Comment of the month from JZ – social media is the problem
Apologies for some of the vocabulary in this comment of the month from my best blogging buddy John Zande. If you like the way he writes, you should buy his book.
Social media *is* the problem. The majority of people are normal, sane, rational, generally goodhearted. One person from a tiny, tiny island of genuinely crazy people says something ludicrous on social media to another genuinely crazy person who just so happens to physically live 327 kilometres away, who then shares this piece of gold-plated lunacy with two other genuinely crazy people he met online and who live 1,200 and 2,300 kilometres away respectively. Following a misplaced search for Anime porn, a single person who (apart from her rather odd preoccupation with animated Japanese porn) happily resides on the vast continent of sane, rational, generally goodhearted people arrives accidently on the page of the tiny island crazy person where this nugget of lunacy immediately catches her attention. Anime porn girl is shocked, leaves an appropriately terse, grammatically correct comment, and then shares the insanity with her circle of sane, rational, generally goodhearted people who, in turn, share it with their circles of sane, rational, generally goodhearted people, and before you know it hundreds of sane, rational, generally goodhearted (grammatically astute) people suddenly swing into action to demolish the lunacy and defend normalcy. Result: Crazy thing tiny island person said is elevated into the public consciousness and, against all odds, by 3 O’clock Monday afternoon actually becomes something. Becoming something merely motivates more people from the continent of sane, rational, generally goodhearted people to jump in and let tiny island crazy people know they’re fucking insane. This makes the people living on the sane, rational, generally goodhearted continent feel good about themselves, but the unexpected result of this brief warm fuzzy feeling is that tiny island crazy people magically advance twelve-thousand levels in Wizard Power, broadening their resolve to post nonsense, and by doing so, attracting millions of sane, rational, generally goodhearted people to their virtual doorstep just to say “Fuck off.” Result: an advertising placement professional named Nigel tells man selling really cool socks (named Angus) that he should invest a reasonable sum of money (*reasonable considering the cost of other media placements) and carpet-bomb tiny island crazy people’s pages on social media. Angus doesn’t like tiny island crazy people, he thinks they’re insane spoons, and they are, but Nigel is persuasive (he loathes tiny island crazy people too, and over Snapchat they laugh about their shared humanity), and so he agrees and writes out a cheque. Business is business, after all. Now, because his socks really are very cool, Angus makes a staggeringly quick fortune from online sales made from the millions of sane, rational, generally goodhearted people who happen to see his appealing ads between bouts of yelling FUCK OFF FUCKTRUMPETS to the latest crap posted by tiny island crazy people…. who’re now posting their insane bullshit between giving interviews with big city magazine journalists determined to write that killer article on just how brain-haemorrhaging insane—and dangerous—tiny island crazy people are. That Wednesday, TV producer from cable news reads killer magazine article, gets a spectacularly bad idea, and invites tiny island crazy person on that night to discuss a host of his ludicrous ideas with smart people who—TV producer hopes—will completely lose their shit as they tell tiny island crazy person just how ludicrous those ludicrous ideas really are. Surprising no one, it proves a ratings bonanza as millions upon millions of sane, rational, generally goodhearted people scream FUCK OFF at their televisions while wondering who on God’s Green Earth would give this weapons-grade fucknugget a platform to spout such bullshit. Thursday morning, clips from cable news show are shared around the world, and at 11.22 AM tiny island crazy person gets a call from an extraordinarily successful ambulance-chasing publicist. At 1.30 PM, Angus buys that plane he always dreamed of, and then, just as the wheels leave the tarmac, he texts Nigel with a hilarious meme he just saw showing just how insane tiny island crazy people are.
Something delicious about a wall of text.
LikeLike
I expect your mouth is watering as you view your sculpture unveiled in public.
LikeLike
Here it has the desired effect.
What was I even replying to?
LikeLike
Something about social media making people vote for less than ideal leaders I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s puzzling is if Hillary had been elected, 50% of the country would be having this same conversation from their angle, and as when Obama was president, 8 years of attack from exactly the opposite crowd.
