We are our own worst enemy. Personally, what I think is the driver of all this negative emotion in the US and elsewhere are the conflict merchants. The social media phenomena echoes and amplifies these emotions and ratchets up the temperature. A conflict merchant is a media outlet, politician, or public figure that uses inflammatory rhetoric to instill negative emotions such as hate, fear, anger, mistrust, and division in their audience for profit or power. It used to be that politicians and the media did the exact opposite. They tamped down the flames when tense situations arose and that helped keep the weak minded masses in line. Now, these conflict merchants and the 24 hour news cycle are using any event, no matter how insignificant, to sell their wares. The result is that every headline or sound bite out of these merchants is filled with aggressive language that increases the emotional temperature in the country. Typically, the targets of these merchants is usually a single individual or group that generally has very little to do with the issue. Targeting the other side, making it seem like it's all the fault of one group, is a key tactic that's used over and over again. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag and stopping these conflict merchants from destroying the country is going to be impossible. The money is just too easy. Conflict merchants are corollary to the age old saying "A fool and his money are soon parted." Conflict merchants come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and political backgrounds. Both the extreme left and right use the same tactics against each other, which means nothing can ever get accomplished. Conflict is a product that's cheap to produce and which is consumed voraciously by the weak minded masses.
Largely agree. And I blame the media. About 15 years ago they stopped reporting the news and instead tried to start making it. This is why when certain media organisations get hijacked by one side or the other, they have much more influence over the lazy than they ever used to. By lazy, I mean people whom only get their "news" from one or two sources. In Oz, it could be the ABC or channel 10, or 9, or 7, or The Guardian, or any social media if you're a lefty. Or if you're a righty; Sky and.... ummmm..... Bottom line is, the media are failing to do their job properly and differentiate between news and opinion. And most of the idiot public with the attention span of a goldfish are too lazy to care. Not to mention the power of wanting to be part of "the group" has never been stronger than now.
Nice summation of the problem with social media, almost being a throwback to Hitler and how he stirred up the emotions of a mostly intelligent people by picking the Jews as the root of all evil and plunging the world into war. It's the old saying, if you don't recall history you are doomed to repeat it and I fear with the genie out of the bottle with social media we are doomed to stir up bad emotions which may only be "solved" by war ..... but the next WW will be the last as we now have enough firepower to destroy the world several times over
The fault is ENTIRELY people who are too lazy to investigate anything for themselves it is easier than ever before to find actual dats (from companies, parties, government records etc) but people justgo to their ‘preferrred’ social media to get their preferences confirmed. For the record, I use news outlets to check what are the topics under discussion, then do my own digging on the subject to see the pros and cons. Todays example: Japanese girl who has been in Aus for years on a student visa (but actulally mostly playing rugby - up to representing Aus nationally ) complaining they won’t renew her student visa. Solution is simple - go home to Japan and apply to emmigrate. NO immigration visa can be processed while you are in the country. She’s been here on a student visa since 2007... is now a high school teacher.
Yep - and given current shortages, she ain't going to struggle coming back in. It's very unusual for Japanese to emigrate to a foreign country - they love their homeland sooooo much.
Interesting article on the plummeting trust levels for “institutions”, and the media in particular. Trigger warning: it’s a conservatives view… Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
You got it in one - Japanese nationals over 22 years have to CHOOSE between Japanese and any other passport option. https://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/information/tcon-01.html Trying to hedge her bets and get the benefit of playing rugby for Aus and not giving up her Japanese rights. BTW, I want to know how someone on a student visa gets a job as a high school teacher? Nothing against this girl if she wants to emigrate here, but do it by the rules and stop trying to get public sympathy for a special deal... For the record, I think Australia should do similar - choose Australia or live with the consequences (and as a side note, watch how many dual-British passport holders drop them now they have no access to Europe). And this liitle example is the PERFECT case of how a breathless media hysteria can be distilled in a few simple searches...
Well for a start, neither the actual figures from the current poll were given, not any actual figures form the previous poll quoted; not to mention little gems like ‘causation’ where they imply trust in big business has dropped due to ‘woke, virtue signally cowards’ without a shred of supporting evidence... shall I continue?
For sure. But to debunk any of it you'll need to provide the same evidence you demand of the writer. And if you disagree with his reasoning, what is your alternative theory? Otherwise, you're effectively just saying "rubbish", and we now how much credibility that response has.
Gee that was really hard to find... https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx Shall I continue?
There’s no ‘alternative theory’ it’s just clickbait junk cherry picked from a poll- go and read the Ctual poll results yourself: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx You prove my point so neatly - you are happy to swallow an article which fits your views without question, even when the REAL facts are only a click away. Until people STOP, READ, THINK, and CHECK for themselves, this sort of junk just keeps reeling in cash from the chumps who on it (directly or indirectly). Stop blaming the media - blame the people who suck it up.
So far, two perfectly predictable responses from the lefties (and yes I know you're joking. Sort of...) ie. An emotional response rather than a factual one.
I linked the poll he quotes to make it easier for you. Please point out which parts of the poll don't agree with what he wrote. If you can't be bothered, I'll do it for you. But, you're the one making the claim.
BTW, the author is a well-known law professor. I reckon he'd be fairly sure that his facts and figures are accurate before putting forth a piece for publication. As for his theorys, as I said, they are his. What are yours?
Trying looking at it - your article’s breathless news about ‘big business’ being the least trusted forgets to mention that BB hasn’t rated above 30% since 1979!
A predictably emotional response. Re "Big Business", he said: "Big business (the woke, virtue-signalling cowards who cave in to cancel culture) came third lowest of all" Note I didn't edit that to suit my purposes, and also how obviously it proves your statement about it being the "least trusted" false. Again, which part of that statement is not factual? And how is it "breathless news"? It appears to be a simple statement of fact with a theory for why it is so splice in.
Obviously you don't understand the difference between an opinion piece and news. Not surprising if you get your "news" from the ABC or The Project. I note again that you have failed to successfully show that any of the facts he presented are wrong. Here is what you originally said "Well for a start, neither the actual figures from the current poll were given, not (sic) any actual figures form the previous poll quoted; not to mention little gems like ‘causation’ where they imply trust in big business has dropped due to ‘woke, virtue signally cowards’ without a shred of supporting evidence... shall I continue?" Every single one of the statements you have claimed above were wrong has been proven to be, in fact, true. The part of what he wrote that is obviously opinion is something that an "opinion writer" is quite entitled to do. And you are entitled to put forth an alternative opinion for why trust in big business is so low, and declining. What is it?
