Rumors in the age of unreason

[chuck]

An interesting read from the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/02/091102crbo_books_kolbert?currentPage=all).

Here we are, quadrillions of bytes deep into the Information Age. And yet information, it seems, has never mattered less.

According to Cass R. Sunstein, the situation was to be anticipated. Sunstein, who for many years taught at the University of Chicago Law School, recently became the head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.



Sunstein begins with the relatively uncontroversial premise that a vigorous exchange of information is critical to the democratic process. As he acknowledges, the Web makes virtually unlimited amounts of information available; it is now possible to sit in a coffee shop in New York and read not just the newspapers from Chicago, Boston, and Los Angeles but also those from Cairo, Beijing, and London, while simultaneously receiving e-mail alerts on the latest movie openings and corporate mergers.



From this, it is often argued that the Internet is a boon to democracy—if information is good, then more information must be better. But, in



Sunstein’s view, the Web has a feature that is even more salient: at the same time that it makes more news available, it also makes more news avoidable.


“The most striking power provided by emerging technologies,” he has written, is the “growing power of consumers to ‘filter’ what they see.” Many of the most popular Web sites are still those belonging to the major news channels and papers—CNN, the BBC, the New York Times. Increasingly, though, people are getting information from these sites in a customized form, by subscribing to e-mails and RSS feeds on their favorite topics and skipping subjects they find less congenial.



Meanwhile, some of the fastest-growing sites are those which explicitly cater to their users’ ideologies. Left-leaning readers know, for example, that if they go to the Huffington Post or to AlterNet they will find stories that support their view of the world. Right-leaning readers know to go to the Drudge Report or to Newsmax to find stories that fit their preconceptions.

And what holds true for the news sites is even more so for the blogosphere, where it’s possible to spend hours surfing without ever entering new waters.

The last couple of threads on here show some of the signs of what's discussed in the article - particularly how those of one opinion rarely talk to others of differing opinions.

Having argued my way through a few threads (when I was hot-headed and fervourish) back in 2001 and 2002 - I'm not blameless. I read what mongoose is spouting and wonder if I ever came across like that.

Anyway - thoughts?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Music For the Masses? Just kidding.

Not to scream, "I'M NOT LIKE THAT!", but I prefer hearing all sides of a story and tend to take everything I read with a grain of salt. And vinegar. A little pepper too. No, make that loads of pepper.

Mongoose has always tripped me out from the beginning.

In regards to the above article, television viewing has always been this way and has been, in the past, the main source of information for the past few decades. I've never been much of a televison watcher. Except during college, then again there was usually the smell of pot in the room back then too. Go figure.

I know this is cliche, but I believe we've entered a new era of open mindedness. Hopefully.

[Strangelet]

Makes a lot of sense. When you go from three tv networks and a single regional newspaper to cable news and the interwebs people are going to quickly fill the void. the AP and reuters can still be the backbone, but its no longer required for the handful of news outlets to just report because the limited number of news outlets can't support diverse minority perspectives. Now, new guys can just offer to filter, groom, and present in a new packaged form. They'll pitch a tent on some internet real estate and friendly readers will camp out. Really seems like the way things are.


I know this is cliche, but I believe we've entered a new era of open mindedness. Hopefully.

But I would agree with John. This is just a beginning stage of the internet, as long as it stays free (am I the only one suprised its still virtually free of censorship?) readership will progress into one that will be increasingly as diverse as the available web sites.

1. The internet graph has too many edges, too many connections. its virtually impossible to not stumble on something outside yer box of gold stamped ideas. Do a youtube search on ann coulter, olbermann might show up. People will have no choice but to be exposed to differing points of view even if its by arguing with PatriotUSA4EVA in the comment section. Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. In a way, I'm optimistic to see the internet as an accelerated dialectic process, that will start slowly, but increase in magnitude at an exponential rate.

2. Specific problems facing individuals vis a vis the economy, wars, climate, corporatism, environmentalism, religion, will essentially force people start searching and reading based on problems, not ideologies. As Carl Jung said, Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering. It seems to me that the real problems we're facing will do nothing but make the people who care think broadly and the people who don't care, start. And I honestly think the diversity of one's attitudes is a function of how much one cares.

I personally have everything from worldnetdaily (the birthers) to infowars (alex jones) to huffingtonpost (my favorite) to newsmax to dailykos to drudge, etc.. on my rss feed reader. Part of the reasoning was some attempt to stay intellectually honest even if it means wading through endless nonsense, but anymore, its been just a sincere desire to see all sides of a particular problem, because of how critical the problem has become.

