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.
The millennials are not the cause of our problems. And trying to lay blame on their parents is mostly silly. They are adults, some are 40 years old. They see the world through their own eyes and experiences. They are the product of the post-Reagan era and do not have a frame of reference for Vietnam, Civil Rights, counterculture, anti-war movement, Watergate, or any of the semi-common experiences that older generations were part of or were reasonably close to. They naturally see things through a different lens.
If their parents and grandparents are blame-worthy for anything it would be the demise of a well rounded education system, slowly starved by lack of funding, misguided priorities, and knee-jerk fixes. That did (does) not just effect the millennials but later generations up to today. We spend much more money on prison inmates than on school students. There are valid reasons for some of that disparity but the gap in spending is extreme.
Wait. What's wrong with millennials? They aren't a monolith and they are free to hold any viewpoint they wish. Everyone has that right. Someone holding viewpoints contrary to your does not make them wrong or somehow broken.
Wait. What's wrong with millennials? They aren't a monolith and they are free to hold any viewpoint they wish. Everyone has that right. Someone holding viewpoints contrary to your does not make them wrong or somehow broken.
I think that is sorta my point. Trying to blame a generation is stupid as is blaming their parents...because one doesn't like how things are changing.
Change is a constant. We have many people who are afraid of change, feel victimized, or left behind. They have to blame someone.
Why should powerful, wealthy people get a pass or some sort of immunity to ridicule or criticism if they espouse unsupportable opinions or false information which has been thoroughly refuted?
If you are in a public position as an entertainer or a politician or talking head on Fox or CNN or a sports personality you rely on the public's support and even adoration in some cases. In many recent cases we are not talking about honesty but people who should know better spreading false conspiracy theories or flat-out lying. Very often these people are trying to influence others.
I don't know why you are bringing "conspiracy theories" into it. My examples were J.K. Rowling and Martina Navratilova who state that women are people who menstruate and are subject to physical and sexual attacks by biological men. That's not an opinion, a lie, or a conspiracy theory, but a fact. Yet they come under attack for it.
My other example was Chris Harrison who recently announced he was, what, "stepping back to spend more time with his family", after defending a college girl who had attended a certain type of formal event 3 years ago. Again, not a conspiracy theory or a lie but it is (or was) his opinion.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. When normal people see celebrities getting cancelled for stating the truth or for giving their opinion, they know what will happen to them if they do the same. That's where you get dishonesty. People don't want to get fired or get their kid kicked off the football team for having the wrong opinion.
I don't know why you are bringing "conspiracy theories" into it. My examples were J.K. Rowling and Martina Navratilova who state that women are people who menstruate and are subject to physical and sexual attacks by biological men. That's not an opinion, a lie, or a conspiracy theory, but a fact. Yet they come under attack for it.
My other example was Chris Harrison who recently announced he was, what, "stepping back to spend more time with his family", after defending a college girl who had attended a certain type of formal event 3 years ago. Again, not a conspiracy theory or a lie but it is (or was) his opinion.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. When normal people see celebrities getting cancelled for stating the truth or for giving their opinion, they know what will happen to them if they do the same. That's where you get dishonesty. People don't want to get fired or get their kid kicked off the football team for having the wrong opinion.
People may be inadvertently arguing at cross purposes in this debate. I think that it may be necessary for participants to present examples (as you have done here) of what they are talking about. But, to be fair, conspiracy theories do permeate social media these days, so this is what many participants in this debate may be focusing upon.
Additionally, the premise stated by the OP may be flawed, if the intention is to equate honest debate with an implied necessity to entertain lies. There is nothing dishonest in "shutting down" a lie -- either through discrediting that lie with factual information or through exercising one's right to disassociate oneself from the liar.
People may be inadvertently arguing at cross purposes in this debate. I think that it may be necessary for participants to present examples (as you have done here) of what they are talking about. But, to be fair, conspiracy theories do permeate social media these days, so this is what many participants in this debate may be focusing upon.
Additionally, the premise stated by the OP may be flawed, if the intention is to equate honest debate with an implied necessity to entertain lies. There is nothing dishonest in "shutting down" a lie -- either through discrediting that lie with factual information or through exercising one's right to disassociate oneself from the liar.
Also, the OP used the word "discussion." We can discuss anything. It's that people have to be open to accepting contrary views and yes, that people have a right to disassociate themselves from those people.
A discussion...
