4 ms·

It seems his argument is that information inundation lets stupid ideas live longer than they might otherwise, which is actually pretty wise. It's not necessary

by tel 17y ago

It seems his argument is that information inundation lets stupid ideas live longer than they might otherwise, which is actually pretty wise. It's not necessary to pin it on iPods and XBoxes, but the idea that we need to learn healthy ways to survive information bombardment is neither new nor unwieldy. The historical comparisons are interesting, but I suppose it's one of those questions where technology is available but human nature and morality are lagging.

hugh3 17y ago
It seems his argument is that information inundation lets stupid ideas live longer than they might otherwise, which is actually pretty wise I'm not convinced that Obama can distinguish between "stupid ideas" and "ideas which are contrary to the Obama agenda" though. Of course he's hardly unique among politicians for this, but I do think he's less likely than, say, President Bush, to acknowledge the existence of informed and principled opposition to his policies. It's interesting that the internet has allowed the political right to get organised in a way that it never really has before. The left-wing political protests of the 1960s had universities as their organizational focus, whereas the right never really had any similar way of getting a protest movement off the ground until the internet. There's only a few quotes from the actual speech given but bits like this: "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter" sound a little to me like a man bitter that the internet is being used to spread arguments disagreeing with his own.
- sachinag 17y ago
  The birther stuff, in particular, is a great example of nonsense that perpetuates. On a policy level, we were hijacked by the death panel nonsense. Debate the public option and minimum coverage requirements and subsidies - sure - but the death panel stuff is just nonsense designed purely to distort the debate. If you don't get how having to deal with stuff like that at the expense of substantive debate harms our nation, I don't know what to tell you. Why their communications team (and remember his chief speechwriter since 2007 is a guy born in 1981[1]) keeps linking this with video games and iPods (which he certainly does know how to use; it's a bizarre line) has to be some sort of polling data. Cause, on its face, it's asinine. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter)
  - hugh3 17y ago
    Actually I kinda think stupid ideas like birtherism are deliberately given air by the Obama operation. I don't mean that in a "conspiracy theory" sense, I just mean that politicians would rather engage loudly with the silliest of their opponents rather than the most sensible. By focusing attention on the few loonies who oppose Obama, Obama attempts to associate opposition to Obama with looniness. If birthers didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them. As evidence, witness how quickly and reflexively this thread jumped into a discussion of birtherism. Anyway, I guess my point is that would be hypocritical for Obama (or, in all fairness, pretty much any politician out there) to complain about the infantilization of political rhetoric. This, after all, is the man whose favourite rhetorical device is the "There are those who say [something that nobody actually says]" strawman.
    - pohl 17y ago
      It's a good theory. I don't quite understand how he managed to get Fox news in on the plot, though.
    - ebiester 17y ago
      The birthers are only the easiest example. Look at the health care debate. I am sympathetic to a capitalist-based reform, but the fundamental problem is that even the moderately informed had difficulties following the real issues because the media failed to actually tell people what the public option was! I've heard multiple anecdotes (I know, not a representative sample) where someone "came up with" the public option but didn't explain it with those words, and their friends thought it was a good idea, but the "public option" was "government intervention and death panels." The problem isn't the competing ideas -- the problem is the level of the debate.
      - hugh3 17y ago
        On the other hand it's not like the Democrats were going out of their way to explain what was in the bill either. Instead, they spent most of their time talking about how "reform" is "necessary" (without acknowledging that many types of reform are possible) and even more time demonizing any opposition as either ignorant hicks or shills paid by the insurance industry. You won't find any disagreement from me if you say that the level of political discourse is too low. You will find disagreement if you try to claim that Barack Obama has a genuine desire for it to be higher.
- brown9-2 17y ago
  And you sound to me like someone who comes to this discussion with some preconceptions of his/her own. He regularly acknowledges other viewpoints and their validity. What he is speaking out against is obvious mistruths: birtherism, "Obama is a socialist", death panels, "Obama is a secret Muslim", health care reform gives the government the power to pull the plug on grandma, etc.

by tel 17y ago

hugh3 17y ago

It seems his argument is that information inundation lets stupid ideas live longer than they might otherwise, which is actually pretty wise I'm not convinced that Obama can distinguish between "stupid ideas" and "ideas which are contrary to the Obama agenda" though. Of course he's hardly unique among politicians for this, but I do think he's less likely than, say, President Bush, to acknowledge the existence of informed and principled opposition to his policies. It's interesting that the internet has allowed the political right to get organised in a way that it never really has before. The left-wing political protests of the 1960s had universities as their organizational focus, whereas the right never really had any similar way of getting a protest movement off the ground until the internet. There's only a few quotes from the actual speech given but bits like this: "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter" sound a little to me like a man bitter that the internet is being used to spread arguments disagreeing with his own.

sachinag 17y ago
The birther stuff, in particular, is a great example of nonsense that perpetuates. On a policy level, we were hijacked by the death panel nonsense. Debate the public option and minimum coverage requirements and subsidies - sure - but the death panel stuff is just nonsense designed purely to distort the debate. If you don't get how having to deal with stuff like that at the expense of substantive debate harms our nation, I don't know what to tell you. Why their communications team (and remember his chief speechwriter since 2007 is a guy born in 1981[1]) keeps linking this with video games and iPods (which he certainly does know how to use; it's a bizarre line) has to be some sort of polling data. Cause, on its face, it's asinine. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter)
- hugh3 17y ago
  Actually I kinda think stupid ideas like birtherism are deliberately given air by the Obama operation. I don't mean that in a "conspiracy theory" sense, I just mean that politicians would rather engage loudly with the silliest of their opponents rather than the most sensible. By focusing attention on the few loonies who oppose Obama, Obama attempts to associate opposition to Obama with looniness. If birthers didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them. As evidence, witness how quickly and reflexively this thread jumped into a discussion of birtherism. Anyway, I guess my point is that would be hypocritical for Obama (or, in all fairness, pretty much any politician out there) to complain about the infantilization of political rhetoric. This, after all, is the man whose favourite rhetorical device is the "There are those who say [something that nobody actually says]" strawman.
  - pohl 17y ago
    It's a good theory. I don't quite understand how he managed to get Fox news in on the plot, though.
  - ebiester 17y ago
    The birthers are only the easiest example. Look at the health care debate. I am sympathetic to a capitalist-based reform, but the fundamental problem is that even the moderately informed had difficulties following the real issues because the media failed to actually tell people what the public option was! I've heard multiple anecdotes (I know, not a representative sample) where someone "came up with" the public option but didn't explain it with those words, and their friends thought it was a good idea, but the "public option" was "government intervention and death panels." The problem isn't the competing ideas -- the problem is the level of the debate.
    - hugh3 17y ago
      On the other hand it's not like the Democrats were going out of their way to explain what was in the bill either. Instead, they spent most of their time talking about how "reform" is "necessary" (without acknowledging that many types of reform are possible) and even more time demonizing any opposition as either ignorant hicks or shills paid by the insurance industry. You won't find any disagreement from me if you say that the level of political discourse is too low. You will find disagreement if you try to claim that Barack Obama has a genuine desire for it to be higher.
brown9-2 17y ago
And you sound to me like someone who comes to this discussion with some preconceptions of his/her own. He regularly acknowledges other viewpoints and their validity. What he is speaking out against is obvious mistruths: birtherism, "Obama is a socialist", death panels, "Obama is a secret Muslim", health care reform gives the government the power to pull the plug on grandma, etc.