far right: The far left is marginalized even within the left-most of US parties, whereas the far right not only controls the right-most of US parties, they have control of the Presidency and the House of Representatives, near control of the Senate, and control of something like half of state legislatures and governorships. So, while the far left and the far right share some similarities in terms of where their extremism would take the country, the risk posed by the far right is FAR, FAR greater than the risk posed by the far left.
18. Re: still that guys fault? by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-10-23 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  This is an idiotic take. Hitler was essentially the text-book definition of far right toxic nationalism. Any claim otherwise betrays the claimant as a person with little understanding of history or political philosophy.
19. Re: still that guys fault? by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-10-23 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Hitler was to the left ... of Attila the Hun and basically no one else.
20. Re:still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's the Left that did all this, by constantly calling moderate, average traditional people, "racist", "sexist", "bigot", "homophobe", "Islamophobe", and every other nasty accusation in their huge book of nasty, as a means to exercise power and control over others through extreme political correctness and shaming.
  Most people just went ahead in their lives not bothering or oppressing anyone, but suddenly, they were accused of being evil and "privileged", like some modern Salem witch trials.
  Trump's surprise election and the term snowflake was a REACTION to that negativity and division. And it pisses you off that your control freaks didn't win.
21. Re: still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, actually the same you fucktard. Go back to fucking your mother
22. Re:still that guys fault? by Hal_Porter · 2017-10-23 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  HANG THE EXTREMISTS!
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
23. Re:still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  It isn't that there really an alt-left or alt-right, it is very simply the expression of extremism in any belief system--political, environmental, religious, medical, dietary...--engenders friction. Extremism is about creating friction in society.
  However, it is important to separate the person from the behaviour or the opinion. So no, people are not a problem but how they act on their beliefs can be.
24. Re:still that guys fault? by mattack2 · 2017-10-23 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  The far left is marginalized even within the left-most of US parties
  From Wikipedia (which has sources):
  Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Clinton's 55%.
  So it doesn't seem marginalized at all to me.
25. Re:still that guys fault? by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-10-23 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  How do you figure Bernie is far left? He's a pretty mainstream center-left guy. His primary policy proposals (universal health care, free public colleges) are ones that have been implemented in countries across the world, and that have been defended by even conservative parties in most of those countries. Compare that to the far right, and it's pretty clear that this is not a "both sides do it" scenario.
26. Re: still that guys fault? by Rakarra · 2017-10-23 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  This is an idiotic take. Hitler was essentially the text-book definition of far right toxic nationalism.
  There's been a big push to move Hitler into the "left-wing socialism" camp in the annals of history. The Nazis were socialist in name only, never following up on their promises to the people. They really only got around to the nationalism and the warmongering.
27. Re: still that guys fault? by Rakarra · 2017-10-23 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I can find at least 13 quotes of Trump condemning white supremacists and white nationalism EXPLICITLY.
  Sure, of course you can. Of course, it doesn't match most of his other rhetoric, so you can find some quotes where he tries to look good.
  After Charlottesville, for instance, he equivocated and gave the standard right-wing nationalist response that both sides were equally at fault and refused to call out the KKK and the Nazis. When he got criticism for that, he gave a short speech where he said the KKK and Nazis sucked, white supremacy sucks, etc. When people asked why the fuck it took him so long, why he could only do that after being browbeaten into it, unlike a normal person who happily and readily admits that white supremacists belong at the bottom of the totem poll, he said fuck it and just went back to his original nationalist talking points.
  So sure you can find quotes. On many issues he says two things, but of course he will never admit he ever misspoke, because he's not self-aware enough to admit he's wrong about anything.
28. Re:still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  Nice try.
  There is no alt-left. The left itself is batshit crazy and dangerous. Not more dangerous than the alt-right, though.
29. Re:still that guys fault? by mattack2 · 2017-10-23 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I guess I can't explain it. I just think that is far far far far far left. The "conservative" parties in those countries aren't conservative, IMHO.
  I think Bernie's about one of the only candidates who would be WORSE than Trump.
30. Re:still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  Alt-left is the problem. There is no alt-left. There are GOPers and everyone that thinks GOPers are full of shit.
31. Re:still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 18:38 · Score: 0
  
  Mr. Adams is a con man.
  You should gain some perspective, it will show how empty his rhetoric is.
32. Re: still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  Hitler was to the left.
  You can redefine words and play with semantics as much as you want, because while you're doing that we're going to sneak up behind you and shoot you in the back of the head.
33. Re:still that guys fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  You need to stop listening to slanted reporting on how big the supposed far right is. Per this recent article the numbers are very small. From the article:
  
  However, they estimate that the KKK counts between 5,000 and 8,000 members nationwide. Back in the 1920’s, when cities across the south were erecting monuments to Confederate generals, the Klan had 4 million members. As Roger L. Simon points out, this would be an impressive decrease even if the population of the U.S. hadn’t swelled since the 1920’s. Back then, the Klan constituted about 4 percent of the entire U.S. population. Now, the KKK is near its nadir. That would make them less than 0.003 percent of the population, even on the higher end of the SPLC’s estimate. “It’s a small group of real bad people,” Simon writes.
  Highlights mine. So I seriously doubt that 0.003% of the population has any say in anything..
34. Re:still that guys fault? by david_thornley · 2017-10-24 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're talking about politics in a number of highly successful first-world wealthy countries, many of them having higher general happiness scores than ours. Those political systems are empirically sound and work well. If you'd like to list highly successful countries with left-wing parties significantly to the right of modern US Republicans, go for it. Let me know if you find one.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
35. Re:still that guys fault? by sysrammer · 2017-10-24 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, forgot. Alt-right, ctrl-left. Got it.
  "fascits cockholster"--ha, you kill me. I love my new nickname. Twitler is a good one too, I'll have to remember that. Just curious: were you making up funny names for obama too? Or were you annoyed by people who did?
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
36. Re:still that guys fault? by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-10-25 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  You assume that the KKK encompasses the entire extreme right. Sadly, they are only one organization out of literally hundreds in America. As you point out, KKK membership is at a nadir. But that's not because its ideas are losing support. It's because its members have moved on to form other organizations without the baggage (in the public eye) of the KKK.
It's never good enough with identity politics. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

What wasn't wrong yesterday is totally bigot, racist and sexist today. We live in the most sexist society ever.
But if you look at the numbers, the real ones only thing that's happening is that over the past 30 years equality has become better.
1. Re:It's never good enough with identity politics. by Rakarra · 2017-10-22 11:05 · Score: 2
  
  But if you look at the numbers, the real ones only thing that's happening is that over the past 30 years equality has become better.
  The actresses making allegations against Harvey Weinstein actually concur. The interviews I've heard have them saying basically, "look, this is kindof how it's always been. Harvey was more bold than most, but sexism is the dirty secret no one liked bringing up in public."
2. Re:It's never good enough with identity politics. by gweihir · 2017-10-22 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  And that is how it has always been and always will be: Men with a lot of power think they can get away with it, and women that want something from these men also think these men can get away with it. As neither will change, the problem will persist. That one or the other of these men will at some time lose most of his power and then the accusations will come flying is part of the ritual and generates a nice, temporary scandal that will change exactly nothing.
  This is not a problem that can be fixed. It is one people can to be warned about, but that is it.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
3. Re:It's never good enough with identity politics. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  You're part of the problem if you generalise the issue to be sexist "Men with a lot of power", it's people. PEOPLE.
4. Re:It's never good enough with identity politics. by gweihir · 2017-10-22 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  Naa, we have yet to see the first woman as the perpetrator in a scandal like this. Doubtlessly, it will happen eventually, as this is not about sex but power. (If it were about sex, they could just buy time from hookers. Even though most hookers will not actually tolerate such behavior...) But it has not happened yet.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
5. Re:It's never good enough with identity politics. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 18:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Men use their power to get sex. Women use sex to get power.
  Just as many or more women used Weinstein's cravings to advance their career as Weinstein victimized because he could. A small number of people claiming Weinstein victimized them were part of the previous group and are now using the culture of victimhood to acquire even more career advancement.
  This sexist idea that women aren't predatory, or that they are in the same way as men are but less often, needs to be left in the past.
6. Re: It's never good enough with identity politics. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Women are more predatory than men. Men just want to have fun. Women want to exploit men and do no work. The fact our legal system has been designed to empower women at the expense of men is a total injustice.
7. Re: It's never good enough with identity politics. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  Shut it fedora-wearing neckbeard, go back to reading redpill forums in mom's basement
8. Re:It's never good enough with identity politics. by serviscope_minor · 2017-10-23 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Just as many or more women used Weinstein's cravings to advance their career as Weinstein victimized because he could.
  Seems like no matter how despicably some guy is, he'll always have an apologist on slashdot.
  Just as many or more women used Weinstein's cravings to advance their career as Weinstein victimized because he could.
  This is trivially disprovable as bullshit. Many of the people have shining careers or are very rich off their careers. No further advancement needed.
  I generally expect shitty ACs on slashdot to say shitty things, what's sad is when they get modded up.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
9. Re: It's never good enough with identity politics. by Rakarra · 2017-10-23 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Men just want to have fun.
  One person's 'fun' is another person's 'rape.' There are quite a few men who abuse power because they can get away with it, and it's a hell of a lot more than just having "fun."
10. Re:It's never good enough with identity politics. by david_thornley · 2017-10-24 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Sure we haven't had women dong that? There's a lot of stigma for a woman saying she was sexually harassed or worse, but there's far more stigma for men. It took an internet campaign to get all these women speaking up.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
11. Re:It's never good enough with identity politics. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. The logical pretzels some people will twist themselves into to blame the victims of sexual assault. I have to wonder, do you *care* that you’re a giant misogynist? My gut says no.
12. Re:It's never good enough with identity politics. by gweihir · 2017-10-24 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I am aware, we have not had a scandal of this type. I have no doubt that it is going on though.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It's the economy stupid by rsilvergun · 2017-10-22 10:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

The crazy shit going on is all due to a weak economy for the working class. The pro corporate folks have their knickers in a twist because they didn't expect Trump or Brexit and they're not sure how that's all going to play out. News flash, you can't have the cake and eat it too. Keep shitting on the working class and eventually they'll do something dumb. Probably another World War or they'll pick a minority for genocide.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re: It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the rich are a minority, so..
2. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  So why did most white voters with college degrees vote for Trump? Why did most of Trumps votes come from the suburbs and cities? Why did the majority of white women vote for Trump? Why did Trump win the majority of voters making over $50,000 a year by a wide margin. None of that sounds like a "working class" problem.
3. Re:It's the economy stupid by HornWumpus · 2017-10-22 10:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's just about degree. The costs of Globalism are largely born by the blue collar workers. Outsourcing IT is nothing compared to just moving multiple industries at the same time.
  They just need to adjust an exchange rate (or three) a few tens of points for the next decade.
  The real problem with 'managed anger' (kept just below boil), is that all governments do it, many with multiple groups. Eventually all the governments can't manage all the groups and ugly shit happens.
  Right now, the good path is all about China. But anyplace could be the trigger for the bad path. The post WWII baby boom is still a financial demographic bomb for 'the west'.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
4. Re:It's the economy stupid by alvinrod · 2017-10-22 10:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's only a small piece of the puzzle, and this is nothing new. American politics has always been divided to some degree because the first past the post system essentially guarantees that there be two big parties opposed to each other. The biggest change is that the internet has made it easier for people who would have never been able to organize previously to get together and build their own little digital enclaves. People can form communities more easily now than at and point in history and physical presence is no longer a requirement. This is incredibly awesome on the whole, but of course there are going to be bad outcomes as well.
  
