Hillary Clinton 2016 - Politics & Religion

benpaco
Who's gonna watch you die?

Age: 27
Location: California

sp4cetiger wrote:

I'm sure your teacher knows much more about it than I do, but I've never understood pluralism to be a system in of itself as your post seemed to imply. My understanding is much closer to that given here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralist_democracy

Damn that's not even close to the document we read ... the teacher didn't really lecture much on it, just selected a document and left it with us to read, but he's not great on clarifying things always, so while I feel I have a grasp on the literal definition of democracy and what elitism is, pluralism was a bit confusing. I'll see if I can ask him come Monday, it's possible they're both definitions of it, IDK
_________________

. . . 2016 . . . 2015 . . .

Things I Make

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

sp4cetiger wrote:

I used to follow this rule, but then I realized that I actually preferred hearing people's opinions on these things than the usual innocuous small-talk. Well... not abortion, I do steer clear of that.

Exactly. Not to mention that discussion leads to progress

The ignorance is bliss mentality hurts society
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

sp4cetiger

benpaco wrote:

Damn that's not even close to the document we read ... the teacher didn't really lecture much on it, just selected a document and left it with us to read, but he's not great on clarifying things always, so while I feel I have a grasp on the literal definition of democracy and what elitism is, pluralism was a bit confusing. I'll see if I can ask him come Monday, it's possible they're both definitions of it, IDK

Even the term "democracy" is kind of a mess, as your post alluded to. The modern understanding of the word usually includes representative democracies like the US, but I think it's also accurate to call the US a "republic." Politicians always like to emphasize the democratic elements of any system because it implies empowerment of the people, but the extent to which this is accurate certainly varies.

I've always thought of the US as fitting comfortably under the umbrella term, "democracy," but it certainly isn't a direct democracy akin to some ancient models. I suppose you could argue that the two-party system makes the US less democratic than some places.. but you're not actually required to vote for one of those two parties, so maybe not. Personally, I think the masses are too self-involved to make an educated choice about their elected officials, so I just see the voting process as a check on some of the more extreme types of corruption. True rule by the people is unrealistic and likely undesirable.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

sp4cetiger wrote:

Personally, I think the masses are too self-involved to make an educated choice about their elected officials

I feel like this only only half true. At the same time, I think there's a massive population that is simply lost faith in the system and therefore doesn't even both. Both are extremely sad.

It says something when the approval rating of congress is as low as it has been (<20%) but the bulk of the same public officials will end up re-elected.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

satiemaniac wrote:

kind of a difficult rule to follow in the "Politics & Religion" subforum. Rolling Eyes

Well obviously. It's good to talk about these topics, it's important to not only be in a situation in which you have to logically verbalize your thoughts and opinions, but to also hear what other people have to say, and there are times and places for that (like, for example, this subforum).

I was more speaking generally, like at parties and stuff like that, with people I'm meeting for the first time or just with a group of friends, because usually those settings are meant to be relaxed and fun and mentioning any of those topics often leads to a heated and often argumentative discussion.
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart

sp4cetiger

meccalecca wrote:

I feel like this only only half true. At the same time, I think there's a massive population that is simply lost faith in the system and therefore doesn't even both. Both are extremely sad.

Voter apathy doesn't really concern me much, tbh. The disillusioned either don't vote or vote for non-major-party candidates, so their net effect on the system is virtually nil. I'm much more concerned about the impact of purposely partisan media outlets, like Fox News and MSNBC. Unfortunately, it pays to be biased, especially in the current climate, and as a result much of the population is getting a distorted view of the world. It's self-imposed propaganda, basically.

Quote:

It says something when the approval rating of congress is as low as it has been (<20%) but the bulk of the same public officials will end up re-elected.

Yeah, it's terrible, really, but the public is almost as polarized as Congress. They hate its inability to achieve anything, but they're too afraid of the opposing side to take a risk in voting out their official.

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

sp4cetiger wrote:

I'm much more concerned about the impact of purposely partisan media outlets, like Fox News and MSNBC. Unfortunately, it pays to be biased, especially in the current climate, and as a result much of the population is getting a distorted view of the world. It's self-imposed propaganda, basically.

You and me both. I think this is something that bothers me more than most things about modern politics. You get these people who solely watch these heavily partisan networks and assume that everything they say is unbiased truth. People want to hear someone they agree with rather than attempt to give a different point of view a chance.

