3 ms·

Non scientific, but even the news shows like All Things Considered had a turning point when Trump was elected and then a larger one around the George Floyd riot

Non scientific, but even the news shows like All Things Considered had a turning point when Trump was elected and then a larger one around the George Floyd riots where they became unlistenable for me. Around New Years 2021 I decided each time I stepped in the car that I’d turn it off at the first mention of some kind of racial inequality issue. Usually I didn’t get more than halfway into my 5-mile commute. Maybe a few months later, I changed my default to the local Boomer news radio, KCBS, and have been fine since.

kenjackson 4y ago
I found the opposite. They were one of the few places who continued to report the news. Also unscientific. That said I think that the news simply became more polarizing and people looked to confirm biases rather than get news.
themitigating 4y ago
Racial inequality doesn't exist if you don't hear about it.
- Auracle 4y ago
  We’ve heard about it plenty. There are also plenty of other things to talk about. NPR might as well stand for No Politics but Race at this point.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Tired of hearing about things that don't affect you is lack of empathy
    - toomim 4y ago
      Refusing to report anything positive about 50% of the country (conservatives) is lack of empathy.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        Is that something that happens? When the news makes a report about a person or business (excluding politicians) do they specify that persons political party? Can you provide a few examples that can support your accusation against, what I assume is all news organizations in the US?
    - Auracle 4y ago
      I very much doubt you'd listen to a radio station that primarily talked about whatever issues I'm currently having. That doesn't mean you don't have empathy.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        No but it's more evidence you don't. Think about it.. , you can't imagine that I would care about something that doesn't affect me. The right has made empathy their newest attack and I mean their real enemy. Once they eliminate it from a significant enough people every belief they have will be easier. No welfare, no social programs, send criminals to jail forever and god damn the conditions right? When you don't have empathy there's nothing stopping you from creating the animalistic, live or die, capitalist utopia you dream of. The slow destruction of public schools will push parents towards home schooling, private schools, and religious schools where you snuff out any sense of caring in these kids before it becomes a problem. This is why everyone on the right is pure evil
quesera 4y ago
> I decided each time I stepped in the car that I’d turn it off at the first mention of some kind of racial inequality issue. I struggle with this, because if we accept the idea that racial inequality is an issue, then I have to wonder: - Who are the right people to think or talk about it? - What is the right time for them to do so? - Where it is appropriate for them to be part of the public discourse? Which leads me to "everyone, any time, wherever the other party might be receptive". So then what is too much? I sympathize with "give me non-challenging corporate news/noise on my morning commute". But where is the space for other peoples' complicated topics? And at what point does my ignorance become willful, and harmful?
- soundnote 4y ago
  From another angle: Supposing people's increasing atheism is a problem, who are the right people to tell people of the good news of the Messiah, when is it the right time, and where is it appropriate as part of public discourse? Salvation, eternal life. Everyone, any time. So, when is too much Jesus talk too much? I'd imagine many listeners would start tuning out pretty fast. Why frame it this way? Because the racial inequality stuff isn't THINKING. It isn't pondering about things, figuring out how things are or anything of the sort. It is the repetition of a narrow, formulaic dogma that's simply being slathered onto everything, and the conclusions are always miraculously the same, the cause the same (there is always only one cause), the prescriptions similar. The question is simply do we just say white people bad. Or do we start having fun and saying stuff like, idk: > Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has-a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which "white" people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one's body, in one's mind, and in one's world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts' appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34039063/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34039063/ This person still has a job. If he wrote that about black people or Jews, say, today's school assignment would be calculating the arc his ass would fly in when he got fired from his job. If we were actually doing THINKING about racism, it'd look a hell of a lot different than rainbow activism, and much more varied. Just to list some topics or questions: Does the abolition of objective measures in school actually help underachieving (disproportionately minority) students, or is this a way for an underperforming teaching establishment to game their numbers while their actual performance at instilling useful skills and knowledge tanks? We'd investigate whether inclusion and equity policies are covert methods of reducing Asian representation in higher education, while not really denting white liberals' standing that much. We'd look at actual patterns of crime (and notice that a giant chunk of violent crime is by a small number of repeat offenders) and try to deal with them to provide the poorer areas with actual safety and stability. There would likely be some hard questions about stigma and whatnot, but those can and should be weighed against actual prosperity. Now they're just presumed to be the worst thing in the world to the point security guards don't arrest/check suspicious-looking people because they're afraid of appearing racist. Oh, oops, that guy really was a bomber. Sorry. We'd seriously question minorities' hatreds of each other, and their racism against whites (and whites' racism against themselves) instead of plastering some black guy smearing shit on an Asian grandpa's face as an instance of white supremacy. We'd ask why the activists themselves are quick to sling racial epithets to minorities that don't toe the line. There's a TON of very varied work to do, questions on what methods even work for reducing bad outcomes and so on, and the answers to many of them are not at all clear. There's years of genuine, engaging intellectual work and concrete organizing to do with a real possibility of achieving genuinely good things like literacy rates that don't suck. Are the rainbow activists doing ANY of that? No. They're just hiring more DEI bureaucrats to lecture us about the same things over and over and over again.

kenjackson 4y ago

I found the opposite. They were one of the few places who continued to report the news. Also unscientific. That said I think that the news simply became more polarizing and people looked to confirm biases rather than get news.

themitigating 4y ago

Racial inequality doesn't exist if you don't hear about it.