I think our culture is in for some serious legitimate suffering.

3. Ideologies sag and die under their own shelf life. This poll (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-state-of-the-parties.html) just came out that showed in the states both parties are losing favorability and voter association. Even more interesting is the independent camp is leading. Next election I plan to either vote for the libertarian or green party candidate, which ever one is less of a wing-nut. And I expect to be joined by more voters than ever in the history of the country.

Bush was dead to me because of the iraq war. Obama is dead to me because of the bailout and the way he's handling it. I think these things will be main stream opinion.


Anyway, no one sounds like mongoose except for mongoose.

[dubman]

hhhhh, lets make this interesting.
how about:

in an effort to appear post-bias, an article is posted into a thread made on a forum about how we like to pay attention to news sources that agree with us. since actually following through and reading up drudge report to assure our 'guilty' consciences is practically insane because drudge isnt a decent source of anything, this can only be an in for everyone to pat themselves for being introspective enough to realize that they read news like everyone else has been for hundreds of years.

come on. could you honestly be guilt tripped enough to look at pundits use weasel words to swipe at whoever you agree with just to know that you're goodly enough to sit through it?

following the news has been turned into a character trait. it's not that anyone's curious, it's supposed to be a tool for bettering yourself when practically everyone in the news sucks/refuses at being objective about it. so you look at the news to get talking points for your own beliefs, that's how news, politics, ideas, statistics, peers, hunches, growing up means. it's a bullshit little non-thing to say just to do the same kind of self-affirmation that we're supposedly addressing.

[Sean]

What a great opening sentence in the article you posted.

"Here we are, quadrillions of bytes deep into the Information Age. And yet information, it seems, has never mattered less."

My worry is that we're not mature enough as a global society to responsibly handle the ease with which we can receive and pass on information. Yeah, the internet allows for the intelligent and immediate exchange of ideas, but honestly, it also gives really stupid people an equal sized soap box to scream their idiocy from. I mean, I don't believe that the majority of Republicans are "birthers" by a long shot, and I don't think that anywhere near the majority of them are racists, either. And I don't think that the majority of Democrats were "truthers", or PETA freaks who equate chicken farms with Nazi concentration camps. But damn if those aren't the ones that tend to grab more headlines than anyone else from their respective parties.

Right now, it seems that everyone's just seeing how deep they can dig their heels in for their team, regardless of the quality of the debate, or the accuracy/honesty of their assertions. And unfortunately, there are tons of other stupid people out there who are just gobbling it all up without even a half-hearted attempt to find anything resembling an objective fact. Hell, it's hard to figure out the objective facts even when you are actively searching for them, so it's incredibly unnerving to imagine the folks who are actively avoiding them.

But for me, the cherry on top of it all is that a very notable part of the dumb-dialogue of today seems to be unabashed hatred and mockery of "intellectualism". At a time in human history when intelligence is more crucial to our collective survival than ever, we really can't afford to be setting our sights on achieving willful ignorance.

So I feel like global society is at a tipping point, where if we tip one way we race headlong into the downfall of the human race, tip the other and we'll actually survive to evolve into a far more advanced and stable future. I honestly feel like it's a 50/50 crap-shoot at this point.

[dubman]

isnt that the same kind of binary that prevents even the pretense at objective fact?
somehow i dont think following a medley of news sources to go after some perfect balance will result in a more stable anything. people are terrible, people like being terrible and finding new ways to be terrible, so it will keep being easy to knock down people who try not to be terrible.

racism will evolve with a different dialogue our kids will think we havent addressed, more virulent parties will think to combine the rhetoric of different atrocities, convinced that they'll use what's worked towards a right solution "this time."
since both of those are happening right now it's either falling down to degradation or realizing that it's the same kind of bullshit that will keep balancing and tumbling with itself as long as we're around.