  The other big problem is that the internet is entirely impersonal. If you put 99% of people who get pissed off at each other on the internet together in the real world, they'd be a lot more civil. It's pretty easy to forget that there's another human being at the other end of the online conversation when you're just starting at a screen. When there's a real person there, you start to pick up on all manner of body language cues that just don't exist online and can't just mentally write them off as Satan.
5. Re:It's the economy stupid by sysrammer · 2017-10-22 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Nyet, tovarishch.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
6. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Let's face it, you can't physically assault me online. That's why people say whatever they want whenever they want. In real life, you start spouting enough stupid shit at enough people and eventually someone is going to punch you in the face.
  Most of us just walk away, but eventually someone won't.
7. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  You call earning over $50K per year "the working class"?
  Ah!
8. Re:It's the economy stupid by jonsmirl · 2017-10-22 10:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I agree that neither party is remotely ready for the impact of the baby boom fully retiring. A huge day of reckoning is looming when the baby boom asks for their Social Security and Medicare and then discover that the cupboard is bare and those IOU's at the Fed are worthless because the money has been spent. I have no clue how this will get resolved, but it is not going to be pretty.
9. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  The crazy shit going on is all due to a weak economy for the working class.
  Flyover Drumpfelstilskins. Throw rocks at them!
10. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Wait a minute, after eight years of the messiah Obama and it's a weak economy for the working class?
  I'd say voting for that ass clown and all the other idiots in the Democratic Party must not be the right choice then.
  See how this works? I bet one of you will respond....
11. Re:It's the economy stupid by HornWumpus · 2017-10-22 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  I know how it will be resolved. Print even more money. The first step is easy to see.
  The question? What do people do when _all_ the major currencies are being printed like mad? I think 'land', but I always think 'land'. Some people always think 'gold', 'guns', 'single malt', which aren't bad ideas, if you've got land to keep them on.
  The English Pound is the canary. Worst in class. They are a good decade ahead of the pack.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
12. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that a lot of people are desperate. If you are not in a big city, you likely will not be finding work, as there hasn't been any real job expansion in any fields. Manufacturing is done in China. Farming is automated. Service jobs like call centers have been done out of Bangalore for years now. For middle America that doesn't live in Austin or SF, the only real work are oil fields, medical, corrections, or military.
  This is why both sides are looking for hope from anywhere. If we have an economic crunch, which will happen come next May when Facebook and Google are effectively shut down in Europe due to the new data privacy laws, all it would take is one group that gives hope, no matter how brutal the rhetoric, and the US will see times similar to the French revolution. It may be a Nazi, it may be someone is part of Daesh... it really doesn't matter... if it gives hope to people who know they will be out of work and unable to feed themselves and their family for the rest of their lives, they will grab hold to anything.
  Oh, Everytown's "gun safety" shit won't help. If guns magically disappeared overnight, people would start making ones that can do fully auto fire from the many machine shops. Guns are a symptom of how scared and hopeless the population feels, and no president we have had for 20 years has tried to address the shitty morale in this country, nor the fact that enemy nations can dump propaganda at will on US residents, making greater divides and further destroying loyalty.
13. Re: It's the economy stupid by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-10-22 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  You underestimate the roll of stupidity in the equation. There are plenty of people with money too stupid to figure out what Trump is and can't see that he literally is a sociopath who doesn't care about anyone but himself, or that every single move he makes is about trying to convince himself that he isn't the pathetic loser every intelligent and informed person on the planet can plainly see he is.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
14. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  The crazy shit going on is all due to a weak economy for the working class.
  God, it must suck to live in your head, where everything begins and ends with class struggle.
15. Re:It's the economy stupid by jonsmirl · 2017-10-22 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Printing money will have two effects, first, it will make the nation (and everyone else's) debt disappear. Making the debt disappear removes the interest burden from the budget freeing up money for SS/Medicare. But the second effect is a major problem, it will also make the assets of the elderly disappear which might lead to an even worse outcome. At least without high inflation, they will still have those assets to pay for things the government drops the ball on.
  The only solution that makes everyone happy is to have 3%+ economic growth for the next twenty years. If that happens the increased tax collections from the expanding economy are enough to make the SS/Medicare problem go away. In the economic world, growth solves all problems since it effectively creates money from thin air. Do the math, 3% growth for 24 years will double tax collections without counting inflation gains or raising tax rates.
16. Re:It's the economy stupid by Rakarra · 2017-10-22 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  You call earning over $50K per year "the working class"?
  He said the opposite, he was calling them out as not the working class.
  But of course it depends on where you live. In a rural area where cost of living is low, $50k/yr lets you live really comfortably.
  In a city where the cost of living is high, especially housing, that $50k doesn't go very far.
17. Re:It's the economy stupid by HornWumpus · 2017-10-22 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  This batch of 'elderly' aren't the same as the last. No bank CDs. Keep their assets illiquid and in a trust, just to game the tax system, Medicaid and inheritance. Last move of the baby boom. Mark my words, they will suck the government tit, till the end. Eventually they won't have enough votes to get what they want, but by then there will only be a few left.
  The problem is almost universal. The baby boom was far and wide, almost no nations actually saved money for their retirement.
  We don't have 20 years.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
18. Re: It's the economy stupid by HornWumpus · 2017-10-22 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  It was stupid to nominate a candidate even worse than Trump, but they did.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
19. Re:It's the economy stupid by jonsmirl · 2017-10-22 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  It is political suicide to mess with the baby boom voting block. There are a lot of them and that group will turn out 90% if their benefits are going to be cut. Also, backlash like that is justified. I have been paying into SS/Medicare my entire life. I expect something back for those years of payments. If I don't get it I will certainly express my displeasure at the voting booth.
  Growth can really be juiced by changing immigration policies to favor younger, educated, wealthy people, but that is apparently politically unpalatable.
  Random article says that in ten years 40% of voters will be baby boomers. That is because the elderly are much more likely to vote than the young. Peak year of baby boomer power will be 2029.
20. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  I'll bite Mr. AC, you and your short memory. Obama took over after a certain W spent a surplus away with tax cuts for the rich (that didn't improve the economy or create jobs) and a WAR that we're still fighting over WMD's that didn't exist and that they told us would pay for itself. Obama turned that around. Hell, he permitted the government to save the U.S. auto industry - remember GM about to go belly-up - when Mitt Romney said in his own words to let it go bankrupt. Everyone driving a sweet, new, spanky Camaro today should friendly thank you to Mr. Obama for preventing the Rominator from letting the "market" slice GM into whatever would have turned a fast buck. Funny thing, facts: they don't always agree with the prejudice you want to maintain.
  Here's another one: GDP tends to go up under Democratic administrations, down in Republican ones. I suppose Trump is still enjoying the fruits of Obama's hard work, here in his first year. But as he keeps throwing monkey-wrenches at the health-care and insurance markets with his Tweets and executive orders, instead of just leaving it alone, health care and health insurance is only going to go up, up, up as insurance companies can't predict what to charge to cover their asses. Does that affect rich people? No, billionaires and Senators can pay cash to the best doctors and hospitals. But it affects YOU, hits YOUR paycheck or, if you don't get health from your boss, hits you with bankruptcy when that pain in your gut turns out to be cancer, when that traffic accident with that uninsured drunk in the pickup kills your kidneys and puts you on dialysis for the rest of your life, hits you as you get old and your knees start to give out. Trump will get his knees replaced, and tax-payers will pay for it. YOU will just live with it, buy a walker from Walgreen's and shuffle around between your bed and your TV couch. Dammit, what happened to the Fox News? Had to choose between the pain pills and the cable bill - guess which one's more addictive.
21. Re:It's the economy stupid by HornWumpus · 2017-10-22 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Look forward to inflation shrunk benes, but be glad your not getting nothing. Like later generations will.
  There simply aren't lines of relatively rich, educated, professional people waiting to immigrate anymore. Which isn't to say just open the doors wide.
  Our best be is some other currency going bad first. That might buy us the time we need.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
22. Re:It's the economy stupid by jlowery · 2017-10-22 12:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hmmm... now, why would American society be divided?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  For those who can't afford health care though working two jobs, the only way to keep them docile is to turn them against imaginary bogey men. This works, because they don't have an inkling as to how obscenely wealthy the 0.01% are.
  
  --
  If you post it, they will read.
23. Re:It's the economy stupid by Rockoon · 2017-10-22 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  Wealth is goods and services. The money printing and all that crap doesnt matter.
  
  The goods and services will continue to flow so long as people are free. I will always be able to trade a day of my labor for a day of someone elses even if the currency goes to shit so long as we are free to do so.
  
