Trypophobia

[BIGUN 1,314]

The thread about Democrats and Joe Kennedy III require that I post the following:

Quote

In truth, social media is not a telescopic lens — as the telephone actually was — but an opinion-fracturing prism that shatters social cohesion by replacing a shared public sphere and its dynamically overlapping discourse with a wall of increasingly concentrated filter bubbles.

Social media is not connective tissue but engineered segmentation that treats each pair of human eyeballs as a discrete unit to be plucked out and separated off from its fellows.

Think about it, it’s a trypophobic’s nightmare.

Or the panopticon in reverse — each user bricked into an individual cell that’s surveilled from the platform controller’s tinted glass tower.

Little wonder lies spread and inflate so quickly via products that are not only hyper-accelerating the rate at which information can travel but deliberately pickling people inside a stew of their own prejudices.

First it panders then it polarizes then it pushes us apart.

SOURCE: https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/27/social-media-is-giving-us-trypophobia/

I get more distant from both parties as I edge closer to exiting political discussions all together. It's just getting retarded on the division between us. The Republicans blame Obama; Dems blame Trump. We're all to blame. And Trey Gowdy is done. I can't say that I blame him for wanting to go back to SC and watch cheesy Hallmark movies with his wife (at least till he finds a Prosecutor's gig).

Quite frankly, attacking a man's drool and suggesting he need a CT scan has become more important than the substance of his speech. On that note, I really would have expected more substance from a Kennedy. I turned to SkyRavn and said, "I was looking forward to his speech and now; Joe's using a lot of words, but not saying anything."

IMO, this has to be one of the best "articles" I've read on the future of social media shaping our society.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,314]

I went back to my newsfeed and JUST read this and had to chuckle.

Quote

"2017 was a strong year for Facebook, but it was also a hard one," Zuckerberg said in a statement. ""In 2018, we're focused on making sure Facebook isn't just fun to use, but also good for people's well-being and for society. We're doing this by encouraging meaningful connections between people rather than passive consumption of content.

"Already last quarter, we made changes to show fewer viral videos to make sure people's time is well spent," he continued.

Facebook's stock fell more than 4 percent in after-hours trading.

The earnings results caps off a tumultuous year for Facebook. The social network is being blamed for creating "filter bubbles" that warp people's sense of reality, because the site's influential and mysterious algorithms tend to show Facebook members content they already agree with.

SOURCE: https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-earnings-fourth-quarter-2017/

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 2,027]

What is the source of most fake news? Researchers at Oxford find out.

comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/

Hmmm - far right wing sources post more fake news on social media than all other sources combined.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BIGUN 1,314]

When you say, "source" it makes it sound like they are the "creators" of fake news; not the sharers as outlined in the study. If I sent you a link to fake news and called it out as fake news; my sharing the link, but not the context of why I sent the link shouldn't be [isn't] included in the study.

Embedded within Stanford research is information on who actually believes fake news more.

Having said that, I found the research from your fellow alums to be interesting and more quantitative than as qualitative as the Stanford research.

If you're interested:

Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election - Stanford University

https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf

Edit: Cause I re-read the sentence and really screwed the pooch on construction.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 2,027]

BIGUN

Having said that, I found the research from your fellow alums to be interesting and more quantitative than as qualitative as the Stanford research.

Are you being deliberately insulting? I attended CAMBRIDGE!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BIGUN 1,314]

Mea Culpa, sir.

Don't know why I had it in my head that you were Oxford and should have re-visited your bio.

Beer or wine is on me next time I get up windy city way.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[jimay 0]

BIGUN

The thread about Democrats and Joe Kennedy III require that I post the following:

Quote

In truth, social media is not a telescopic lens — as the telephone actually was — but an opinion-fracturing prism that shatters social cohesion by replacing a shared public sphere and its dynamically overlapping discourse with a wall of increasingly concentrated filter bubbles.

Social media is not connective tissue but engineered segmentation that treats each pair of human eyeballs as a discrete unit to be plucked out and separated off from its fellows.

