• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $550. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Weakening democracy lol

DrZoidberg

Contributor
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58805965

I hate these Facebook is ruining democracy articles. Yeah, I get it, journalists think that shifting power dynamics is scary, because any shift means they need to use their little heads to stay in power. And they might risk losing it. No, shit they think it's scary. But democracy isn't threatened by Facebook. What does that even mean?

The foundation of democracy is that we give power to a big bunch of uninformed nitwits who have equally uniformed opinions and elect neutered liars as leaders. We create an environment that is very hard for any single person or group to derail and seize power. Because for the majority of the people, this is rarely a good thing. We're simply, better off organizing society like this. But it is a terrible, inefficient and dumb way to organize society. But it is the best way we've figured out.

How exactly can Facebook make anything worse for society as a whole? What we're seeing is new groups gaining a bit more power. Good for them. And those who enjoyed relatively more power before is having less. Too bad for them. But I can't see how democracy as a whole is in any way diminished.

Thoughts?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Well there were Hitler and Stalin in the last century. One of them is sputtering into meaningful discourse as droughts drive populations to migrate into other populations' territories. Seems the best we can do is say "build better" rather than admonish "one needs only fear fear itself".
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Well there were Hitler and Stalin in the last century. One of them is sputtering into meaningful discourse as droughts drive populations to migrate into other populations' territories. Seems the best we can do is say "build better" rather than admonish "one needs only fear fear itself".

The Russian revolution started in a monarchy. Ie no democratic tradition. German democracy had existed in exactly 15 years, and was upon it's inception utterly hamstrung and fucked by the "free" world and was dysfunctional to the extreme.

I don't think either of those examples are particularly relevant for the west today. Democracy has delivered excellent results 100+ years in the rest of the west.

I think Chile is the only example of example of stable and well established democracy reverting to dictatorship. And that was with quite a forceful "helping" hand from the land of the free. And that bounced back.

Based on statistics, it doesn't seem like we have much to worry about. No?
 

none

Banned
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58805965

I hate these Facebook is ruining democracy articles. Yeah, I get it, journalists think that shifting power dynamics is scary, because any shift means they need to use their little heads to stay in power. And they might risk losing it. No, shit they think it's scary. But democracy isn't threatened by Facebook. What does that even mean?

The foundation of democracy is that we give power to a big bunch of uninformed nitwits who have equally uniformed opinions and elect neutered liars as leaders. We create an environment that is very hard for any single person or group to derail and seize power. Because for the majority of the people, this is rarely a good thing. We're simply, better off organizing society like this. But it is a terrible, inefficient and dumb way to organize society. But it is the best way we've figured out.

How exactly can Facebook make anything worse for society as a whole? What we're seeing is new groups gaining a bit more power. Good for them. And those who enjoyed relatively more power before is having less. Too bad for them. But I can't see how democracy as a whole is in any way diminished.

Thoughts?


Corporations are people.
 

JohnG

Member
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58805965

The foundation of democracy is that we give power to a big bunch of uninformed nitwits who have equally uniformed opinions and elect neutered liars as leaders. We create an environment that is very hard for any single person or group to derail and seize power. Because for the majority of the people, this is rarely a good thing. We're simply, better off organizing society like this. But it is a terrible, inefficient and dumb way to organize society. But it is the best way we've figured out.

I agree that democracy is messy and for the most part everyone is flying by the seat of their pants. It's really hard, and especially hard when you have a diverse population to govern. Politicians can't do anything for one group without pissing off 5 others. I don't like to fall into the trap saying "All politicians are idiots" - because they are not, although we have a system that rewards loud mouth belligerence, and that trait rarely sits aside intelligence. I agree it's the best we have

How exactly can Facebook make anything worse for society as a whole? What we're seeing is new groups gaining a bit more power. Good for them. And those who enjoyed relatively more power before is having less. Too bad for them. But I can't see how democracy as a whole is in any way diminished.

Thoughts?

I do see it as a powerful tool to divide however. Further, division is a powerful tool for gaining political power. The problem with using FB as a political tool is that it rewards outrage. Engagement = $, and engagement is driven by fueling rage.

