Does anyone else find today's world hyper-emotional?

[redwood66]

Clearly, YOU missed the point in your regurgitated rush to (as always) attempt to shut down an opposing view. Nothing new ... more of the same from you as well.

And I am the one on ignore. You're such an ass.

 

[the_mother_thing]

And I am the one on ignore. You're such an ass.

 

[Matata]

more of the same from you as well.

Thanks for acknowledging that you do it. In case you didn't know your "as well" above implies you agree with what I said. Oh, and since you missed my point, I absolutely relish well-thought opposing points of view that challenge me to think.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Thanks for acknowledging that you do it. In case you didn't know your "as well" above implies you agree with what I said. Oh, and since you missed my point, I absolutely relish well-thought opposing points of view that challenge me to think.

You had a point? Must’ve missed that while I was busy enjoying the ‘free rent’. Silly me ...

 

[Matata]

There's that echo again, along with a slight ringing in my ears.

 

[the_mother_thing]

There's that echo again, along with a slight ringing in my ears.

As someone with a hearing impairment, I’ll just assume you’re being ignorant.

Maybe see a doctor for your tinnitus ... it’ll probably also help you miss less ‘points’.

 

[Matata]

As someone with a hearing impairment, I’ll just assume you’re being ignorant.

Maybe see a doctor for your tinnitus ... it’ll probably also help you miss less ‘points’.

Re-read my first post to you and thanks for continuing to prove my point.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Clearly, YOU missed the point in your regurgitated rush to (as always) attempt to shut down an opposing view. Nothing new ... more of the same from you as well.

The left wing PSers are like 10 peas in a pod.

 

[Tekate]

DF, you are a right winger, I find little fact or logic in your statements, but as we all know, you have a right to say them and think them.

With that said, as a right winged supporter of our president (whom I know you didn't vote for and don't like personally but can easily support and stomach his rhetoric and hyperbole and down right lies) can you define what FAKE NEWS is? What is fake that Trump finds in the NYTimes?

Let's follow the Merriam Webster definition of FAKE.

Definition of fake
: not true, real, or genuine : COUNTERFEIT, SHAM

So maybe @redwood66 and @the_mother_thing would explain what Trump is saying that is not true or genuine, coutnerfeit and a sham.

As a reader of all kinds of sites I don't get what he means, to me he is a bold-faced liar, but maybe I missed the 'not true' parts of the WaPo or Times?

So please can you explain what is FAKE NEWS.

The left wing PSers are like 10 peas in a pod.

 

[redwood66]

DF, you are a right winger, I find little fact or logic in your statements, but as we all know, you have a right to say them and think them.

With that said, as a right winged supporter of our president (whom I know you didn't vote for and don't like personally but can easily support and stomach his rhetoric and hyperbole and down right lies) can you define what FAKE NEWS is? What is fake that Trump finds in the NYTimes?

Let's follow the Merriam Webster definition of FAKE.

Definition of fake
: not true, real, or genuine : COUNTERFEIT, SHAM

So maybe @redwood66 and @the_mother_thing would explain what Trump is saying that is not true or genuine, coutnerfeit and a sham.

As a reader of all kinds of sites I don't get what he means, to me he is a bold-faced liar, but maybe I missed the 'not true' parts of the WaPo or Times?

So please can you explain what is FAKE NEWS.

A taunt to a MSM that is not hiding their obvious bias any longer. At least that's how I see it. Others see it that way as well I would imagine. I don't like his enemy of the state line FWIW. I would rather he just taunt them than have an agency of the state harass and spy on reporters in secret as his predecessor did.

 

[the_mother_thing]

So please can you explain what is FAKE NEWS.

In the simplest way, it’s the lack of factual/full reporting of ALL the facts coupled with the obvious bias from an organization that purports itself to be reporting ‘news’. For instance (and this example is only top-of-memory because I heard Chump cite it last night during an interview, which reminded me of it), there was an outlet that reported/published a photograph of one of his rallies that only had about 50 (+/-) people and said something like “doesn’t look like the thousands of attendees that Trump says attend”. That outlet failed to report that the photo was actually taken several hours before the rally began, so yea, there weren’t going to be thousands of people in the venue yet. That’s misleading, albeit a silly and largely meaningless example. But if they’d mislead on something so meaningless, what else would they be misleading about? Another example is how NBC ran that whole Swetnick interview with no corroboration from supposed witnesses Swetnick named while also withholding reporting one ‘witness’ who told NBC she did not see anything Swetnick described at the alleged party/ties. This was clearly an attempt to sway opinion of Kavanaugh in an effort to block his nomination; in reality, I think it actually hurt Ford’s allegations.