[Sean]

isnt that the same kind of binary that prevents even the pretense at objective fact?Sorry...isn't what the same kind of binary...etc?

somehow i dont think following a medley of news sources to go after some perfect balance will result in a more stable anything. people are terrible, people like being terrible and finding new ways to be terrible, so it will keep being easy to knock down people who try not to be terrible. I don't personally think that following a medley of news sources is the answer either. For me, it's about attitudes in general. Referencing a variety of sources of information can certainly help inform you about all sides of a debate, but that's not really what's at the heart of the problem in my opinion. Until people start looking at issues like the economy, health care, climate change, education, international relations, etc as things that need to be solved rather than as arguments to be won, I fear that we'll just keep sinking deeper and deeper into this vicious cycle of animosity and self-serving manipulation.

racism will evolve with a different dialogue our kids will think we havent addressed, more virulent parties will think to combine the rhetoric of different atrocities, convinced that they'll use what's worked towards a right solution "this time."
since both of those are happening right now it's either falling down to degradation or realizing that it's the same kind of bullshit that will keep balancing and tumbling with itself as long as we're around.I agree wholeheartedly that these problems have always existed, but where we've gotten to technologically has magnified them to a point that's brand new. There have always been "Joe the Plumbers" out there, but before the age of 24 hour, instant news coverage, he was never afforded the kind of incredible soap-box he ended up getting. Instead, he may have ended up a local hero/pariah to the people in his neighborhood - but an internationally recognized figure who gets his own television shows, advertising deals, invitations to be a guest on national talk shows, record deals, and consideration to run for public office? Not so much. And beyond individuals, there's the ability to rally masses of people on a scale that was previously unheard of with relative ease. Obama seized effectively on this in a constructive way for the first time in history during his campaign. Rush Limbaugh, MoveOn.org and Glenn Beck seize on it in not so constructive ways as they fire up their base supporters with the most dishonest rhetoric imaginable. As a result, we see things like the "tea party" events all over the country, droves of people happily parroting accusations of, among other things, Nazism against their political opponents, etc. But I guess at least they learn fancy words like "dithering" in the process. :rolleyes:

Anyone out there can put whatever information they want on Wikipedia, their own blogs, or on any number of other websites, and if they can find a way to steer enough traffic to them, then they've effectively reached more people than they ever would have otherwise. So the crazies who used to just rock back and forth alone in their basement now rock back and forth in their basement with a potential audience of millions. Strangelet, you're more optimistic about it than I am when you say that "specific problems facing individuals...will essentially force people start searching and reading based on problems, not ideologies". In my mind, it seems like people have more of an outlet for their ideological beliefs than ever before, and will continue to take advantage of it - too often in negative, even destructive ways - as long as people are listening.

[Strangelet]

LOL dubman.

Can't say I disagree with much of what you said. Its just not enough to convince me that reading a lot of news sources of differing levels of quality and bents isn't a good idea and something to recommend everyone else do as well. If the reasons I gave above aren't enough I can provide more.


Until people start looking at issues like the economy, health care, climate change, education, international relations, etc as things that need to be solved rather than as arguments to be won, I fear that we'll just keep sinking deeper and deeper into this vicious cycle of animosity and self-serving manipulation.


That's actually the very core of the argument I was making why you *should* review a medley of news sources.

Like I said, reviewing various sources allows you to search and filter based on problem, not on ideology. Camping out on a single angle will not get you anywhere. Yes its true the attitudes you bring to the table will color your experience. But that's true whether you camp or go wander. Moreso if you just camp.

And unless you're an inert piece of angus tri-tip with the curiosity and imagination of a rock, eventually you'll have no choice but to a. suppose the possibility, b. begin a logical process of analyzing the possibility. Just because the process is tectonic in speed doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the process won't speed up over time.

Which is why


come on. could you honestly be guilt tripped enough to look at pundits use weasel words to swipe at whoever you agree with just to know that you're goodly enough to sit through it?


completely misses the point. How do you expect any diversity of opinions to sprout up otherwise? Regardless i just don't buy the assumption that its a holier-than-thou attitude that is at play here.

I mean I don't know about you but I'm not smart enough to listen to one guy, decide I like him, formulate every possible counter argument and weakness, then decide I "agree" and turn off my brain. I doubt anyone is that smart .001% of the time. Ever experience the vertigo of watching stupid people call other people stupid? And the reason you think the stupid person calling the other person stupid is stupid is because you see a complexity of the argument that is completely oblivious to the person labeling everyone stupid?

Maybe I came across as self congratulatory, but if it helps me to burn through the occasional bubbling brook of bullshit to better my odds of not being that guy, I'm fine with that. Because if there's ever a surplus of people in the world, its the douche bags getting all hostile without reason about the stupidity of the opposing viewpoint.

Here's other reasons.