There is nothing inherently wrong with leveling the field of discussion, but the core of the discussion is driven by rage.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
How exactly can Facebook make anything worse for society as a whole? What we're seeing is new groups gaining a bit more power. Good for them. And those who enjoyed relatively more power before is having less. Too bad for them. But I can't see how democracy as a whole is in any way diminished.

Thoughts?

I do see it as a powerful tool to divide however. Further, division is a powerful tool for gaining political power. The problem with using FB as a political tool is that it rewards outrage. Engagement = $, and engagement is driven by fueling rage.

There is nothing inherently wrong with leveling the field of discussion, but the core of the discussion is driven by rage.

So? Angry people also have a right to vote
 

steve_bank

Contributor
I recently listened to a discussion on social media. I assued pschology is ud sed in the algoritms, but is far worse than I thought.

It is at the point, probably unintended. of shaping thought. It cretes a psycholgical profile and narrows what is highlighted for you.

It is indeed damaging for kids who have no defenses.

Democracy depends on a level of national consensus. It was always difficult, now it appears near impossible. It is not just social media. All of the so called mainstream news media purs out a cbtant strem of negatives.

For example the publishing of 10 year old emails form the Raiders coach. We can nor survive culturally under that constant deconstruction of people and the country. There will be nothing left to believe in other than manufactured pop culture, like music and sports

There is nothing in media or culture today that supports a comma identity.

It is getting violent over here and it is looking at times like what we see in 3rd world countries. Recently ANTIFA showed up in Portend unannounced burning and destroying businesses.

BLM and white supremacists have been shooting at each other.


Democracy has failed here in the USA at the national level. Critical things are not getting done. We have wide swings in policy when the admission changes. It is impossible to do any long term planning as China does. Aging infrastructure and an outdated power grid has been an issue since the 90s.

The system set up at the founding is utterly inadequate to maintain stability today.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
I recently listened to a discussion on social media. I assued pschology is ud sed in the algoritms, but is far worse than I thought.

It is at the point, probably unintended. of shaping thought. It cretes a psycholgical profile and narrows what is highlighted for you.

That will always be the case. There's always some algorithm or another distorting the public discourse. IN the 17th century people who went to cafés a lot gained an inordinate degree of power, compared to those who didn't or couldn't.

What makes programming algorithms different is that they are explicit in the code. But they have always been there.



It is indeed damaging for kids who have no defenses.

Lol. "But think of the kids". That's always been the case. Kids have always believed all kinds of dumb shit. They've never had defenses. We all know that when we were kids we were idiots. Understanding this and growing up is a part of becoming an adult. And accepting that in some way or another we're always going to be idiots. There's just no way for a single person to know everything that's important.

A positive feature of representative democracy is that it creates a kind of wisdom of the crowd.

Democracy depends on a level of national consensus. It was always difficult, now it appears near impossible. It is not just social media. All of the so called mainstream news media purs out a cbtant strem of negatives.

I think Internet has brought about a kind of shock to the media system. Now we're recalibrating.

Before the Internet the working class and the rurals were dependent on an enlightened and educated urban middle class to speak for them in the national media. Internet changed all this. Now the working class and rurals can speak for themselves.

It's just power shifting from the proxy to the actual people. And that's a good thing IMHO. Yeah, what a surprise that poor people are more racist and homophobic than the liberal urban middle class that used to represent them in media. Their power allowed us to live a lie.

The disempowered old leftist media elite are struggling to stay relevant. I think that's what we are seeing now. That's what the woke movement is all about. Clinging to the old power structure.

It doesn't matter if we like it or not. The old ways are over. New players are in control now. The sooner we accept and move on the quicker sanity and cooperation can return.


Democracy has failed here in the USA at the national level. Critical things are not getting done. We have wide swings in policy when the admission changes. It is impossible to do any long term planning as China does. Aging infrastructure and an outdated power grid has been an issue since the 90s.

The system set up at the founding is utterly inadequate to maintain stability today.

It's allowed to change it a bit to better answer to the needs of a changing world. That's not a failure of the founding fathers.
 

JohnG

Member
How exactly can Facebook make anything worse for society as a whole? What we're seeing is new groups gaining a bit more power. Good for them. And those who enjoyed relatively more power before is having less. Too bad for them. But I can't see how democracy as a whole is in any way diminished.

