Don’t be silly. Reagan wasn’t even a member of the Trilateral Commission. That was George H.W. Bush.
Anyway, it was Nixon who started globalization, with his trip to China and wheat deal with the Soviets. Or maybe it was FDR with the United Nations. Or Wilson with the League of Nations. Or Andrew Jackson, who ended South Carolina’s threat to leave the Union in 1833 by agreeing to reduce tariffs.
Or it was began by the Bretton-Woods Agreement.
Or the Chinese-Middle East “Silk Road”.
Or the Voyages of Discovery in the 14th-15th centuries.
Or the British transatlantic trade of the 17th century.
Or… we can ignore 1k years of development and give all the credit to Reagan. But why?
Or the British, French, Dutch, Romans, Chinese…it never really went away.
ETA: So - totally - ninja’d by JohnT
You’ve inadvertently demonstrated your own point about well-meaning misinformation there; biodiesel is only carbon neutral if you simply look at the end product and figure that it fits within the natural carbon cycle. If you include the energy use and inputs to grow and process the fuel, in every system yet devised, the production of biodiesel consumes more fuel than it replaces. The only real sustainable source is stuff like old cooking oil, only because it’s a waste product and doesn’t require much more in the way of processing, but this obviously isn’t viable on a large scale. Biodiesel is a lovely theory, but sadly it doesn’t work in practice.
The world has got complicated, and there are no simple unarguable solutions. It’s also easier than ever before to create your own bubble, to the level that you can even forget there’s other viewpoints out there, and easier for those who understand the system to manipulate those bubbles. This is the propaganda revolution.
-Phones
-Lack of great art (music, film, humor, language)
JohnT absolutely nailing it with this analysis.
And the critical thing (which is implied, but which I’ll state outright) is that each of these changes resulted in a democratization of publishing, which led to the erosion of power of existing gatekeepers.
The printing press eroded the power of the Church as the sole disseminator of God’s word and blessing.
The newspaper eroded the power of the Nation State in ways that I can’t quite capture the pith of in a simple phrase.
The internet has eroded the power of every remaining stable institution as the definer of objective reality.
Trump, Anti-vax, Flat Earth, PewDiePie’s minions. They’re all symptoms of the fact there are no more gatekeepers. Everyone gets to decide what’s true and what’s bullshit. Collectively, we’re really bad at it.
It seems to me, perhaps, that newspapers didn’t hasten the end of the Nation State, but the end of the era of non self-determination based governments such as Monarchy, Autocracy, replacing them with Democracy, Communism, Socialism, etc, all of these new forms based on the idea that the “people’s” ability to control their nation will be better than somebody born into the job.
And thank you for the compliment.
Do we just roll with it?
:rolleyes: Unless, you are ready to admit that this happened to you, why do you think others would be swayed by such stupid things? Because most people are dumber than you?
I will say this calmly, and with all seriousness. Most people ARE dumber than me. That’s simply a fact.
However what really protected me from targeted propaganda is that I don’t use facebook, twitter, or any other social media platform, and I also don’t watch any dedicated news stations whatsoever. That probably had an insulating effect.
Other people, on the other hand, do participate in social media, and I’ve heard from multiple sources that the Russians thought that was a spiffy-keen platform for propaganda distribution. I gather they have some experience in these matters and am willing to assume they’re not incompetent.
:eek:
If you say so…I can only evaluate you based on your posts here on the SD, which is a limited sample.
I think he is channeling George Carlin there:
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
I am uninterested in trying to persuade random persons of the internet about my specific level of intelligence, particularly when my specific level of intelligence is entirely irrelevant to the discussion (as opposed to when I’m trying to present an expert opinion or something). I only mentioned it to try and save you time, because attempts to base arguments on my supposed lack of intelligence are not going to be received by me feeling defeated or getting angry, but rather by me rolling my eyes.
Exactly. All nothing more than a fart in a windstorm.
Also, the majority of people are not on Twitter, or fooled by dumb memes on Facebook, or are convinced by what Murdochs empire spouts or believe in the whole left and right. Logic and reason across all the broad range of problems and issues in life and the world tell you that we require a zigzag on things, not this limiting left or right. This box or that. It’s just divisive and used as an insult more than anything and thus meaningless. This is not helpful. Also, the majority of people who came to the decision to vote for Trump and Brexit based on reasons that are probably just as valid as your reasons to vote the opposite. Anyone who lives in the real world and meets with and speaks to real people from different backgrounds and circumstances in life should not be surprised that Trump and Brexit happened. They also shouldn’t be lumped together like they’re the same thing. This is lazy and divisive.