6 ms·

Wow. I can’t believe the power of tribalism. Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a r

Wow. I can’t believe the power of tribalism. Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a reporter? I guess we really have no other pressing needs to attend to. Nope- the homeless problem, solved. Opioid abuse? No longer a problem! Ethnic cleansing in Myanmar? Eliminated! Murdering dissidents and journalists? Not happening. Deploying thousands of military troops to intercept a caravan of asylum seeking refugees? That’s yesterday’s news. Nope, let’s spend our collective mental energy on fighting a battle- did he assault that poor woman?!? Seriously? I realize my comment stinks of snarkiness, but seriously- think of how this plays out in the history books. How absolutely absurd does all this sound? I mean we laugh at the fact we threw bound women in the water to divine whether they were witches. What reaction will we have to the events of today a hundred years from now? I leave this comment with a question I have no answer to. How do we fix this bug in human psychology?

tzar 8y ago
> How do we fix this bug in human psychology? My gut feeling is that this sort of thing is cyclical. We oscillate back and forth in countless ways, micro and macro. So the bug fix is to ride the crazy train until we reach the apex and then keep riding it back down to “sanity”, overshoot, then do it all again forever.
- ipython 8y ago
  That’s not really “fixing” the bug though isn’t it? :(
bradleyankrom 8y ago
> Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a reporter? I don't think so. The conversation has been about the WH press secretary's characterization and reaction to the event and, now, whether that office is pushing an account of the event that deliberately distorts the truth.
PascLeRasc 8y ago
The implications of this argument are that the government is suppressing media and using disinformation to convince the public that it's alright. This is part of protecting journalists and dissidents like you argue we should be focusing on.
- ipython 8y ago
  yes I agree but I think this reasoned argument is drowned out by the cries of “but he hit her, no he didn’t...”
uxp100 8y ago
> I mean we laugh at the fact we threw bound women in the water to divine whether they were witches. Off topic, but IIRC we didn't do exactly that. We threw mainly men, and some women, bound, in water to elicit confessions. It's not that we believed there was divination happening, it's just torture. Let someone nearly drown, then pull them out and threaten to do it again. Not divining, just waterboarding.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
moate 8y ago
>>Deploying thousands of military troops to intercept a caravan of asylum seeking refugees? That’s yesterday’s news. That's part and parcel to what this whole thing is about. I'm just going to keep posting this in here. -A major news outlet had one of their major White House reporter's press pass revoked. -The President's press secretary cited a doctored/edited video as evidence of the behavior that resulted in this revocation while using pointedly misleading language about what most people objectively agree happened. -The President of the United States has been on a 3 year long campaign to sew distrust in media sources he doesn't feel portray him favorably. -The President of the United States has blatantly and openly lied about information he felt was affecting his policy making, causing many people on both sides of the aisle to distrust his ability to objectively lead the country. This interaction occurred during a press conference in which the President was again repeating blatant lie, as well as the less offensive ignoring and misdirection of unfavorable questions. It's possible people are fighting about did he hit her (he did not. he did not hit her. Oh hi Mark) but I'm also seeing plenty of people, possibly even MORE people, discussing the implications of this behavior and attack on the 4th estate. I have opinions about who's trying to shift the conversation to the attack/not attack on the intern, but that's just speculation really. Point is: there's plenty of useful discourse going on, and throwing up some whaddaboutism that there are bigger world issues seems unhelpful.

tzar 8y ago

> How do we fix this bug in human psychology? My gut feeling is that this sort of thing is cyclical. We oscillate back and forth in countless ways, micro and macro. So the bug fix is to ride the crazy train until we reach the apex and then keep riding it back down to “sanity”, overshoot, then do it all again forever.

ipython 8y ago
That’s not really “fixing” the bug though isn’t it? :(

bradleyankrom 8y ago

> Really, we are arguing over whether someone grazed the arm of a woman who reached to remove the microphone from a reporter? I don't think so. The conversation has been about the WH press secretary's characterization and reaction to the event and, now, whether that office is pushing an account of the event that deliberately distorts the truth.

PascLeRasc 8y ago

The implications of this argument are that the government is suppressing media and using disinformation to convince the public that it's alright. This is part of protecting journalists and dissidents like you argue we should be focusing on.

ipython 8y ago
yes I agree but I think this reasoned argument is drowned out by the cries of “but he hit her, no he didn’t...”

uxp100 8y ago

> I mean we laugh at the fact we threw bound women in the water to divine whether they were witches. Off topic, but IIRC we didn't do exactly that. We threw mainly men, and some women, bound, in water to elicit confessions. It's not that we believed there was divination happening, it's just torture. Let someone nearly drown, then pull them out and threaten to do it again. Not divining, just waterboarding.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

moate 8y ago

>>Deploying thousands of military troops to intercept a caravan of asylum seeking refugees? That’s yesterday’s news. That's part and parcel to what this whole thing is about. I'm just going to keep posting this in here. -A major news outlet had one of their major White House reporter's press pass revoked. -The President's press secretary cited a doctored/edited video as evidence of the behavior that resulted in this revocation while using pointedly misleading language about what most people objectively agree happened. -The President of the United States has been on a 3 year long campaign to sew distrust in media sources he doesn't feel portray him favorably. -The President of the United States has blatantly and openly lied about information he felt was affecting his policy making, causing many people on both sides of the aisle to distrust his ability to objectively lead the country. This interaction occurred during a press conference in which the President was again repeating blatant lie, as well as the less offensive ignoring and misdirection of unfavorable questions. It's possible people are fighting about did he hit her (he did not. he did not hit her. Oh hi Mark) but I'm also seeing plenty of people, possibly even MORE people, discussing the implications of this behavior and attack on the 4th estate. I have opinions about who's trying to shift the conversation to the attack/not attack on the intern, but that's just speculation really. Point is: there's plenty of useful discourse going on, and throwing up some whaddaboutism that there are bigger world issues seems unhelpful.