  The problem is that governments clamp down on the trade of goods and services more and more as the currency goes to shit. A little bit of clamping down and society survives in spite of the interference. A lot of clamping down and society falls into chaos.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
24. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 13:42 · Score: 0
  
  They're shitting on the middle classes as well - with constantly rising ObamaCare health insurance deductibles, copays and rates. Plus rising college tuition fees, stagnant or falling wages, offshoring and other means of increased competition for jobs.
25. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  It isn't the working class who decide to have wars and genocide. It is the elite who decide to take advantage of their anger and channel it for their own nefarious purposes.
26. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Illegal immigration (or even legal mass immigration via visas and such) and free trade benefit the financier/trader/merchant class. Ending these could improve the lives of Americans, but it would threaten the income of certain businesses, plus it would threaten the political future of certain politicians. So nothing gets done.
  Solution: End free trade and mass immigration. In return, implement a universal health care system.
27. Re:It's the economy stupid by mikael · 2017-10-22 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Governments don't "print more money". They borrow more money from the international bankers and add it to the national debt. Then taxes have to be raised to pay the interest on this debt. Plus the world economy has grown around the servicing of this debt through issued bonds, so even if the USA had the ability to pay off the national debt, it would nuke all those third world countries lending money to the USA.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
28. Re:It's the economy stupid by execthis · 2017-10-22 13:49 · Score: 2
  
  This makes me think of the movie "Hypernormalization" which is based on a faulty premise but which brings up the concept of "managed outcomes": Basically society falling apart and unmanageable but they just do minimal things to keep things from getting too extreme.
  Hence more and more criminals are being released on the streets. People are increasingly victimized by crimes committed by people who should never have been out of prison, and this is considered an acceptable consequence to the powers that be. Most people go along with or ignore it until they become a victim.
  They want to maintain an illusion that things are planned, that our society is based on rules, but increasingly politicians - particular the most "progressive" ones - see their jobs as being rule-breakers-in-chief. So rule of law - one of the hallmarks of civil society - is on it's way out.
  The politicians view the working classes they are supposed to represent the same way as companies like Facebook view their "users". The users are the product that gets sold. The electorate is what the politicians sell out to various moneyed interests in our very corrupt plutocracy.
  Democratic big-city political machines which are well-extended into the state and federal levels use social justice issues to gain support but the real dirty stuff they do is always behind-the-scenes.
  The majority of both parties are beholden to the Chambers of Commerce which are happy to sell Americans out and are pro open-borders, mass immigration, happy to see the working class undercut and wiped out to increase their profits.
  America is in a dark time. Very dark.
29. Re:It's the economy stupid by execthis · 2017-10-22 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  Peak year of baby boomer power will be 2029.
  Which baby boom are you talking about? Most baby-boomers are around 65-70 right now. They will be dead by 2029.
30. Re: It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 14:07 · Score: 0
  
  Europe is going through the same thing. Why are they importing all those immigrants from 3rd world shit-holes?
31. Re:It's the economy stupid by Bender0x7D1 · 2017-10-22 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Most baby-boomers are around 65-70 right now. They will be dead by 2029.
  That will only make them 77-82 which is hardly out of line for still being alive.
  
  --
  Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
32. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. Bitches always want the bling ... and power over men without producing common value in exchange. But, they got pussy and as Hugh Hefner observes ...' all is well'. Only a dik-dyke with no dog-in-the-hunt ... or bleeding heart fools think that will ever change. Yep ... pandering-to womens feelings and desires has exactly zero value. True male wisdom harkens to ... get back to the kitchen bitch and bake me a pie.
33. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  But who will pick our cot.. I mean avocados?!
34. Re: It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  If Trump cuts the corporate tax rate as promised, you're going to see some serious shit. There's trillions of dollars sitting offshore that has been waiting for a tax holiday for 30 years.
  America is poised to explode economically in the next 4 years, assuming Republicans don't fuck this up.
35. Re:It's the economy stupid by jeff4747 · 2017-10-22 15:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's a massive amount of wrong condensed into a single paragraph.
  1. Social Security and Medicare are paid out of two different funding sources.
  2. Medicare has no expected shortage despite the Baby Boomers retiring. The taxes paid by GenX and Millennials will cover it, just like GenX and Boomer taxes paid for Silent/WWII-generation's Medicare.
  3. The Social Security Trust Fund is supposed to go bankrupt.
  It was created in 1983 in anticipation of the Boomers retiring. In the original design, Social Security benefits are paid out of the taxes collected today. That works as long as each generation is larger than the previous. When GenX turned out much smaller than the Boomers, there was a problem. Enter the trust fund. Boomers, GenX and now Millennials have been paying higher taxes over the last 34 years to build up a trust fund to cover the Boomers. And only the Boomers.
  After the Boomers, we go back to each generation being larger than the last. So we can go back to the ~2 younger generations funding the one older generation. (Technically, this will depend on how many kids the Millennials end up having. So far, so good on that front.). Under current projections, the Trust Fund will last until virtually all the Boomers have died of old age.
  4. There will not come a day where we suddenly have to pay the Social Security Trust Fund back, because we've already been paying the Trust Fund back. The Social Security Trust fund can only invest in US Bonds. Those bonds have a maturity date where the money has to be paid back. And that maturity date has already passed for some of the bonds. (The principal and interest were used to buy more bonds initially, at the moment some of the interest is being paid as benefits. Just as planned)
  So no, there will not be a sudden need for more money. There has been and will continue to be a gradual reduction in how many bonds the trust fund can buy. That could theoretically increase the deficit, but if you give a damn about that then fix it via the general fund instead of a Rube Goldberg design involving Social Security.
  6. If you really want the trust fund to continue to exist, the fix is incredibly easy - raise the cap on FICA taxes. Back when Social Security started, about 95% of income was subject to FICA taxes. Thanks to the growth of income inequality, only 70-someodd percent of income is subject to FICA taxes. The difference is caused by the wealthy making more money.
  In 2017, the cap is $127,200. $127,201 and up are not subject to Social Security taxes. So raise that cap to ~$200-250k and the trust fund lasts forever...not that it would actually be needed.
  7. Remember point 1 about Medicare and Social Security having different funding streams? Medicare taxes don't have the cap mentioned in 6. That's why it doesn't have a near-term funding problem.
  8. Attempting to balance the budget 30 years from now is an incredibly stupid exercise. We can't predict the economy 10 years from now with reasonable accuracy. You think we can nail 30 years?
  In summary, any pundit or politician giving dire warnings about insolvency and sudden repayment are lying to you in an attempt to convince you to support cuts.
36. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  Walk away ... punch me in the face? No ... cause he gets shot dead first. Well, either he or I get shot - - ya never know how the bottle spins which is why some people walk away. Next ...
37. Re:It's the economy stupid by magzteel · 2017-10-22 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  4. There will not come a day where we suddenly have to pay the Social Security Trust Fund back, because we've already been paying the Trust Fund back. The Social Security Trust fund can only invest in US Bonds. Those bonds have a maturity date where the money has to be paid back. And that maturity date has already passed for some of the bonds. (The principal and interest were used to buy more bonds initially, at the moment some of the interest is being paid as benefits. Just as planned)
  The taxpayers paid into Social Security. The money paid was treated like general revenue and spent. In its place there is an IOU from the treasury called a US Bond. How does the treasury repay these bonds in the future? By getting money from future taxpayers or by rolling it forward by selling more bonds (i.e. borrowing more money). The scheme keeps working until China stops buying treasuries.
38. Re:It's the economy stupid by jeff4747 · 2017-10-22 16:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The taxpayers paid into Social Security. The money paid was treated like general revenue and spent.
  
  False
  
  In its place there is an IOU from the treasury called a US Bond.
  False
  
  How does the treasury repay these bonds in the future?
  Same way we've been repaying the bonds for the last 30 years. Again, there will not be some sort of sudden payment coming due.
  
  The scheme keeps working until China stops buying treasuries.
  False.
  First, China stopped buying significant amounts of US bonds in 2006. They were trying to use these transfers to keep the Yuan low versus the Dollar, but you can only make a river flow upstream for so long. They currently use other, more direct methods. So if China not buying bonds was supposed to be a disaster, we'd have started that disaster a long time ago.
  Second, countries are not the only entities that can buy government bonds. In fact, about 80% of US federal debt is owned by Americans and American corporations. And considering inflation-protected bonds are selling at close to 0% interest, we're not in danger of that drying up overnight.
39. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the 'surplus' created by Clinton and Gingrich by basically just looting the Social Security fund?
  instead of just leaving it alone, health care and health insurance is only going to go up
  My insurance went from about ~50 bucks a month with a small 500 dollar deductible to ~1500 a month with a 7k deductible. Yeah. What a fucking bargain I am getting! Please go on and tell me how wonderful it is that I am paying way more for less service.
  Obama turned that around
  By letting ISIS run unabated? Yeah that worked out well for the middle east didnt it?
  Hell, he permitted the government to save the U.S. auto industry
  You mean the thing Bush did? Or was it only " I suppose Trump is still enjoying the fruits of Obama's hard work" Maybe Obama can take TARP too?
  The ground work for that disaster was created by Clinton and Gingrich in 1998 with the final stripping away of glass steagall. Where do you think that .com/housing money came from? It has not been fixed and no one is talking about it at all.
  You are playing it both ways. Basically D's get the good stuff R's get the bad. They are both equally 'good/bad'. The theatrics they play is a game they play with us.
40. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  Though them as a voting block will drop off quite dramatically as many of them cease to be fit enough to travel and queue for hours to vote, in countries where voting is not mandatory. And in many instances in places like Northern Europe and USA, (I think) most surviving 82 years old are not fit enough for coming out in the winter snow to queue for hours.
41. Re:It's the economy stupid by Goldsmith · 2017-10-22 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  The assumptions built into these systems require that the economy grows at a steady rate.
  We can grow the economy through labor pool growth, or through increasing labor productivity. Population growth is not the same thing as either of these things. Natural population growth is also not actually happening, we have sub-replacement birth rates in the US (this happens often). Our population growth is driven since the boomers mainly by immigration, which makes maintaining or growing our labor productivity very challenging (but we're good at this). Our labor pool is not actually directly coupled to population and is just now increasing above where it was in 2008.
  At some point we have to look at creating sustainable policies. This isn't necessarily cuts, but should inform how we approach immigration policies and investment incentives in addition to expenditures. My point is simply that the that population increasing in size is neither guaranteed, nor directly linked to economic output, and is a horrible assumption to base an economy on.
  As for selling more bonds... that's a whole other topic. Keep in mind there is a finite amount of money available for investment. Bonds alone aren't causing the problem, but we've had a decade of poor investment in new business, we're back to pre-1980 rates of business creation. Unlike population growth, new business (and the increased productivity and opportunities for immigrants that come with it) IS what our economy is based on.
42. Re: It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 19:38 · Score: 0
  
  You underestimate the roll of stupidity in the equation.
  I don't, because you keep reminding me.
43. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 19:55 · Score: 0
  
  Manufacturing in the US is only down 4.3% in the last 20 years (as % of GDP).
44. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 20:26 · Score: 0
  