Is the bias so rampant that no one can see that they’re fervently party to a broken ideologies.
LikeLike
It’s not the same at all. It’s not just about the USA, it was in the context of the new Brazilian leader and Brexit. It’s extreme and damaging ideas gaining traction in traditional political areas. And not a positive wind of change. People spouting weird and harmful ideas that got no airtime because the general sensible population recognised this, are suddenly world leaders – Bolsonaro in Brazil was a laughable anti-gay, dictatorship supporting oddity; Farage and Johnson in the UK were laughable attention seekers who convinced the UK to vote Brexit; Trump was a laughable useless businessman and light entertainment figure who wanted to build a wall and said and did so many mysogynistic things that at least no woman could vote for him. It’s not a simple “my side didn’t win” – the whole culture and method of campaigning around the world has changed. Even if a boring republican in a suit making economic changes had won in the USA, we would still be having this conversation about social media and how it’s influencing political decisions generally.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Both Siderism has a tiny sliver of truth. We do fall into our little silos and have our tribal chants. But the tribal gods are demanding very, very different things. And they are appealing to very different aspects of the human psyche.
LikeLike
Not sure if I even have a clue, but it is a genuine sample of modern art. (Wordage too is art …)
In the meantime, I’ll go back to banging my head against the wall of human public insanity (you can have no idea how wonderful it, feels, when it stops …) and I have a REAL one on the slab at the moment. Try him, you’ll love him—enough material there for a conference~!
Boom boom!
LikeLike
And even better, he excoriates one ‘Colorstorm’ … so God doesn’t have just the one voice?
Bugger. thought I had Him sussed …
LikeLike
Here, have a bandage…
LikeLike
Woof!
LikeLike
Social media is horrible for humanity. Should I close my blog?
LikeLike
Your rant John is fantastic and reminded of me of this classic which starts at about 2:40.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ha! The Great Wall of Text actually comes from Monty Python’s Big Red Book which had a page (forgotten what number, but let’s just call it 72) titled Why Page 72 is Blank. Every single millimetre of page 72 was filled with the explanation why, exactly, the page was blank. As a kid I thought it was pure genius.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JZ:
Anything Python was genius …
LikeLiked by 2 people
Much of what they did is genius. lol Either way I knew it had to be Monty Python inspired! lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
By almost every conceivable measurement available, the world is a far, far more hospitable place for humans than at any time in our collective history. The amount of good news in almost every facet of meaningful change that improves the human condition should be front and center in everyone’s mind when they encounter tiny island crazy people’s weapons-grade fucknuggets of insane statements. By doing so, they should be able to put them in context… as meaningless drivel and drool and move on to stuff that actually matters.
Should be… that’s the key phrase.
So why isn’t it the case?
Why don’t normal, sane, rational, generally goodhearted people know that when they encounter this kind of bullshit that it is not worth anything, they should not waste any attention on it… other than perhaps having a good laugh at the idiocy?
That – whatever ‘that’ is – is what is at the heart of this issue. People pay attention and raise concern to such drivel. Social media is simply one of many platforms on which to do so and the attention paid to this nonsense I think is simply a symptom. So getting rid of social media platforms – if social media is indeed assumed to be the problem – I do not think addresses the underlying cause of why people – sometimes in their millions – engage with this batshit crazy content.
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it, if it is the normal, sane, rational, generally goodhearted people are being described accurately here… when it is their attention and their concern that elevates the batshit crazy to matter more than understanding and appreciating the context in which it lies concerning the progressing human condition itself.
LikeLike
Fear and the use of outright lies to play on the fears. When you have information content from limited sources, like a couple of national TV channels or several newspapers, there is scope for people to challenge and openly debate inaccuracies. Not a perfect system by any means, but has this advantage. When you have personal news delivery tailored specifically to your private account on your personal device, which can be influenced by anyone with any agenda and the money to back it, the openness of and debate around news delivery is lost. Also the angry fearful opinions that might be expressed in private to close relatives, but that are frowned upon or challenged in real life because they are essentially harmful (immigrants destroying everything, gays sinful), can now be liked and spread and validated and grow. People are careful and socialised in wider public. But give them a device in private, some ‘liking’ support and a meme that plays on their fears and they’ll support anything. Maybe.