1. Know your enemy. Sometimes I watch fox news and listen to rush to get a better appreciation of where the country is at. You can hear about the birther's and the tea-party movement through the jokes and giggles of Maddow, or you can see it in action and get your own experience of it. And then weep.

2. You'll be surprised. Glenn Beck, this morning, was very surprising. A lady called in saying atheism and the constitution are contradictory and you can't believe in constitution without believing in the bible. Beck actually stopped her mid sentence and said atheists have a role in government like anyone else. He even went on to admit that the founding fathers had atheists in their ranks, mentioning jefferson and paine by name. They are welcome as long as they don't substitute God with the state.

I mean, its a start.

3. There is no such thing as unuseful information.

4. And this is the biggie. Truth will always prevail. Always always. You can spin your propeller hat all day, it doesn't change the fact that reality is the framework in which you need to achieve your goals of survival. That means that even the most loudly shouted, manipulative news source, by definition must fail, and the reasons for that failure will be stark and unmistakable.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Hey, stupid! Can I get a cigarette? Like that?

[dubman]

Sorry...isn't what the same kind of binary...etc?


this:
So I feel like global society is at a tipping point, where if we tip one way we race headlong into the downfall of the human race, tip the other and we'll actually survive to evolve into a far more advanced and stable future. I honestly feel like it's a 50/50 crap-shoot at this point.



Until people start looking at issues like the economy, health care, climate change, education, international relations, etc as things that need to be solved rather than as arguments to be won, I fear that we'll just keep sinking deeper and deeper into this vicious cycle of animosity and self-serving manipulation.


i agree, but i think we're too used to being a part of A Party that knows what's right. try to strip that away and the differences in opinion on how those should be done will still be lines drawn in the sand and made ideological. people understand that in order to get things done it has to be marketed to as many people as possible, meaning someone has to "lose", meaning co-operation is a facade at best.

There have always been "Joe the Plumbers" out there, but before the age of 24 hour, instant news coverage, he was never afforded the kind of incredible soap-box he ended up getting.

we havent waxed enough on how everything's gotten smaller by now? exposure's only limited by reach. if we can reach everyone, it's still the same neighborhood mentality, with the rise and fascination and backlash and mockery. just because the size of these reactions has gotten bigger (advertising deals and job offers doesnt say much for real import, just how the chatter processes) doesnt mean a bold new age has come.


So the crazies who used to just rock back and forth alone in their basement now rock back and forth in their basement with a potential audience of millions.


this i agree with. whats funny is that currently, people are enjoying this widespread fairness (relatively) of exposure. that's new. the problem is that people are idiots. you have 'artists' on deviantart re-tracing the same image with little in the way of technical ability getting thousands of hits from other hubs of mediocrity, yet demanding respect for their 'style'. these people trade back and forth and convince themselves that they're brilliant and ready. you have a staggering glut of crap on youtube which goes without saying, but is still exciting enough people trying to figure out how to make millions off of it. running a blog is simultaneously a necessity as well as a liability. "user-generated content" is an eye-roll for the cynic and still exciting for the naive, but the saturation of this idea is going to get hit hard by backlash, because people just react to whatever is happening for the sake of new. what i cant tell will happen is what's going to come out of it.


Can't say I disagree with much of what you said. Its just not enough to convince me that reading a lot of news sources of differing levels of quality and bents isn't a good idea and something to recommend everyone else do as well. If the reasons I gave above aren't enough I can provide more.


look, it's not that i dont agree, it's just that it's exhausting, because even on the slim chance that the material is good and well-covered, people come up talking about it in a hideously stupid manner, and since news networks place a premium on what people want to see, thats the dialogue that gets follow-up, and That Which Didn't Have Much of a Chance just drowns outright.
there was a time that i bought that cherry picking your sources and getting all sides before forming an opinion was the way to go, but when you start to realize that everyone is willing to lie or color because it's really just a game to win that they have to be practical about, it's very disheartening and, as said before, exhausting.

i'm cynical about myself, so realizing that the cherry-picking attitude is really just reacting against the assumption that people are self-serving would let me dismiss it as my delusion that i'm supposedly above all that. but when i see it in others i could either accept that as paranoia, or realize that peole use news, as colored as it is, as a measure of character, or as a game to be ahead of curve in. it really makes me question whether any of this is real information after people process it so self-consciously or if it's just external distractions that need to be relevant because there's not anything else.