Auracle 4y ago
We’ve heard about it plenty. There are also plenty of other things to talk about. NPR might as well stand for No Politics but Race at this point.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Tired of hearing about things that don't affect you is lack of empathy
  - toomim 4y ago
    Refusing to report anything positive about 50% of the country (conservatives) is lack of empathy.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Is that something that happens? When the news makes a report about a person or business (excluding politicians) do they specify that persons political party? Can you provide a few examples that can support your accusation against, what I assume is all news organizations in the US?
  - Auracle 4y ago
    I very much doubt you'd listen to a radio station that primarily talked about whatever issues I'm currently having. That doesn't mean you don't have empathy.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      No but it's more evidence you don't. Think about it.. , you can't imagine that I would care about something that doesn't affect me. The right has made empathy their newest attack and I mean their real enemy. Once they eliminate it from a significant enough people every belief they have will be easier. No welfare, no social programs, send criminals to jail forever and god damn the conditions right? When you don't have empathy there's nothing stopping you from creating the animalistic, live or die, capitalist utopia you dream of. The slow destruction of public schools will push parents towards home schooling, private schools, and religious schools where you snuff out any sense of caring in these kids before it becomes a problem. This is why everyone on the right is pure evil

quesera 4y ago

> I decided each time I stepped in the car that I’d turn it off at the first mention of some kind of racial inequality issue. I struggle with this, because if we accept the idea that racial inequality is an issue, then I have to wonder: - Who are the right people to think or talk about it? - What is the right time for them to do so? - Where it is appropriate for them to be part of the public discourse? Which leads me to "everyone, any time, wherever the other party might be receptive". So then what is too much? I sympathize with "give me non-challenging corporate news/noise on my morning commute". But where is the space for other peoples' complicated topics? And at what point does my ignorance become willful, and harmful?

soundnote 4y ago
From another angle: Supposing people's increasing atheism is a problem, who are the right people to tell people of the good news of the Messiah, when is it the right time, and where is it appropriate as part of public discourse? Salvation, eternal life. Everyone, any time. So, when is too much Jesus talk too much? I'd imagine many listeners would start tuning out pretty fast. Why frame it this way? Because the racial inequality stuff isn't THINKING. It isn't pondering about things, figuring out how things are or anything of the sort. It is the repetition of a narrow, formulaic dogma that's simply being slathered onto everything, and the conclusions are always miraculously the same, the cause the same (there is always only one cause), the prescriptions similar. The question is simply do we just say white people bad. Or do we start having fun and saying stuff like, idk: > Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has-a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which "white" people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one's body, in one's mind, and in one's world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts' appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34039063/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34039063/ This person still has a job. If he wrote that about black people or Jews, say, today's school assignment would be calculating the arc his ass would fly in when he got fired from his job. If we were actually doing THINKING about racism, it'd look a hell of a lot different than rainbow activism, and much more varied. Just to list some topics or questions: Does the abolition of objective measures in school actually help underachieving (disproportionately minority) students, or is this a way for an underperforming teaching establishment to game their numbers while their actual performance at instilling useful skills and knowledge tanks? We'd investigate whether inclusion and equity policies are covert methods of reducing Asian representation in higher education, while not really denting white liberals' standing that much. We'd look at actual patterns of crime (and notice that a giant chunk of violent crime is by a small number of repeat offenders) and try to deal with them to provide the poorer areas with actual safety and stability. There would likely be some hard questions about stigma and whatnot, but those can and should be weighed against actual prosperity. Now they're just presumed to be the worst thing in the world to the point security guards don't arrest/check suspicious-looking people because they're afraid of appearing racist. Oh, oops, that guy really was a bomber. Sorry. We'd seriously question minorities' hatreds of each other, and their racism against whites (and whites' racism against themselves) instead of plastering some black guy smearing shit on an Asian grandpa's face as an instance of white supremacy. We'd ask why the activists themselves are quick to sling racial epithets to minorities that don't toe the line. There's a TON of very varied work to do, questions on what methods even work for reducing bad outcomes and so on, and the answers to many of them are not at all clear. There's years of genuine, engaging intellectual work and concrete organizing to do with a real possibility of achieving genuinely good things like literacy rates that don't suck. Are the rainbow activists doing ANY of that? No. They're just hiring more DEI bureaucrats to lecture us about the same things over and over and over again.