  The working class starts wars now, huh?
  5% expected Trump and Brexit. Something had to give, but most people are blind including the overlords.
  And, they never give up!
  It'll be shitshow but capitalism will also fail in the end, no matter how many priests live off the wealth of the land in the shortest amount of time.
45. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 20:42 · Score: 0
  
  Oh christ where was the hyperinflation that all of you sound money types were predicting in 2009? Social security will never collapse.
46. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anne+Thwacks · 2017-10-22 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  Peak year of baby boomer power will be 2029.
  I expect it to be much earlier. I am a boomer, from the UK, so it might be different where you are, but ...
  The majority of the people my age that I have stayed in contact with for over 20 years have died, despite the fact that we have the NHS (poor lifestyle choices but mostly not really bad - cancer the biggest killer for those that survived the rock and roll era).
  Our "Social Security" system was a Ponzi scheme from day one, and was started by our grandparents. I admit we have not addressed that, but personally, I have been bleating about it since about 1963. It diverted us from the strategy my first boss (born in Victorian times) recommended "invest in your own family". By taking so much of our income, even people in upper middle class it left nothing much left after survival. However, that probably improved sympathy for the poor here.
  "Social Security" is now being run with some kind of Victorian "punish the poor" morality, and any contact with it is likely to kill you through stress. The young are the driving force behind this, but the victims have a fairly uniform age distribution.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
47. Re: It's the economy stupid by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-10-22 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  Have a good day you classic example of Dunning Kruger you!
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
48. Re: It's the economy stupid by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-10-22 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  Could be the phone thinks it is smarter than me (and actually is smarter than you). For example it changed "thinks" to "things" in this post, but I happened to notice it in this case.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
49. Re:It's the economy stupid by AmiMoJo · 2017-10-22 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  The "elites" aren't one group though.
  Take Brexit, some really want it and think their wealth will be increased by it. Maybe the European market is too saturated for them and they want trade deals with other countries, maybe they want wages to be forced down further than austerity managed, maybe they are just idiots.
  Others are shitting themselves about the potential consequences, already moving parts of their business to the continent, desperately trying to get the government to steer us away from the cliff edge.
  The con was to make people think that they were all of one mind and were the enemy, the "so-called experts" and "political elite who brought mass immigration".
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
50. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, that's why we're dropping the corporate tax rate to 20% too, because it benefits the working class. :)
51. Re: It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  Allowing illegal migrants en masse for employment and compensation for low birth rates into the EU when there are member states like Greece and Italy with extremely high unemployment makes it obvious someone is either being paid off or inherently self-destructive.
52. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, although I don't agree with newsweek, I agree with newsweek. I see a kind of caste system forming with some layers worse than others. Right now about the worst of that is those who believe they are intrinsicly superior and infallible. A hint, they're not so much on the right or in the working class.
53. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  They just need to adjust an exchange rate (or three) a few tens of points for the next decade.
  What does this even mean? Exchange rates change all the time, it's what they do.
54. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  The last thing you want is some other currency going bad first. Everyone will pile into the dollar, and that will be a disaster for the US. You can't even cut the interest rates any more to blunt the impact.
55. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  They were trying to use these transfers to keep the Yuan low versus the Dollar, but you can only make a river flow upstream for so long. They currently use other, more direct methods.
  So if you didn't realize the Yuan has been rising for quite a few years now, we should just assume the rest of you drivel is equally ill-informed.
56. Re: It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Or those people are fat and lazy and you want hungry hardworking young people to actually compensate, rather than make things worse.
57. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  (In a Gilbert Godfried-esc Bernie Sanders voice): THE TOP ONE TENTH OF THE ONE PERCENT.
  Fact, the top 1% includes people making $300,000, so Sanders had to change it to top 1/10 of 1%.
58. Re:It's the economy stupid by jeff4747 · 2017-10-23 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Natural population growth is also not actually happening, we have sub-replacement birth rates in the US (this happens often)
  Nope. The US is one of the few western nations that is above replacement rate.
  Replacement rate is about 2.1 children per woman. The US is at about 2.3.
  GenX is much smaller than Millennials, and so far Millennials are producing a generation larger than themselves. Assuming this trend continues, we're good for the roughly 3 generations we can count after the Boomers. Obviously the children of Millennials could produce a small generation, but that is not something we can know for about 20 years.
  As a result, changing policy today to be more "sustainable" when the children of Millennials are the ones retiring is probably a bad idea. We have little idea what the generation sizes, labor forces, productivity and similar issues will look like. We will get a roughly 40-year warning of an issue like a small generation, so we do have time to react to that.
  Sudden changes won't provide a warning, but there is absolutely no way to predict those, so we can't make policy decisions based on them.
59. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  Gotta' love the naive. Of COURSE they print more money. And taxes aren't raised - they're lowered. At some point, someone points out that "we can't afford all this" and benefits for the masses are cut - after all, what else can we do ?
  This has been the republican mantra since 1980. Generally, it's worked for them much better than whining about the new Deal did for the generation before that.
  If you really believe that "quantitative easing" (all 4 rounds) wasn't just "printing money", I'm not sure how you'd define it.
60. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  The real intent is to slash benefits so FICA can go back to being a slush fund for congress to raid whenever they need a few billion for pork. That's where the surplus really went for those decades when it was taking in billions more than benefits cost. Now that it's closer to break-even, the magic piggy bank is gone and the congress-vultures want it back.
61. Re: It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Um. If people pile into the dollar, you can prevent deflation by PRINTING MORE MONEY.
  Deflation can be easily solved. Only inflation presents an issue.
62. Re: It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  an interesting observation that illustrates the problem with stakeholder capitalism.
63. Re:It's the economy stupid by HornWumpus · 2017-10-23 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  China has traditionally managed its exchange rate based on one metric. Industrial utilization. It works about as well as managing programmers based on 'lines of code', but they haven't yet been burned...they have already built lots of useless stuff/empty cities to maintain 100% utilization.
  China is the giant elephant in the room. They get a special deal, no other nation is allowed to peg its exchange rate and get 'most favored'. That will have to change, soon.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
64. Re:It's the economy stupid by luis_a_espinal · 2017-10-23 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  So why did most white voters with college degrees vote for Trump? Why did most of Trumps votes come from the suburbs and cities? Why did the majority of white women vote for Trump? Why did Trump win the majority of voters making over $50,000 a year by a wide margin. None of that sounds like a "working class" problem.
  Bingo. It was all about identity. There are plenty of "working class" urban folks that make ends meet, gruely obviously, with 2 jobs or more. They didn't vote for Trump (and/or simply abstained in disgust at the Trump/Hillary choice). They didn't act on identity.
  Not everyone that voted Trump voted for identity. But pretty much every damned identity idiot voted for him.
65. Re:It's the economy stupid by HornWumpus · 2017-10-23 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  The hours long queues is largely a myth.
  When it happens it's because one party has identified exactly how many votes they need and bussed voters to a polling place to vote 'one more time' just before the polls close.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
66. Re:It's the economy stupid by HornWumpus · 2017-10-23 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  About 60% of the population live to 80. Which is enough.
  All that has to change is enough baby boomers die that they can't continue to suck money from the Ponzi scheme.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
67. Re: It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  The choice was between Hilary and Bernie, really. Would Bernie have done better against Trump? I don't think so, but at least he would have been somebody with Principles (no matter how much they've shifted over the years) that a True Liberal (tm, and tongue in cheek of course) could feel good about voting for. In the end, the Dems had nobody competitive where it counted: in the electoral college, which is designed to counteract "the majority." And with a solidly (and, due to gerrymandering, impossible to change) R majority in Congress, Bernie would have been unable to do anything anyway.
68. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  To summarize your post, Social Security and Medicare are fine, because we can simply massively raise taxes on the your people who are actually working. Do you have any idea how much they're are going to have to raise income taxes to pay back the IOU's the baby boomers write to themselves?
69. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Because white people are fucking dumbasses who will vote for their own self-destruction
  I say this as a white person, though I'm smarter than anyone who voted for that turd Trump
70. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  IDK, it's pretty sweet where I live and getting sweeter while earning less money and most stuff costing more than in USA. I think americans have it too easy.
71. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  > What do people do when _all_ the major currencies are being printed like mad?
  You trade them for something that can't be printed (gold and land come to mind) then sit on those until somewhere sanity is restored.
72. Re:It's the economy stupid by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-10-23 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I learned all of those "false" things from the media. You're saying they lie to us? Wow. Freaky.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
73. Re:It's the economy stupid by mattack2 · 2017-10-23 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  This batch of 'elderly' aren't the same as the last. No bank CDs. Keep their assets illiquid and in a trust, just to game the tax system,
  How does a trust "game the tax system"? Can I still live off interest generated from it?
  I want to pay as little tax as legally possible.
  (Scarily, I saw recently that even though there aren't details yet, supposedly Trump's tax proposal will greatly REDUCE the yearly 401k amount to something like $2000.. It should be greatly INCREASED instead, and get rid of social security, that's a 6% raise for everyone.)
74. Re:It's the economy stupid by mattack2 · 2017-10-23 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  I've been paying into SS/Medicare too, and I want to GET RID of them. Make a "mandatory" 401k _perhaps_ as a replacement, but in quotes because I would still probably let people avoid it, even if it's difficult to avoid.
  POSSIBLY give people a one time tax break if they've been "paying into them their entire lives".. but even without that, I would still vote to get rid of them.
75. Re:It's the economy stupid by werepants · 2017-10-23 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  The hours long queues is largely a myth.
  When it happens it's because one party has identified exactly how many votes they need and bussed voters to a polling place to vote 'one more time' just before the polls close.
  There is ZERO evidence of this happening at any kind of scale. Voter fraud like this would be pretty easy to detect, and in independent studies is happening in tiny, tiny numbers, if at all. Spreading these kinds of rumors is toxic to democracy. Think about what you are doing.
76. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's interesting that the SSA's own website disagrees with your assessment.
  You also have to ask yourself, where is the money to pay back the bonds that the administration so wisely invested in coming from? From the SSA's website, "Far from being 'worthless IOUs,' the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government." It may be impossible to balance a budget 30 years out, but maybe balancing the budget for the current year might be a good idea, especially if a massive government entitlement program is relying on the government's own ability to pay its debts. Debt, not deficit, as a percentage of GDP is extremely high and there are no signs whatsoever that congress has even a passing interest in reigning that in.
77. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  Solution: End free trade and mass immigration. In return, implement a universal health care system.
  Absolutely not. (Much closer to..) free trade comes closer to a supply & demand system. (It can't be 100% truly free, since we do need pollution laws, etc.)
  There should be much more _legal_ immigration, at least for STEM people.
  Get your own health care, don't make me pay for it.
78. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 14:24 · Score: 0
  