How do you expect any diversity of opinions to sprout up otherwise?


i'm saying that caring about them is overrated.


formulate every possible counter argument and weakness, then decide I "agree"

dont know about the "liking" or "turning off" but this is the basic process for me (if im educated enough about the topic to do it well). then i get to actually read people presenting weaknesses in printed form and it doesnt address anything decent. when i hate even listening to people i agree with on a topic, it cant help but feel like it's time to peace out.

[dubman]

couple more things..


3. There is no such thing as unuseful information.

4. And this is the biggie. Truth will always prevail. Always always. You can spin your propeller hat all day, it doesn't change the fact that reality is the framework in which you need to achieve your goals of survival. That means that even the most loudly shouted, manipulative news source, by definition must fail, and the reasons for that failure will be stark and unmistakable.

3. to summarize a lot of the above, information is made useless by how people talk, or are expected to talk, about it. since 'they' go for the kind of discourse people 'want', all usefulness out of this information starts to deteriorate with each person/source reporting it.

4. i'd like to believe that a lot of things are built on lies, and sometimes the bigger the lie, the more the truth, when/if found, serves as a symbolic triumph for those that found it, because whats been made from it is often treasured as a necessary thing.

if truth becomes something that can be decided by whoever markets their version the best, and it becomes normal, and we all dont become a grotesque monstrosity out of it, the habit will be considered how news is done today, with objections being waved off as 'archaic' vs 'what people want'
i suppose thats speculative and alarmist, conceivably the rules of backlash could mean an era of real unromantic reporting sometime, but it seems less likely somehow

[Sean]

i agree, but i think we're too used to being a part of A Party that knows what's right. try to strip that away and the differences in opinion on how those should be done will still be lines drawn in the sand and made ideological. people understand that in order to get things done it has to be marketed to as many people as possible, meaning someone has to "lose", meaning co-operation is a facade at best.I'm a big fan of diversity of opinions and ideologies, so I'm not speaking against that. What I'm speaking about is knee-jerk opposition for it's own sake, and how things like the internet have allowed it to become so coordinated on a large scale. Like cheering when the U.S. lost the Olympics - not because those people oppose the Olympics, but because they oppose Obama and perceived the loss of the Olympics as a way to damage his reputation. That's what I hate, and what makes me think we're not mature enough to handle our technological advances.

we havent waxed enough on how everything's gotten smaller by now? exposure's only limited by reach. if we can reach everyone, it's still the same neighborhood mentality, with the rise and fascination and backlash and mockery. just because the size of these reactions has gotten bigger (advertising deals and job offers doesnt say much for real import, just how the chatter processes) doesnt mean a bold new age has come.I believe it does in some ways. We're no longer isolated societies scattered around the world, where people's actions only impact those who share their immediate surroundings. Instead, we're suddenly being thrust into much more of a true, singular, global society where groups who rarely interacted in the past are now in constant and immediate contact with each other. It was within most of our lifetimes that this was not the case, so I see it as a pretty definitive bold new age. And my Joe the Plumber example was meant to simply illustrate that rather than just being a dumb-ass who asked a Presidential candidate a question, this guy actually has a national fan base that he can potentially influence if he manages to keep the spotlight on himself long enough. That certainly doesn't legitimize him, but it definitely does afford him far more import than he ever would have been afforded in past generations.

this i agree with. whats funny is that currently, people are enjoying this widespread fairness (relatively) of exposure. that's new. the problem is that people are idiots. you have 'artists' on deviantart re-tracing the same image with little in the way of technical ability getting thousands of hits from other hubs of mediocrity, yet demanding respect for their 'style'. these people trade back and forth and convince themselves that they're brilliant and ready. you have a staggering glut of crap on youtube which goes without saying, but is still exciting enough people trying to figure out how to make millions off of it. running a blog is simultaneously a necessity as well as a liability. "user-generated content" is an eye-roll for the cynic and still exciting for the naive, but the saturation of this idea is going to get hit hard by backlash, because people just react to whatever is happening for the sake of new. what i cant tell will happen is what's going to come out of it.Exactly.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

this i agree with. whats funny is that currently, people are enjoying this widespread fairness (relatively) of exposure. that's new. the problem is that people are idiots. you have 'artists' on deviantart re-tracing the same image with little in the way of technical ability getting thousands of hits from other hubs of mediocrity, yet demanding respect for their 'style'. these people trade back and forth and convince themselves that they're brilliant and ready. you have a staggering glut of crap on youtube which goes without saying, but is still exciting enough people trying to figure out how to make millions off of it. running a blog is simultaneously a necessity as well as a liability. "user-generated content" is an eye-roll for the cynic and still exciting for the naive, but the saturation of this idea is going to get hit hard by backlash, because people just react to whatever is happening for the sake of new. what i cant tell will happen is what's going to come out of it.





