Would you say that American society has not been coarsened and dumbed down in the last generation or two?
This isn't rocket science, but if you prefer research on things like reading comprehension levels, and how smart phones have detrimental affects on cognition and memory, there is a lot of that around.
Your comments remind me of something someone said to me when I mentioned that I read a lot of history.
"history is written by the victors"
A sort of simplistic brush off, which shows the inability to have a nuanced view of history or current events.
Your points actually make my point.
This is the conundrum, the gorilla in the midst of any conversation about literature in contemporary culture,
Who the fuck says that? Did you hear about the movie "Gorillas in the Mist" and confuse it with another idiom that people actually use, like elephant in the room?
We can see how American society has become dumbed down coarsened over the last generation or two.
There are many things this can be attributed to, but one of the primary ones is that fewer people are reading, or have even passable reading comprehension skills.
The reason two parties stay in power is because of the "values" issues like abortion, immigration, lgbtq rights, the environment, etc;
Those "values" are how the real powerbrokers keep Americans at each others throats.
Evidence is Piling Up That Mark Zuckerberg doesn't realise that he's now wielding, badly, the same power that Rupert Murdoch once enjoyed playing King Maker with.
I agree however I think Zuckerberg isn't calling all the shots here. I would imagine that since about 2011/2012 when FB really started gaining influence, that Zuckerberg himself was being influenced. I would think there are some very high level people pulling strings with FB.
In the US, the number and severity of crimes by white power/neo-fascists is much higher than anything the antifa or left leaning groups do. Now, if you were talking about the 1970s, sure, then the left leaning terrorist groups were the ones to be feared.
Now, I think everyone knows that Trump and his cohorts elsewhere have emboldened fascism/white power.
You yourself are a perfect example.
Those who believe banning speech works are basically arguing that sticking your head in the sand makes the threat disappear.
Yep, tru dat.
I don't get why young, idealistic liberals think that shouting down or outright banning opinions they disagree with will help the situation. It's idiotic and childish. I've debated with them before to understand why they think that is the correct approach and you can't get a reasonable answer why.
IMHO, by all means bring the neo-fascists into the light, into the public, instead of hiding behind anonymity online.
FB, and social media in general have enabled the same tactics and mentality that the radio stations in Rwanda used in 1994. The tribes in Rwanda were incited, "whipped up" into a frenzy of tribal hate, the the point of incredible acts of violence. FB and social media are using the same model, and people like Alex Jones, etc know how to play that game.
It turns out that what grabs people's attention best are not thoughtful and reasonable opinions but OMG emotional stuff that triggers people to respond immediately, so that is what Facebook's algorithms emphasize and effectively amplify.
Very insightful comment.
That right there is one of the many reasons I'm not on FB. I noticed early on(2009) when people I knew were creating accounts how trivial and low brow FB was. "Thoughtful and reasonable" was definitely not on the menu.
but I've never seen Facebook at any demonstrations or protests. I do see a point at which Facebook can promote or discount certain stories in the general news feed that can lead to greater or lesser exposure of a viewpoint.
Well, I would imagine that probably no one has seen FB at a demonstration or protest.
I think the point here is that FB, and social media in general have created a sort of digital lynch mob mentality.
As I have said in the other posts, scientific research has shown that plastics in the environment, specifically in the marine environment, are detrimental towards marine life. There is no debate in area.
Here, I'll simply dismiss you with "three separate lies in three different answers is enough for me to stop assuming anything but malice on your part and stop taking you seriously".
If you wanted to dismiss me you wouldn't have gone to such lengths. And why the quotes?
Anyway, perhaps you can stay on target, which is the effects of plastics on marine life.
Science has shown that micro plastics, micro fibers and micro beads are detrimental to marine life. What I have seen is that you are attempting to apologize for the plastics industry and sway the debate towards an acceptance of that.
People have the right to know how their choices are affecting the environment. Clear headed thinking is needed to correct the wrong choices we have made in the past as consumers.
Perhaps that is absurd to you, but that is your choice.
Your dogma is the blaming of journalism for scientific outcomes you don't like.
A simple google search can bring up a lot about the downsides to plastics in the environment that are well researched and well written. However you would pan all such as "dogma", because you would rather explain away the negative affects of plastics in the environment, especially towards marine life.
So the dogma I see is your blame of journalism for things you don't agree with.
