I have a serious argument to make to you Sup Forums, and I come to you as someone who is trying to be as neutral as possible. this issue is the issue of sensationalism
so ill cut to the chase. we are getting to a point in society where the break down of logical communication is escalating. we are picking sides and these flame wars (not just on here, but in the media also) are causing people to pick sides and support causes not based on logic, but based on emotions and reactions. This is bad. Being emotional and provocative leads to more marginalization of actual facts and well thought out arguments. Many many many posts in this board call for people to think or get red-pilled, and if we we're to have this effect on people and have this become the norm, we must stop sensationalism. It works against what we aim to achieve.
Think about when you see either a SJW or redneck go off in public. They bitch loudly about issues they dont know or understand, and that has the effect of not only diminishing the value of their good ideas, but also when people see them and go "wow they're stupid. Fuck them and their shitty arguments" people are pushed towards one side or the other. 1/2
Jacob Martinez
So my point is: we need to fight against excitation and flame stoking to try and influence people to think a certain way. all of society needs to stop doing this. Mainstream media uses this tactic simply to gain more viewers because they are a business, but we are not that, and we can fight that. WE CAN FIX THE PROBLEM OF SENSATIONALISM CONTROLLING AND INTERFERING WITH LOGICAL DISCOURSE. I realize people don't think often times when they should, but this is leading down a terrible path of being easily controlled and swayed and not taking the time to logically and perspectively think about what they want to happen, how to get there, and why. We can fight this. We can be a logical society, even when we disagree. We can fix things and make things ok.
(also i recognize what I'm doing using caps. as well i understand that this post could be construed as sensationalism with the severity of the sound of the words i used. I'm just afraid that my point didn't come across and to assure myself I said what I wanted to a bunch of different ways. please think about this post as an independent person. if you disagree thats fine, just please tell me in a logical way)
I'm open to hearing thoughts and ideas. sorry word vomit i know. pic is random unrelated
Charles Cox
TL:DR
Jayden Collins
Yo, Urkel. Your use of caps completely put you in lunatic territory. Sorry.
Mason Richardson
we are stuck in an era of identity and sex politcs occuring alongside confusion in millenial culture
that is what is shitting up pol
Sup Forums needs another board to disscus identity politics
Brandon Jenkins
Also, you appear to be having a manic episode. Speaking from very personal experience, do your friends and family a huge favor and start taking your meds again.
Adam Gomez
many of the shit posts and hyperbole are made by under 30, under 25 , under 20 kids who are looking for approval and common culture
they ARE angry at liberalism and their culture, rightfully so, but they dont know how to react because adults on the right have not set good role models
Chase Ward
how disingenious
Tyler Green
I used caps once for the TLDRs bruv
Jordan Brooks
It's too late, OP. We've transitioned to a post-truth society, where anyone can disregard what they don't like as "fake news". Actual facts don't matter anymore, only muh feelings and standing against whatever the other "side" is for and vice versa.. Like you said this isnot good, but I'm afraid there is no turning back at this point.
Nathan Russell
you are just seeing results of fear
so far they are still learning to accept that things have changed from traditional trust in media and information
they'll eventually move past it..
look at the pic...it seems a ridiculous idea these days, doesn't it?
Brody Cooper
this happened in the USSR in the 80s
we should not be re-reading Orwell, we should be re-reading Huxly
its the trivialization of facts that is killing us
Jaxon Ross
>there is no turning back at this point.
no, the answer is turn Your back
Cooper Jenkins
I'm not even reading all of this bullshit because your whole premise is wrong. People aren't getting more retarded and ignorant of politics. If anything, the average person is much more aware now than ever before. Do you really think yokels on farms and the urban poor in the 19th century had insightful, researched commentary on global economics?
Our vaguely democratic system worked pretty well for a while. But oops, if we're defining it as "every person gets a vote," then we've only effectively had democracy for a little over 50 years. A shitty 50 years.
If you want a reasonable debate, you aren't going to find it by expecting 140 million people to weigh in. Most people aren't that smart, and they don't really care. This has always been the case. It seems like people used to be smarter because we aren't getting spammed with the opinions from hordes of regular people from the 18th, 19th, and 20th century, and most of those people weren't participating in the debate anyway.
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical "that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act"
No, I think you're having the start of a bipolar manic episode. Sorry.
Carson Jenkins
i agree its also the news media getting the normies riled up about shit they really know nothing about. that really needs to stop
Cameron White
>the normies
are you a special snowflake now?
Brayden Baker
>doubling down
keep LARPing my friend, it must be the only thing keeping you sane
Hudson Thompson
have you been on pol for the past two years?
David Myers
One could also argue that the onslaught of information that has helped people become more well informed also has its flaws, such as the algorithms creating echo chambers on social media and the overwhelming amount of news sites and blogs that take very clear political stances.
I think that's actually just as big of a problem as the MSM in a lot of ways. Angry people click.