It's this whole "us vs. them" mentality, this incessant need for "my team" to beat "your team". There's no compromise because a tie is a good as a loss. We can't agree to disagree, because you're wrong and you need to understand that. That kills me. For a society to be productive, to be successful, the people of that society need to be willing to listen to other, valid, points of view, accept that no one is right all the time, that not everything is black and white and that it is possible to compromise.
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart

benpaco
Who's gonna watch you die?

Age: 27
Location: California

RockyRaccoon wrote:

You and me both. I think this is something that bothers me more than most things about modern politics. You get these people who solely watch these heavily partisan networks and assume that everything they say is unbiased truth. People want to hear someone they agree with rather than attempt to give a different point of view a chance.

It's this whole "us vs. them" mentality, this incessant need for "my team" to beat "your team". There's no compromise because a tie is a good as a loss. We can't agree to disagree, because you're wrong and you need to understand that. That kills me. For a society to be productive, to be successful, the people of that society need to be willing to listen to other, valid, points of view, accept that no one is right all the time, that not everything is black and white and that it is possible to compromise.

See, this topic's always been interesting to me, though. I was basically raised on MSNBC, that's all my parents ever watched, and it produced someone that mostly agrees with them. But I'm not really as left wing as the station, or my parents for that matter. I've stated before (in this thread even) that there's a few republican candidates I would support over Clinton if she ran.

The really interesting thing is to compare that to my friends. If they were raised on Fox News, they're mostly conservatives who are a bit middle ground and certainly farther left than the station. If they were raised on MSNBC, they're mostly liberals who are a bit middle ground. But if they don't pay attention to any news, almost always they just follow their parents. And consistently, it seems, parents get much more into the "us vs them" mentality that those stations convey than the kids do. The extremists I know don't follow the news (or even the "news"): they follow their parents.
_________________

. . . 2016 . . . 2015 . . .

Things I Make

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

benpaco wrote:

See, this topic's always been interesting to me, though. I was basically raised on MSNBC, that's all my parents ever watched, and it produced someone that mostly agrees with them. But I'm not really as left wing as the station, or my parents for that matter. I've stated before (in this thread even) that there's a few republican candidates I would support over Clinton if she ran.

The really interesting thing is to compare that to my friends. If they were raised on Fox News, they're mostly conservatives who are a bit middle ground and certainly farther left than the station. If they were raised on MSNBC, they're mostly liberals who are a bit middle ground. But if they don't pay attention to any news, almost always they just follow their parents. And consistently, it seems, parents get much more into the "us vs them" mentality that those stations convey than the kids do. The extremists I know don't follow the news (or even the "news"): they follow their parents.

I'd say it's a person-by-person thing. If you're raised on it, it's entirely possible that you become, for lack of a better word, brainwashed by it and it becomes the only thing you know. However, many people (me being one of them, raised in a very conservative household) are able to be aware of what they've been raised watching through the influence of other people. As I grew older, I realized the value in questioning my beliefs, and I would do that. Some people don't do that, and that's where you get insane extremists.

I think it's the people who are specifically only going to those stations for their "news" that are the problem I'm concerned with. They say things like "Oh, well Fox/MSNBC/whatever are the only true news channels" and they have quite literally no interest in even giving a different viewpoint a chance. That is an irresponsible way to live your life, in my opinion.
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart

benpaco
Who's gonna watch you die?

Age: 27
Location: California

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I think it's the people who are specifically only going to those stations for their "news" that are the problem I'm concerned with. They say things like "Oh, well Fox/MSNBC/whatever are the only true news channels" and they have quite literally no interest in even giving a different viewpoint a chance. That is an irresponsible way to live your life, in my opinion.

While I agree with this (which is why I've started going to CNN, Huffington Post, Reddit, and trying to find a major network's source before really believing anything [CBS, Guardian, Times, whatever]), I gotta say, to me the more irresponsible and scary way to live is indoctrinated by family and no news. You just get all your reporting done by your dad. He doesn't like a story? He doesn't tell you. He wants you to believe something? He makes up a fake law that was just passed. It's a frightening and very real situation for a lot of kids in my area, including the vast majority of those asked about their sources of news in both junior and senior history classes. That's where bizarre opinions like "anyone with any genetic imperfections should be sterilized" or "depressed people shouldn't be allowed to have children" or "depression isn't real, I don't see why those people can't just put on their happy hats and move on" or "we shouldn't involve ourselves in the middle east because all Muslims deserve to die" come from (all real points made by volunteer students in classes).
_________________

. . . 2016 . . . 2015 . . .

Things I Make