Economic Left/Right: -7.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64
Interesting. I wasn't expecting to see my previous trend continue; I kinda expected a slight rightward drift, not a leftward one.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm beginning to think that, somehow, world affairs are pushing our opinions both to a more socialist concept of economy, and just like Jason said, more distrustful of those in positions of power.
But I also think that world affairs on themselves didn't provoke that change in opinions. We all are getting our news on the web, right? But not only from mainstream media, but also from blogs, social networks, videos uploaded by the web users... The flurry of information might be afftecting the way we were thinking, a set of ideas modeled more in the shape the mainstream media intended (and this doesn't mean it's always intentional from the media to create a mindset, but it's obvious by now that the fact exists), but now, we're more in contact with different points of view, and more exposed to the (dare I say) negative consequences of economic and political management, thanks to that change in exposure to the news.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
For the record, I've *never* trusted anyone in power. Mostly because you generally shouldn't trust the type of person that seeks power in the first place.
As for acquiring a socialist viewpoint...personally I don't think socialism is workable in the long run, however appealing it might look from the POV of a socio-economic nadir.
Not that pure capitalism works either. I mean if things continue as they are then we'll just end up rich back in a feudal society with a bunch of fat, moronic aristocrats running everything...we're probably not so far from that as it is. Such in the nature of entrenched bureaucracy.
posted
Ah yes, as Douglas Adams so succinctly put it: "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Doctor Jonas: I'm beginning to think that, somehow, world affairs are pushing our opinions both to a more socialist concept of economy, and just like Jason said, more distrustful of those in positions of power.
But I also think that world affairs on themselves didn't provoke that change in opinions. We all are getting our news on the web, right? But not only from mainstream media, but also from blogs, social networks, videos uploaded by the web users... The flurry of information might be afftecting the way we were thinking, a set of ideas modeled more in the shape the mainstream media intended (and this doesn't mean it's always intentional from the media to create a mindset, but it's obvious by now that the fact exists), but now, we're more in contact with different points of view, and more exposed to the (dare I say) negative consequences of economic and political management, thanks to that change in exposure to the news.
I do agree with all that but I'm looking at things through a slightly different perspective- American (and I suspect the world's) perceptions are swayed more by the "media barons" that control the news than the actual facts themselves- you can read a lot of the same spin towards wars or against an administration going back to the early 1900's (at least) when we got such manufactured crisis as the Spanish American War.
Many of the same fear-based talking points are still used today- oh, the boogeyman threat that acts a fulcrum to action is a rotating foreign menace (Muslim extremists instead of Spainard imperialists or Maoist commies, for example), but the song has the same beat and the dance moves are very familliar.
Today's media barons- the Bloombergs and Murdochs, Koch Brothers and whoever else are part of the same sort of clique that existed at the turn of the last century...and their public visibility will wax and wane from public perception much the same as their predecessors did, with new players assuming old roles.
If anything, it's amazing how very much like our 1900's ancestors we still are in opinion and gulibility- all the same campaign talking points, media hysteria and editorials and even celebrity gossip to sell news when the world stage seems unpalatable.
All this is not to suggest some long-term conspiracy- far from it. It's people with wealth exerting their influence by all means available to them for their own ends- and it's not all mindless selfishness either: I'm cerain that people like David Koch honestly feel justified in their actions and personal morals.
As Rev points out,"Such in the nature of entrenched bureaucracy".
Thus the real question becomes- how do we, as a country, move out of this cycle? How would we even know that trying to change is not itself part of the cycle- today's OWS gatherings paralleling the 60's protests during time of war, etc.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: For the record, I've *never* trusted anyone in power. Mostly because you generally shouldn't trust the type of person that seeks power in the first place.
As a friend of mine puts it, there are lots of people who go into politics to cleanse the cesspool of corruption and realize they like the water just fine how it is.
And I used that Douglas Adams quote in a final exam once. Did pretty well for myself.
-------------------- "Don't fight forces; use them." --R. Buckminster Fuller
posted
Amazing how much our positions have changed over the years- many of us hurtling to the lower left of the compass...with a few zig zagging all over.
I wonder, if we looked at what we were up to in each recorded year, would we find that personal or external events more shaped our political opinions? After all, most of the questions are not policy specific...which makes it such a useful tool: cutting out bias towards a party or group.
Most people (supposedly) become more conservative as they get older, but we're bucking that trend (generally).
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I tend to think personal wealth has about as much to do with conservatism as age does. That plus upbringing and your immediate day-to-day environment of course. I don't put much stock in news sources having much of an overt influence on a person's outlook. In my experience people tend to seek out a source of information who's interpretation of reality compliments their own.
Personally I'm always suspicious of any article I agree with too much. Or at least feels like it's playing to my prejudices a little too closely.
"I don't put much stock in news sources having much of an overt influence on a person's outlook. In my experience people tend to seek out a source of information who's interpretation of reality compliments their own."
They do, of course, but I think it still contributes. If you have an opinion, and you seek out sources which support that opinion, it will serve to make that opinion stronger.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
^Uncontested. Nevertheless, you have to already think a certain way (whichever way that may be) in the first place. All these news sources do in re-enforce what's already there. Not to say that people can't be manipulated of course, far from it.
posted
As Newt cold tell you, negative enforcment stays with the news cycle far more than anything positive- call them all traitors!
The more slanderous and outrageous the accuzation, the more time and energy the accused has to spend defending against it....and the name of the mudslinger rarely sticks like the mud itself. Here's Newt's own words on how to manipulate the issues.
For fun, see how mant times an hour Fox uses these terms.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