I can't even seem to find the study in question any more because of all the outrage garbage journalism reducing signal to noise ratio to the extreme
There you go again.
It is actually not hard to find solid research by scientists about plastics in the environment. But you would rather blame journalists.
Perhaps you should refine your searches and try to use some judgement instead of having a knee jerk reaction.
I suspect that much of the modern far left that has problems with the issues you mentioned would still have problems with how these people act.
And your politicizing of this issue is why you fail to see the problem right in front of you. It matters not whether you voted for Trump of Clinton. The problem of plastics in the environment is not going away anytime soon, unless science finds a quick and easy way to correct our mistakes.
The reality is, there is more than just this one article and more than this one scientist studying this problem. This is a problem that has been around for years, but we didn't realize the magnitude of it until the last ten years or so.
You know, it really isn't that hard to find many other scientists sounding the alarm about plastics in the environment.
No really what your posts are about is a deflection of the problem away from the plastics industry and consumers. That is really where you have attempted to drive the debate.
But you must realize that is incorrect. Plastics in the environment, whether micro bead, micro fiber, micro plastics, plastic bags used by retailers for consumers, etc are all part of the problem and need to addressed.
Really what you have attempted with your posts is to drive the debate away from that reality and to put the blame on journalists. But again, as I have pointed out previously, that is the tactic of despots.
How would you categorize micro beads and micro fibers that are plastic and end up in the environment? I would imagine, again, you would apologize for the plastics industry, and blame journalists.
Thats interesting, to blame journalists. I know someone else who likes to scapegoat them.
Another example of how micro plastics are detrimental to marine life:
Microbeads float on the water’s surface, and fish mistake them for food. The plastic alone is bad for fish health, but so are the microbes that the beads can carry.
So your hair splitting attempts to try to normalize plastics in the environment are disingenuous at best.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you say that American society has not been coarsened and dumbed down in the last generation or two?
This isn't rocket science, but if you prefer research on things like reading comprehension levels, and how smart phones have detrimental affects on cognition and memory, there is a lot of that around.
Your comments remind me of something someone said to me when I mentioned that I read a lot of history.
"history is written by the victors"
A sort of simplistic brush off, which shows the inability to have a nuanced view of history or current events.
Your points actually make my point.
No idea who the guy is. Edgar Allan Poe, on the other hand...
What about David Allan Coe?
This is the conundrum, the gorilla in the midst of any conversation about literature in contemporary culture,
Who the fuck says that? Did you hear about the movie "Gorillas in the Mist" and confuse it with another idiom that people actually use, like elephant in the room?
For all intensive purposes he makes a good point.
We can see how American society has become dumbed down coarsened over the last generation or two.
There are many things this can be attributed to, but one of the primary ones is that fewer people are reading, or have even passable reading comprehension skills.
You should get beyond your 1st or 2nd grade education ...
Socialism = drinking water, interstate highways, college tuition assistance programs
Irony.
Your fascism is showing.
The reason two parties stay in power is because of the "values" issues like abortion, immigration, lgbtq rights, the environment, etc;
Those "values" are how the real powerbrokers keep Americans at each others throats.
It works great.
Right, it would take an amendment, etc to change this.
But just like a lot of things, just because its legal doesn't mean its right.
In todays reality, the EC is an unparalleled anachronism, and anyone who defends it either knows that, or is willfully ignorant.
Like he said, it takes an idiot to defend it.
And why don't you tell us which party has won by the electoral college the last two times?
Evidence is Piling Up That Mark Zuckerberg doesn't realise that he's now wielding, badly, the same power that Rupert Murdoch once enjoyed playing King Maker with.
I agree however I think Zuckerberg isn't calling all the shots here. I would imagine that since about 2011/2012 when FB really started gaining influence, that Zuckerberg himself was being influenced. I would think there are some very high level people pulling strings with FB.
In some ways ZB is just a front.
In the US, the number and severity of crimes by white power/neo-fascists is much higher than anything the antifa or left leaning groups do. Now, if you were talking about the 1970s, sure, then the left leaning terrorist groups were the ones to be feared.
Now, I think everyone knows that Trump and his cohorts elsewhere have emboldened fascism/white power.
You yourself are a perfect example.
Those who believe banning speech works are basically arguing that sticking your head in the sand makes the threat disappear.
Yep, tru dat.