Thoughts?

I do see it as a powerful tool to divide however. Further, division is a powerful tool for gaining political power. The problem with using FB as a political tool is that it rewards outrage. Engagement = $, and engagement is driven by fueling rage.

There is nothing inherently wrong with leveling the field of discussion, but the core of the discussion is driven by rage.

So? Angry people also have a right to vote
But the rage is conjured - its not directed at the things that actually need to change to help those enraged. In fact, it's directed at the mechanisms that can help.

There's a meme going around that says "Billionaires pay millionaires to convince the middle class that poor people are the problem" If you don't fix the mechanisms that spew these messages, nothing gets fixed, it gets worse and it all falls apart - just like it has every other time in history.

Not sure why you think this time it will be different.
 

JohnG

Member

Check out this propaganda from the 30s.

People often ask "How could the Nazis just roll in a take all the Jews from other countries without a fight?"

Other countries were glad to hand them over, even though they were less than 1% of the population. They had been peppered with enough propaganda for years that they eventually believed their problems were because of this tiny segment of the population.

Look at Tucker Carlson's latest special on Jan 6.


These arent the days of flyers posted on telephone poles - these are the days of targeted messaging on a global scale.
 

TSwizzle

Contributor
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58805965

I hate these Facebook is ruining democracy articles. Yeah, I get it, journalists think that shifting power dynamics is scary, because any shift means they need to use their little heads to stay in power. And they might risk losing it. No, shit they think it's scary. But democracy isn't threatened by Facebook. What does that even mean?

The foundation of democracy is that we give power to a big bunch of uninformed nitwits who have equally uniformed opinions and elect neutered liars as leaders. We create an environment that is very hard for any single person or group to derail and seize power. Because for the majority of the people, this is rarely a good thing. We're simply, better off organizing society like this. But it is a terrible, inefficient and dumb way to organize society. But it is the best way we've figured out.

How exactly can Facebook make anything worse for society as a whole? What we're seeing is new groups gaining a bit more power. Good for them. And those who enjoyed relatively more power before is having less. Too bad for them. But I can't see how democracy as a whole is in any way diminished.

Thoughts?

The attack on Facebook by the charlatan Haugen is laughable. It's an attempt at censorship by the establishment. There is a lot wrong with Facebook in regards to illegal activity but that's not the establishment's main concern. Their main concern is to stop the plebs from seeing "misinformation".
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab

DrZoidberg

Contributor
How exactly can Facebook make anything worse for society as a whole? What we're seeing is new groups gaining a bit more power. Good for them. And those who enjoyed relatively more power before is having less. Too bad for them. But I can't see how democracy as a whole is in any way diminished.

Thoughts?

I do see it as a powerful tool to divide however. Further, division is a powerful tool for gaining political power. The problem with using FB as a political tool is that it rewards outrage. Engagement = $, and engagement is driven by fueling rage.

There is nothing inherently wrong with leveling the field of discussion, but the core of the discussion is driven by rage.

So? Angry people also have a right to vote
But the rage is conjured - its not directed at the things that actually need to change to help those enraged. In fact, it's directed at the mechanisms that can help.

There's a meme going around that says "Billionaires pay millionaires to convince the middle class that poor people are the problem" If you don't fix the mechanisms that spew these messages, nothing gets fixed, it gets worse and it all falls apart - just like it has every other time in history.

Not sure why you think this time it will be different.
I think the rage is a result of that the elite no longer represents the people. Because the voice of the people has shifted. The elites will adapt. They always do. That's why they're the elite. When that happens a new bullshit stable political dichotomy will form and we can all go to sleep again.

I don't actually know how a mature post-Internet society will look like. Or what values it will have. Nobody does.

I belong to the old middle class Liberal values crowd. So for me my world is coming to an end. I've accepted it.

But I have a cautious optimism about the future. Stuff usually sorts itself out in the end. Even though transitions can be painful
 

JohnG

Member
How exactly can Facebook make anything worse for society as a whole? What we're seeing is new groups gaining a bit more power. Good for them. And those who enjoyed relatively more power before is having less. Too bad for them. But I can't see how democracy as a whole is in any way diminished.

Thoughts?

