Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can someone explain to me what the platitude "a national conversation" is supposed to mean exactly? I have been hearing every five minutes that "we need to have a national conversation" about (fill in the blank).
Does this mean that we need the TV and radio media "pundits" and talking heads to go on for days and days (like they already do) about whatever is the outrage of moment? That is not a "national conversation" imo, that is the status quo of our stupid media and a lame attempt at justifying their existence. The media has no "conversation", they have side A pitted against side B in a 4 minute format, and often they (the media) stack the argument in favor of either A or B, whichever suits their networks agenda and fan base.
A "national conversation" seems to imply Americans across the nation can have a conversation with one another. With 300 million plus people, this is simply not possible except at the ballot box. If they mean to imply that we need to sit around the dinner table with our friends and family discussing current events, many (if not most) of us already do. "National conversation" seems to be nothing more than some sort of reinforcement that we "need" our stupid, reactionary media to go on and on for days and days, often creating the story and certainly creating "the narrative". Basically it seems to mean that we need to keep things exactly as they are.
The only national conversation possible are our national elections. Local elections give one a local conversation, state elections give one a state conversation etc.
I think a national conversation involves not only talking to your friends and family at the dinner table, but talking to people who have differing opinions than you do so both sides can start understanding each other. It's about both sides trying to come to an understanding to develop tolerance. People can't develop a broader understanding they only talk to like-minded friends and family and watch only the news stations that support our political leanings. This applies to both sides.
Can someone explain to me what the platitude "a national conversation" is supposed to mean exactly? I have been hearing every five minutes that "we need to have a national conversation" about (fill in the blank).
Does this mean that we need the TV and radio media "pundits" and talking heads to go on for days and days (like they already do) about whatever is the outrage of moment? That is not a "national conversation" imo, that is the status quo of our stupid media and a lame attempt at justifying their existence. The media has no "conversation", they have side A pitted against side B in a 4 minute format, and often they (the media) stack the argument in favor of either A or B, whichever suits their networks agenda and fan base.
A "national conversation" seems to imply Americans across the nation can have a conversation with one another. With 300 million plus people, this is simply not possible except at the ballot box. If they mean to imply that we need to sit around the dinner table with our friends and family discussing current events, many (if not most) of us already do. "National conversation" seems to be nothing more than some sort of reinforcement that we "need" our stupid, reactionary media to go on and on for days and days, often creating the story and certainly creating "the narrative". Basically it seems to mean that we need to keep things exactly as they are.
The only national conversation possible are our national elections. Local elections give one a local conversation, state elections give one a state conversation etc.
I would also like to know the answer to that. Even if it were possible to hold a 'national conversation', what exactly is that supposed to accomplish. Is everyone suddenly going to agree to a solution to a problem, and do it? I don't think so. Personally, I've grown very weary of all the catch phrases that are thrown out on a daily basis.
"National conversation" is just a bunch of touchy feely mumbo jumbo that translates as "we want you to see things our way." It's similar to politicians referring to proposed, controversial bills as "common sense legislation."
In practice it tends to be a way of tricking people in to openly making statements they can be shamed for or forced to publicly apologize for under threat of a loss of livelihood.
I think a national conversation involves not only talking to your friends and family at the dinner table, but talking to people who have differing opinions than you do so both sides can start understanding each other. It's about both sides trying to come to an understanding to develop tolerance. People can't develop a broader understanding they only talk to like-minded friends and family and watch only the news stations that support our political leanings. This applies to both sides.
That's probably as good a definition as there is. I don't know about the OP, but my problem is whenever I hear some talking head say we need to have a 'national conversation' about this or that, I get the feeling that what he's really saying is 'if you don't agree with me about (whatever), then I need to show you how wrong you are'. Just rubs me the wrong way a bit.
Don't get me wrong, I think people talking about issues is fine and necessary, and hopefully productive.
I also think we've doing that for the past 5 or 6 decades regarding racial issues, and things have gotten better but not as good as they could be.
"National conversation" is just a bunch of touchy feely mumbo jumbo that translates as "we want you to see things our way." It's similar to politicians referring to proposed, controversial bills as "common sense legislation."
Yep. The left will never see things in any formal traditional way. If a black kid commits a crime, has nothing to do with him being a criminal and everything to do with him being black.
That's probably as good a definition as there is. I don't know about the OP, but my problem is whenever I hear some talking head say we need to have a 'national conversation' about this or that, I get the feeling that what he's really saying is 'if you don't agree with me about (whatever), then I need to show you how wrong you are'. Just rubs me the wrong way a bit.
Talking heads don't bother me because I don't watch TV news. I stopped doing that years ago.
I have no need for close-minded people with extremes views on the right and the left.
Just another media buzz word...hell, I remember when the internet was the "information superhighway"...and how about..."the rule of law"....
they just love to grab a phrase and beat it to death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