LikeLike
Which is why everyone should be imbued with at least the basics of rational thinking and the methods of applying them.
AND of course, our systems should ensure the necessary freedoms for all concerned—the nutcases to push their multitudes of Gods and the Realists to apply (and be guided by) Reason.
Despite all claims to the contrary, I would NOT exercise my ‘right’ to Free Speech by standing up in a church, mosque, temple, synagogue or wotever … I ain’t that dumb. Or, face it, ill mannered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that’s part of it but consider: what is ‘news’? What is the content being brought that catches your attention?
That the average calories per person available throughout the world has increased by over 50% in the last 50 years in spite of massive population increases? Nope. The dangers of Frakenfood is what sells.
That pneumonia has decreased by half since 2000? Who cares? Homeopathy and naturopathic ‘medicine’ is where smart money is spent on healthcare.
That the measles vaccine has saved roughly 120 million lives to date? No big deal. Big Pharma doesn’t care the vaccine causes autism no matter what medical associations tell us and being smart enough to be in on the conspiracy is where the real story is.
The news, by definition, is about events outside of the mainstream encounters. That’s why we are bombarded by bad news: that’s what’s outside of the mainstream experiences and what grabs our attention. That’s why tiny island crazy people can grab our attention, because it’s so far outside the normal that we naturally pay attention.
But we can learn why we do this, understand that it appeals to the reptilian part of our brain (including fear), and then intentionally cater our news to reflect the real world we inhabit on a daily basis. We can pay attention to the good news and put bad news in context… if we first know what the mainstream experience actually is. We can recognize click bait fear mongering instantly and slot it into our junk folder because that is, in fact,m where it belongs. We can stop forwarding batshit crazy to our peers and friends and family and, instead, focus our attention on progress – especially local progress – and spend a little more energy and effort on how we can do our individual part to help move the spectrum further towards achieving meaningful results. We can leave tiny island crazy people to their delusions, have a good laugh, and move on with the good stuff, the important stuff.
LikeLike
Should be, yes. We (accidently) give life to ideas that have always been there lurking in the shadows but never had enough oxygen to bloom. They *should* be ignored, but then you have bullhorn platforms like Fox News whose business model is actually based on promoting the fringe because, to them, it’s a captured market. Most people don’t know this, but Fox’s highest prime time rating was 2.4 million. Two-point-four-million. That’s it. That’s their best. It’s a tiny market, but by all the attention give it it *seems* like they’re on an equal footing with everyone else.
LikeLike
I’m glad you raised Faux News because it is the model of how to create social disruption and division by foreign powers against Western countries especially leading up to elections and referedums. It’s very effective.
The root problem as I see it is this insatiable appetite by what you refer to as “normal, sane, rational, generally goodhearted people” for stimulation. I mean, seriously, 24 hour news channels? This is the recipe needed for warping reality into a never-ending ‘news’ cycle and the means by which people then begin to believe that the world is not as it really is but a dangerous and threatening facsimile against which we then arm ourselves with another serving of ‘news’. It’s like a mass delusion being served up in every fattening, more ludicrous, doses of batshit crazy. Social media platforms are just some of the utensils used to feed this appetite.
Has no one ever heard of intentionally implementing a disciplined and healthy diet? Is it reasonable to expect every restaurant, every grocery store, every food distributor, every farmer, to supply only what is ‘good’ for us? I feel this is the call being made to ‘control’ social media, as if our appetite can and should be shaped for us by ‘those’ who magically know better, who magically know what is good for us.