  Not that drivel again...
  You've tried to explain one kind of nonsense by expanding into another kind of nonsense.
  If you've no idea how currencies work by now you are incapable of learning. Just phone a friend already.
79. Re: It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Can you tell us why you think it will work differently this time? The Fed printed literal Trillions of dollars and the dollar kept on going up.
  If you think knee jerk printing causes inflation, then the knee jerk response to inflation is just burning the money already printed.
  Oh I see now, you think everyone buying dollars will make them go down...how strange of you to think that.
80. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  You have managed to figure it out, but not a single person on the other side has thought of it and decided to get a single shred of evidence. You must be super duper smart with above genius level political insight.
  Or much more likely, it just doesn't happen...
81. Re:It's the economy stupid by HornWumpus · 2017-10-24 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  You have no argument, only point is on the top of your head.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
82. Re: It's the economy stupid by HornWumpus · 2017-10-24 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  That was only 'the choice' after all the qualified stepped back because it was 'Hillary's turn'.
  Any decent candidate would have beat Trump. Just not Hillary or Bernie.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
83. Re:It's the economy stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  There is no need for an argument, it's clear to anyone who cares to look. You are not even wrong, just stringing some words together.
  Also no point arguing against made up nonsense. It's like a religion with you, no amount of facts will dissuade you from your beliefs.
Alvin Toffler/John Brunner by bferrell · 2017-10-22 10:02 · Score: 2

The future shock/shockwave rider effect writ large.
I love how this effect was predicted in the late 60's
Preseption of fame by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:03 · Score: 0

A lot of people just want to be famous. I personally think itâ(TM)s mental illness. People have some illusion that If they say something more brash or absurd than the last guy they can be some sort of âoeStarâ.
Until we can somehow curb the attraction to fame this is inevitable.
1. Re:Preseption of fame by gweihir · 2017-10-22 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the problem is serious, look at all the unsuitable people in high political and economic positions that got there by basically the same process, even if often more refined in appearance. The ones in social media are just a side-show from those that are bitter because they did not make it. The effect is well known though, and it is a kind of mental defect. It is called "Negative Attention-Seeking Behavior". It is made worse because there is another mental defect (IMO) where people actually admire the ones that are good at getting negative attention and mistake them for independent thinkers or independent people that are strong the do not need to care about anybodies opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. Just think of Kim without Donald or the other way round. Both would feel massively underappreciated.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
ARPANet? by Mikkeles · 2017-10-22 10:06 · Score: 1

(D)ARPA developed the Internet without the help of Silicon Valley, which didn't exist (was named, for the pedantic) then.
So, it's really a plot of the Military-Industrial Complex, who bought off universities to do the actual work!

--
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Leftists, not Silicon Valley. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:07 · Score: -1

Silicon Valley is a place with many different people of many different beliefs. It's not Silicon Valley that has divided American society. It is leftists who have done that. They're the ones pushing identity politics and political correctness. They've created the current social climate of 'leftists' and 'everybody else'. We shouldn't blame a place for problems that leftists have created.
1. Re:Leftists, not Silicon Valley. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure why Reddit downvoted this. Idpol is 100% to blame and leftists fall over themselves to play the game.
The internet is an amplifier by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:07 · Score: 0

And just like all amplifiers before it, like television, radio, the printing press, the written word and even language itself. It will amplify any and all human interactional activities, both the good and bad.
Not sure why this is a surprise.
1. Re:The internet is an amplifier by thinkwaitfast · 2017-10-22 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
  
  The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content," that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas.
The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitwit. by hey! · 2017-10-22 10:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

However it rewards them if they try.
Specifically social media, which is a massively distributed operant conditioning machine which rewards people to conformity. Conformity to what? Here's the novel wrinkle: anything. The owners of social media don't really care where the bandwagon you jump on is going, as long as a lot of people jump on; people whom they will be able to sell.
It's not access to information. It's the intrusion of information designed to trigger montetizable responses that's the problem.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Technology is an accelerator and amplifier by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:11 · Score: 1

And the internet is no different: It accelerates and amplifies. People who couldn't find information in a library can't find information on the internet. People who believe biased newspaper articles believe biased blog entries. To people who use and value information, the internet is a great resource. Some of the stress that the internet causes is just seeing the stupid that would normally be filtered out by more restrictive media. But it also enables great talents that we'd never know without it: Organized media brought us Payola and heavy rotation.
1. Re:Technology is an accelerator and amplifier by sysrammer · 2017-10-22 10:27 · Score: 2
  
  And the internet is no different: It accelerates and amplifies. People who couldn't find information in a library can't find information on the internet. People who believe biased newspaper articles believe biased blog entries. To people who use and value information, the internet is a great resource. Some of the stress that the internet causes is just seeing the stupid that would normally be filtered out by more restrictive media.
  Great summary of the issue.
  
  But it also enables great talents that we'd never know without it: Organized media brought us Payola and heavy rotation.
  Yep, follow the stupid, er, follow the money!
  "There's a sucker born every minute", and they have a spare buck that they're willing to toss on the stage.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Re:The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitwi by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Interesting operant conditioning basiclly describes perfectly shows like John Oliver.
It goes like this:
fact
fact
fact, with a sincere face
lie
joke
loud pun or shout something
serious face
EXAMPLE:
polar bears are cute
polar bears are important
here's a picture of a polar bear
republicans want to kill all polar bears
TIMOTHY STOP TRYING TO FUCK THE POLAR BEAR!
But seriously, here's a picture of a dead baby seal
This is how we consume 'news'. These shows have embraced the quick bites of youtube and twitter.
My simple algorithm is ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:23 · Score: 0

But when faced with quinzigabytes of data,
I've a simple algorithm: to remove all big videos, photos & binaries (executables & data).
Later, i do uncompress the compressed archives.
What do you get? The plain texts, the source codes, etc.
And my final step is compressing them and burning them to DVDs or BDs.
Obligatory Seinfeld by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-22 10:24 · Score: 1

The internet is a bottomless well of available grievance.
SERENITY NOW!

--
#DeleteFacebook
It's not Silicon Valley, it's the Internet by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-22 10:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Behold, the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

--
#DeleteFacebook
1. Re:It's not Silicon Valley, it's the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  SHITCOCK!
  (Now I have to type something that isn't in caps because Slashdot has a lameness filter that was an early and naïve attempt at curbing the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory even before it had that name.)
And 96 percent of the population bought into it. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:33 · Score: -1

As evidenced by the.. 47% 49% final vote tally?
If I was a genocidin' man, I know what part of the population I would be gassing...
What did they expect? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:36 · Score: 1

They were convinced that they had technological solutions to social problems - that the only reason why we weren't all singing kumbaya around a campfire was that we weren't "informed" or "connected" enough. Now we're all informed and connected and it turned out that the real problems were still 1) we're all tribalist assholes and 2) we all think everyone else's tribe is the problem. I'm no exception, even as I type I'm thinking "well if anonymous shitposters like ME were in charge, we wouldn't have these kinds of issues!" even though I know damn well it's coming from the stupid monkey part of my brain.
It's time we faced the truth. Civilization as we know it is a kludge over a framework adapted to much smaller communities. We can make it work but inevitably these behaviors arise again, even when there isn't really competition for limited resources. Sadly, unlike a network or a system, we can't simply redesign ourselves - it will not take any less time to adapt to living in communities of billions than it took us to adapt to living in tribes of a hundred or so. That means that we are going to be dealing with these problems for a long time, and we are going to have to come up with solutions that are better than "shame whitey until all the racists die out".
1. Re:What did they expect? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2017-10-22 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's because we are all really just smart talking monkeys. We are at least 95% genetically the same as chimps. We only separated from them less than 8 million years ago, the Hominoidea classifications goes back at least 20+ million. Humans who can read, write, etc have only been around for maybe 10,000 years. So really, is it any wonder we act like fighting groups of chimps?
  
  Someday, hopefully we can accept that we, as humans, are just a thin layer on top of millions of years of evolution. Once we recognize that, perhaps we can start addressing some of these "tribal" issues.
2. Re:What did they expect? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 20:32 · Score: 0
  
  Sadly, unlike a network or a system, we can't simply redesign ourselves
  
  Isn't that what transhumanism is all about?
  
  Heh, perhaps the Silicon Valley folks have seen that the problem is "us", and that's why they're so much in favor of transhumanism.
3. Re:What did they expect? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  They were convinced that they had technological solutions to social problems - that the only reason why we weren't all singing kumbaya around a campfire was that we weren't "informed" or "connected" enough. Now we're all informed and connected and it turned out that the real problems were still 1) we're all tribalist assholes and 2) we all think everyone else's tribe is the problem.
  Correct, it's never been easier to find an echo chamber than it is now.
We've got you covered by epine · 2017-10-22 10:40 · Score: 1

Fight, flight, or fornicate: 4chan, Travelocity & match.com.
We thought we were building a WWW, but we ended up with an FFF.
Mainstream mass media did it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:42 · Score: 0

Mainstream mass media did it, & are trying to "pass the buck" onto others as they massively project their own wrongdoing.
* NOW, ask yourselves WHO owns the biggest chunk of mass-media (& banks, law, other types of communication + politics etc.) & you see the REAL perpetrators...
(The old adage of "Follow the Money" exposes everything to the ultimate disinfectant - sunlight of fact).
APK
P.S.=> What truly pisses me off is that they treat readers like their readers are STUPID & they are not (far from it)... apk
1. Re:Mainstream mass media did it... apk by Anne+Thwacks · 2017-10-22 21:18 · Score: 2
  
  "Follow the Money"
  I think "Follow the monkey" is currently more popular in the USA.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
2. Re:Mainstream mass media did it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  "Follow the Money"
  I think "Follow the monkey" is currently more popular in the USA.
  I resent this association!
  Monkeys - and apes including the Orangutan - are not generally delusional/stupid, narcissistic & full of hate. Please leave them out of this conversation.
Re: The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitw by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:44 · Score: 0

Pretty close.
But republican news radio stick to dehumanizing the 'libtard subhumans who are trying to destroy America and must be stopped.'
Quinzigabytes ?!? by LordHighExecutioner · 2017-10-22 10:45 · Score: 1

