This election may have been the most polarizing one I have witnessed. I'm 26 so I have only been able to vote in 3 and have only really seen 5 cause before that I was really young. But this one has created a hell of a divide in this country. States trying break apart, extreme protests, idiots threatening to blow up the White House. So it left me thinking, is there anything that the two sides can agree on.
i have only been able to come up with one thing. Can we all agree the First Lady is pretty damn hot? I mean in my life time I have had Clinton, bush, and Obama(who wasn't bad looking at all but always seemed a little mad to me lol). But now we got it lol.
lol I'm just messing around this will probably get kicked to sidelines but after reading all the Arguing in the political mb, I figured it could use a little lightening up.
The country has been divided for some time now, this isn't exactly 9/12 anymore but for many, the election result was unexpected, and that has them pretty inflamed.
Melania is a beautiful lady indeed. Michelle was beautiful in her own way too. Both are classy ladies. I don't know if there is any consensus on that.
I think both Liberals and Conservatives love America but they both have divergent views on what it is or what progress looks like. I'm a pretty Conservative guy but I think if a Liberal engaged me in a real political conversation, they would be surprised that we probably want some of the same things, we just have different takes on how to get there. Most of my differences with the left have to do with the proper role of government.
The late 60s and early 70s were much more tumultuous. The difference is we have technology to spread the idiocy so it seems much worse than it really is.
Quote:The late 60s and early 70s were much more tumultuous. The difference is we have technology to spread the idiocy so it seems much worse than it really is.
The early 1860s were somewhat turbulent as well.
And I'm partial to the First Daughter meself.
Quote:The early 1860s were somewhat turbulent as well.
And I'm partial to the First Daughter meself.
Which one? While Ivanka is hot, Tiff is cute, too.
Also, the second daughters are also cute.
This is nothing new. You just have technology to give you a birds eye view of the idiocy.
Quote:The late 60s and early 70s were much more tumultuous. The difference is we have technology to spread the idiocy so it seems much worse than it really is.
i absolutely agree. Imho it almost makes our government have to opporate in a shroud of secrecy which people constantly label conspiracy. Whether it is conspiracy or not, I have no idea, but what I do know is the government and higher up officials know a lot more about world relations than anyone else in the country and are forced to make decisions that will effect tens of millions of people every day. Decisions that we couldn't possibly fathom the ramifications or the implication behind. i only hope our government, that has been designed to check and balance itself, makes the correct decisions that are for the greater good of not just the US but people in general.
I actually talked about this the other day with my buddy. If social media had existed in the 40's, do you think the government would have been able to end the war the way they did with the bomb? I mean once the word got out that we even were conducting something like the manhattan project, cause I feel like somewhere along the line some dip [BLEEP] would have leaked something on social media. Let alone if the magnitude of such a bomb, being able to kill hundreds of thousands, were to spread to social media the way would have it today. Do you think they would have been able to continue with it.
It's a different world we live in. Even idiots are able to get their word out to millions. the unfortunate part is often times more idiots follow then it looks like a movement.
I think you all are onto something with the technology. The very nature of the online news experience is that it is more personalized than ever before. In the 1970s and even 80s, you had fewer choices in where you got your information from so most people were working off the same general information. Once the internet gets to know you, you get stories that reinforce what you already believe or have shown interest in. Instead of at least hearing the other side and using your brain to sift and filter information, you get to live in an echo chamber where your own ideas are parroted back to you and it plays on your confirmation bias. Eventually you get to the point where any news that you might hear that doesn't fit inside of your values system, you will take it as evidence of left/ring/corporate ect. bias and you will defend your own echo chamber. Of course while all this is happening, people are shutting themselves off to anything else and so they drift to their respective corners of the political spectrum.
One big difference is that I used to believe and respect the evening news in the 70s and 80s.
Now, I don't even watch any of the national outlets.
Only locals.
Quote:I think you all are onto something with the technology. The very nature of the online news experience is that it is more personalized than ever before. In the 1970s and even 80s, you had fewer choices in where you got your information from so most people were working off the same general information. Once the internet gets to know you, you get stories that reinforce what you already believe or have shown interest in. Instead of at least hearing the other side and using your brain to sift and filter information, you get to live in an echo chamber where your own ideas are parroted back to you and it plays on your confirmation bias. Eventually you get to the point where any news that you might hear that doesn't fit inside of your values system, you will take it as evidence of left/ring/corporate ect. bias and you will defend your own echo chamber. Of course while all this is happening, people are shutting themselves off to anything else and so they drift to their respective corners of the political spectrum.
Well put.
Quote:I think you all are onto something with the technology. The very nature of the online news experience is that it is more personalized than ever before. In the 1970s and even 80s, you had fewer choices in where you got your information from so most people were working off the same general information. Once the internet gets to know you, you get stories that reinforce what you already believe or have shown interest in. Instead of at least hearing the other side and using your brain to sift and filter information, you get to live in an echo chamber where your own ideas are parroted back to you and it plays on your confirmation bias. Eventually you get to the point where any news that you might hear that doesn't fit inside of your values system, you will take it as evidence of left/ring/corporate ect. bias and you will defend your own echo chamber. Of course while all this is happening, people are shutting themselves off to anything else and so they drift to their respective corners of the political spectrum.
Agree
I don't see how we can compromise when we have such disparate views on fundamental issues. This union of states can't possibly last another 241 years. It's just not going to happen.
When sides will never admit being wrong, nothing will ever change. Each will claim to be right.