There comes a point where the individual really should be responsible for what formulates their diet. And the same is true I feel of ‘news’, of allowing ourselves something that just tastes good once in a while even if empty of healthy value. But let’s not blame the fork and spoon for what we put in our mouths any more than we should blame social media for what we put in our brains.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But in the sea of information there’s so much seemingly conflicting information. Food is a good example. Eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you. Liquid diet, meat diet, vegan diet all good then bad for you. Government regulated food on shelves has double recommended sugar, salt or fat in one serving, which would be impossible to make yourself from a natural source but someone with machines has found a way to engineer it so your body doesn’t throw it all back up. Obese children who will never have a real chance of controlling their weight and will face the health consequences throughout their lives because their parents were unable to sift through all the information and make sense of it. Or didn’t care that much themselves. At some point in all this, government regulations are useful.
LikeLike
I’m all for evidence-based guidelines and government regulation and oversight to maintain them, to adjust them appropriately based on more evidence. For example, that’s the difference between what we call Big Pharma – subject to these guidelines and regulations – and ‘natural’ foods and supplements exempted from them.
What’s an informed consumer to do? Who to trust?
Well, that’s the key: figuring out what ‘informed’ actually means and it goes back to Argus’ earlier point: learning how to become critical thinkers. It doesn’t happen by magic. It happens by good education… and sometimes even from classrooms!
The application of critical thinking skills allows consumers to become informed consumers. Not consumers who simply believe claims but who subject these claims – all claims – to good critical review, knowing there is no ‘right’ answer but basing decisions on likelihood. This would pretty well kill the non regulated ‘natural’ product lines, eliminate support for anti-vaxers and climate change deniers and de-fluoridation advocates, and so on, as it would allow people to stop accepting the bombardment of ‘news’ to shape their view of the real world.
LikeLike
Sounds like you live in a bubble. I meet very few people who, even if interested and able, have actual time and resources to investigate every aspect of their living. Is that not why we elect governments? They in turn appoint and consult with experts to give advice on legislation and guidelines. Even if people did have the time and ability, there are so many other factors that influence our choices. Random example, bottle fed babies as adults seem to crave less healthy foods. You can’t account for all the random things in life that affect our choices, but if all experts evaluate the evidence, we have a better chance of understanding what’s going on. And of course, the issue of trust comes in here. Can we even trust the experts? As many wonder.
LikeLike
The Merchants of Doubt operate by trying to make equivalent any uncertainty to distrust. This is why I mentioned likelihood as the guideline. We make decisions all the time so we have to evaluate very quickly what is more likely, not what is certain. So the onus fall on us to determine what is more likely.
Sure, we can establish that most dictators have mustaches but we are the ones who have to determine the likelihood of linking likely cause and effect. So pulling up such a statistic to support the notion that shaving mustaches reduces the risk of despots falls to us to evaluate likelihood. The same is true for bottle-fed babies and later obesity; is there a likely link showing cause. If we did this, surely astrology would go the way of phrenology because the absence of any compelling evidence linking an effect to the cause ‘suggested’ – introduced often and intentionally by the Merchants of Doubt to sell an ‘alternative’, in order to doubt the overall benefits would be immediately identified by the critical thinker who understands some doubt is always present but mitigated by higher levels of likelihood. Immediately.
And this is one reason why I always talk about the method of arriving at decisions/conclusions. Some methods are clearly better than others and produce much more likely results of confidence than others. Using doubt to circumvent confidence based on likelihood as the methodological guideline is one of the worst and most obvious shortcuts to use to undermine an informed and critical approach. That’s how populists like Trump are elected.
LikeLike
I probably agree with something in there but you’re so pompous that you have “how to think” down to a T, and that all society’s problems will be fixed if everyone learns to analyse facts like you. For me, this post is exploring some of the effects of social media, and for you it’s an excuse to drag out the same soap box (which inevitably leads to a rant out the progressive left) extolling the virtues of …you. 🙂
Life, society, decisions, facts and even critical thinking are all much more complex than your two dimensional image where you are King of Truth and Rational Thought. Take a step back, explore, listen and sniff the flowers.