Above, someone brought up Chris Harrison. He is free to believe whatever he wants to believe. Let's discuss. One contestant attended a plantation party. For that contestant, a white person, plantations may not mean anything to her. To her, it's just a big, pretty house and estate. To her fellow Black citizens, that big pretty house is a symbol of racism, pain and suffering. It was that contestant's right to choose to not care about that. Essentially, it's her right to ignore historical racism. That's dismissive of millions of Black Americans, but, again, that's her right.
When Chris Harrison chimed in and defended her, he in turn, was taking the same position she was taking. He was dismissing the racism (historical, symbolic and otherwise) and essentially was saying it was no big deal. He has the right to believe that. Even though this viewpoint is offensive to millions of fellow Americans, again, he has that right to believe whatever he believes.
His employer, a television network that wants viewers from all walks of life, has a right to remove an employee who will harm the network's business, image, and revenue. The network was not trying to silence him or stop his freedom of speech. Chris Harrison is free to say whatever he wants in the public space and the government will not stop him. The network is not the government. Everyday, companies let go of workers who are not working out, are not productive, etc. This is no different.
So, everyone has had their say and all of their rights preserved.
Here is a piece of a conversation with Chris Harrison:
Quote:
“Is it a good look in 2018 or is it not a good look in 2021?” Harrison asked.
“It’s not a good look ever because she’s celebrating the Old South,” Lindsay explained. “If I went to that party, what would I represent at that party?”
“I don’t disagree with you,” Harrison said. “You’re 100 percent right — in 2021. That was not the case in 2018. Again, I’m not defending Rachael. I just know, I don’t know, 50 million people did that in 2018 — that was a type of party that a lot of people went to.”’
Notice the bold. Just because 50 million people went to plantation parties doesn't make them any less painful for their fellow Black Americans. He's saying that 50 million Americans decided that the pain of millions of other Americans mean nothing to them. It's no big deal. That's what he was saying.
If you say, that was a long time ago and get over it, do we tell Jewish people to get over the Holocaust? Anyone having weddings at Auschwitz? Anyone putting on feather and face paint and partying it up on a reservation? Do we tell the victims of the decades of Catholic priest sexual abuse to just get over it? If you say, racism is over, then...that's a whole other discussion.
What are the counterpoints? Let's discuss.
Last edited by charlygal; 02-26-2021 at 09:18 AM..
Let's face it...if you dissent from the current political positions, you are shut down.
And let's be honest...the current political positions may not be all honest and true. And that statement alone is hard to defend, as any dissent is considered heresy today...and would be shut down with the trendy labels.
Will we ever be able to be honest with each other again?
It boils down to this.
Our media do not even claim to be neutral. Instead, they run on a business model of identifying a market and presenting news with slants that appeal to the market. They don't even have to tell you what to think. All they have to do is tell you what to think about.
That's not a thought original to me. Read Neil Postman's classic, "Amusing Ourselves to Death," which dissects how the entertainment culture has affected everything.
So how does that break down? If you get all your news from one slant, then you are part of the problem. You aren't interested in nuance. You're interested in being validated.
It's easy to pick on Fox News, NewsMax, and OAN. Those are less news outlets and more propaganda organs, entertainment for mouth breathers. And the covering fire they provided Donald Trump is nothing less than shameful.
But, truthfully, the same is true of the WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, and the NYT. And there are plenty of times when their coverage is even more shameful. Except they consider themselves on the side of righteousness, which means they blush less when they offer up bilge.
I'll give you a pluperfect example. Back in the early days of the pandemic, Governor Andrew Cuomo received all kinds of fawning, obsequious praise from hacks such as Rachel Maddow. Remember those embarrassing interviews Chris Cuomo conducted with his brother? Instead of asking tough questions, they joked on air about the size of Andrew's nose.
Never mind that Covid infection rates and deaths in New York State were soaring due to his boneheaded decision to put Covid patients into nursing homes. Nope, softball coverage. Andrew Cuomo, even after unbelievable carnage in his state, had the stones to publish a self-serving book about his Covid response. And the media swooned once again. Except, as we're now finding out, he was lying to investigators and fudging his numbers big time.
The point of all this? If you get your news from a single ideological slant, you are not being a careful consumer of information. You're just digesting whatever pap they give you and then parroting it at your next dinner party.
The world is not bisected into black and white or good and evil, no matter what your favorite news sources or politicians want you to believe. It is mostly shades of gray. Both sides of the political spectrum make some pretty important points. At the same time, both sides of the political spectrum support some pretty idiotic things. Nevertheless, they sell themselves as the sole sources of truth, and people are stupid enough to believe them.