In regards to this statement, the medium of delivery is all that has changed.

[Strangelet]

god you guys are depressing. The one time I decide to be optimistic you guys are ready to throw the bed pan of the human race out the window and call the internet a tool that enabled bad people to be worse, as opposed to more evolved. At least Sean can see the bold new age coming:)

Regardless, I'm not really sure we're saying anything all that different at this point. I think we're just coming at this from different angles.

My angle is to desperately move away from post-partisan politics. I'm not optimistic enough to suggest that people would ever be "post-bias." I just want us to move out of this system of 1984-esque theatre of "choice" that plays out like pepsi versus coke

I'm firmly convinced that if this charade of democrat vs. republican continues much longer, people will be forced to rebel against the whole system. Because the "bias" problem goes deeper than the media and the internet.

For example, when Obama blames the economy on bush at the same breath he continues every single policy decision of the bush treasury, including all his wars, and when the dem news agents crucify bush for these policies but are silent about Obama's picking up where he left off, and when hannity all of a sudden decides a balanced budget is conservative, and when neither party are capable of pushing out legislation that does nothing more than promote the interests of the same banks and multinationals that stripped america's production and manufacturing and actually caused this mess, its going to collapse. maybe violently.

It will collapse in two possible ways. Either the two opposing sides will work themselves up into two caged dogs getting poked by their pundit handlers until they are let loose on each other, or a third, opposing grass movement will call bullshit on the whole facade. A coalition consisting of disgruntled independents, progressives and libertarians based on a platform of solving clearly defined problems with clearly defined solutions with the focus on individual freedoms, small businesses, and local economies.

I'm thinking that the only chance this country has is if the latter comes to pass.

What I'm saying is that drudge isn't just biased, he's partisan. Fox news is not just biased. They are the propaganda wing of the republican party. Actually they are the propaganda wing of a subset of the republican party that, through the 24 hour efforts of the network, appear to be the total republican party.

Assuming you prefer the huffington post and andrew sullivan I would ask if its because you necessarily agree with their bias, or is it because they are less partisan? (or that they talk in complete sentences)

Because I doubt, with our enlightened forum members, any of this is news to you all. I would be surprised if any of us consider themselves strongly republican or democrat. Which means we are using other criteria to decide what news sources are viable and which are bullshit that have nothing to do with partisanship.

And that's why we are saying the same thing. The original article talked about people getting entrenched in their own campsite based on who we agree with, without making any assertion about why they agree. We are making the assumption that all people are terrible and not capable of rational scrutiny, and that's the reason for the polarization. When its just as possible that some of the polarization is happening because the swamp gas republicans and the wide-spread-panic democrats are separating themselves from the critical thinkers. And the critical thinkers are just desperate for any news source that won't talk down to them like they should just assume the role of an angry manchild. Which is the reason I prefer the huffington post and andrew sullivan for the most part.



if truth becomes something that can be decided by whoever markets their version the best, and it becomes normal, and we all dont become a grotesque monstrosity out of it, the habit will be considered how news is done today, with objections being waved off as 'archaic' vs 'what people want'
i suppose thats speculative and alarmist, conceivably the rules of backlash could mean an era of real unromantic reporting sometime, but it seems less likely somehow


You are right. The bumper sticker slogan of "Truth will prevail" should probably be rephrased. How about "Assertions that are true enough to not turn us in to grotesque monstrosities will prevail".

But either way, it is heartening to imagine that the internet has the power to speed up the process of that reckoning by way of providing information. So that people can go back and look through the audit trail of articles and see who was on the take and who wasn't, who should be voted out and who should be rewarded.

[dubman]

i dunno if you guys have noticed but this year i've been sniping on the side in this forum for just about anything i've cared to comment on. even though i knew the whole thing was going to be embarrassing a week later i figured that i should get it out there instead of becoming john-lite for no reason aside that i hate everyone.

i still cant take most of anything here seriously but it was nice to get it out.