LikeLike
Concerning diets and social/other media, here in Finland we have had some success in the 1970’tees by a media based campaign against exessive use of salt. Salt used to be an expensive aid to preserve food, like fish and meat. As the society progressed and equality between different social classes got better during the previous century, salt became more accessible to a larger crowd of people, to whom the taste was not only biologically pleasing, but also a culturally aquired taste of wealth and happiness. Now, salt has this funny effect, that the less there is salt in your body, the better you taste it. So contrary to your actual need you crave it more, when you have it more than enough. People in North-Eastern Finland in areas, that used to be extremely poor were statistically far more likelier to die out of salt related health issues than people in other areas even though the problem was national. By providing proper information through various media inlets about salt the government managed to substantially decrease the harmfull effects of salt not only in those particular problem areas, but even on a national level.
Today, even though I am not a user of social media per se, I have run into claims widely distributed to the most ignorant and poorly educated social media users and within their small social media bubbles about health, like for example that the national board of health recommendations for food are constantly changing and therefore somehow unreliable. These claims feed into a general mistrust of those in power and into what people prefer to eat, in contrast to what the recommendations are. People are too stupid, ignorant, or lazy to check wether those recommendations have actually changed often. They have not. The recommendations have remained much the same for decades. Some minor changes are included when new research comes to new conclusions about health, but the development on that area is actually not so rapid as we are told by the yellow press, who run for all sorts of scandalous news about “research” made about how healthy chocolate, wine, or olives are.
In general I do not think that social media IS the problem, but it is a big and increasing part of the problem. The real problems are the lack of good and sound journalism and the poor logical methodology education given to citizens. People are voulnerable to the rumours spread by all sorts of media, but social media only makes them more so and in a faster pace. The rapid pace of media today (including social media) there seems to be no time for proper fact checking and journalism. There hardly seems enough time for proper grammar. The social media makes everyone a potential source of news, while most of us do not have any journalistic education. The people who do, are in constant competition with each other to provide new items that would interrest the grand public and cliking the news headlines, that irritate or otherwise stand out from the mass of newsfeed is the commercial way of marketing the news. Very little of proper journalistically examined news find their way into the constant newsfeed. It seems, that to the masses of people, it is more valuable to know what is going on right now, than wether the news item about it is well researched or even true.
Scientists are put on the spot. It seems instead of doing their actual work of investigating and researching the reality, scientists should educate the grand audience and combat all the wild claims anybody can make as fast as the rest of the planetary population can invent them. But it is impossible to check all the facts about wild claims as fast or as easy as one can make up wild claims. Even then, if the people are unable to evaluate between actual science and woo, they are going to go for their cultural heritage, like in the discussions here between the religious fundies and atheists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and by the way. In general, what people eat is much more influenced by what people can afford, than what they know is healthy. A recent study here in Finland suggests that the over 70 years old people are the ones whose regular diet is the best for both health and the environment, while the diet of the middle aged rich men was the worst. The reasons for the former group to eat both healthier and environmentally friendly food, was not that they knew better, but because their traditional diet did not have as much meat in it. Many of them had been born in poorer times and they had accustomed to simple food like porrige. Most so old are females, and their notion of good food was not directly influenced by toxic masculine models of success. In addition people who ate unhealthy food are more likely to die as a more or less direct result of that habit. On the other hand the middle-aged rich men had access to all good information about healthy food and had been in school when these were already taught to kids, but as they could afford to eat what they liked, their choises were not informed by health and certainly what is good for other people in global terms.
LikeLike
Not a bad analogy. Of course, we do, however, get force fed much of the time. Facebook’s news feed is one such example. Now, I hardly ever visit Facebook, but the algorithm on Twitter determines the pattern of feeds presented.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Complaining about being force fed I find amusing because I haven’t even seen a Facebook page since… well, almost forever… because I’m not standing in that lineup!
Complaining about being force fed junk food from the cafeteria while standing in a cafeteria serving line seems a bit of a stretch to me… even if the servers are automated to predict your food preferences based on what you received before! If you want more, say, fruit and vegetables then you’re probably in the wrong line up. And if enough people either stop queuing up for junk food or start demanding better fare, then we can stop blaming the cafeteria and start doing our part acting more like responsible adults responsible for what we put in our mouths.