You as a reflective adult needs to read universally, understanding both points of view, not just what's force fed to you. You should inject nuance into your political views rather than mindlessly support a binary view of the world and its problems.
When you do that, you're less worried about being right and more concerned with discovering truth. Only until we collectively make that shift in attitude, we'll continue with pointless debates where neither side is fully right or fully wrong.
Interesting that most people are bringing up race as tbe example. Ah, race. America's original sin.
In the "good old days " provacative speech about race was much more dangerous than today. In the wrong town, you could get beat up for speaking out about segregation. And that' was if you were white. If you were black, you could get lynched just for an aside about a white woman. How's that for cancel culture?
Try being critical of capitalism during one of the Red Scares.
More recently, I can still remember as a kid, people getting mocked and shamed for having AIDS. Or if you came out as gay, risking getting beat up, your family shunning you. How's that for cancelling?
And people are acting as if it's some kind of never heard before scandal that you might get fired if you say something unfavorable on social media. Come on. Women used to get fired from their jobs if they got pregnant.
Please.
In my opinion we have never been freer to share our opinions because of social media. Oh no, some meanies ganged up on you on social media because you said something racist? And they posted that you should be quiet!
Oh noes!
Just turn it off.
Last edited by redguard57; 02-26-2021 at 10:22 AM..
Let's face it...if you dissent from the current political positions, you are shut down.
And let's be honest...the current political positions may not be all honest and true. And that statement alone is hard to defend, as any dissent is considered heresy today...and would be shut down with the trendy labels.
Will we ever be able to be honest with each other again?
With each other-who? Who "each other"? Don't you have friends you can discuss politics with? IDK, when I think about back, I've only rarely had conversations about politics with anyone in my life. The topic just has never come up, except maybe on rare occasion, someone will drop a disparaging comment about this or that President's economic policy or something, people will commiserate briefly, and the conversation moves on to something else. People don't stand around discussing politics, generally, and especially in the workplace.
So, OP, I'm not sure what you mean with your question. Are you talking about public discourse via the media, or are you referring to one-on-one or small group discussions? Those latter just haven't happened hardly at all in my experience.
Edit: you're talking about social media? And celerities catching flack for their opinions? And you think that's going to influence how people behave ....where? Among friends? In public?: Who talks about that stuff in public? If. you're talking about interactions on social media, and are worried about people self-censoring on social media (is that what you'r'e getting at?), I'm not even sure discussing social media interactions is a Great Debates-worthy topic. Threads about social media aren't allowed on the Relationships forum.
I can't relate to your topic, but that's because I don't entirely understand what it is. Again--are you concerned people will self-censor .... where, in what environments and what contexts? And what's the difference between being polite and considerate of others, and self-censorship?
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 02-26-2021 at 10:38 AM..
In my opinion we have never been freer to share our opinions because of social media
I've been on social media since it was invented over 2 decades ago, and I can assure everyone freedoms have diminished.
For the simple reason there are many hesitant to state things online; for fear of repercussions down the road.
Back in the day people threatened one another with bodily harm on message boards just like this. But nobody took it seriously, and nothing ever came of it.
In 2021, this is considered a criminal assault; even when said in passing without any intent.
To repeat your comment, please...just stop.
As the internet has become just like the good old U S of A, muzzled by fear and driven by stupidity based upon lack of deductive reasoning and critical thinking.
I've been on social media since it was invented over 2 decades ago, and I can assure everyone freedoms have diminished.
For the simple reason there are many hesitant to state things online; for fear of repercussions down the road.
Back in the day people threatened one another with bodily harm on message boards just like this. But nobody took it seriously, and nothing ever came of it. In 2021, this is considered a criminal assault; even when said in passing without any intent.
To repeat your comment, please...just stop.
As the internet has become just like the good old U S of A, muzzled by fear and driven by stupidity based upon lack of deductive reasoning and critical thinking.
Who goes around casually threatening people with bodily harm?! Like, that's normal??!! And you're comfortable inhabiting such a world?!
What the H is the topic again?? OP? We need your input.
And...IDK if this is a weird question or not, but why are people so wrapped up in what goes on on social media? And if you're no longer "free" to threaten others with bodily harm, is that really a great loss?
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.
I can't relate to your topic, but that's because I don't entirely understand what it is. Again--are you concerned people will self-censor .... where, in what environments and what contexts? And what's the difference between being polite and considerate of others, and self-censorship?