Please, how big is this ? I stopped at yottabytes...
Twitter is for lazy reporters by mveloso · 2017-10-22 10:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Twitter is the ultimate source for lazy reporters. Need an opinion? Find it on twitter. They can find anyone saying anything and use them as a source.
Twitter should be banned from reportage, period.
1. Re:Twitter is for lazy reporters by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Twitter is an opinion pole.
  People give their opinions on Twitter and then the data is used to fuck everyone in the ass.
2. Re:Twitter is for lazy reporters by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  "Social media exploded when... !"
  This nearly always means the story is unimportant, trumped up, and/or does not interest me in the slightest.
We paid you to do one job. ONE. JOB. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 10:48 · Score: 0

We paid you to do one job. ONE. JOB.
Guess who feels threatened? by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-10-22 10:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Anyone who is pissed off can now automatically find other people that are similarly pissed off," argues author Jamie Bartlett, in a new essay...
This used to be the prerogative of essayists in newsmagazines. Now they feel marginalized by public access to rich sources of information and online pulpits far bullier than any fora they had available to them in the days when freedom of the press was only available to those who owned presses.
1. Re:Guess who feels threatened? by SuperKendall · 2017-10-22 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  Technically the main annoyance they have, is they no longer get to control what (or who) people are pissed of *at*.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:00 · Score: 0

Not a new thing... just seeing more people do it, often in a useful idiot state of mind. Before the internet, canadian tv was slowly hijacked using similar means, this went on at nearly the same time throughout the common wealth.
The world we're living in is one where the 90's saw pharma 'shorten the lives of 140,000 american women', millions world wide (this is prime demographic turf under clinton) without consequence (an israeli untouchable).
Pharma was found guilty of hiring pr firms to target victims, their families and anyone who might want to talk about it on the internet resulting in a 20 million dollar lawsuit awarded to one woman.
Complete blackout by the media (who were acting as shills for the product themselves).
There's a constant errossive pressure to dismiss the blame on the state of things. Without a forced 1/2 hour warning to television audiences that these producers, actors and advertisers (as part of a larger synergy) are out to harm them and should not be trusted, blame is with media ownership and the public trust they break.
And likewise . . . by hduff · 2017-10-22 11:07 · Score: 1

People who are pissed on . . .

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
1. Re:And likewise . . . by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2017-10-22 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  "Better to be pissed off than pissed on", my grandma always used to say!
Also according to Newsweek... by trabby · 2017-10-22 11:10 · Score: 1

Springfield is America's Crud Bucket
Oh the evil of Gutenberg press by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:14 · Score: 0

If that dude didn't invent the printing press we'll all be a'ok..
So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:25 · Score: 0

The promise of technology is that we can each construct our own virtual universe and live independently of anyone we disagree with. We can also still communicate if we want. It is each person's choice.
This guy wants everyone to agree that division is bad, but it doesn't have to be. We can use technology to give everything to everyone.
1. Re:So what? by Jzanu · 2017-10-22 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  No, because that is how you destroy society and kill off all humans.
Re:The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitwi by Rakarra · 2017-10-22 11:30 · Score: 1

This is how we consume 'news'. These shows have embraced the quick bites of youtube and twitter.
This is really only a problem if that type of show is our primary (or worse, only) source to your news. It's why I got pretty worried when people told me they really only watch the Daily Show or thought it was a great news show with jokes. It wasn't supposed to be, it publicly claimed that's not what it was, but people used it that way anyway. Any infotainment / opinion show has similar problems.
One of the "promises" of the internet... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:41 · Score: 0

...was it allow more people to speak and reach more people, to allow for more and varied and nuanced thought. Etc. etc.
In some areas it has provided great access to facts. Wikipedia for all it's faults, is factually correct if you look up atomic weights of elements, and heck of a lot of other things.
On the other hand, if you currently try to search for Star Spangled Banner, Hollywood Producer, Africa, you will find a lot of hits on the current controversies of today. Often it is hard to find hits in search engines, Google, about any other aspect of the controversies of the day. What happened to Boolean searches. Okay, what percent of the population understands a Boolean search.
So what we have is part of the internet, the non-news current event part, slogging along as usual. The News part, is subject to the hysteria of the day, which tends to cleave into two sides. To what extent are search engines that move sites based on the number hits, and other aspect of their algorithm causing this? What if other algorithms based not on say, popularity, but on variation of opinion (I'm thinking out loud, how to do that I don't don't know).
Unfortunately, a heck of a lot of people are caught up in this whole mess.
or maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 11:53 · Score: -1

The divisiveness we have now is a result of evil, not the internet.
Certain people find affirmative action morally reprehensible.
I am one of those people. If you support affirmative action, I find you are evil. The internet isn't to blame, you are.
Both the republican and democratic parties are corrupt to the core, but I pick the lesser evil.
It's time our congressmen followed the principles of right and wrong. It doesn't come from god, but from justice. Only justice can save our country, but our modern idea of justice is so hopelessly corrupt that we are failing to implement it.
Here's what we need to do:
End subsidies and create equal opportunity.
End affirmative action. Again equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
End restrictive laws that have the effect of favoring big market participants.
Disassemble our financial system and make it illegal for one company to own another company, and optionally make it where "stock" does not exist. (stakeholder capitalism is a failure beyond belief, we MUST return to entrepenureal capitalism)
Instituite heavy taxes for real estate capital gains to control real estate prices by discouraging speculation.
Simplify our tax code. Tax employment income at the same rate as self-employment/capital gains. Tax certain things that cause systemic harm (polution, real estate speculation, tobacco, etc.)
Eliminate affirmative action and abandoned the failed university model for career preparation. Adopt standardized open cirricula and allow anyone to take an exam to be licensed in field X.
Open bandwidth for long range unliccensed usage.
People get rowdy when quality of life sucks. Improve it.
and now you see.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 12:12 · Score: 0

there is no spoon Neo....
Smart idealistic types by jader3rd · 2017-10-22 12:12 · Score: 1

Smart idealistic types really do a poor job predicting what under average types will do when new technology is made available to them. It's never idealistic.
"identity politics gone bad" by MSTCrow5429 · 2017-10-22 12:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, it inherently *is* bad. It's inhuman, as it distills individual human identities into one monolithic gestalt where individuals are told who they must be and what they must do; and if they're not, then they're ostracized as "evil" and/or "stupid," who don't know and can't believe in what they're saying. "Identity" politics erases all identity in the service of low politics.

--
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
1. Re:"identity politics gone bad" by fibonacci8 · 2017-10-22 12:29 · Score: 2
  
  No, it inherently *is* bad. It's inhuman, as it distills individual human identities into one monolithic gestalt where individuals are told who they must be and what they must do; and if they're not, then they're ostracized as "evil" and/or "stupid," who don't know and can't believe in what they're saying. "Identity" politics erases all identity in the service of low politics.
  So, you're saying "identity politics" is the politically correct term for "religion"?
  
  --
  Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
2. Re:"identity politics gone bad" by Nicolas+Cage · 2017-10-22 14:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I was also struck by this phrase. The author was on to something, but implying that identity politics sometimes can sometimes be good is laughable.
3. Re:"identity politics gone bad" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  This comment is a good example of the problem.
  First, let me state the following: I am a transgender woman. I understand "identity politics" to be dysphemism for efforts of people like myself to secure basic civil rights, such as the ability to rent an apartment, get a job, get married, etc. Your description of "identity politics" is precisely aligned with what I think of as exactly the opposite of those efforts - that I be subjected to a monolitic gestalt where I am told who I must be and what I must do - that it be imposed on me that I live as my birth gender, and to conform to all the social expectations thereof.
  Somehow, owing to conspiratorial thinking and code-words, you and I are in a state of affairs where our perceptions are fundamentally opposed. Nevermind working with each other as members of the same society despite the awareness that we have different opinions - we don't even have that awareness! We can't even conceive of what the other thinks.
  Now, setting aside for a moment whose fault all this is, because I think blaming Silicon Valley for this is luddite at best, how do we continue as a civilization under these conditions? Or do we just fall apart into physically disparate thought-tribes living in the anarchy that would result if we allowed our social institutions to disintegrate?
4. Re:"identity politics gone bad" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  So, you're saying "identity politics" is the politically correct term for "atheism"?
  You're at the wrong conceptual level. Identity politics is stupid because the categorical system is irrational and explicitly for the purpose of political manipulation (see, say, Podesta's choice of the rather revealing descriptive term "food groups" in e-mails to Hillary). Religions do have arguments, which have been debated for millennia, as does atheism. It's that level that must be evaluated and ascribed to or not based on rational conviction, not skin color or free-floating "cultural attributes" which explicitly avoid analysis to ensure the categories demanded compliance with aren't, well, stupid.
5. Re: "identity politics gone bad" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  Here'a my opinion. A trans woman is actually a man. Rent if you want, I don't care. But guess what? I am not gonna call you a woman and that's my choice. And guess what, as long as you folk keep trying to get people like me fired because we think you're a different gender or because we use the wrong pronoun, you're our enemy.
6. Re:"identity politics gone bad" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  You're very very close there. Close enough for it to be a working theory.
7. Re:"identity politics gone bad" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 19:28 · Score: 0
  
  So the civil rights movement of the 60s was a bad thing? I don't think you know what identity politics is, or you yearn for the whites-only water fountains again.
8. Re:"identity politics gone bad" by Nicolas+Cage · 2017-10-24 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Good example, but from a modern perspective, that doesn't really apply to anything significant. Unless, of course, you're the kind of person who thinks gay marriage or gender-neutral bathrooms deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as voting rights or desegregation.
  
  Consider the Holocaust; is that not the result of identity politics? Do these two events even each other out in your mind?
  
  Which is likelier to happen now, an identity politics-driven movement that would lead to better job opportunities for the disadvantaged, or one that would result in genocide?
9. Re:"identity politics gone bad" by MSTCrow5429 · 2017-10-29 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Um, I really will more or less consider you a woman if you're trans and say so. I don't care if anyone is or isn't, I care about who they are as a person, of which sex or gender is generally of minimal importance.
  The only distinction I would make in your case would be pre-op or post-op. And that is just about how much you've changed things, as you want to change things, for who you want to be.
  My thought tribe mostly shrugs if you're trans, and doesn't treat you any different for it. Although I suppose if someone wanted to have a child, they might a little.
  Now I've wasted thinking about something that really doesn't and shouldn't matter.
  