LikeLike
Complaining that the vast majority of humans aren’t as advanced in their critical thinking as you I find quite amusing. Humans is what they is.
LikeLike
Did you know this the first time in human history that obesity is now statistically linked with poverty? Does that mean all of a sudden poverty cause obesity?
What I’m saying is that the need has never been greater for more normal, sane, rational, generally goodhearted people to be more responsible… a need being undermined by the constant urge some people have to empower some kind of parent figure to do the job each of us is uniquely qualified to do.
LikeLike
“Imagine that the Victorians had tried to tackle typhoid by advising everyone to live in the countryside near clean wells, rather than by building sewers and water treatment plants. Today’s response to an epidemic that kills so many people around the world that it has become the fifth leading cause of early death, is just as unrealistic.”
https://theconversation.com/its-poverty-not-individual-choice-that-is-driving-extraordinary-obesity-levels-91447
LikeLike
From the link: “obesity is not just a matter for nutritionists: rather, it is a product of social inequality and requires a collective social response. This failure to face up to the underlying causes of obesity is all the more striking as issues of social inequality and justice are dominating the news agenda.”
Oh, so now poverty – oops, I mean obesity – is caused by social inequality that demands a social response! Of course it does… using the framework of today’s good little Marxists where everything is group-based cause and effect. Why, just make everything the same socially – call it ‘respecting diversity’ – with the same social equality in all ways, and POOF!… problem of obesity solved. Who knew it had nothing to do with what people put in their mouths… nope, society (the Devil) made me do it!
LikeLike
POOF! Tildeb solves it ALL by preaching his religion of truth which cures all ills called ‘Be Rational’, in which ‘rationality’ is a scientific truth easily identified by coming to the same conclusion as Him (Tildeb).
LikeLike
even if the servers are automated to predict your food preferences based on what you received before!
Yes, and if what you’ve received is 90% political then that pattern will continue even if you’d *prefer* to be seeing the science stuff. At least that’s what happens on Twitter. Like I said, I don’t use Facebook, but it was only recently that their news feed service came under a lot of criticism, so I cited that as an example.
LikeLike
This adjusting to AI algorithms is going to become a much bigger issue as more and more people become aware of their growing use and are affected by it. It will be interesting times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To put another spin on it, an example of an idea that lurked in the shadows is same sex attraction. In most societies because it wasn’t normal it was reviled. Another idea in the shadows in Christian ruled societies was that the god God didn’t exist. There will be many more ideas in the shadows we currently think are fringe nonsense that will yet prove to be harmless or even positive. Jim’s point about how we tribally react is a good one to bear in mind. We all suffer from blinkers and cultural bias. It’s that whole speck of dust and stick in your eye parable.
LikeLike
Perhaps that wasn’t the best word, but there’s good fringe and bad fringe. One promotes a broader, more liberal democracy. The other is based on ignorance. One’s progressive while the other is regressive.
LikeLike
And yet one person’s progressive is another’s regressive. Trans people welcome to express themselves as they wish seems progressive, yet Tildeb will argue it’s regressive because his ‘side’ knows what progression looks like. Same on everything you’d care to mention.
LikeLike
Typically the regressive is not based on anything but the person being horrible.
LikeLike
Fear
LikeLike
And fear, yes.
“You kill what you fear, and you fear what you dont understand”
-Duke
LikeLike
Not to speak for tileb (he is certainly verbal enough) but isn’t his main point on this issue that fixated on issues of group identity can lead to fragmented politics, virtue signaling, purity policing, and ignoring broader economic and social policy issues?
If he is virulently transphobic (I must confess I have not read everything he has written), than you have some point. But group identity politics can turn on us in a very nasty way. In a world with black pride, gay pride, latino days, etc…are we surprised that some of the less educated rural white and suburban populations turn to white nationalism? Note that I am not equating these movements in any way, shape or form. Only noting that in a political ocean of group identity, even those with significant privilege will adapt and adopt this language.
