Ah, yes, the politics of friendship. Or, put another way, the idea that politics defines your friendship. At least for some people. I try not to allow it to affect my friendships; though, to be fair, I have never been above riding someone about their political views. But I would like to think I have never defined my friendships based on political views.
However, it is something that has become a glaring issue in my opinion. I have friends and family members who define their friendships based on their political views and wanting to associate only with politically like-minded individuals. I don't get it and, quite frankly, find it to be a very disturbing concern. Everyone has political views (particularly in the US) and there is a strong vein of politics that permeates American lives because of our history. Further, I am sure that the sense of polarization that is so prevalent today is nothing new and has existed throughout the short history of the US. However, that should still not pose the issue that it does with so many non-political friends and associates of mine.
A short thirty years ago (during the heyday of Reagan), there was a lot of political vitriol between the two political parties in the US, the Republicans and Democrats. Yet, at the end of the day, I remember the stories of the two main leaders of their respective parties (Reagan and Tip O'Neil of the Democrats who was the then-Speaker of the House) getting together to have drinks and engage in friendly conversation. These were the same two men who would put forth great criticisms of each other and their respective views on the issues of the day but they also realized that it was as much political theatre and did not allow it to keep them from being able to interact on other levels for the benefit of each other and the country as a whole. Today, however, the two parties batter each other to a degree that comes close to rivaling the demonization that preceded the genocidal massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. And that occurs just on the political level. However, what has followed today is a similar level of demonization on a non-political level by adherents of the various parties.
I have friends and family who will not speak to each other because they hold different political views. Some of them are on the political right and only watch Fox News because it is "fair and balanced" and read the National Review while anything else represents only the political left (those damn liberals!). Some are on the political left and only watch MSNBC and read Mother Jones while abhorring Fox News for being biased (stupid retarded conservatives!). And they will only associate with people who hold similar viewpoints while lambasting those who hold divergent opinions without ever truly attempting to understand them, let alone trying to find a middle ground. The result, of course, is a stark inability to find common ground on a personal level that could be used to help create a framework to help move them (and the country as a whole) forward. This deliberate limitation is amazing and completely idiotic to me. Why would people choose to limit themselves from learning from or about others? I have never understood this and the politicization of these relationships makes it even more difficult to fathom.
Of course, I see this because I tend to adhere to a more moderate set of views that crosses over into both major party platforms so I am not beholden to one or the others. I also prefer to learn as much as I can and do not limit myself to a single source of information - though I also am aware of the various biases that creep up in what passes for "news reporting" today. But the idea that I would allow my political views to dictate my friendships (none of which are "political") is abhorrent to me. And this is in spite of the fact that my degree is in Political Science and I have a fairly well-grounded knowledge base on a number of subjects.
I simply want to take some of these people (who will openly admit to such selective "friendships") and throttle them while asking them what the heck they are thinking in doing such a thing! Maybe I am just an anachronistic relic of an earlier age or an optimist? I hope not. I'd be curious for the feedback of others on this.
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2013
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Random Thoughts
A couple of things that I've overheard recently that I found interesting:
Spike Lee posting the address of someone who he thought was George Zimmerman (responsible for the shooting of Trayvon Martin) - and it ends up being the address of an elderly couple completely unrelated to Zimmerman or Martin. Sure, he apologized for it and settled with the couple, to whom he called and apologized personally, but the problem was that he felt it was ok to post anyone's address on Twitter - particularly when you have 240,000+ followers who may think it is ok to do whatever they want with the address. And, considering the inflamed passions that have resulted from the Zimmerman-Martin case, surely he didn't think that people were going to be sending polite letters to Mr. Zimmerman. No matter where an individual stands on the case, publicly posting someone's address is bound to create another situation that will, in most cases, only worsen it. And the problem with the immediacy of Twitter is that such a mistake is very difficult to take back or rectify once it has been committed.
The same goes for baseball players who post the personal phone numbers of their former teammates. What made CJ Wilson think that such a prank (as he described it) was acceptable is up for debate but it was clearly - and understandably - not well-received by Mike Napoli. In this case, Napoli can simply get a new phone number and he can get on with his life (without being harassed by the numerousidiots, er, people who think its acceptable to compound the tweeting "mistake" by actually calling the number). But as people continue to seek the fame that is so readily accessible by the online world where fame is counted in the number of followers/friends/viral videos a person has, there must be a point where common sense will kick in and they will realize that there are very real consequences for their actions. I used to think that the Human Flesh Search Engine was only a Chinese concern but I worry it is not so limiting and fear that the consequences will become all too real all too soon.