I do see it as a powerful tool to divide however. Further, division is a powerful tool for gaining political power. The problem with using FB as a political tool is that it rewards outrage. Engagement = $, and engagement is driven by fueling rage.

There is nothing inherently wrong with leveling the field of discussion, but the core of the discussion is driven by rage.

So? Angry people also have a right to vote
But the rage is conjured - its not directed at the things that actually need to change to help those enraged. In fact, it's directed at the mechanisms that can help.

There's a meme going around that says "Billionaires pay millionaires to convince the middle class that poor people are the problem" If you don't fix the mechanisms that spew these messages, nothing gets fixed, it gets worse and it all falls apart - just like it has every other time in history.

Not sure why you think this time it will be different.
I think the rage is a result of that the elite no longer represents the people. Because the voice of the people has shifted. The elites will adapt. They always do. That's why they're the elite. When that happens a new bullshit stable political dichotomy will form and we can all go to sleep again.

I don't actually know how a mature post-Internet society will look like. Or what values it will have. Nobody does.

I belong to the old middle class Liberal values crowd. So for me my world is coming to an end. I've accepted it.

But I have a cautious optimism about the future. Stuff usually sorts itself out in the end. Even though transitions can be painful
I'm not so sure. There is nothing that says that history has to repeat itself infinitely, like a TV show that resets itself for the next episode. We can say for certainty that it won't.

Some elites, at the moment, seem preoccupied with getting off the planet, or building bunkers in NZ.

This charade of political history will end at some point, and I don't know what chaos will follow either. If I had to guess, I would say that the climate situation will drive mass migrations and the political fallout will be a hard pivot to the right (politics of fear but no solutions) before the wheels fall off the wagon.

Good chance that a different (maybe much smaller?) society restructures itself afterwards. If Nuclear weapons are involved there will be none.

This may sound extreme, and maybe it is - but there is nothing preventing any of this from happening, and the degradation seems to be accelerating.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
I'm not so sure. There is nothing that says that history has to repeat itself infinitely, like a TV show that resets itself for the next episode. We can say for certainty that it won't.

I didn't say it'll be exactly like before. But we're a tribal species that think in dichotomies with brains adapted to keeping track of a tribe of up to 70 individuals. The world is too complex for normal people to manage. I'm convinced that's why religion was invented. It's a way to simplify the world to make it manageable.

Some elites, at the moment, seem preoccupied with getting off the planet, or building bunkers in NZ.

Any elite is dependent on support form the masses. They like to think of them as special, set apart and superior. But they're not. The fact of the matter is that they're always the bitch of the whims of people. But the people aren't wielding their power consciously. The elites are mostly just riding a wave they barely have any control over.

Whenever there's a paradigm shift there's a section of the old elites that try to resist change and fight back. This only acts to isolate them, and the moment they're disconnected form their support base they're instantly crushed. And because these people are prominent members of society, it's always a heavy and painful fall. And they're made examples of.

History teaches us this.

There's a reason we keep saying that a critical characteristic of a leader is humility. It doesn't matter how awesome they are in other ways. If they don't understand that they aren't really superior to the people, that it's all just an act, theatre, then they will be destroyed at the first bump.


This charade of political history will end at some point, and I don't know what chaos will follow either. If I had to guess, I would say that the climate situation will drive mass migrations and the political fallout will be a hard pivot to the right (politics of fear but no solutions) before the wheels fall off the wagon.

You don't know that. We're evolutionarily pre-programmed to worry more than we hope. I don't think the climate situation will matter a damn in the long run. I'm sure we will completely destroy the current ecosystem and bring about catastrophic change. The number of species will plummet. Deserts will spread , sea levels will rise. But we'll be fine. Humans are very adaptable. We can get used to almost any shitty situation. Sure, we won't have avocado and beef on the menu anymore. But is it such a big deal?

Good chance that a different (maybe much smaller?) society restructures itself afterwards. If Nuclear weapons are involved there will be none.

This may sound extreme, and maybe it is - but there is nothing preventing any of this from happening, and the degradation seems to be accelerating.

I think and hope you are wrong.
 

JohnG

Member
I'm not so sure. There is nothing that says that history has to repeat itself infinitely, like a TV show that resets itself for the next episode. We can say for certainty that it won't.

