"Support for fundamental principles of democracy. Fundamental principles include things like majority rule, minority rights, and the rule of law."
Here's the problem: They don't. Democracy is majority rule, and that's all democracy is. You don't find hypocrisy in someone who supports majority rule and then wants to 86 a minority; to the contrary, that's almost an extra-democratic belief!
Are there hypocrites in the world? Certainly. But in a world where it's said that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are "racist", a lot of the "hypocrisy" is just two people defining terms differently.
Depends on the type of democracy. Studies conducted in the U.S., which is a liberal democracy and for which it is reasonable to assume respondents in US studies are most familiar and would think about when answering the questions (contra, say, Greek democracy).
It’s almost as though the post WWII governments decided to keep bogeyman targets as foil. Example: Romney was mocked by the establishment for calling Russia a geopolitical threat during the debate with Obama. Then the establishment’s 2007 Russian collusion case with Bob Dole was so unnoticed that they recycled it for Trump. They keep trying to make someone/something worse than [insert current agenda] to make current agenda look like the cure. “By any means necessary” is their force multiplier to incite violence. They know fully well that socially detached people will carry out these attacks. They’ve even allowed them to band and act together (BLM/Antifa).
Hey mate. I started one of my TLDR comments again, and turned it into an essay as you suggested. I turned it into a stonker and even mentioned the awful Elias Rodriguez shooting. It's not as well footnoted as your work, but it does contain some solid grounding on Media Effects Theory and the Allport's Scale. I think my hypothesis is fairly sound as well. At the moment it's like I'm assembling a mental jigsaw puzzle which points to far larger picture of specifically vulnerable individuals being susceptible to online radicalisation through any form of media metanarrative, social media or otherwise.
I'm sure you're familiar with Jonathan Haidt's work on the baleful effects of smartphone usage in the young. I think I might have come across another potential adverse effect. Have you been following the knife crime epidemic in the UK? I did some online research on the subject a while back. Probably a few hundred hours, looking into everything from Broken Windows and proactive policing to the Scottish public health approach. Ever hear of Gary Slutkin and the violence as a social contagion hypothesis? He gave one of the great early TED talks on the subject, and the Scottish institutions considered his approach vital to creating a strategy which halved knife crimes in ten years without increasing carceral populations significantly.
Anyway, here's my very disturbing hypothesis- what if smart phones and social media increases the RANGE of violence as a social contagion, specifically amongst teenage boys and young men, and especially from difficult backgrounds. Anyway, I'll leave it a few days for my current essay to percolate. I mentioned your essay in the opening line and included a link.
I had NOT heard about any of that (my ignorance is vast, I am living testament to the old saw about "the older you get the more you realize how little you know"). I do know a little about social contagion effects more generally, so what you have sketched here seems pretty plausible. The Slutkin/Scottish story is very interesting.
I’m absolutely the same. I’m 53 and am constantly finding something new to slot into my model of the world- or finding out I was completely wrong about something, with an overemphasis on monocausal oversimplifications a particular tendency.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. “ – Mark Twain.
Speaking of which, I dread Quote Investigator, or similar sites. For a couple of decades I picked up a series of favourite quotes. Nowadays when I look one up, it’s invariably a case of misattribution. Churchill and Burke misattributions seem to be particularly popular in the UK. Still, the Lady Astor quotes are at least accurate.
Heh. Here is my solution to that. I'll often include a quote or meme-quote because I think it is poignant to the topic, but then add a qualifier saying something like, "I have no idea whether X actually said this, but its a good point anyway." The Washington semi-but-not-really quote in this essay, though is from a bio of him I read a couple of years ago. I am almost positive he said something like that in a burst of frustration with how intensely partisan the Democrat-Republican v. Federalist split had become, but I am too lazy to verify it.
Sometimes I just pretend I don't know the quote was misattributed. For example, the Voltaire misattribution is too vital to lose in the quagmire of explaining it was a Victorian women summarising his work who was responsible for the quote.
