End of an era (for better or worse): Ailene Voisin admires her last rippling bicep
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
Hell yes I did: I've known @Bricklayer long enough to know that, as soon as he heard that Voisin had been let go, he was going to have something to say about it. I'm only surprised that he didn't have the first reply.
When Napear finally gets canned, I expect him to be on the first thing smoking to come back for some @sloter-when-Webber-got-traded level partying, too.
When Napear finally gets canned, I expect him to be on the first thing smoking to come back for some @sloter-when-Webber-got-traded level partying, too.
And that's also a problem. We call the media the fourth estate for a reason; it's essential to a functioning democratic republic. It's troubling to me that people don't know where to go to find reasonably effective journalism.
The point I'm trying to make is that these species of thoughts were not mainstreamed in a different era, and thus could be easily refuted due to common mainstream resources for obtaining hard facts. With the mainstreaming of erroneous ways of thinking about the world, we see a mainstreaming of suspicion for all credible sources of information.
But methinks we've been speaking in the abstract a bit too much. Here's a concrete example. I teach composition and critical thinking in the Los Rios Community College District. Two semesters ago, I had a student who read online that Kyrie Irving had said that the earth was flat. He did some "research," and asked me in earnest how I knew that the earth was round. He was not a "whackadoo." He wasn't even particularly prone to conspiracy theory. He was just one among many online users who are susceptible to such cons in an era with no consensus about what constitutes an "authority."
This is a problem. It's a problem when education and experience are no longer satisfactory markers of credibility for an authority on a particular subject matter. We could move from issue to issue in 2018, from climate change to voter fraud, and you'd find millions of internet users consuming untold amounts of text every day who had never read a single piece of reporting that cited credible sources on the issue in question. Yes, there will always be ignorant and/or unengaged individuals, but in an earlier era, at least they were absorbing "the facts" by osmosis. As shared facts and shared reality become obliterated in the online age, there is great opportunity for fraudulent strains of thought to spread at a wildfire's pace.
I won't disagree that many were left alienated by the gatekeepers of old, and that much could have been done to improve upon that model (particularly when it comes to representation of non-white voices in the media, and representation of non-white issues in the media), but again, I remain unconvinced that the new model, with its heavy de-emphasis of critical engagement, is providing a better alternative for the greatest number of people. It's wonderful that more human beings have access to more information that at any other point in history, but if the vast majority of them aren't engaging with reliable sources of information, then the internet just becomes a broken promise of a sort--all potential, no execution (kinda like the Sacramento Kings teams of the last decade).
It is unfortunate, but my experience online is hardly unique. Ask the female population what it's like to try and voice an opinion in many online spaces, for example. The internet, when taken as a monolith, is not a friendly place. It's not a civil place. Hell, even kf.com can become an unpleasant place to hold a conversation from time to time. This is not to say that there aren't worthy websites to visit, or vibrant communities to join, but it's naive-as-f*** to gloss over the toxicity that's rampant across the most-trafficked online spaces. And as users continue to flock to social media, in particular, many once-great online communities simply fade away.
The point I'm trying to make is that these species of thoughts were not mainstreamed in a different era, and thus could be easily refuted due to common mainstream resources for obtaining hard facts. With the mainstreaming of erroneous ways of thinking about the world, we see a mainstreaming of suspicion for all credible sources of information.
But methinks we've been speaking in the abstract a bit too much. Here's a concrete example. I teach composition and critical thinking in the Los Rios Community College District. Two semesters ago, I had a student who read online that Kyrie Irving had said that the earth was flat. He did some "research," and asked me in earnest how I knew that the earth was round. He was not a "whackadoo." He wasn't even particularly prone to conspiracy theory. He was just one among many online users who are susceptible to such cons in an era with no consensus about what constitutes an "authority."
This is a problem. It's a problem when education and experience are no longer satisfactory markers of credibility for an authority on a particular subject matter. We could move from issue to issue in 2018, from climate change to voter fraud, and you'd find millions of internet users consuming untold amounts of text every day who had never read a single piece of reporting that cited credible sources on the issue in question. Yes, there will always be ignorant and/or unengaged individuals, but in an earlier era, at least they were absorbing "the facts" by osmosis. As shared facts and shared reality become obliterated in the online age, there is great opportunity for fraudulent strains of thought to spread at a wildfire's pace.
I won't disagree that many were left alienated by the gatekeepers of old, and that much could have been done to improve upon that model (particularly when it comes to representation of non-white voices in the media, and representation of non-white issues in the media), but again, I remain unconvinced that the new model, with its heavy de-emphasis of critical engagement, is providing a better alternative for the greatest number of people. It's wonderful that more human beings have access to more information that at any other point in history, but if the vast majority of them aren't engaging with reliable sources of information, then the internet just becomes a broken promise of a sort--all potential, no execution (kinda like the Sacramento Kings teams of the last decade).
It is unfortunate, but my experience online is hardly unique. Ask the female population what it's like to try and voice an opinion in many online spaces, for example. The internet, when taken as a monolith, is not a friendly place. It's not a civil place. Hell, even kf.com can become an unpleasant place to hold a conversation from time to time. This is not to say that there aren't worthy websites to visit, or vibrant communities to join, but it's naive-as-f*** to gloss over the toxicity that's rampant across the most-trafficked online spaces. And as users continue to flock to social media, in particular, many once-great online communities simply fade away.
Last edited:
I think that you're grossly overstating how informed the average person was in the past. People who always had access to 'good' journalism have a skewed sense of how ubiquitous that was. I would submit that access to 'good' journalism was never as widespread as you are making out.
You and I don't appear to be working from the same definition of "mainstream." I don't consider fringe thinkers being able to signal boost each other as being the same thing as 'mainstreaming'.
Well, I hope you failed that student, then. If you teach a critical thinking class, and you had a student who 'earnestly' wondered how you knew the earth was round, then I feel like there was a failure somewhere, and I don't personally point the finger at journalism here.
Like, seriously, that what this comes down to, from my perspective: we stopped teaching people to think critically, and then we blame journalism for people not being able to figure out how to find credible information? I don't know what part of game that is?
You and I don't appear to be working from the same definition of "mainstream." I don't consider fringe thinkers being able to signal boost each other as being the same thing as 'mainstreaming'.
Well, I hope you failed that student, then. If you teach a critical thinking class, and you had a student who 'earnestly' wondered how you knew the earth was round, then I feel like there was a failure somewhere, and I don't personally point the finger at journalism here.
Like, seriously, that what this comes down to, from my perspective: we stopped teaching people to think critically, and then we blame journalism for people not being able to figure out how to find credible information? I don't know what part of game that is?
You are an elequant writer and you usually have thought provoking positions. However the good old times weren't always so good. Have you ever gone back and looked at the positions of the old "gatekeepers" or whatever you want to call the old sources of trusted information? It's not always pretty and often their biases become very obvious. Look at the old National Geographic articles for example. A few decades ago they were talking about the next ice age. Go figure. Distortion of "facts" is nothing new they just have better tools now.
Now if you want to talk about how volital society has become or the dangers facing our society, you won't get any arguments from me.
Now if you want to talk about how volital society has become or the dangers facing our society, you won't get any arguments from me.