We are making the assumption that all people are terrible and not capable of rational scrutiny, and that's the reason for the polarization


well no. all people are terrible, and thats the reason that no matter what happens, people will find new ways of being terrible, if necessary. it's not going to end with some brilliant third party taking charge, there's just going to be dissatisfaction and gnashing until someone who perverts the original intent takes charge and keeps screwing up.

i go on various news trackers, find articles i want to read, and do the wikipedia-style meandering where that leads to links to other interesting news articles. some days it's 2 hrs, other days it's 20 minutes.

[Strangelet]

so you're saying you're steven beck?

with respect to your views on humanity, you have to love something deeply in order to hate it. At least that's why I'm a misanthrope.

anyway, thanks, this is a new experience for me. I've never felt so condescended towards while finding accord at same time.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Just when you started to provide remarks that I didn't take a being snide, you go and say you were just being snide(in so many more words). Don't try to ditch the conversation just because not everyone here agrees with you.

It's, like, your filtering the conversation now.

[mmm skyscraper]

Until people start looking at issues like the economy, health care, climate change, education, international relations, etc as things that need to be solved rather than as arguments to be won, I fear that we'll just keep sinking deeper and deeper into this vicious cycle of animosity and self-serving manipulation.


Follow the money. Ask this question: who benefits?

We're no longer isolated societies scattered around the world, where people's actions only impact those who share their immediate surroundings.

This has been true for a long time. Ask Gavrilo Princip about it.

[Sean]

This has been true for a long time. Ask Gavrilo Princip about it.It really hasn't been true on this broad and massive scale for much longer than, say 20 years? Anyone who's in their mid-30's or older will vividly remember all the kinds of things you usually hear from your grandparents, like rotary phones with no call waiting or caller id, remote control-less televisions that only offered a handful of channels, the advent of the first, super-expensive VCRs, absolutely no internet or email - the means of easily communicating, finding information, being aware of what was happening in the world, all of that kind of stuff was just way way WAY more difficult. I mean a forum like this where I can debate what a global society we've become with people I've never met from all around the planet was unheard of back in the '70's and early 80's. Or more specifically, just look at the fact that you threw down the statement "ask Gavrilo Princip about it". That's a name I had never heard, and yet I was able to find out all about him instantaneously and without anything more than a couple mouse clicks. That simply wasn't possible just a short, short time ago.

So when you look at the rapid development of immediate global communication in the context of our species' entire 100,000+ year history of social evolution, you'll see that it's only been available to us for a tiny fraction of a sliver of a heartbeat in time - and yet it's been a HUGE step forward. Probably the biggest individual leap in human social development ever in fact.

[dubman]

so you're saying you're steven beck?

with respect to your views on humanity, you have to love something deeply in order to hate it. At least that's why I'm a misanthrope.


it's the coulda been

anyway, thanks, this is a new experience for me. I've never felt so condescended towards while finding accord at same time.

whatever works, right?

[Strangelet]

haha. right. you use your trolling powers for good, not evil.

well no. all people are terrible, and thats the reason that no matter what happens, people will find new ways of being terrible, if necessary. it's not going to end with some brilliant third party taking charge, there's just going to be dissatisfaction and gnashing until someone who perverts the original intent takes charge and keeps screwing up.


Yes. As the awesome Heath and Potter in the book Rebel Sell argued, revolutions can and mostly do just exacerbate the problem, its only by incremental agendas based on clearly defined steps of progress does the little guy experience anything different than a switch between dictators.

No. That's not an excuse to wave off nor discredit the efficacy to take on the cause of reform vis a vis new party structure in our current two party two step. Nor is it enough cause to excuse oneself from the process of affecting collective attitudes.

[Deckard]

Very interesting article Chuck.

The phrase intellectual honesty has been banded about so often that it's almost become something of a cliche, but isn't that (or the monumental lack of it) what we're talking about here?

We accept that not everyone will be as informed as everyone else. We accept that not everyone will be as capable in reason as everyone else. But don't we also need to raise greater attention to the fact that meaningful dialogue is what facilitates a healthy democracy, and what facilitates meaningful dialogue is, among other things, the capacity not to become so attached to an idea or an ideology or a tribe that honesty goes out the window.

Of course before a person is able to test their existing beliefs and opinions/self-critique - they first have to be willing to do so. Which requires a certain emotional intelligence. (And is it just me or do we seem to be heading in the wrong direction on that score too?)