I didn't say it'll be exactly like before. But we're a tribal species that think in dichotomies with brains adapted to keeping track of a tribe of up to 70 individuals. The world is too complex for normal people to manage. I'm convinced that's why religion was invented. It's a way to simplify the world to make it manageable.

Some elites, at the moment, seem preoccupied with getting off the planet, or building bunkers in NZ.

Any elite is dependent on support form the masses. They like to think of them as special, set apart and superior. But they're not. The fact of the matter is that they're always the bitch of the whims of people. But the people aren't wielding their power consciously. The elites are mostly just riding a wave they barely have any control over.

Whenever there's a paradigm shift there's a section of the old elites that try to resist change and fight back. This only acts to isolate them, and the moment they're disconnected form their support base they're instantly crushed. And because these people are prominent members of society, it's always a heavy and painful fall. And they're made examples of.

History teaches us this.

There's a reason we keep saying that a critical characteristic of a leader is humility. It doesn't matter how awesome they are in other ways. If they don't understand that they aren't really superior to the people, that it's all just an act, theatre, then they will be destroyed at the first bump.


This charade of political history will end at some point, and I don't know what chaos will follow either. If I had to guess, I would say that the climate situation will drive mass migrations and the political fallout will be a hard pivot to the right (politics of fear but no solutions) before the wheels fall off the wagon.

You don't know that. We're evolutionarily pre-programmed to worry more than we hope. I don't think the climate situation will matter a damn in the long run. I'm sure we will completely destroy the current ecosystem and bring about catastrophic change. The number of species will plummet. Deserts will spread , sea levels will rise. But we'll be fine. Humans are very adaptable. We can get used to almost any shitty situation. Sure, we won't have avocado and beef on the menu anymore. But is it such a big deal?

Good chance that a different (maybe much smaller?) society restructures itself afterwards. If Nuclear weapons are involved there will be none.

This may sound extreme, and maybe it is - but there is nothing preventing any of this from happening, and the degradation seems to be accelerating.

I think and hope you are wrong.
It's a safe bet that our political structures will fail us at some point - maybe distant future, maybe not. There are countless ways it could happen.

I don't think it matters whether we worry about it or are optimistic - If we (as a population) start blowing each other up because some radicals took over a nuclear armed but failed state in the wake of a hypothetical climate catastrophe, then that's how it goes. Again, there is no mechanism (or god) that will prevent such a disaster.

I see chaos as something that it always possible, sometimes systems enter a feedback loop until they break apart into fragments. I don't worry too much about it, but I'm conscious of it and appreciate the systems that hold things together, for better or worse. People who talk about the destruction of govt. have no idea what they are asking for.

It's true our brains are wired for worry, tribal identities, fear of the other, etc. AI is exceptional at hacking into our extremely predictable psyche, and influencing our decisions. It has already been used successfully to power social upheaval. Surely you can understand where the concern comes in for many people regarding social media.

Just off the top of my head, the moment Donald Trump announced that the concern for Covid was a democratic hoax, political divisions fueled by social media ripped through the world. Many people died because they distrusted those that were attempting to put the brakes on the pandemic. I don't think past pandemics went through that kind of confusion caused by officials.

Things are different now.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor

I see chaos as something that it always possible, sometimes systems enter a feedback loop until they break apart into fragments. I don't worry too much about it, but I'm conscious of it and appreciate the systems that hold things together, for better or worse. People who talk about the destruction of govt. have no idea what they are asking for.

It's interesting how conservatives are always overly afraid of the chaos, and the left aren't afraid enough of chaos. Even though the right is all about letting free markets rip through the world unconstrained, and the left is about governments controlling everything. These are very interesting paradoxes in both the left and the right.

Yes, chaos is never far away. Every war teaches us that. This can all fall apart in an instant. Let the cops go home, cut the power and water and we'll get Mad Max in a matter of weeks. Days. Anywhere.

It's true our brains are wired for worry, tribal identities, fear of the other, etc. AI is exceptional at hacking into our extremely predictable psyche, and influencing our decisions. It has already been used successfully to power social upheaval. Surely you can understand where the concern comes in for many people regarding social media.