I don't get why young, idealistic liberals think that shouting down or outright banning opinions they disagree with will help the situation. It's idiotic and childish. I've debated with them before to understand why they think that is the correct approach and you can't get a reasonable answer why.
IMHO, by all means bring the neo-fascists into the light, into the public, instead of hiding behind anonymity online.
The reality is, in the US, immigrants legal and illegal, commit less crime than those born in the US.
Glad to see you wearing your swastika proudly.
FB, and social media in general have enabled the same tactics and mentality that the radio stations in Rwanda used in 1994. The tribes in Rwanda were incited, "whipped up" into a frenzy of tribal hate, the the point of incredible acts of violence. FB and social media are using the same model, and people like Alex Jones, etc know how to play that game.
It turns out that what grabs people's attention best are not thoughtful and reasonable opinions but OMG emotional stuff that triggers people to respond immediately, so that is what Facebook's algorithms emphasize and effectively amplify.
Very insightful comment.
That right there is one of the many reasons I'm not on FB. I noticed early on(2009) when people I knew were creating accounts how trivial and low brow FB was. "Thoughtful and reasonable" was definitely not on the menu.
but I've never seen Facebook at any demonstrations or protests. I do see a point at which Facebook can promote or discount certain stories in the general news feed that can lead to greater or lesser exposure of a viewpoint.
Well, I would imagine that probably no one has seen FB at a demonstration or protest.
I think the point here is that FB, and social media in general have created a sort of digital lynch mob mentality.
Here, I'll simply dismiss you with "three separate lies in three different answers is enough for me to stop assuming anything but malice on your part and stop taking you seriously".
If you wanted to dismiss me you wouldn't have gone to such lengths. And why the quotes?
Anyway, perhaps you can stay on target, which is the effects of plastics on marine life.
Science has shown that micro plastics, micro fibers and micro beads are detrimental to marine life. What I have seen is that you are attempting to apologize for the plastics industry and sway the debate towards an acceptance of that.
People have the right to know how their choices are affecting the environment. Clear headed thinking is needed to correct the wrong choices we have made in the past as consumers.
Perhaps that is absurd to you, but that is your choice.
Your dogma is the blaming of journalism for scientific outcomes you don't like.
A simple google search can bring up a lot about the downsides to plastics in the environment that are well researched and well written. However you would pan all such as "dogma", because you would rather explain away the negative affects of plastics in the environment, especially towards marine life.
So the dogma I see is your blame of journalism for things you don't agree with.
I can't even seem to find the study in question any more because of all the outrage garbage journalism reducing signal to noise ratio to the extreme
There you go again.
It is actually not hard to find solid research by scientists about plastics in the environment. But you would rather blame journalists.
Perhaps you should refine your searches and try to use some judgement instead of having a knee jerk reaction.
I suspect that much of the modern far left that has problems with the issues you mentioned would still have problems with how these people act.
And your politicizing of this issue is why you fail to see the problem right in front of you. It matters not whether you voted for Trump of Clinton. The problem of plastics in the environment is not going away anytime soon, unless science finds a quick and easy way to correct our mistakes.
The reality is, there is more than just this one article and more than this one scientist studying this problem. This is a problem that has been around for years, but we didn't realize the magnitude of it until the last ten years or so.
You know, it really isn't that hard to find many other scientists sounding the alarm about plastics in the environment.
No really what your posts are about is a deflection of the problem away from the plastics industry and consumers. That is really where you have attempted to drive the debate.
But you must realize that is incorrect. Plastics in the environment, whether micro bead, micro fiber, micro plastics, plastic bags used by retailers for consumers, etc are all part of the problem and need to addressed.
Really what you have attempted with your posts is to drive the debate away from that reality and to put the blame on journalists. But again, as I have pointed out previously, that is the tactic of despots.
Sure, but plastics ending up in marine life cause many other problems, as I have pointed out and are easily searchable on the internet.
How would you categorize micro beads and micro fibers that are plastic and end up in the environment? I would imagine, again, you would apologize for the plastics industry, and blame journalists.
Thats interesting, to blame journalists. I know someone else who likes to scapegoat them.
Another example of how micro plastics are detrimental to marine life: Microbeads float on the water’s surface, and fish mistake them for food. The plastic alone is bad for fish health, but so are the microbes that the beads can carry.
So your hair splitting attempts to try to normalize plastics in the environment are disingenuous at best.