|
Quidam Viator posted:Whereas political commentary was once led by public intellectuals, and people who had made it over all the hurdles to be acclaimed as authorities through peer review, now, any idiot can go pick and choose a set of data that justifies pre-arranged conclusions and use a circular defense to ward off any reasonable attempts to change his mind. Which particular time period was this? What was different about the political situation and public beliefs of that time period versus today's time period?
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:I'm thinking Walter Cronkite times. You had a three-channel media, and people still read the same newspapers. Vetted, legitimate information was stored in libraries. Access to non-mainstream ideas took real work, and people with weird, out-there ideas were isolated, rather than connected by the internet. Okay, but: what effect did this have on the actual course of politics in the United States of America? What were the beliefs and opinions of people in that period of time like compared to the beliefs and opinions of the people in this time period? Were they more informed? Less informed?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
I'm with Obdicut here in the sense that the article is mostly a series of truisms: people latch on to specific ideas or concepts and have a difficult time letting go on them (due to the integration of those beliefs as a part of their identity); "rationality" as a concept can be used to marginalize or ignore legitimate heterodox views; and challenging patently false or weak ideas with the goal of changing someone's mind is a Herculean task. What were you hoping people would discuss about it?
Vermain fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 22:13
|
|