  --
  Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Free isn't worth the price by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 12:26 · Score: 0

I think we're all going to have to start paying for our content. Free worked for a while, but it led to massive consolidation: Google, Facebook and Twitter aren't the Internet. Hell, the WWW isn't the Internet. Most of my news comes from sources that I've learned have pretty good information. A few are bloggers and podcasters that I pay. It's isn't a huge amount of money I pay them, but to me it's worth it because I know they can stay small, not be sensationalist and if they change significantly I can simply stop supporting them.
I also think the next social media platform will be more like Mastodon. Groups of people associating like extended families, hobbies, neighborhoods, etc but not in a centralized way. Possibly around a podcast or blogger. Set up your own server and federate it with others. Use whitelisting to keep an eye out for bad actors. Of course this means active administration and possible isolation, but since when do we have to have everything blasted to everyone? I thought that model was dead as broadcast TV.
1. Re:Free isn't worth the price by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:25 · Score: -1
  
  I'm already paying for a bunch of content on Patreon.
  Then, they came after Patreon in June/July.
  We used to laugh at FoxNews, but now we know who the real enemy is. The leftist media has an agenda to push, and they won't shy away from any tactic at all. Islam good, Christianity bad. People of color good, white males bad. Asians good, except Indians and Chinese, who are ambiguous since they usually side with the white males.
  Paying is not enough, we have to vocally speak out against their tactics. And hope that they regain their conscience.
Newsweek made "Alt-media" credible by knorthern+knight · 2017-10-22 13:07 · Score: 1

Yes, seriously. If they had chosen to report the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky story then Matt Drudge would never have gotten his big break. http://www.drudgereportarchive...
> At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a
> story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White
> House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!
There are a lot of wacko conspiracy theories out there. Unfortunately, the Lewinsky/Clinton cover-up was one of them. It lends "plausable non-deniability" to other "unbelievable stories".

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
1. Re:Newsweek made "Alt-media" credible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  Not a "cover-up", simply a "this is dangerous enough and uncertain enough not to publish yet". It delayed the first press reports enough that reporters had to be summoned back from Havana, where they were reporting on the Pope's visit to Cuba. I still *love* the theory that the Clinton's affair was leaked by the Cuban Republicans in Miami, to distract the press from the Pope's visit, and the claim that they were *livid* when the press refused to publish until after the Pope had already landed. Politics through rumor mongering is just like my relatives in Miami.
the internet doesn't hurt people by tanimislam · 2017-10-22 13:09 · Score: 0

People hurt people! Nobody put a a gun (an internet-connected device?) to anyone's heads, and forced them to go online!
Oh come on, it's a comedy by Kargan · 2017-10-22 13:33 · Score: 2

Silicon Valley's sense of humor is not for everyone, but come on, Newsweek, this is taking it a little too far.
I mean, I'm not so sure either about the next season given that it will be the first one without T.J. Miller, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

--
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
No. It just made the problem more obvious. by gweihir · 2017-10-22 14:01 · Score: 1

In particular, social media made it much more obvious, how stupid, uneducated, anti-fact, anti-rational, self-absorbed, vivious and generally failures at existing many people are by giving them a low-effort way to spread their perverted views. But leave it to a journalist to blame the messenger. Incidentally, blaming the messenger is one of the most stupid acts known.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Hypocrisy by djinn6 · 2017-10-22 14:05 · Score: 0

If anyone's to blame for the prevalence of anger and hysteria in today's society, it's the main stream media. They're the ones taking a bunch of non-stories, cutting out all of the sensible parts, then throwing on wild speculations and meaningless anecdotes. Just go take a look at any recent scientific study, then compare it to what's written in the headlines. This has nothing to do with the internet. Yellow journalism existed long before the internet. At least now people who are interested in the truth can go find the primary source themselves instead of relying on MSM.

This story is no exception either. It's only written to get a reaction out of a bunch of tech-savvy readers (and a bunch of clicks). There's nothing that's actually "news" or anything of substance whatsoever in there.
That's HIS opinion. I disagree by softcoder · 2017-10-22 14:40 · Score: 1

Better communication leads to better understanding. The original tower of Babel story, is that mankind was punished by being divided by many languages.
True a dangerous enemy can unite a tribe, but it is much easier to paint an unknown group as dangerous than one that you can communicate with.
Witness the story of the first world war where the Allied and German rank and file started exchanging Christmas gifts and singing carols. This so scared the officers (on both sides?) that they deliberately broke the truce by starting a shelling campaign. It is harder to paint someone as evil and dangerous when the rank and file can check the propaganda for themselves.
1. Re:That's HIS opinion. I disagree by iserlohn · 2017-10-22 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see that happening. We are on the Internet, not in forced misery in the trenches.
  When face physical danger together, we are bound by our humanity to choose survival. Military discipline exists to overcome this, reinforcing your tribal loyalties and antagonism against the enemy.
  Being detached from physical contact on the Internet, we can let our darkest thoughts take over and run rampant.
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
The cupboard isn't bare by rsilvergun · 2017-10-22 16:16 · Score: 1

that's bullshit pushed on you by the very rich so they can take everything in the cupboard for themselves. Occam's Razor, look for the simplest solution: Which is you're being lied to.

Let me ask you this: If America is supposed to be the greatest country in history why the hell can't we take care of our old? A: We don't want to. And by 'we' I mean our ruling elites, who have been pitting us against each other for thousands of years.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:The cupboard isn't bare by mattack2 · 2017-10-23 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why should we have to "take care" of our old? Why don't they (and soon enough, me) take care of THEMSELVES, even if that means (which it does) investing for DECADES to have the money to do that... or at least take care of one's own family, NOT other random people.
You sure got that backwards by SuperKendall · 2017-10-22 17:32 · Score: 1

There are plenty of people with money too stupid to figure out what Trump is and can't see that he literally is a sociopath
Here's something that will blow your mind - what if EVERY SINGLE TRUMP VOTER understood exactly that, and the intent was simply to send a sociopath into DC that all of the professional politicians would have to deal with.
Trump's victory has been a raging success from that standpoint, even including your post.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re: You sure got that backwards by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-10-22 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah ... stupidity doesn't "blow my mind" Chumly.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
2. Re: You sure got that backwards by SuperKendall · 2017-10-23 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, then you are simply wrong instead of educated.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3. Re: You sure got that backwards by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  We get it. You like to spout ridiculous nonsense.
4. Re:You sure got that backwards by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  You sound like one of those "parents" who believe when their kid is sick, the best thing to do for them is to sexually abuse them to death.
5. Re:You sure got that backwards by pnutjam · 2017-10-23 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, that's why there are so many conservatives who refuse to say who they voted for...
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
6. Re:You sure got that backwards by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 00:21 · Score: 0
  
  Here's something that will blow your mind - what if EVERY SINGLE TRUMP VOTER understood exactly that, and the intent was simply to send a sociopath into DC that all of the professional politicians would have to deal with.
  Are you proud of your country?
  Only it sounds like it's entirely full of big fucking babies.
Division is the purpose of Identity Politics by zapadnik · 2017-10-22 17:47 · Score: 1

That is the essence of identity politics gone bad
That has always been the purpose of Identity Politics, to balkanize a society into tribal groups that can be pitted against each other and played off by the globalist 'elites'. That was the whole point of pushing it by the Post Modernists and Cultural Marxists. They think if they destroy 'The Evil Patriarchy' (which is, Enlightenment Civilization based on Individualism and the sovereign Nation State) then not only will thermonuclear war be avoided but also the Collectivist utopia can be instantiated - overseen by the 'elites', of course. The "Ends Justify the Means" and destruction of Individual Liberty is supposed to usher in utopia, of course it always ushers in a dystopian nightmare where Individuals are slaughtered by their own governments and liberty dies at the hands of dogmatisms of what we would now call 'Political Correctness'.
Whenever a group bigger than the Individual and Family becomes more important than the Individual then individuals suffer. Look at all the democides of the last century, nearly all were by big Collectives and Identity Groups who persecuted Individuals. The only known antidote to this is Classic Liberalism where the Individual is the protected unit of society, and economic transactions are voluntary, not an Identity Group who can harm Individuals with involuntary transactions coerced with State force.
1. Re:Division is the purpose of Identity Politics by david_thornley · 2017-10-24 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to the more traditional form of identity politics where the country was run largely for the benefit of white men (preferably Protestant), and they just mistreated other groups because they had the power? Despite this, they did do a fairly good job of balkanizing the lesser groups.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
2. Re:Division is the purpose of Identity Politics by zapadnik · 2017-10-31 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you a racist, David ?
Me too by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 18:36 · Score: 0

... an emotional medium that plays to our base instinct ...

The 1960s saw social minorities demand their share of the good life as the middle-class prospered. It was the start of the "me too" ideology (eventually, to become "fuck you, I got mine"), where the choices were "them" or "us". It's when conspicuous consumerism switched from "I am important" (still occurs among the obscenely rich) to "I feel happy". When the internet appeared, we began to consume that. Like previous forms of consumption, we demanded an emotional reward.
As the internet invaded our lives, it's been tasked with the duty of telling us, we're happy and admired. The internet doesn't say that because it's full of people, just like you, saying "me too". So we choose "them" or "us", and find strength in online echo chambers. That's tribalism, the parent of the angry mob and all its selfishness. That's always existed, the internet is just another tool to express ourselves. It's a tool that turns tribes into trolls and greater internet fuck-wads.
People choose a tribe, that will always happen. People will choose to dehumanize those different to themselves. It is more dangerous when everybody can be a troll or a greater internet fuck-wad; when they are the majority of people. That is the power the internet provides. We see this on Reddit, Twitter and Facebook, when one mob of misbehaving idealists criticize, doxx and threaten an opposing mob of misbehaving idealists.
A society that depends on a "me too" ideology will fragment because there isn't an incentive to compromise or even find common ground. Add in dehumanization or isolation and the ideology becomes "fuck you, I got mine". Either way, rules and policies for social and political issues will cease, causing government to magnify its own version of "them" versus "us". Eventually government will stop functioning and be followed by the creation of warlords and fiefdoms.
Re:The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitwi by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 19:03 · Score: 0

Not the case as far as I've observed. Here's a good video about why satirists are better than mainstream news at covering the current clown show of US politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fUDIucr2eo
I'll leave you with this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 19:29 · Score: 0

Rule 34.
Re:The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitwi by thinkwaitfast · 2017-10-22 20:07 · Score: 1

People have demonstrated that it's easy to manipulate what is popular on sites like reddit?
Re:The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitwi by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 20:07 · Score: 0

And yet, http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?IR=T
Re:The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitwi by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 20:22 · Score: 0

I know, their side is worse! Ours is better.
Re: The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitw by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 23:47 · Score: 0

Good thing we can rely 100% on peer-reviewed statistically-significant college research conducted in an environment of zero bias touted by an overarching headline to generalize how people understand all news subjects equally well!
So the solution is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 00:47 · Score: 0

Shut off the internet. Amazingly simple really.
More SJW Whining by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:14 · Score: -1

What is it with people that just can't accept responsibility for their own decisions? Now Newsweek is saying, "We go on the Internet and look for things to be mad about, get mad, and it's all somebody else's fault for putting the Internet here."
Newsweek is FAKE NEWS by neo-mkrey · 2017-10-23 02:17 · Score: 1

Who agrees with me?