"Support for fundamental principles of democracy. Fundamental principles include things like majority rule, minority rights, and the rule of law."
Here's the problem: They don't. Democracy is majority rule, and that's all democracy is. You don't find hypocrisy in someone who supports majority rule and then wants to 86 a minority; to the contrary, that's almost an extra-democratic belief!
Are there hypocrites in the world? Certainly. But in a world where it's said that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are "racist", a lot of the "hypocrisy" is just two people defining terms differently.
Depends on the type of democracy. Studies conducted in the U.S., which is a liberal democracy and for which it is reasonable to assume respondents in US studies are most familiar and would think about when answering the questions (contra, say, Greek democracy).
It’s almost as though the post WWII governments decided to keep bogeyman targets as foil. Example: Romney was mocked by the establishment for calling Russia a geopolitical threat during the debate with Obama. Then the establishment’s 2007 Russian collusion case with Bob Dole was so unnoticed that they recycled it for Trump. They keep trying to make someone/something worse than [insert current agenda] to make current agenda look like the cure. “By any means necessary” is their force multiplier to incite violence. They know fully well that socially detached people will carry out these attacks. They’ve even allowed them to band and act together (BLM/Antifa).
Hey mate. I started one of my TLDR comments again, and turned it into an essay as you suggested. I turned it into a stonker and even mentioned the awful Elias Rodriguez shooting. It's not as well footnoted as your work, but it does contain some solid grounding on Media Effects Theory and the Allport's Scale. I think my hypothesis is fairly sound as well. At the moment it's like I'm assembling a mental jigsaw puzzle which points to far larger picture of specifically vulnerable individuals being susceptible to online radicalisation through any form of media metanarrative, social media or otherwise.
I'm sure you're familiar with Jonathan Haidt's work on the baleful effects of smartphone usage in the young. I think I might have come across another potential adverse effect. Have you been following the knife crime epidemic in the UK? I did some online research on the subject a while back. Probably a few hundred hours, looking into everything from Broken Windows and proactive policing to the Scottish public health approach. Ever hear of Gary Slutkin and the violence as a social contagion hypothesis? He gave one of the great early TED talks on the subject, and the Scottish institutions considered his approach vital to creating a strategy which halved knife crimes in ten years without increasing carceral populations significantly.
Anyway, here's my very disturbing hypothesis- what if smart phones and social media increases the RANGE of violence as a social contagion, specifically amongst teenage boys and young men, and especially from difficult backgrounds. Anyway, I'll leave it a few days for my current essay to percolate. I mentioned your essay in the opening line and included a link.
I had NOT heard about any of that (my ignorance is vast, I am living testament to the old saw about "the older you get the more you realize how little you know"). I do know a little about social contagion effects more generally, so what you have sketched here seems pretty plausible. The Slutkin/Scottish story is very interesting.
I’m absolutely the same. I’m 53 and am constantly finding something new to slot into my model of the world- or finding out I was completely wrong about something, with an overemphasis on monocausal oversimplifications a particular tendency.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. “ – Mark Twain.
Speaking of which, I dread Quote Investigator, or similar sites. For a couple of decades I picked up a series of favourite quotes. Nowadays when I look one up, it’s invariably a case of misattribution. Churchill and Burke misattributions seem to be particularly popular in the UK. Still, the Lady Astor quotes are at least accurate.
Heh. Here is my solution to that. I'll often include a quote or meme-quote because I think it is poignant to the topic, but then add a qualifier saying something like, "I have no idea whether X actually said this, but its a good point anyway." The Washington semi-but-not-really quote in this essay, though is from a bio of him I read a couple of years ago. I am almost positive he said something like that in a burst of frustration with how intensely partisan the Democrat-Republican v. Federalist split had become, but I am too lazy to verify it.
Sometimes I just pretend I don't know the quote was misattributed. For example, the Voltaire misattribution is too vital to lose in the quagmire of explaining it was a Victorian women summarising his work who was responsible for the quote.