Just off the top of my head, the moment Donald Trump announced that the concern for Covid was a democratic hoax, political divisions fueled by social media ripped through the world. Many people died because they distrusted those that were attempting to put the brakes on the pandemic. I don't think past pandemics went through that kind of confusion caused by officials.

Things are different now.

Trump is a populist. People didn't want their lives to be disrupted by a virus. So Trump told them it would be. And then he made up stuff to justify that. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

Populists win election when the sensible elites have lost the trust of the people, because they've failed to adapt to a changing world for too long. But they're elites. They're highly adaptable. But sometimes it's hard for them to understand the new rules. Sometimes nobody knows what's really going on. The Zeitgeist can be hard to figure out, even for experts. That's what I think is going on.

Hillary Clinton thought that the Zeitgeist was woke. So she put all her chips in that basket. The entire world cheered her on. Nope. She was wrong. Everybody was wrong.

The Trump vs Hillary campaign wasn't conservatives vs liberals. It was the old elite vs nothing. The people thought nothing, or rather anything else was a better choice than to keep doing things like we always have. Trump was just team "anything else".

In Sweden now the second biggest party are conservative racists. A party founded by Swedish volunteers to Nazi Germany in WW2. It's just our Trump party. The Swedish people have lost faith in that the politicians knows what they're doing.

The Danish prime minister has high support from the people. In Denmark the politicians have been sensible the last 50 years and paid attention to the people. We don't have a Trump, Johnson or Sweden Democrats here. It's one of the reasons I moved to Denmark. This country is great. Sweden isn't right now.
 

JohnG

Member

I see chaos as something that it always possible, sometimes systems enter a feedback loop until they break apart into fragments. I don't worry too much about it, but I'm conscious of it and appreciate the systems that hold things together, for better or worse. People who talk about the destruction of govt. have no idea what they are asking for.

It's interesting how conservatives are always overly afraid of the chaos, and the left aren't afraid enough of chaos. Even though the right is all about letting free markets rip through the world unconstrained, and the left is about governments controlling everything. These are very interesting paradoxes in both the left and the right.

Yes, chaos is never far away. Every war teaches us that. This can all fall apart in an instant. Let the cops go home, cut the power and water and we'll get Mad Max in a matter of weeks. Days. Anywhere.

It's true our brains are wired for worry, tribal identities, fear of the other, etc. AI is exceptional at hacking into our extremely predictable psyche, and influencing our decisions. It has already been used successfully to power social upheaval. Surely you can understand where the concern comes in for many people regarding social media.

Just off the top of my head, the moment Donald Trump announced that the concern for Covid was a democratic hoax, political divisions fueled by social media ripped through the world. Many people died because they distrusted those that were attempting to put the brakes on the pandemic. I don't think past pandemics went through that kind of confusion caused by officials.

Things are different now.

Trump is a populist. People didn't want their lives to be disrupted by a virus. So Trump told them it would be. And then he made up stuff to justify that. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

Populists win election when the sensible elites have lost the trust of the people, because they've failed to adapt to a changing world for too long. But they're elites. They're highly adaptable. But sometimes it's hard for them to understand the new rules. Sometimes nobody knows what's really going on. The Zeitgeist can be hard to figure out, even for experts. That's what I think is going on.

Hillary Clinton thought that the Zeitgeist was woke. So she put all her chips in that basket. The entire world cheered her on. Nope. She was wrong. Everybody was wrong.

The Trump vs Hillary campaign wasn't conservatives vs liberals. It was the old elite vs nothing. The people thought nothing, or rather anything else was a better choice than to keep doing things like we always have. Trump was just team "anything else".

In Sweden now the second biggest party are conservative racists. A party founded by Swedish volunteers to Nazi Germany in WW2. It's just our Trump party. The Swedish people have lost faith in that the politicians knows what they're doing.

The Danish prime minister has high support from the people. In Denmark the politicians have been sensible the last 50 years and paid attention to the people. We don't have a Trump, Johnson or Sweden Democrats here. It's one of the reasons I moved to Denmark. This country is great. Sweden isn't right now.
I think you put too much worry into "woke". I can't say for sure what it means to Europeans, but in NA it is just another manufactured fear tactic by the right, in an endless line of right wing fear mongering.