We have already passed the expiration date of great civilizations. None has lasted this long. We're due for a restructure.
There's hope based on current events, but we certainly are going in the wrong direction and fast. Or, at least, were.
The entrenched will continue and try to "get theirs" and siphon as much as they can before they kill the host or retire first after they've done their damage. Those who have enriched themselves off unsustainable government spending have brought us to where we are today.
Quote:I don't see how we can compromise when we have such disparate views on fundamental issues. This union of states can't possibly last another 241 years. It's just not going to happen.
A classic case of a technology driven echo chamber.
Quote:When sides will never admit being wrong, nothing will ever change. Each will claim to be right.
We have already passed the expiration date of great civilizations. None has lasted this long. We're due for a restructure.
There's hope based on current events, but we certainly are going in the wrong direction and fast. Or, at least, were.
The entrenched will continue and try to "get theirs" and siphon as much as they can before they kill the host or retire first after they've done their damage. Those who have enriched themselves off unsustainable government spending have brought us to where we are today.
Rome lasted 500 years but yes, things look pretty grim. There are a lot of red flags that might signal a demise.
Quote:I think you all are onto something with the technology. The very nature of the online news experience is that it is more personalized than ever before. In the 1970s and even 80s, you had fewer choices in where you got your information from so most people were working off the same general information. Once the internet gets to know you, you get stories that reinforce what you already believe or have shown interest in. Instead of at least hearing the other side and using your brain to sift and filter information, you get to live in an echo chamber where your own ideas are parroted back to you and it plays on your confirmation bias. Eventually you get to the point where any news that you might hear that doesn't fit inside of your values system, you will take it as evidence of left/ring/corporate ect. bias and you will defend your own echo chamber. Of course while all this is happening, people are shutting themselves off to anything else and so they drift to their respective corners of the political spectrum.
I believe that it goes deeper than that. Technology starting in perhaps the late 1980's along with poor education has generally made people more "ignorant". In general, most people aren't taught to think for themselves, they are taught to memorize. They are also "taught" that there is only one correct way to come up with a solution to a problem. Math is a very good example of that. When adding up say five 3 digit numbers manually we are taught to add up all of the one's then carry over the extra digits to the 10's and so forth to come up with the answer. However, a different method can be used to come up with the correct answer by adding up the 100's first, then the 10's and finally the one's. Both ways will still give the correct answer, but the second method is considered "wrong" in grade school when taking a test where you have to show your work.
Many people, particularly the younger generations are dependent technology such as google or a calculator application on their smart phones, or what the computer that has become cash registers tell them. There are scores of people that couldn't actually run business transactions handling money and making change without technology.
Now expand that example on a greater scale where you have technology and media constantly displayed in front of you. News websites, blogs, social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter put content in front of people at a very rapid pace, and people believe whatever they see without doing the actual research. The technology is carried around in our pockets in the form of smart phones, or on tablets, laptops, desktop computers or on our TV.
There was a saying that I heard a long time ago from a marketing professional that rings true to this very day and can be expressed as a math equation. "Successful Advertising = ((what you say x how many times you say it) x (who you say it to))". Think about that.
"the medium is the message"
Control the media, control the people.
Quote:I believe that it goes deeper than that. Technology starting in perhaps the late 1980's along with poor education has generally made people more "ignorant". In general, most people aren't taught to think for themselves, they are taught to memorize. They are also "taught" that there is only one correct way to come up with a solution to a problem. Math is a very good example of that. When adding up say five 3 digit numbers manually we are taught to add up all of the one's then carry over the extra digits to the 10's and so forth to come up with the answer. However, a different method can be used to come up with the correct answer by adding up the 100's first, then the 10's and finally the one's. Both ways will still give the correct answer, but the second method is considered "wrong" in grade school when taking a test where you have to show your work.
Many people, particularly the younger generations are dependent technology such as google or a calculator application on their smart phones, or what the computer that has become cash registers tell them. There are scores of people that couldn't actually run business transactions handling money and making change without technology.
Now expand that example on a greater scale where you have technology and media constantly displayed in front of you. News websites, blogs, social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter put content in front of people at a very rapid pace, and people believe whatever they see without doing the actual research. The technology is carried around in our pockets in the form of smart phones, or on tablets, laptops, desktop computers or on our TV.
There was a saying that I heard a long time ago from a marketing professional that rings true to this very day and can be expressed as a math equation. "Successful Advertising = ((what you say x how many times you say it) x (who you say it to))". Think about that.
I am not even sure they memorize anymore, at least not anything difficult. There is nothing wrong with memorizing some things, it's good for your brain. I remember having to memorize and recite the prologue from the Canterbury Tales (in middle english). It was a rewarding experience and I am glad I did it.
Education is a whole new can of worms though. The simple solution is to blame the schools, and that makes sense. I've said it before though, education is downstream from culture. If you have a culture that promotes sloth and dysfunction, the schools will be filled with lazy and dysfunctional kids. So many things start at home.
Which First Lady?
The official one in the White House, or the president's trophy wife in New York?
They're both pretty, not gorgeous, and seem like nice enough women, but I applaud all the presidents before Donald that elected to buy American instead. :thumbsup:
Quote:Which First Lady?
The official one in the White House, or the president's trophy wife in New York?
They're both pretty, not gorgeous, and seem like nice enough women, but I applaud all the presidents before Donald that elected to buy American instead. :thumbsup:
This post burns my eyes like that of grandpa forgetting to take his meds and then strolling downstairs in his whitey tighties!