Think about it, it’s a trypophobic’s nightmare.

Or the panopticon in reverse — each user bricked into an individual cell that’s surveilled from the platform controller’s tinted glass tower.

Little wonder lies spread and inflate so quickly via products that are not only hyper-accelerating the rate at which information can travel but deliberately pickling people inside a stew of their own prejudices.

First it panders then it polarizes then it pushes us apart.

SOURCE: https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/27/social-media-is-giving-us-trypophobia/

I get more distant from both parties as I edge closer to exiting political discussions all together. It's just getting retarded on the division between us.

The moderates are really the only ones that can make a true difference, but unfortunately they are the minority as always - perhaps that has to change at some point.

At this point however, all we can really hope for is continued deadlocked stagnation until this country can finally come together - just as the system intended.

[wmw999 2,447]

I don't think they're in the minority, they just aren't as loud. Which means that the persuadable don't listen to them. And, because of this, they're "not part of the debate."

I consider myself a moderate, and I'm certainly not part of the debate; every time I start to try to engage, I have to actually listen to the crap that others are spewing, research it to determine if there's any truth, then counter it point by point while articulating what I think based on the new information. While this is going on, some asshole is yelling over me, either about "lock her up" or "cheetohead."

I'm probably not unlike a lot of moderates. It doesn't lend itself to demagoguery, and our celebrity and media-crazed culture responds to demagoguery.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[RonD1120 62]

I agree.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[gowlerk 2,192]

RonD1120

I agree.

Do you consider yourself a moderate?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Phil1111 1,149]

wmw999

I don't think they're in the minority, they just aren't as loud. Which means that the persuadable don't listen to them. And, because of this, they're "not part of the debate."

I consider myself a moderate, and I'm certainly not part of the debate; every time I start to try to engage, I have to actually listen to the crap that others are spewing, research it to determine if there's any truth, then counter it point by point while articulating what I think based on the new information. While this is going on, some asshole is yelling over me, either about "lock her up" or "cheetohead."

I'm probably not unlike a lot of moderates. It doesn't lend itself to demagoguery, and our celebrity and media-crazed culture responds to demagoguery.

Wendy P.

Yes, its the moderates that are motivated to vote. To change party affiliation. To donate, to volunteer for parties in elections. The combined effect to win an election. Hard core from either party may go their entire lives voting the same way.

[RonD1120 62]

gowlerk

***I agree.

Do you consider yourself a moderate?

Sometimes.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[gowlerk 2,192]

RonD1120

******I agree.

Do you consider yourself a moderate?

Sometimes.


Let me just say that in politics, which is what is being discussed here, you are one of the least moderate people I've encountered online. But that may bear only a passing resemblance to the person you portray in real life.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

gowlerk

*********I agree.

Do you consider yourself a moderate?

Sometimes.


Let me just say that in politics, which is what is being discussed here, you are one of the least moderate people I've encountered online. But that may bear only a passing resemblance to the person you portray in real life.

Pfft. EVERYONE considers themselves a 'moderate'.

Everyone.

Just like everyone considers themselves to be an "above average" driver.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[gowlerk 2,192]

Quote

Pfft. EVERYONE considers themselves a 'moderate'.

Everyone.

Just like everyone considers themselves to be an "above average" driver.

I suppose you are correct.After all, what is moderation other than good old common sense? No one believes they are nonsensical.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,991]

>Pfft. EVERYONE considers themselves a 'moderate'.

I was thinking about this. I used to consider myself a moderate; perhaps 10% left of center on one of those graphs you always see posted that try to sort things on a one (or at most two) dimensional graph of political leanings. I based that partly on people I spoke with directly and partly what I saw on line. In skydiving, which (at least in my area) includes a lot of military, I was pretty left. That seemed true on this board as well.