It fits perfectly as a subsection of their replacement theory narrative, and "anti-woke" serves as a mask for their fear of change, the core of conservatism.

It boils down to using fear of the other as a political tool. Conservatives are always in a panic about gays, trans people, immigrants, POC, indigenous peoples, caravans, and so on. This tactic wins elections for them, so it just keeps rolling along.

"It's interesting how conservatives are always overly afraid of the chaos, and the left aren't afraid enough of chaos. Even though the right is all about letting free markets rip through the world unconstrained, and the left is about governments controlling everything. These are very interesting paradoxes in both the left and the right."

I agree, free markets can be great, and collective action (elected govt.) can be the best way to approach certain problems - and both should always be kept in check.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
I think you put too much worry into "woke". I can't say for sure what it means to Europeans, but in NA it is just another manufactured fear tactic by the right, in an endless line of right wing fear mongering.

It fits perfectly as a subsection of their replacement theory narrative, and "anti-woke" serves as a mask for their fear of change, the core of conservatism.

It boils down to using fear of the other as a political tool. Conservatives are always in a panic about gays, trans people, immigrants, POC, indigenous peoples, caravans, and so on. This tactic wins elections for them, so it just keeps rolling along.

I think woke is the revolution eating its own children. Woke is the tail end of the rise of feminism and civil rights. The easy pickings have been plucked. If we want further equality we are going to have to do things that are not easy to identify, nor guaranteed to work. Woke is the frustration of the lack of progress, instead of pointing the guns outward towards shared enemies, the guns are pointed inward and the progressives start attacking themselves. The woke ethical standards are now so high that nobody qualifies. Certainly not the people claiming to be woke.

I consider myself progressive and I did not hear about woke through conservative channels. I heard it about it in progressive circles. People who identified as woke.

I have no doubt that it fits nicely into the conservative narrative and it makes perfect sense that they took it and ran with it. It doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes even the evil people say something true.

"It's interesting how conservatives are always overly afraid of the chaos, and the left aren't afraid enough of chaos. Even though the right is all about letting free markets rip through the world unconstrained, and the left is about governments controlling everything. These are very interesting paradoxes in both the left and the right."

I agree, free markets can be great, and collective action (elected govt.) can be the best way to approach certain problems - and both should always be kept in check.

We seem to agree about something :)
 

JohnG

Member
I think woke is the revolution eating its own children. Woke is the tail end of the rise of feminism and civil rights. The easy pickings have been plucked. If we want further equality we are going to have to do things that are not easy to identify, nor guaranteed to work. Woke is the frustration of the lack of progress, instead of pointing the guns outward towards shared enemies, the guns are pointed inward and the progressives start attacking themselves. The woke ethical standards are now so high that nobody qualifies. Certainly not the people claiming to be woke.

I consider myself progressive and I did not hear about woke through conservative channels. I heard it about it in progressive circles. People who identified as woke.

I have no doubt that it fits nicely into the conservative narrative and it makes perfect sense that they took it and ran with it. It doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes even the evil people say something true.

That all seems pretty vague. I can give you a very specific example of a fabrication of wokeness and it's effectiveness as a political tool by the right.

4 days ago a Virginia Rebublican won his election for governor. Surveys indicate he won that race, fueled by women, who voted based on education issues, specifically CRT in schools.


He focused on that issue during his campaign and it worked.

Only thing is there is zero CRT being taught in Virginia schools. It was just another fear tactic that the "Woke" progressives are going to ruin their lives. I know this is anecdotal, but it's very typical.

There are some very serious culture undercurrents going on in the USA. I don't think wokeness is one of them. I think the issue you are confusing it with is online echo chambers. They exist for every kind of nut imaginable.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
I think woke is the revolution eating its own children. Woke is the tail end of the rise of feminism and civil rights. The easy pickings have been plucked. If we want further equality we are going to have to do things that are not easy to identify, nor guaranteed to work. Woke is the frustration of the lack of progress, instead of pointing the guns outward towards shared enemies, the guns are pointed inward and the progressives start attacking themselves. The woke ethical standards are now so high that nobody qualifies. Certainly not the people claiming to be woke.

