Are we headed for hard times?

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

False on both counts....U.S. news media included far more than just three television networks (e.g. syndicated radio, print media, AP/UPI wire services, etc.).   Canada had smaller versions of the same.   Partisanship was never phased out.

It was hugely decreased from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century.

And it happened for the most boring of reasons: money.  Hyper partisan media could never garner as many readers as dryly objective media.  I would never buy the Sun, but I would perhaps buy the National Post if the Globe wasn't available.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It was hugely decreased from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century.

And it happened for the most boring of reasons: money.  Hyper partisan media could never garner as many readers as dryly objective media.  I would never buy the Sun, but I would perhaps buy the National Post if the Globe wasn't available.

 

 

I don't know what the Canadian print/radio experience was in the mid 20th century, but partisanship was still going strong in the U.S. right through the advent of cable television 24hr news cycles and internet sources.   Newspapers  were well known for their degree of bias and political leanings.  Periodicals specialized in catering to specific views and demographics.    Even CBS' 60 minutes was famous for Point - Counterpoint segments each week, later mocked on SNL.

Conflict is energy....providing drama, heroes, and villains.  Talk radio actually increased in the last part of the 20th century.

It is revisionist history to believe that unity was "better" in the past based on mass media content.

Edited January 3, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Conflict is energy....providing drama, heroes, and villains.  Talk radio actually increased in the last part of the 20th century.

It is revisionist history to believe that unity was "better" in the past based on mass media content.

Mea culpa.  I shouldn't say BETTER though I do.  And I am speaking of partisan rags sponsored by the parties that dominated at that time.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Horseshit.

I think the west is focussed on demonizing foreigners to win elections so that the politicians can get money. 

Bullshit. You persist in believing that the antipathy felt towards foreigners is something some nefarious evil right-wing political hacks have cooked up and organized, all with the aid of Rebel media or its European variants. It's like you can't believe this was a ground-up, grass-roots feeling that arose among the natives of country after country as larger and larger numbers of foreigners started crossing into their territory.

As I just pointed out in another thread, it's accepted psychology among social psychologists that most people everywhere prefer to live among those who are pretty much like them in attitude, language, and beliefs. We even see this happening in the US, as more conservative people move to conservative states, and liberal people in those states move into more liberal states. People will tolerate a certain amount of foreigners, but as that amount rises the tolerance level decreases. Everywhere. And if politicians ignore this in democratic countries then those feelings will turn to frustration and anger and will find another outlet.

To quote David Frum again "When liberals say only fascists will guard the borders, the people will hire fascists to guard the borders."

 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

As I said elsewhere, Trump represents the best choice, and the only choice for the future based on one feature: his independence.  A Trump with a different moral and strategic core could make some amazing changes and win bipartisan approval.

Different moral and strategic core, and at least a modicum of knowledge about the world - none of which Trump possesses.

 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It was hugely decreased from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century.

And it happened for the most boring of reasons: money.  Hyper partisan media could never garner as many readers as dryly objective media.  I would never buy the Sun, but I would perhaps buy the National Post if the Globe wasn't available.

And would you buy the Star, a newspaper which has always unhesitatingly stated its purpose is to drive a progressive agenda?

[Bonam]

Certainly part of the present course towards "hard times" is a result of people no longer considering objective reality as important. People don't care what the truth is, they only care about the narrative that best fits their purpose or mindset. Hence the social media and normal media echo chambers, where people wallow in outrage of trivialities while remaining totally uninformed of reality.

For an example, look at how those on the left can accuse the right of science denial, while seeing no contradiction in their own opposition to GMOs, which is an anti-science stance. Most aren't even aware of the fact that the scientific consensus behind the safety of GMOs is as prevalent and overwhelming as the consensus behind climate change, and if given cites to that effect, would deny them with the exact same tactics and vehemence and illogic as those on the right deny climate change.

For another example, look at the resurgent flat Earth movement. Fully 2% of Americans, that's 6.5 million people, strongly believe the Earth is flat, and are allergically averse to the omnipresent and incontrovertible proof to the the contrary. A further 14% (!!!) aren't sure whether its round or flat. The numbers are 4% of solid belief in flat Earth and 30% (!!!) not sure among millennials, a true embarrassment to my generation. Democrats are less likely to believe the Earth is round than Republicans, too, which might surprise many on the left who think that it's the right that is more anti-science. Cite: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/04/04/only-two-thirds-of-american-millennials-believe-the-earth-is-round/#78d903c47ec6

