4 ms·

The fact that you > think > this might > be a bit > too broad Is to reveal the sorry state of affairs in, at least, our political discourse. Worse so, you

The fact that you > think > this might > be a bit > too broad Is to reveal the sorry state of affairs in, at least, our political discourse. Worse so, you're effectively part of the problem which allows these organizations to become so powerful. You always need checks and balances. You always need to be vigilant. You always need to act.

tombert 9y ago
Umm, what the hell are you talking about? Which organizations? The NRA or Google? I'm not even disputing that I'm part of the problem, but I would like you to elaborate on what you think this problem actually is.
- ignoramceisblis 9y ago
  I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously compare a non-profit membership organization whose mission includes educating American citizens of responsible gun ownership and defending citizens' second amendment rights, to a global for-profit corporation with over 100 billion USD in annual revenue, directly affecting hundreds of millions of lives every day, with the power to promote or censor search results, advertisements, and more, and consequently shape what people think. Surely the former does not have sufficient power to positively shape how it's presented by major media corporations, and it often takes the blame when those corporations distribute stories of gun violence--events which, when the intensity of media attention is brought to them, we can all point to and feel visceral reactions to. But it's obvious that the political whims of the latter (Google) can be, and has been, carried out at a massive scale with great(er) efficiency and little(r) checks or balances. The fact that we have not yet developed and distributed concise-enough language to discuss the monumental impact of entities like Google is a sign that there is a problem we are not devoting enough energy to.
  - tombert 9y ago
    While I have to say I wholly disagree with your viewpoint on the NRA, I don't really disagree with your thesis, which makes me wonder how I'm "part of the problem".

tombert 9y ago

Umm, what the hell are you talking about? Which organizations? The NRA or Google? I'm not even disputing that I'm part of the problem, but I would like you to elaborate on what you think this problem actually is.

ignoramceisblis 9y ago
I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously compare a non-profit membership organization whose mission includes educating American citizens of responsible gun ownership and defending citizens' second amendment rights, to a global for-profit corporation with over 100 billion USD in annual revenue, directly affecting hundreds of millions of lives every day, with the power to promote or censor search results, advertisements, and more, and consequently shape what people think. Surely the former does not have sufficient power to positively shape how it's presented by major media corporations, and it often takes the blame when those corporations distribute stories of gun violence--events which, when the intensity of media attention is brought to them, we can all point to and feel visceral reactions to. But it's obvious that the political whims of the latter (Google) can be, and has been, carried out at a massive scale with great(er) efficiency and little(r) checks or balances. The fact that we have not yet developed and distributed concise-enough language to discuss the monumental impact of entities like Google is a sign that there is a problem we are not devoting enough energy to.
- tombert 9y ago
  While I have to say I wholly disagree with your viewpoint on the NRA, I don't really disagree with your thesis, which makes me wonder how I'm "part of the problem".