But I am saying nothing new here. 😦
LikeLike
basenjibrian says, “If he (me) is virulently transphobic (I must confess I have not read everything he has written), than you have some point.”
I was the advocate on staff for the first openly transsexual teenager in our school district who attended the high school where I worked. I was on all the committees and addressed city councilors and Board officials on behalf of having this student enrolled and I worked with everyone creating not just solutions but altering the social culture completely by making the case understandable to everyone. The student attended, was unequivocally accepted by peers, and had what I think was a terrific high school experience.
All this happened in a blue collar town at a very blue collar school. So I know what ‘virulently transphobic’ actually looks like in real life and for VW to equate me with such a mindset is a reversal of language. She hasn’t a clue.
LikeLike
That would have been an interesting, rich experience.
LikeLike
It was, and very, very passionate from all sides. Step by step compromises had to be made and, when these played out well, the next steps could be taken. The fear and concern from all side were fully justified and so finding the middle ground and then working to expand it was absolutely key to its success. And I say, “it” because the issue wasn’t personal but policy and it’s really hard to find consensus on any controversial issue.
The policy worked to everyone’s advantage to the extent that no one today gives a crap what gender someone wishes to be. The right policy makes this a non issue and that is what evaporates the fears and concerns and not words and demonstrations and placards. That’s why the success was in the particular student being allowed to be just another student and not some person that had to be some poster child for social activists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fair enough. I think VW somehow assumes you are a “conservative” or at least a “social conservative”. I don’t read you that way at all, so…
LikeLike
Several months later, I’m catching up on loose threads of conversation. Tildeb will happily trot out his trans person hero story at the drop of a hat. And I’m hopeful that in real life he treats people with respect. Unfortunately, when he’s ranting on his favourite topics in Blogland, his real opinion on the issues come out and they don’t bear much resemblence to the hero story. You can read a sorry thread where he spells it all out here: https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2017/07/25/scandal-progressive-left-hurts-prominent-atheists-feelings/#comment-33778 I can’t bear to repost any of the insults.
LikeLike
The very real cost of acting on an ideology like yours rather than respecting facts: about $30 million for Oberlin College… with a Dean of Students so very woke they’re now nearly broke.
LikeLike
Um. A majority voted for Brexit, a significant minority want no deal, and I see too many people progressing from “Yeah it’s a bit weird but it does not really matter” to “Trans is the Great Threat to Women and Feminism!!” Read This, they say on facebook pages dedicated to something else, and more people are sharing that stuff.
LikeLike
Well, you can blame that person from the tiny, tiny island for getting surprising success on social media.
LikeLike
Playing on, and channelling, people’s anger and fear is the tactic of the hard Right. Brexit is a revolutionary project harnessed for reactionary ends. The success is less surprising when you dig out the amount they are spending on facebook ads.
I’ll quote Sartre here too: “They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.”
Tildeb, with his unrealistic belief that obesity will be cured by a bit of responsibility and the advice “Eat less, exercise more” might do well to read this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s not what I believe, Clare.
I raised the point of obesity and poverty to demonstrate how the regressive Left’s ideology will lead people to assume causal answers that are not true but used nevertheless because they can make it fit with the desired framing. Obesity – and addressing this health issue – should not be used as a tool for ideologues – and yet it is – and we shouldn’t go along with this warped framing if we seek to offer aid and solutions any more than we should go along with trans framing of women’s health issues for ideological reasons. It doesn’t work to address reality but used to serve only the needs of promoting the ideologue.
LikeLike
A better political response might be “Cut back drastically the subsidies to corn producers” and we might see a reduction is sugar sugar everywhere.
LikeLike
Why is retreating into hard line nationalism a “revolutionary project”? Hard borders and (always) racist immigration policies-which I understand were the main selling points, are not “progressive” in any way. I am sure there are leftists who were pro-Brexit, just as I am sure there were Britons who had a strong sense of dislike for Euro zone bureaucracy, but was that really the main point? As an outsider, I am skeptical.
LikeLike