Even before any of this, people need to know what intellectual honesty actually is, and appreciate its value. Yes it's very difficult to exercise it 100% of the time. But - to borrow a point from Strangelet - that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, or that a great deal of improvement isn't badly needed. Is it taught in schools? (I don't mean the scientific method. I mean in teaching how to formulate and develop and assess one's own opinions, and specifically, the virtues in doing so.) I doubt it's something that we can rely on parents to impart. And we can be sure that from the moment people embark as an adult into the world (even way before that) they'll be faced with an onslaught that does its absolute best to discourage intellectual honesty.

So I think what I will fuzzily call "the intellectual climate" needs to change (at least in the English-speaking world I know most about) - but is the internet helping or hindering?

What Sean says about the way technology has transformed the conversation, essentially in terms of voices and ears, is spot on. The egalitarian might welcome the greater egalitarianism, and that's fair enough. But in amplifying all sentiments, it's providing a louder voice to those who previously didn't possess one. And it's an uncomfortable truth that those people who previously lacked a voice are unfortunately, for various reasons, slightly more likely to come from the uninformed than the informed side of the spectrum. Now if we lived in a culture that revered intelligence, that wouldn't be a problem. But what we have instead is a growing anti-intellectual culture that operates at the visceral rather than intellectual level and is celebrated as such. Politicians, particularly on the right, have known and exploited this for years. The end result is that those Joe the Plumbers may gain greater and greater sway over public opinion, and politics will head rightward.

Which begs the question: is it possible, even in theory, to have become too democratic? Or has our intellectual growth failed to keep up with our democratic growth? (By democratic, I don't mean the levers of government; I mean the ability to make noise and be heard and sway opinion.)

I don't think we can afford to ignore the potential for very serious damage here.

[Deckard]

A corollary of this, but more directly related to the original quote: does the internet encourage us to become more tribal than ever?

That would be the greatest irony, wouldn't it, given the opportunities now afforded people to hear and engage with such a multitude of views.

The fact that content from all the main British daily newspapers are currently free to anyone with an internet connection should have been revolutionary and a net gain for the most watertight arguments and positions and beliefs. And yet, it seems to have simply provided people with an easier way to cluster around one of two poles, and to support their team. If anything, the culture wars have amplified, and the teams have been galvanized. I don't sense much cross-pollination happening - I wonder if that means it's not?

I switch between feeling optimistic and pessimistic about the internet's role in improving democracies. Instinctively, the very notion of the internet should be a great thing for believers in democracy. A wonderful thing. But the downsides are impossible to ignore: reduced attention span... impersonalisation... an impoliteness that is accepted as inevitable ("It's the internet - get used to it" being the standard response - which is all well and good but what does that do for meaningful dialogue?) and of course the elevation of opinions and smears that don't warrant elevation.

Never mind. I'm going to take solace from the fact that a self-confessed misanthrope like Strangelet is able to be optimistic. ;)

[Strangelet]

Never mind. I'm going to take solace from the fact that a self-confessed misanthrope like Strangelet is able to be optimistic. ;)

Ah decks. there you are. was wondering where you've been. Its kind of a brinkmanship optimism but yeah.

America here's your corporate/fascist ahem, excuse me, two party system in action


WASHINGTON — In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.
Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.
E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.


So its not just Max Baucus' bill, as I mentioned in the health care thread that was written by a lobbyist. Its the entire fucking legislative branch. So there's your choice, there's all your difference from which to build all your fist pounding ire at the other side of the aisle.

[Sean]

If nothing else, watching this health care bill be as scrutinized as it has been has illustrated to me just how screwed up the whole legislative process really is. I mean, I knew it was in a more general sense, but the details I'm seeing now are pretty eye opening, not to mention ri-freakin-diculous. How does anything ever get done?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

That's just it, nothing does get done. Then, when it all falls apart again people who watch too much television blame the "Illuminati", or something. Then, no one knows who the "Illuminati" people are, so really NO ONE is to blame but ourselves and then we all just go out and buy more stuff we'll probably really use just once or twice , but we're happy because, hey, we could buy it and then rent more movies and then we're happy again.

Like that.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Just kidding. It's nothing like that at all.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Wiseman has since deleted his Facebook account.


:D

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1954271,00.html


Just out of curiosity, is not the UCAL or UCLA or ACLU or whatever that blah, blah, blah shit located here? It's just that I had made a call to them at one time in the past and it was the same old bullshit as most everywhere else I've been connected to for "help".