Along the same lines of technology concerns (aside: is it good or bad that a techie such as myself is worried about these technical advances?), this article on flash trading was both interesting and worrying. These systems that are being developed are making calculations and decisions that have very real impact on the real world in terms of financial transactions faster than the human mind can do, let alone be able to stop in time before they become reality. When I first read this, I kept thinking this must be the first version of Skynet where the machines begin to operate outside the immediate control of human hands and minds. The understanding that these machines are making these decisions (as it relates to trading) with little apparent understanding on the part of their human "masters" is just slightly frightening. I always enjoy when the inner workings of an application and the logic behind them are black boxes to the people who allegedly operate them. Yep, nothing to see here, please move along...
Finally, something to consider. Without doing a Google search, what were the headlines three days ago? Even one headline? What was the related story? I would be willing to bet that most people can't come up with a single headline. Which leads me to wonder about this 24 hour news cycle that we go through and whether it is sensory overload and results in a situation where people actually learn nothing. Life today, in the 24 hour news cycle, is a constant barrage of information that people remember so long as it's being blasted at them continuously and only stays in residual memory for so long as it's a headline. Immediately thereafter, it is discarded and nothing is truly learned until the next time it makes a headline. And forget about context - that only comes if people care to dig deeper into the stories and learn more - and that doesn't often happen. So, quick, let's go see CNN Headline News (which is only a very small selection of actual news stories and typically very little that has anything to do with the average person - "OMG, a kid fell down a well!" or "OMG, someone contracted this really weird disease that affects one in 2 billion people - everyone PANIC NOW!") and see how much we retain until tomorrow.
Spike Lee posting the address of someone who he thought was George Zimmerman (responsible for the shooting of Trayvon Martin) - and it ends up being the address of an elderly couple completely unrelated to Zimmerman or Martin. Sure, he apologized for it and settled with the couple, to whom he called and apologized personally, but the problem was that he felt it was ok to post anyone's address on Twitter - particularly when you have 240,000+ followers who may think it is ok to do whatever they want with the address. And, considering the inflamed passions that have resulted from the Zimmerman-Martin case, surely he didn't think that people were going to be sending polite letters to Mr. Zimmerman. No matter where an individual stands on the case, publicly posting someone's address is bound to create another situation that will, in most cases, only worsen it. And the problem with the immediacy of Twitter is that such a mistake is very difficult to take back or rectify once it has been committed.
The same goes for baseball players who post the personal phone numbers of their former teammates. What made CJ Wilson think that such a prank (as he described it) was acceptable is up for debate but it was clearly - and understandably - not well-received by Mike Napoli. In this case, Napoli can simply get a new phone number and he can get on with his life (without being harassed by the numerous
Along the same lines of technology concerns (aside: is it good or bad that a techie such as myself is worried about these technical advances?), this article on flash trading was both interesting and worrying. These systems that are being developed are making calculations and decisions that have very real impact on the real world in terms of financial transactions faster than the human mind can do, let alone be able to stop in time before they become reality. When I first read this, I kept thinking this must be the first version of Skynet where the machines begin to operate outside the immediate control of human hands and minds. The understanding that these machines are making these decisions (as it relates to trading) with little apparent understanding on the part of their human "masters" is just slightly frightening. I always enjoy when the inner workings of an application and the logic behind them are black boxes to the people who allegedly operate them. Yep, nothing to see here, please move along...
Finally, something to consider. Without doing a Google search, what were the headlines three days ago? Even one headline? What was the related story? I would be willing to bet that most people can't come up with a single headline. Which leads me to wonder about this 24 hour news cycle that we go through and whether it is sensory overload and results in a situation where people actually learn nothing. Life today, in the 24 hour news cycle, is a constant barrage of information that people remember so long as it's being blasted at them continuously and only stays in residual memory for so long as it's a headline. Immediately thereafter, it is discarded and nothing is truly learned until the next time it makes a headline. And forget about context - that only comes if people care to dig deeper into the stories and learn more - and that doesn't often happen. So, quick, let's go see CNN Headline News (which is only a very small selection of actual news stories and typically very little that has anything to do with the average person - "OMG, a kid fell down a well!" or "OMG, someone contracted this really weird disease that affects one in 2 billion people - everyone PANIC NOW!") and see how much we retain until tomorrow.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
War and Demonization
I was recently getting my car worked on at the local dealership and, while waiting, ended up watching some of Fox News. Unlike many people, Fox News does not bother me most of the time; if anything, I view it as the anti-MSNBC. In other words, I recognize that it has a specific editorial bent and watch it with that in mind.
