|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Sure, and I'd go so far as to say that's my majority experience of the american south, and a minority experience of northeastern cities. Not so much on the west coast except Arizona and northern california. But I think urbanization has been slowly chipping away at that mentality as far as the prevailing american narrative goes. It's an easy position to hold when you live in the boonies or a gated community, it's much harder when you actually have neighbors and co-workers and people you see on the subway every day that aren't white or straight. I'd say that is true, but the south is becoming increasingly urbanized. I'm an Arkansan, and the little farming communities and hill towns are literally dying. As this pushes people to larger cities, said cities are becoming more racially insensitive, rather than the people migrating becoming less insensitive. Yes, there is more interaction, but that seems to somehow make it worse rather than better. It seems that people tend to pigeonhole others into whatever stereotype they believe, rather than observe that they were wrong all along.
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I certainly don't think that Facebook banning sites like GlobalNewsNetworkDailyTruth.com or whatever is going to make people like Charlie stop believing that Google is working with George Soros to maintain the global flouride conspiracy. Those people will always exist, and will find some way other than Facebook to connect with each other. I think that is right. Claims of bias have existed since the dawn of time. Remember that Fox News basically made an industry by suggesting that every other news source was part of some liberal agenda. I'm much more concerned of the viral nature of fake news; that is different from what was going on prior to the widespread use of social media. Facebook and the like need to recognize the extreme abuse potential of their systems, and curate it to at least some minimal extent. Let them be blamed as liberal shills. Let some company come along and offer a "fair and balanced" Facebook equivalent. That website is so entrenched now, I don't know that anything else can get any traction no matter how heavily Facebook polices the site. Heck, Facebook could become completely biased, heavily favor liberal or conservative opinions, and effectively swing elections if it wanted to. The same impetus that keeps Facebook from doing that should make them prevent others from using their platform to do the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Russian propaganda isn't very good. It's mostly related to RT and Assange (latter being dubious). Israel has a far more effective system than Russia's which crowdsources to people who genuinely hold their beliefs and directs them to highly visible areas. If we're going to start xenophobing there's way more significant targets than a frozen slab with drunkenly scribbled roadlines. I can agree that it isn't very good. However, people have believed stupider, and any increase in volume of propaganda is going to shift the voter base somewhat. I am far more concerned that Russia's relatively unsophisticated hacking was so successful. Are people so daft that they have to ask if an e-mail asking you to change your password by clicking a link is real? This is 2016, that's not particularly excusable. Israel has done exceedingly well in propaganda, of that there is no doubt. But they already had a base of support here, so of course it worked. If they were REALLY good at propaganda, then their neighbors would support them just as much as the US and Europe does. Which comes back around to the predisposition to listen to propaganda that converts weakly held suspicions into strongly held beliefs. That's where it really matters. Suspicious of Hillary Clinton? Well, this news story from a seemingly real website about her killing puppies with her bare hands may just put you over the edge.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:No. Active resistance was equally important, and nothing would have been accomplished without it. The Civil rights movement included active resistance. That resistance just wasn't violent. The two are not mutually exclusive. If your point was that revolution is equally important, the course of history would bear that out. However, the government isn't susceptible to revolution here. It just doesn't work in advanced societies with strong central governments.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Most people would say that toting guns with the threat of violence if the cops pulled anything around them is, in fact, violent resistance. That is, and it formed a very small portion of the civil rights movement that opponents disproportionately focused on and that ultimately did more harm than good. What great societal modification came from it?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:holy poo poo I qualified that with the word "great." It had an effect, just not one that moved the cause forward.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
I don't get what the issue is here. My point is that nonviolence makes more sense and is more effective in modern times. History, admittedly still written by white people, did not judge self defense well. No matter what race you are, it isn't a good idea to meet force with force, even symbolically, like that. You can't literally fight the government. I fully understand the reasons behind it, I just question the efficacy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Literally every country, company, or individual worth more than 10 million dollars has people hired to shitpost. This isn't a stunning display of competency. 10 million isn't a crazy value anymore. I'm not sure what the cost of shitposters nowadays is, but it seems as though the money would be better pissed away elsewhere for a company at the threshold of your example.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 06:17
|
|