Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley 'Divided Society and Made Everyone Raging Mad', Argues Newsweek (newsweek.com)
"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.
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.
> 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...
"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."
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.
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/
So are you calling me evil -- or stupid?
The future shock/shockwave rider effect writ large.
I love how this effect was predicted in the late 60's
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Behold, the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
#DeleteFacebook
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Hitler was to the left. Ghandi, Kennedy, and Mandela were also nationalists. Using the term nationalist does not make someone similar to Hitler.
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.
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.
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/
I think "Follow the monkey" is currently more popular in the USA.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.