On that particular day, they were covering the recent protests in Egypt and specifically addressing their concerns regarding the possibility that the Mubarak regime would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. With little context other than the repeated use of the phrase "Muslim" Brotherhood expressed in a dark and sinister tone, anyone whose knowledge of the world was garnered only from Fox News (and I know more than a few) would automatically infer that this was bad and therefore to be avoided. Another inferred suggestion was that the US should instead support the Mubarak regime at all costs because it was secular and not based on Islam (not to mention his support of a peace treaty with Israel).
But it is this directly implied reference to the negative aspects of Islam (via the twisted ideology of Islamist fanaticism) with the very term of "Muslim" that provokes a sad reminder of the past - one that has been oft-repeated and still is not learned from. Or, more precisely, it has not been learned from in the context of preventing it from recurring. Unfortunately, those who have learned from it have discerned that it continues to work in spite of its negative historical precedents. The lesson, of course, is that in order to foster a willingness to fight against an enemy, it is vitally important to demonize that enemy. And when I say demonize, I mean to classify your enemy as being less than human, as being not worth consideration or insignificant, as being nothing more than an object to be destroyed. After all, it is always far easier to kill someone when you do not consider them to be human or worth the effort to consider why you should not kill them on someone else's orders. And such a demonization can be done based on ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, religion, national standard, or any other subjective measure; there are no limits to this classification.
The historical precedents within just the last century are staggering when we consider that they still continue today. Hitler and his rabid persecution of the Jews during the 1930's and 40's are perhaps the clearest example - but not the only ones. We also have the persecution of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, the massacres of Kosovars by Serbians in the mid 1990's, the slaughter of Chinese, Koreans and other Asians by the Japanese during WWII and the attacks against civilians (perceived to be enemy supporters) in Vietnam by the United States in the 1960's. This does not include other events that could be similarly classified - China during the Cultural Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, nor incidents that occurred under Western colonial rule throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
The key factor that all of those times mentioned above have in common is the consistent dehumanization that took place prior to and during each of them. The view that your enemies were lesser than you whether by virtue of color, culture, religion or political bent was the key factor in energizing the supporters of a given leader to be willing to attack, hurt and kill the "enemy". It is easy to want to destroy something that you do not understand - I have an abhorrent hatred of cockroaches and would sooner kill one than look at it and I do have a general understanding of cockroaches. When your enemies are designated as cockroaches, you no longer see them as human and have less compunction about hurting them (this example is particular to 1994 Rwanda and the treatment of the Tutsis). This is reinforced by ensuring a clear separation and delineation of your enemies (such as the Jews in Germany who were forced to identify themselves as such by the wearing of a yellow star) and making certain there is no mixing that might lead to a recognition that your opponents are very similar to yourself. Referring to your enemy in negative stereotypes and not understanding their point of view (the US attitude toward its enemies in Vietnam as well as the Japanese during World War II) leads to an unbridled arrogance that is hard to overcome and bridge the gaps between.
Yet the one way to overcome this sort of demonization is to open the lines of communication between various groups and allow people to be more than just a stereotype. When your only understanding of someone different from you is a stereotype, then it is not difficult to carry that image into a negative portrayal that can easily be twisted into something that inevitably becomes far more dangerous. But the responsibility for breaking through the barriers separating groups lies with everyone - not on the other people. Indeed, when it relies on other people, that is where the path toward demonization begins. Find someone who is different and learn how to prevent those barriers from being erected in the first place.
(Special thanks to FP for editing assistance. Any errors are mine alone.)
On that particular day, they were covering the recent protests in Egypt and specifically addressing their concerns regarding the possibility that the Mubarak regime would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. With little context other than the repeated use of the phrase "Muslim" Brotherhood expressed in a dark and sinister tone, anyone whose knowledge of the world was garnered only from Fox News (and I know more than a few) would automatically infer that this was bad and therefore to be avoided. Another inferred suggestion was that the US should instead support the Mubarak regime at all costs because it was secular and not based on Islam (not to mention his support of a peace treaty with Israel).
But it is this directly implied reference to the negative aspects of Islam (via the twisted ideology of Islamist fanaticism) with the very term of "Muslim" that provokes a sad reminder of the past - one that has been oft-repeated and still is not learned from. Or, more precisely, it has not been learned from in the context of preventing it from recurring. Unfortunately, those who have learned from it have discerned that it continues to work in spite of its negative historical precedents. The lesson, of course, is that in order to foster a willingness to fight against an enemy, it is vitally important to demonize that enemy. And when I say demonize, I mean to classify your enemy as being less than human, as being not worth consideration or insignificant, as being nothing more than an object to be destroyed. After all, it is always far easier to kill someone when you do not consider them to be human or worth the effort to consider why you should not kill them on someone else's orders. And such a demonization can be done based on ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, religion, national standard, or any other subjective measure; there are no limits to this classification.