Isaiah Edwards
nope
Jackson Johnson
well thats the problem and >muh point
I'm not even talking about voting specifically. i'm saying that with new access to technology and the world becoming interconnected via the internet, people are more easily influenced by shit they dont understand, and are exposed to a much higher volume of it.
we dont expect everyone to know everything and have debates on them, but the idea is that we get the most informed and properly educated people to discuss those issues should be solved, and our government should work together to make sure the issues are solved in various fields that overlap with eachother.
why do we even need two parties? I realize it became that way over time but its become the most counterproductive thing to our society, instead of being a way for all sides of the issue to be discussed
Aaron Rodriguez
>why do we even need two parties?
for the illusion of balance
they are the same
Eli Foster
well there you go, you are what most would call around here a newfag
Jayden Gomez
i'm 58 and have been following politics since 1979 when i was in the Navy ( before you were born )
i would think that would make You a newfag
Liam Ward
i largely agree with your point. weird thing is the media was completely state controlled then, so people became complacent. whereas now, it seems like their agenda is to stoke the fire wherever possible. end result being that stories not even involving politics can become overinflated and divisive. i'm seeing more anger than complacency at this point, but there's a chance the left could still put on the brakes a little. people are losing their hair so much right now. i just have a feeling this cant last forever. maybe we can come to some more reasonable discussions when that time comes.
Matthew Moore
i like this dude stick around
Grayson Butler
true but they shouldn't be. they should represent multiple sides of an issue
Blake Diaz
We've pretty much always had two parties. People talk about muh federalist papers, but Jefferson and Madison immediately formed parties, and it's pretty much always been two.
The real answer here is local control. When Massachusetts wanted to change up their healthcare system, they talked about it amongst themselves and figured out what they wanted to do. Romney went to the Feds and asked if they could use the money that the Feds were already giving to them to pay for people who don't have insurance, to instead subsidize the cost of everyone buying insurance. There was a big debate in Massachusetts; they decided that they wanted to do it; and they passed Romneycare. They were pretty happy with what they got.
A perfect example of how things should work. A shitty idea is having a number of states determine something for the entire country, such as Obamacare. The people of Mississippi say that they want no part of it, that they think it's a terrible idea. But unfortunately for them, voters in California and New York think differently, and they get flatly overruled.
Concentrating power in Washington DC is a bad idea. Making issues into national ones is a bad idea. Whether or not someone bakes a cake for some fags in Nebraska doesn't need to be a national debate. Things that directly affect people need to be decided as close as possible to the people affected. City government and state government should have more influence on what you can do, and what you have to do, than national government.
The only things the Feds should be doing are foreign policy, immigration, and things of that nature. The idea that what your children are learning in the school two miles from your house needs to be decided thousands of miles away in Washington DC is ridiculous. People in California shouldn't be weighing on what's taught in Florida.
All issues are national issues is no way to live. We need to leave each other alone.
Adrian Miller
You are right but, people aren't logical. They are emotional because they've bought a cleverly contrived story, not grounded in reality but in a pseudo reality the media feeds to them which becomes the reality they want to believe. In other words, you are fighting a war of ideas in a world where ideas don't matter, only the story matters.
Look at the course of the last 100 years to see how true this is: Lusitania is sunk, not because of German aggression but because it was purposefully loaded with explosives to push the US into WW1.
FDR purposefully positioned half of the Navy within sneezing range of Japan to provoke an attack to trigger war
Gulf of Tonkin was a lie to get the US into Vietnam
You get the picture? So on and so on.
Even rumors like pedo rings, massive citizen surveillance programs, CIA drug running and Ufos started turning out to be real, but only after the facade of the US gov is pealed back over the course of 40 years of investigative journalism and endless FOIA requests.
But for most people, UFOs are fake because the government and media say they are fake. Gulf of Tonkin- what was that? "Mass surveillance" - what have I got to hide lolzzzzzz, you are being paranoid pshhhhtt >< ? Iraq was a lie? Nah, Saddam's WMDs just haven't been found yet lol
What is the difference between the redpilled reality and these wishful thinking normie realities? That's the question OP, once you answer this question, you will understand how to control the normies
Daniel Cook
they used to not be
but..well...
Sebastian Ortiz
>he didn't notice Look at again. >Sup Forums pass user since 2012.
Dylan Fisher
I'll take main stream media sensationalism any day versus the alternative. Yes the media is money driven, but opposing sides is actually what makes it work. It's just amplified now that everyone can be their own little media outlet.
In a world where muslims prides itself in "logic" and "reason" yet slaughter people in mass, while the "Christian" Pope say Muslim terrorism does not exist. I don't think homogeneous thought is a good idea.
Andrew Long
it wasnt on the first post
didnt notice on the second post
Julian Foster
> we are getting to a point in society where the break down of logical communication is escalating.
how so? most people are aware of the media's sensationalism, and simply roll their eyes at it and go about their lives.
Lucas James
or do further research and come to their own conclusions
Owen Diaz
>FDR purposefully positioned half of the Navy within sneezing range of Japan to provoke an attack to trigger war
Pearl Harbor is a hell of a long way from Japan, son
Luis Lee
Wait wait you actually think at any point in history logical communication was done on any real scale?
Like I get that your 12 and youve never actually lived in the real world so you think it works like school does. But pro tip it doesnt.
You only think it does because you read about what happened in history after it happened and was compiled to make it logical and easy to understand. 99% of life was done because of illogical emotions. Why do you think using emotions is so successful?
Carson Peterson
hello grampa
Grayson Anderson
How would you prevent this issue? The constitution does not list many of the powers that the federal government is using because 'living, breathing constitution.' Will any given government, with time, ever elect not to grab more power over its constituents?
Michael Wood
evenin, lad
Ethan Ortiz
>How would you prevent this issue?
you know what one of the greatest axioms of the internet is?
it routes around failure...
and we just routed around failure in the last election
Zachary Gutierrez
So problems are prevented because things just find a way to circumnavigate corruption?
Ian James
no..but turning it around is going to be like turning an aircraft carrier
it doesn't go on a dime...and we just started the turn