On other forums, and in my professional life, I felt like I was a bit right. The other forums I am on are mostly science and engineering, and it seemed like they trended more liberal than I did. On one environmental board my support of nuclear power got me labeled a "big utility drone." On the political section of a science board I was labeled a "rape advocate" because I thought that women should train as much as they wanted to to fight off people who would assault them, and was labeled a "corporate stooge" for my objection to higher minimum wages. (Apparently I was just trying to line my pockets with the stolen wages of the poor.) My positions on abortion, energy, government size, policy implementation and gun rights all seemed to push me into the "conservative" pigeonhole on those forums.

So here is where I am supposed to post "so I'm a moderate" and the right wingers here post "ironey meter Exploded!"

But lately I don't feel like a moderate. The first time I really noticed this was at a March for Science last year. It looked like Trump was going to cut a lot of science funding, and I got some people to go to a local march to show our support for science research. And I immediately got pushback from some people here because I was going to an "anti-Trump" rally.

And that was just bizarre. Our company was founded on science - specifically on the work of Claude Shannon, Dmitry Ageev, Andy Viterbi, and yes even Hedy Lamarr, one of the most unlikely inventors ever. And through that work we invented a new way to communicate over the airwaves. We support science a lot, through science and engineering festivals, STEM programs, WISE programs and through funding basic research at universities. The idea that science was now some polarizing political event was just bizarre; like claiming that tipping 20% was elitist and liberal because normal people don't do math.

At the parade itself I saw a fair number of counter-protesters, all supporting Trump. And if science was that central to my life, and was incompatible with the new government - did that mean that I was more extreme than I thought I was?

Then later that year I went to our Pride parade here in San Diego. Our company has a big presence there, and I went to support the LGBT people who work with me and for me, and to support the people I work with who have LGBT family members. Support for gay rights has been something that seems inevitable; societies evolve with time and it's usually in the direction of more rights for everyone as old constraints (i.e. having enough kids so that a few of them survive to adulthood to have their own families) are removed. That was an area where I knew I was pretty far left, but society was slowly moving in that direction, so in that respect my views were becoming more mainstream. It sure seemed that way at the parade in years past, with fewer and fewer counterprotesters and more people "out" among the spectators.

But this year there were a lot _more_ counterprotesters. (And they said not to engage them, but the parade stalled right across from the biggest group of them; it was hard not to.) Was I moving to the left again? Or perhaps more accurately, NOT moving while society slid a bit more to the right?

So nowadays I do feel more like an extremist and less like a moderate. But for bizarre reasons. I think that assaulting women is wrong, and the fact that it's been covered up for so long by male-dominated factions of society is pretty sad. And now that makes me an anti-Trump extremist. I think that science and math education are very important; same thing - it means I am anti-Trump. Climate change? Gay rights? Minority rights? Energy? A lot of things that I thought I was close to center on (if public discourse is any indication) I now seem to be farther away on.

So I don't think I'm a moderate nowadays, although I also don't feel like I've changed much. (I am also definitely not a better-than-average driver most of the time; as distractions go, having a 3 year old and 6 year old in the back seat constantly asking questions and demanding changes to the music has got to be worse than a cellphone.)

[RonD1120 62]

I enjoyed reading your explanation. Good job!

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[wmw999 2,447]

I rather doubt anyone is a moderate across the board, any more than they’re conservative or liberal across the board. Because they’d be a cartoon, and anyway, someone out there would find a way to torture their beliefs into not being conservative or liberal enough.
They’re all relative terms. Kind of like “good person.” You often know one when you see them, but that doesn’t mean they’re good all the time.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

wmw999

I rather doubt anyone is a moderate across the board, any more than they’re conservative or liberal across the board. Because they’d be a cartoon, and anyway, someone out there would find a way to torture their beliefs into not being conservative or liberal enough.
They’re all relative terms. Kind of like “good person.” You often know one when you see them, but that doesn’t mean they’re good all the time.

Wendy P.

Quite correct. I am considered quite conservative in Canada. Am actual a member of the federal conservative party. I would be a Democrat in the US, specially in the current state of the two parties in the US.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi Bill,

Quote

. . . having a 3 year old and 6 year old in the back seat . . .