(and if you don't agree with me, you are evil and an idiot)
The Shockwave Rider by John Brunner, 1975 by Babel-17 · 2017-10-23 02:42 · Score: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The subsequent economic depression, coupled with the rootlessness enabled by access to online data and strong social pressure to be flexible (the results of corporations wanting highly mobile workforces without strong local ties), results in a fragmentation of society along religious, ethnic and a variety of class markers, what Toffler calls "subcults", including what would in 2010 be described as "gangs." The equitable distribution of data access and data privacy is a prominent theme in the book; characters who have access to information which is nominally secret enjoy demonstrable economic advantages over others lacking access to such data. In the novel, data privacy is reserved for corporate entities and individuals who may then conceal wrongdoing; by contrast, normal citizens do not enjoy significant privacy.
It isn't just internet media by bravecanadian · 2017-10-23 02:43 · Score: 1

Traditional media has been taking a side more and more as well.
Partisan organizations shouldn't be able to masquerade as impartial news organizations.
Mostly, you're right by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 03:26 · Score: 0

But you got one important point wrong - the money collected WAS spent when collected. There's no giant piggy bank holding all those people's money collected as FICA over the years. Just IOUs from Uncle Sam. The congress got used to having billions every year coming in that didn't count as "federal taxes", and they grew addicted. Now the free money is drying up, and hence the panic to either cut benefits or raise taxes.
1. Re:Mostly, you're right by HornWumpus · 2017-10-23 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Free money is over. SS trust fund is already sucking funds from the general fund.
  If it were an insurance company, they'd slap the cuffs on congress.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:Mostly, you're right by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Absolute bullshit. There are plenty of reasons to slap the cuffs on Congress. Social Security is a very small potato in that pile. Jeff4747 above did a pretty good job of explaining why things are where they are. Perhaps a little on the "don't worry, be happy" side of things but not by much.
  Besides, Congress isn't an insurance company. They are the ones who pass the laws allowing "they" to slap the cuffs on somebody. And ... how often does somebody big get prosecuted (let alone be convicted) for financial and similar "white collar" crimes? No need to look further than the 2008ish crisis for a conspicuous lack of law enforcement. Somehow, the only one in recent memory where some serious handslaps occurred seems to have been Enron.
  As has been noted many times (here and elsewhere), if you want to stabilize the Social Security trust fund (whether you need to is another consideration; there wasn't one of any significant size for much of the life of the system), raise the cap on Social Security-taxed wages. You might want to include capital gains too, but be careful: capital gains vary wildly from year to year, and California demonstrates what kind of budget trouble you can get into when you rely too much on them.
3. Re:Mostly, you're right by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 14:16 · Score: 0
  
  Free money is never over, just ask the Fed.
4. Re:Mostly, you're right by jeff4747 · 2017-10-23 14:37 · Score: 2
  
  But you got one important point wrong - the money collected WAS spent when collected. There's no giant piggy bank holding all those people's money collected as FICA over the years. Just IOUs from Uncle Sam.
  This is utterly and completely false. It can not possibly be more wrong without invoking the Earth being flat or anti-vaxx theology.
  The Social Security Trust fund is a giant piggy bank. Like all sensible savings plans, it invests the money. The money was invested in US government bonds. Those bonds are not "IOUs". They are savings instruments just like bonds issued by companies or states or cities or banks. They have a maturity date, at which time the government has to pay the money back, along with interest.
  Most importantly, the maturity date has already passed for many of these bonds. As in, they are not IOUs laying around, they have been paid back with interest.
  The money raised by these bond sales are not an automatic infusion of money into the general fund. They are money owed by the government, so they count as deficit spending. It was not "free money". At best, you can argue that these bonds are paying a lower interest rate than bonds that would have been sold on the open market. But bonds on the open market already were paying extremely low interest, so it's difficult to argue the difference is all that large.
  
  The congress got used to having billions every year coming in that didn't count as "federal taxes",
  The conservative movement started pretending the only federal taxes are income taxes 60 years ago. It's how they can claim 47% pay "no taxes" - by pretending income tax is the only one that counts.
  FICA taxes are federal taxes. It doesn't matter that they are not income tax. They are still federal taxes.
5. Re:Mostly, you're right by HornWumpus · 2017-10-24 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Printed money has a cost, stolen money is free.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
6. Re:Mostly, you're right by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 17:24 · Score: 0
  
  Gibberish. Fed printed Trillions at no cost. Stolen money? From who?
7. Re:Mostly, you're right by magzteel · 2017-10-31 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  But you got one important point wrong - the money collected WAS spent when collected. There's no giant piggy bank holding all those people's money collected as FICA over the years. Just IOUs from Uncle Sam.
  This is utterly and completely false. It can not possibly be more wrong without invoking the Earth being flat or anti-vaxx theology.
  The Social Security Trust fund is a giant piggy bank. Like all sensible savings plans, it invests the money. The money was invested in US government bonds. Those bonds are not "IOUs". They are savings instruments just like bonds issued by companies or states or cities or banks. They have a maturity date, at which time the government has to pay the money back, along with interest
  What is a US government bond and why does the US government issue them? Bonds are issued by the US government to borrow money. The money that was borrowed is being spent to fund current expenses, including the deficit and debt service. These bonds must be repaid with interest. To repay them the government will need to get money either from tax revenue or more borrowing. So it is 100% true that your social security payments have been spent as part of the current general revenue and replaced by an IOU in the form of a US bond that must be repaid in the future by future taxpayers.
  It would be different if the money was instead invested in something other than US bonds.
Trump's Supporters are Willfully Blind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 04:14 · Score: 1

Trump's Supporters are Willfully Blind.
Trump was a Birther, which was both racist and stupid. Trump's supporters enthusiastically joined in.
Trump got into that ugly feud with Rosie O'Donnell. Trump's supporters thought it was great that Trump denigrated Rosie's appearance.
Trump bragged about grabbing pussy. Now, how can it be that Billy Bush gets fired over that while Trump walks away untouched? Oh yeah, Trump supporters think "that doesn't matter".
Trump calls Mexicans rapists and killers, then throws in a half-hearted qualification. Trump supporters call that "fair and balanced".
There are literally decades of this kind of stuff on record. Sexist, racist, xenophobic, and most of all egotistical bombast. Trump supporters are oblivious to it all. You can't fix stupid!
How to reach Web beta. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 04:27 · Score: 0

The web has yet to hit beta. The 8th layer of the OSI model attacks apathy by preventing stealth moderation. After that AI will take over and the web will be fully automated. Currently the moment you find any place on the internet that is not malevolent in some manner the place will immediately fill with the impotence of closet perverts circle jerking around playing hide and go fuck themselves.
Re:The internet doesn't force anyone to be a nitwi by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 05:55 · Score: 0

John Oliver's show isn't "news." It's opinion laced with comedy. It's the left's answer to Fox and Friends.
And, the "lie" you attribute to John Oliver, isn't a lie. Republicans do NOT care about the environment and don't care if all of the polar bears die as a result of climate change. That is a demonstrably true fact. Just ask the towheaded orangutan that exited the U.S. from The Paris Agreement and appointed Scott Pruitt to head up the Environment Plundering Agency.
Nice attempt at a "fake news" straw man, though.
How can you people continue to sell your souls for the Trumps? What is the hold they have on you?
Our Story by JimSadler · 2017-10-23 07:09 · Score: 1

Frankly the entire history of the US is all about information and the use of information created and used by others. When the Spanish, French, English, Native People and others came together in the US we tended to use the best stuff the other groups had or adopt features of their stuff to our stuff. The mixing and conglomeration of various peoples allowed us to have strength and knowledge beyond our nations enemies. It enabled our survival as well as our progress. Today the wrapping on the packages is looking different but inside the same wonders still reside. For example the sciences and engineering positions in our universities have serious numbers of people from Pakistan, India, and the Pacific rim nations making breakthroughs daily. We are being enriched tremendously by foreign scholars. In the mechanical sciences and arts we seem to love French, Italian and German designers for mechanical as well as styling considerations. We also are getting schooled on how to build cars by Japanese and S.Korean car industries. One way or another these advanced people are carrying data with them that they acquired back home, It is more and more data building every minute of every day. We need all that we can get.
I remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 08:01 · Score: 0

I remember when the web was starting to gain popularity in the 90s we thought that the free exchange of ideas would lead to a kind of meritocracy. What we didn't realize is that the same dummies would be evaluating those ideas and the freedom to publish also meant the freedom to misinform the willing.
A couple of years ago at RSA, one of the big themes was that, through strong crypto and the government's complete lack of cyber-competence, communities based on affinity rather than geography would start to form and that traditional government would become less relevant. Not a bad thought or idea in many senses, but you also have to consider the fact that a scheme like that could reinforce identity politics in an extreme and dangerous way. Given who we're dealing with, "People", such a scheme would almost inevitably be perverted and used for the most nefarious possible purposes.
Social Media is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 09:27 · Score: 0

Within the first 10 minutes of looking at FB for the first time I instinctively/intuitively understood that it would lead to where we are now.
That was in 2009.
I have for the most part stayed off of Social Media, because I realized pretty quick it was a whirlpool of bullshit, and leads to nothing but FOMO, acrimony, fAKE nEWS and bullying/intimidation.
Can we blame FB, Twitter and the rest? No, they just provided the platform.
Social Media doesn't kill civility
People kill civility
Newsweek is just ... by eric_harris_76 · 2017-10-23 13:03 · Score: 1

Newsweek is just jealous. They're supposed to be dividing us and making us raging mad, and Silicon Valley is beating them at their own game.
"I was supposed to fire James Comey!"

--
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.