And then of course there is religion, which is fundamentally the source of so many people's acceptance of such magical thinking. Religion trains people from birth to believe what they want to believe rather than what there is evidence for, short-circuiting their brain's ability to reason properly from an early age. On the left, modern "progressive" ideology serves the same function as religion does on the right. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Bonam

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Bonam said:

Certainly part of the present course towards "hard times" is a result of people no longer considering objective reality as important. People don't care what the truth is, they only care about the narrative that best fits their purpose or mindset

No, I don't think that's true. It's more like they're able to convince themselves that the story which meshes with their own views IS the truthful story, and IS reality. From what psychologists say, most of our decisions are made emotionally/instinctively, and then we use our intellect to convince us that's the right decision. This is no different.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

I find any discussion that frames today's economic or political experience as "hard times" to be laughable compared to generations past.

"Liberal times are hard times" is only a Canadian punchline.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

And would you buy the Star, a newspaper which has always unhesitatingly stated its purpose is to drive a progressive agenda?

Meh.  I think that I would buy the Post first.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

 It's like you can't believe this was a ground-up, grass-roots feeling that arose among the natives of country after country as larger and larger numbers of foreigners started crossing into their territory.

 

I believe people don't like foreigners all right.  That doesn't negate my point.  It kinda supports it.

[Argus]

On 1/3/2019 at 6:09 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I believe people don't like foreigners all right.  That doesn't negate my point.  It kinda supports it.

No it really doesn't. Because you seem to believe if the few politicians listening to those complaints would just ignore them things would be fine. Well that's not how a healthy democracy works.

And saying people don't like foreigners is too simplistic. People are fine with a certain number of foreigners. It's when the numbers rise beyond a certain point that people start feeling antsy.

 

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

1. No it really doesn't. Because you seem to believe if the few politicians listening to those complaints would just ignore them things would be fine. Well that's not how a healthy democracy works.

2. And saying people don't like foreigners is too simplistic. People are fine with a certain number of foreigners. It's when the numbers rise beyond a certain point that people start feeling antsy.

 

1. That's how politics works.

2. Horse shit.  People don't like outsiders, that's how humans naturally are.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's how politics works.

If politics is undemocratic than maybe it's time to start thinking about how we change the political system.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Horse shit.  People don't like outsiders, that's how humans naturally are.

There is a wide range in tolerance of outsiders, from you to... taxme. And there's also a range to what type of foreigner we're talking about. I think, for example, Canadians tolerate say, Japanese or South Koreans a lot more readily than they do Arabs or Africans. And I think that's in large measure because they see the former as being more like us, sharing at least some of our values and beliefs, say (and yes, I avoided using Europeans as examples for the obvious reason)

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

 Canadians tolerate say, Japanese or South Koreans a lot more readily than they do Arabs or Africans.  

Before 9/11 it was about Asians.  In the 80s it was Japan.  Demonizing foreigners is an easy go-to for politics.

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Before 9/11 it was about Asians.  In the 80s it was Japan.  Demonizing foreigners is an easy go-to for politics.

The Japanese never got demonized. Only their growing economic power and its impact on western industry did. But nobody felt unsafe around them and nobody felt our culture threatened by them.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

The Japanese never got demonized. Only their growing economic power and its impact on western industry did. But nobody felt unsafe around them and nobody felt our culture threatened by them.

Because they didn't come here, it was different.  But they were demonized and made into a threatening 'other' force.

People naturally consider outsiders as enemies and threats.  Politicians don't need to work hard to take advantage of these fears.  You can bring in 10X as many white people as brown people and if a brown person does something then people will tie it to their race.  And, no, I'm not talking specifically about crime rates among immigrants so don't spin this sideways.  I'm talking about how people react to outsiders.

[Argus]

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 10:31 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Because they didn't come here, it was different.  But they were demonized and made into a threatening 'other' force.

People naturally consider outsiders as enemies and threats.  Politicians don't need to work hard to take advantage of these fears.  You can bring in 10X as many white people as brown people and if a brown person does something then people will tie it to their race.  And, no, I'm not talking specifically about crime rates among immigrants so don't spin this sideways.  I'm talking about how people react to outsiders.

It has little to do with race. Otherwise dislike of immigrants wouldn't be greater in third world countries where the immigrants are the same race. The antipathy to foreigners which helped push BREXIT over the top was largely about eastern Europeans.

It's not skin colour that makes you an outsider in most western societies. It's language, dress, culture and behavior. People are much more comfortable with Sikhs than Muslims. Why? Generally speaking Sikhs are more 'brown' than most of our Muslims. They are also distinct in how they dress - or at least the men are.