Yea, but life does not get better than that. BTDT,

Jerry Baumchen

[BIGUN 1,314]

Quote

...perhaps 10% left of center on one of those graphs you always see posted that try to sort things on a one (or at most two) dimensional graph of political leanings.

I believe this to be accurate about you. I've taken similar tests showing me to be about ten percent right of center. Perhaps it was my growing up in a different time where we had family members in the Democratic Party (including Mom for a long time) and my not getting involved in politics much until I joined the military, was in for a month when Nixon resigned (and, now my butt's seriously on the line), taking the PoliSci 101 class in college that fall, then getting shipped to Germany and standing toe-to-toe with the Baader-Meinhof gang and the Red Army faction that pulled me to the right.

There are things that I respect about both parties and things I disagree with about both parties. Within my own party; I sometimes get very annoyed at the lack of tolerance. I also grew up in a time when gays were "F****ts" and to be hated. My position has always been based on philosophy and science. Philosophically, if we believe in the pursuit of happiness and choice; then who are we to deny that. Scientifically, if one comes back with any kind of gay marker; then it's not their choice to be gay. In either case; I'm accepting of what you are or want to be. My party doesn't believe that.

My main issue with the left is abortion. If we define death as the heart stopping (or absence of brain activity) Conversely, we should believe that life starts with the same. How does the left so vehemently petition against the death penalty; but support abortion at such a late trimester. Philosophically, I disagree with the death penalty because as you've heard me say, "A permanent solution demands a perfect process and we don't have that."

In the end, I believe there are more moderates than middle to extreme rights and lefts. There are two variables to consider. One is - the extremes get the publicity. The second is; Moderates can have certain philosophical or scientific markers that they are more adamant about than all the rest of their party's list of requirements to be a card carrying member.

If both parties have ten items on their Ben Franklin list and you pulse more on two or three of them; then you're a moderate with party leanings. I would venture to say there's more people identifying with a particular party not because they've researched ALL the issues on the party platform - But, because their family or friends identify with certain issues.

Quote

having a 3 year old and 6 year old in the back seat

Wow. And, my having a ten year old back there means that we haven't got together in that long. I do miss our discussions around the bonfire. You always gave me great pause - scientifically.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 2,991]

>There are things that I respect about both parties and things I disagree with
>about both parties.

For me the things I disagree with in both parties outweigh the things I respect about both (which is why I am registered as an independent now.) They both screw up at about the same rate - they both abandon their stated principles at the drop of a hat, both are willing to bargain away rights for power, both are far more interested in keeping their own status quo than in acting to change injustice or solve looming problems - and both want to spend more money than we have.

One of the reasons I tend to lean democratic is that while they screw up at about the same rate as republicans, their screwups tend to involve spending too much money on the poor (with all the problems that entails), granting too many rights to the disadvantaged (i.e. all the overreaches of affirmative action) and raising taxes too much to pay for that all. Which to me is preferable to screwing up by denying rights to the disadvantaged, or spending too much money on weapons and war, and spending all that money without having any way to pay it back.

Needless to say a more balanced approach to _all_ of the above would be best.

>My main issue with the left is abortion. If we define death as the heart stopping
>(or absence of brain activity) Conversely, we should believe that life starts with the
>same. How does the left so vehemently petition against the death penalty; but
>support abortion at such a late trimester. Philosophically, I disagree with the death
>penalty because as you've heard me say, "A permanent solution demands a
>perfect process and we don't have that."

I feel mostly the same way. I strongly disagree with the idea of abortion, and would try to talk anyone I knew out of it, but I am also leery enough of the government's ability to make good personal decisions for people that I am glad it is (mostly) up to the woman involved. RvW stated that for the first trimester the right to abortion is protected. After that states can regulate - starting with deciding whether abortion is in the interest of maternal health, and after viability can outlaw it completely. That seems like a reasonable compromise.

[BIGUN 1,314]

Quote

I am registered as an independent now.

My only excuse for not having done it sooner was the primaries. I may need to re-think that at this point.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.