These are but two examples of MANY. And let’s be real, there is no denying that NBC, CNN, MSNBC and the like are incredibly left-leaning, biased TV ‘news’ outlets. Their credibility is justifiably in the crapper where they belong, IMO.

 

[redwood66]

@Tekate I will add a bit more. Studies have been done on the percentage of negative coverage compared to other presidents and the bias is obvious. Trump's approval rating is above 40% and is varying 80-90+% with Rs, so IMO their coverage is not news, it's propaganda.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/5550...trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents

http://www.journalism.org/2017/10/02/covering-president-trump-in-a-polarized-media-environment/

 

[telephone89]

Ah, the usual suspects are back to derail a thread with insults. Always reliable

Back in college, my friend studied a phenomenon that I forget the name of. You know how people "one up" each other to prove they are better? People also do this with tragedy. They either "up" the tragedy or "up" the relationship/closeness of the connection. ("Did you hear my neighbours house burnt down?" "Oh yeah? Well my neighbour drowned") There is something within human nature to want to feel close to tragedy, even if indirectly. It apparently goes back to even Shakespeares writings.
Anyways, that's to say, people have *always* been emotional about tragedy and used that to communicate their own feelings. So I don't think that is much different. What is different IMO is the widely spread availability, graphic content about shit going on around the world. We are so much more exposed to so many different tragic events. I can see how that might feel "hyper emotional" when its just... more available.

 

[jaaron]

In the simplest way, it’s the lack of factual/full reporting of ALL the facts coupled with the obvious bias from an organization that purports itself to be reporting ‘news’. For instance (and this example is only top-of-memory because I heard Chump cite it last night during an interview, which reminded me of it), there was an outlet that reported/published a photograph of one of his rallies that only had about 50 (+/-) people and said something like “doesn’t look like the thousands of attendees that Trump says attend”. That outlet failed to report that the photo was actually taken several hours before the rally began, so yea, there weren’t going to be thousands of people in the venue yet. That’s misleading, albeit a silly and largely meaningless example. But if they’d mislead on something so meaningless, what else would they be misleading about? Another example is how NBC ran that whole Swetnick interview with no corroboration from supposed witnesses Swetnick named while also withholding reporting one ‘witness’ who told NBC she did not see anything Swetnick described at the alleged party/ties. This was clearly an attempt to sway opinion of Kavanaugh in an effort to block his nomination; in reality, I think it actually hurt Ford’s allegations.

These are but two examples of MANY. And let’s be real, there is no denying that NBC, CNN, MSNBC and the like are incredibly left-leaning, biased TV ‘news’ outlets. Their credibility is justifiably in the crapper where they belong, IMO.

I assume, since you are so worried about factual reporting, you follow Daniel Dale on twitter? He covers Washington for the Toronto Star and goes to every Trump rally and fact checks every claim in real time. Very interesting.

 

[jaaron]

Oh I know, BTDT. There are people who will discuss respectfully and there are those who won't or can't.

I agree with some of what you say in this thread. I can have tons of empathy but not react emotionally. Some people cannot differentiate between being empathetic and emotional reaction. They are two different things entirely. Though people should be able to react in the way that suits them.

I'm not picking on you here, Red, but that's just not right. Empathy, by definition, is emotional. You might have tons of sympathy, but if you don't have an emotional reaction (doesn't have to be visible), it's not empathy.

 

[redwood66]

I'm not picking on you here, Red, but that's just not right. Empathy, by definition, is emotional. You might have tons of sympathy, but if you don't have an emotional reaction (doesn't have to be visible), it's not empathy.

Yet my description includes reaction by which I mean typing something here on PS or some other social media. Hope that clears it up for you and sorry to not have made that clear enough initially. You have no idea what happens physically or emotionally to me and I don't normally put that info on here.

 

[blingbunny10]

Boy, this thread really went off the rails. This is why I steer clear of the political threads. But I just have to say... I can’t believe exchanges like this are allowed to remain up while a lying, manipulative hustler can post here and swindle goodhearted PSers and not be banned or even talked about.

I’m all for discussion and differences of opinion. This thread has some heated, unkind comments, about as mean as I’ve seen on PS (re: not very) and I’m actually ok with that. But I was under the impression that we had pretty zealous moderating, and I’m surprised to see this thread still here and open. Or are political attacks exempted?

 

[Tekate]

Found this interesting trending on twitter this morning.

Meghan McCain on her grief about her Dad.

https://twitter.com/MeghanMcCain/status/1057091745438146562

Posted coolncalm posted to Ms McCain:

Why are putting these private thoughts on Facebook Meghan? We all miss our fathers who have passed on. @TheView We cry out girls dads too. You are not that special.