I consider myself progressive and I did not hear about woke through conservative channels. I heard it about it in progressive circles. People who identified as woke.

I have no doubt that it fits nicely into the conservative narrative and it makes perfect sense that they took it and ran with it. It doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes even the evil people say something true.

That all seems pretty vague. I can give you a very specific example of a fabrication of wokeness and it's effectiveness as a political tool by the right.

4 days ago a Virginia Rebublican won his election for governor. Surveys indicate he won that race, fueled by women, who voted based on education issues, specifically CRT in schools.


He focused on that issue during his campaign and it worked.

Only thing is there is zero CRT being taught in Virginia schools. It was just another fear tactic that the "Woke" progressives are going to ruin their lives. I know this is anecdotal, but it's very typical.

There are some very serious culture undercurrents going on in the USA. I don't think wokeness is one of them. I think the issue you are confusing it with is online echo chambers. They exist for every kind of nut imaginable.

It's not mutually exclusive. Conservatives can use dog whistles, taken out of context, to garner support while the same term inside the liberal camp can mean something different.

Also, conservatives are bound to misunderstand the nuances of a liberal concept. I'm convinced that those republicans had replaced CRT with "white man bad". Not entirely wrong. But misses nearly everything CRT is about. And that's fine. We shouldn't dumb down our internal language just because there are idiots on the other side who won't get it. Everybody is made smarter by using clear unambiguous language. If somebody is hellbent on misunderstanding you, there's nothing you can do to fix that.
 

JohnG

Member
I think woke is the revolution eating its own children. Woke is the tail end of the rise of feminism and civil rights. The easy pickings have been plucked. If we want further equality we are going to have to do things that are not easy to identify, nor guaranteed to work. Woke is the frustration of the lack of progress, instead of pointing the guns outward towards shared enemies, the guns are pointed inward and the progressives start attacking themselves. The woke ethical standards are now so high that nobody qualifies. Certainly not the people claiming to be woke.

I consider myself progressive and I did not hear about woke through conservative channels. I heard it about it in progressive circles. People who identified as woke.

I have no doubt that it fits nicely into the conservative narrative and it makes perfect sense that they took it and ran with it. It doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes even the evil people say something true.

That all seems pretty vague. I can give you a very specific example of a fabrication of wokeness and it's effectiveness as a political tool by the right.

4 days ago a Virginia Rebublican won his election for governor. Surveys indicate he won that race, fueled by women, who voted based on education issues, specifically CRT in schools.


He focused on that issue during his campaign and it worked.

Only thing is there is zero CRT being taught in Virginia schools. It was just another fear tactic that the "Woke" progressives are going to ruin their lives. I know this is anecdotal, but it's very typical.

There are some very serious culture undercurrents going on in the USA. I don't think wokeness is one of them. I think the issue you are confusing it with is online echo chambers. They exist for every kind of nut imaginable.

It's not mutually exclusive. Conservatives can use dog whistles, taken out of context, to garner support while the same term inside the liberal camp can mean something different.

Also, conservatives are bound to misunderstand the nuances of a liberal concept. I'm convinced that those republicans had replaced CRT with "white man bad". Not entirely wrong. But misses nearly everything CRT is about. And that's fine. We shouldn't dumb down our internal language just because there are idiots on the other side who won't get it. Everybody is made smarter by using clear unambiguous language. If somebody is hellbent on misunderstanding you, there's nothing you can do to fix that.
RW political messaging is hampering the US moving forward. They are going to forever pay $200 for a vial of insulin because they can't stomach the idea of paying into a universal health care system that might help someone they don't "approve of".

In Canada, our national radio station has been pretty good (not perfect) at educating people about the downsides of letting stigmatized minorities wither from lesser opportunities, and the human and economic costs of doing that.

The basic concepts of what is happening (and why) aren't hard to grasp - it's the solutions that are complicated. Many people do a great job laying it out. However, there is a great interest in using it as a political divisive tool and the social and economic concepts are being countered with a narrative of victimization.

Fox News is the most watched news feed and Tucker Carlson has the most watched program among adults aged 25 to 54. Its hard to cut through their relentless griping about how vulnerable groups are causing all America's problems. Now that it's a proven successful business model, it doesn't get any easier.
 
Top Bottom