The historical precedents within just the last century are staggering when we consider that they still continue today. Hitler and his rabid persecution of the Jews during the 1930's and 40's are perhaps the clearest example - but not the only ones. We also have the persecution of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, the massacres of Kosovars by Serbians in the mid 1990's, the slaughter of Chinese, Koreans and other Asians by the Japanese during WWII and the attacks against civilians (perceived to be enemy supporters) in Vietnam by the United States in the 1960's. This does not include other events that could be similarly classified - China during the Cultural Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, nor incidents that occurred under Western colonial rule throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
The key factor that all of those times mentioned above have in common is the consistent dehumanization that took place prior to and during each of them. The view that your enemies were lesser than you whether by virtue of color, culture, religion or political bent was the key factor in energizing the supporters of a given leader to be willing to attack, hurt and kill the "enemy". It is easy to want to destroy something that you do not understand - I have an abhorrent hatred of cockroaches and would sooner kill one than look at it and I do have a general understanding of cockroaches. When your enemies are designated as cockroaches, you no longer see them as human and have less compunction about hurting them (this example is particular to 1994 Rwanda and the treatment of the Tutsis). This is reinforced by ensuring a clear separation and delineation of your enemies (such as the Jews in Germany who were forced to identify themselves as such by the wearing of a yellow star) and making certain there is no mixing that might lead to a recognition that your opponents are very similar to yourself. Referring to your enemy in negative stereotypes and not understanding their point of view (the US attitude toward its enemies in Vietnam as well as the Japanese during World War II) leads to an unbridled arrogance that is hard to overcome and bridge the gaps between.
Yet the one way to overcome this sort of demonization is to open the lines of communication between various groups and allow people to be more than just a stereotype. When your only understanding of someone different from you is a stereotype, then it is not difficult to carry that image into a negative portrayal that can easily be twisted into something that inevitably becomes far more dangerous. But the responsibility for breaking through the barriers separating groups lies with everyone - not on the other people. Indeed, when it relies on other people, that is where the path toward demonization begins. Find someone who is different and learn how to prevent those barriers from being erected in the first place.
(Special thanks to FP for editing assistance. Any errors are mine alone.)
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Consumer News
Fox News has published a list of news stories that they claim did not make it to the mainstream media during the course of 2009. I tend to follow a number of news sites (when I have time which, quite honestly, has not been so much recently) and I have to admit that some of the stories in the Fox story were hardly prevalent in some of the more mainstream news sites - or at least not above the fold.
I guess an argument could be made that the stories would more favorably fit the ideology of Fox News and therefore would likely be more high-profile there as a result - with the correlated belief that they would then be less high-profile on sites with a different editorial bent. But that does not excuse the fact that they were not reported (or at least not extensively) elsewhere. It is even more egregious when there was certainly no shortage of news footage given to the death of Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and his infidelities, the balloon boy and his family and any number of sundry celebrities. Quite frankly, there are tabloids for that sort of "news" but the self-professed news channels have been sorely lacking and there is little wonder that more people use Comedy Central's The Daily Show and less-than-biased blogs to get their news than they do the traditional news outlets.
It is time to return to an era where the media again returns to take responsibility for providing the public with the facts and news surrounding them rather than pandering to a consumerist ideology more beholden to the bottom line rather than the celebrity lifestyles that pass for news today.
I guess an argument could be made that the stories would more favorably fit the ideology of Fox News and therefore would likely be more high-profile there as a result - with the correlated belief that they would then be less high-profile on sites with a different editorial bent. But that does not excuse the fact that they were not reported (or at least not extensively) elsewhere. It is even more egregious when there was certainly no shortage of news footage given to the death of Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and his infidelities, the balloon boy and his family and any number of sundry celebrities. Quite frankly, there are tabloids for that sort of "news" but the self-professed news channels have been sorely lacking and there is little wonder that more people use Comedy Central's The Daily Show and less-than-biased blogs to get their news than they do the traditional news outlets.
It is time to return to an era where the media again returns to take responsibility for providing the public with the facts and news surrounding them rather than pandering to a consumerist ideology more beholden to the bottom line rather than the celebrity lifestyles that pass for news today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)