I thought it was interesting given this topic here on PS.

 

[Tekate]

A taunt? People believe that MSM is lies because Trump says it's fake news. So I was wondering WHAT is fake/lies?

A taunt to a MSM that is not hiding their obvious bias any longer. At least that's how I see it. Others see it that way as well I would imagine. I don't like his enemy of the state line FWIW. I would rather he just taunt them than have an agency of the state harass and spy on reporters in secret as his predecessor did.

 

[redwood66]

A taunt? People believe that MSM is lies because Trump says it's fake news. So I was wondering WHAT is fake/lies?

I just see the phrase as a taunt. Sorry. I don't speak for anyone else.

 

[Tekate]

Fair enough, then why doesn't Trump call out Fox News then?

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-p...-networks-lies-about-migrant-caravan-there-no

https://www.thewrap.com/fox-business-host-lou-dobbs-deletes-tweets-calling-cnn-mail-bomb-fake-news/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/andrew-napolitano/

These are just a few of the lies on Fox and their news teams, yet Trump never calls these out.

I know you don't like Trump personally but this kind of crap he does about FAKE news sets his followers all a glow.

In the simplest way, it’s the lack of factual/full reporting of ALL the facts coupled with the obvious bias from an organization that purports itself to be reporting ‘news’. For instance (and this example is only top-of-memory because I heard Chump cite it last night during an interview, which reminded me of it), there was an outlet that reported/published a photograph of one of his rallies that only had about 50 (+/-) people and said something like “doesn’t look like the thousands of attendees that Trump says attend”. That outlet failed to report that the photo was actually taken several hours before the rally began, so yea, there weren’t going to be thousands of people in the venue yet. That’s misleading, albeit a silly and largely meaningless example. But if they’d mislead on something so meaningless, what else would they be misleading about? Another example is how NBC ran that whole Swetnick interview with no corroboration from supposed witnesses Swetnick named while also withholding reporting one ‘witness’ who told NBC she did not see anything Swetnick described at the alleged party/ties. This was clearly an attempt to sway opinion of Kavanaugh in an effort to block his nomination; in reality, I think it actually hurt Ford’s allegations.

These are but two examples of MANY. And let’s be real, there is no denying that NBC, CNN, MSNBC and the like are incredibly left-leaning, biased TV ‘news’ outlets. Their credibility is justifiably in the crapper where they belong, IMO.

 

[Tekate]

I don't follow your logic. Trump has 90% approval among republicans but 40% or so amongst the people they surveyed. That's pretty bad.

@Tekate I will add a bit more. Studies have been done on the percentage of negative coverage compared to other presidents and the bias is obvious. Trump's approval rating is above 40% and is varying 80-90+% with Rs, so IMO their coverage is not news, it's propaganda.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/5550...trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents

http://www.journalism.org/2017/10/02/covering-president-trump-in-a-polarized-media-environment/

 

[Tekate]

I try to keep a level head.

Who is the swindler so I keep clear, seriously. I think your thoughts deserve a topic as jewelry isn't cheap as we all know.

sorry if I offended you in anyway.

Boy, this thread really went off the rails. This is why I steer clear of the political threads. But I just have to say... I can’t believe exchanges like this are allowed to remain up while a lying, manipulative hustler can post here and swindle goodhearted PSers and not be banned or even talked about.

I’m all for discussion and differences of opinion. This thread has some heated, unkind comments, about as mean as I’ve seen on PS (re: not very) and I’m actually ok with that. But I was under the impression that we had pretty zealous moderating, and I’m surprised to see this thread still here and open. Or are political attacks exempted?

 

[redwood66]

I don't follow your logic. Trump has 90% approval among republicans but 40% or so amongst the people they surveyed. That's pretty bad.

It isn't really though.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_oct30

The point I was making is that for the media to be so obviously bias despite Trump's popularity with Rs is what makes Rs angry. The egregious negativity disparity feeds Trump haters and provides confirmation bias, which in turn looks like propaganda to those who do not hate the president or who are happy with the positive policies he has accomplished. Does that make more sense to you now?

 

[the_mother_thing]

I assume, since you are so worried about factual reporting, you follow Daniel Dale on twitter? He covers Washington for the Toronto Star and goes to every Trump rally and fact checks every claim in real time. Very interesting.

I don’t ‘do’ twitter, save for the occasional tweet referenced in an article or something. Too much negative noise for my liking to waste brain cells following.

 

[redwood66]

I try to keep a level head.

Who is the swindler so I keep clear, seriously. I think your thoughts deserve a topic as jewelry isn't cheap as we all know.

sorry if I offended you in anyway.

Me as well. And am also sorry if I offended.

 

[Tekate]

Yes, there is fake and there is spin. They appear to get mixed up by Trump and all the press.

It isn't really though.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_oct30

The point I was making is that for the media to be so obviously bias despite Trump's popularity with Rs is what makes Rs angry. The egregious negativity disparity feeds Trump haters and provides confirmation bias, which in turn looks like propaganda to those who do not hate the president or who are happy with the positive policies he has accomplished. Does that make more sense to you now?

 

[redwood66]

Yes, there is fake and there is spin. They appear to get mixed up by Trump and all the press.

?? I am not sure what you mean.

 

[bludiva]

Boy, this thread really went off the rails. This is why I steer clear of the political threads. But I just have to say... I can’t believe exchanges like this are allowed to remain up while a lying, manipulative hustler can post here and swindle goodhearted PSers and not be banned or even talked about.

I’m all for discussion and differences of opinion. This thread has some heated, unkind comments, about as mean as I’ve seen on PS (re: not very) and I’m actually ok with that. But I was under the impression that we had pretty zealous moderating, and I’m surprised to see this thread still here and open. Or are political attacks exempted?

political discussions online anywhere seemed destined to go off the rails :/ i think the thread will be shut down if it devolves into personal attacks or someone complains.

please do warn people about the hustler you're referring to. i am not sure what the situation is but one of the things i appreciate most about PS is learning what to watch out for with vendors or buying. i've seen some shady stuff with pre-loved/LT and some of the vendor pics vs reality, definitely helps to have a heads up.

back to the political argument for those who are still arguing

 

[cmd2014]

@Jambalaya,

I have been giving your question quite a bit of thought. I think there are several factors that may be playing into people's seemingly heightened levels of emotional reactivity/expressed distress. I think we are exposed to a deluge of information to an extent that has never been seen before - on the news, on on the internet, on social media. This has made world events feel local, and I think the level of vicarious trauma that people are experiencing as a result of this is at point that has never been seen before. Maybe it started with 911; maybe before. But my first recollection of feeling the way that I sometimes do now was after 911 when the news replayed the images of the planes hitting the buildings over and over and over. Since then we have been almost constantly bombarded with images and stories of human tragedy almost daily. Earthquakes, mudslides, tsunamis, fires, mass shootings, wars, hate crimes...it never seems to end. The media also sensationalizes these tragedies for profit to an extent never seen before, which serves to increase the level of vicarious trauma and the emotional reactivity that people will have to these events. So I think that is factoring into people's seemingly increased emotional responses.

On top of this, fringe political groups are gaining ground. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/29/18037564/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-angela-merkel-germany-populism.
The amount of uncertainty in the world (or at least the amount that we are now all aware of) has increased, economic instability has increased, and people are becoming less centrist, less globalist, and more extreme in their political views as a result. The internet has allowed people with extreme views to find each other too, which has normalized these ideas and fostered them, allowing them to grow.

Add to this the partisan news organizations that are particularly prevalent in the US, where people are now only exposed to information that supports their world view rather than challenging it (and where people are exposed to blatantly false information that is never challenged because the purpose of the whole organization is to rally support for one party or another), and beliefs become even more polarized. Fringe beliefs get normalized this way as well, and people get further away from each other rather than closer together.

People have also been freed through anonymity (on the internet, on Facebook, in comments sections of news stories, etc.) to say things that they would never have considered saying to anyone face to face, and the level of bad behaviour has gone up because of it. This normalizes it, and causes it to spread into real world social interactions - so the level of comfort that people start to have with calling other people names and saying hateful, rude, racist, and misogynistic things goes up. The level of comfort that people have with anger and hostility and expressions of anger and hostility in general seems to have gone up. I think that the constant exposure to this level of conflict makes people more emotionally reactive as well.

I understand your need to step back. I'm feeling it too. Maybe not in the same way as you, but I do need to turn off US political news, news about tragedies that I cannot do anything about, and I need to step back from political debates here, because both the things that are happening in the US and the insight that some posters here have given me into the nature of their belief systems have troubled and disheartened me. Maybe you are right that life is too short to be immersed in and troubled and disheartened by things that I cannot do anything about.

Where I don't agree with you is the idea that people are expressing emotion just to get some kind of social credit for it in a disingenuous way. I don't think people are faking it. I think they are feeling it. I think you are as well, but just don't want to, so have chosen to block yourself off from it (which is not a criticism, but simply an observation - you seem like you have enough on your plate right now that you don't need to take on the troubles of the world).