>>4981>>4981>I do not know the specifics of new Zealand gun policy, but, aren't they fairly small Nation?>It seems like it would be a fair bit easier to police as a result.
By transitive property, their police force is also smaller than the united states. >Again, I'm skeptical that this is a uniquely american thing.
It's not, but the degree
is unique in our culture, we literally produce such media basically in mass quantity on basically an annual basis. Historic cultures didn't have an industrialization of their media. >Why on Earth would they be a disgusting thing?
Because they are weapons, designed to hurt or kill or coerce with the threat of either. People may love to fall back on calling it a tool, but it's still a tool of violence nonetheless and isn't designed for any other purpose.
Even if there are good arguments why it is ultimately better for people to have a right to them doesn't mean our culture needs to treat them as somehow more than just weapons.
In fact, I think the tendency to call them "tools" betrays this poor attitude towards guns, if one is too insecure to just call it a weapon.>Near as I can tell the only major factor with american media is that involves guns, rather than any other weapon.
Yeah, it's an explanation why it's gun
violence we have a problem with. >There is plenty of other foreign media that follows the same lines, and have followed the same lines for ages.
Yeah, but it doesn't often involve guns, and usually doesn't frame it the way our media frames violence, again the point I was making about it is to explain why gun violence is worst in the United States, while conceding the points that anti-gun control crowd makes that are pretty valid (soundess varies though) such as the fact that the guns themselves don't drive people to kill and that yes, they can be neccessary to survive in rural areas, and yes there is even a good argument to make about the check on power that a gun may give to a person against corrupt authority. Also merely being exposed to violence isn't going to inspire someone to be violent. All that leaves as the most probable explanation for the disproportionate amount of gun violence in the United States is the attitudes and beliefs of Americans towards their guns. >>4981>"Escapism" likewise is not a uniquely american thing, and besides that, doesn't immediately mean they're are no moral themes involved in a story.
I mean, I never implicated escapism nor implied that it was unique to America. I was referring to aspect of typical American
escapism into worlds were there are little, if any, moral complexities surrounding weapons and things like consequences. It's an escape to a reality where such morally complex situations never happen and things like war always
has someone 100% in the wrong and someone else 100% in the right. And we have plenty of media that may pay lip service to such themes and morals while contradicting them via how guns and gun violence is framed as practically sexy. >Perhaps, but, I do not think we can get that media literacy.>Not for the majority of the population, in any regard. certainly not with the way that the education system work at the moment.
I mean, media literacy isn't something that requires that
much education, so it's not like everyday people can't educate each other on these sorts of things, and it's not like there aren't plenty of free resources out there at the moment that can teach some really basic principles of media literacy, which are ... well, basically critical thinking skills combined with a bit of knowledge and awareness of things like common rhetorical strategies, biases and common logical fallacies.
It's just too bad we have a lot of GOP lawmakers who explicitly oppose teaching of critical thinking skills in public schools. >My experience there is that if anything, education hurts that aspect, as priority is giving to repetition and memory of what was said elsewhere, over logical progression and rational thinking.
Yep, good old GOP and their opposition to anything that might "undermine parental authority". >Oh, and of course, this still leaves the aspect of fame and notoriety coming from a media attention.
Which comes as a less than complete and less than useful explanation. A lot of people do things for fame and notoriety, but most of them don't use violence to get it. So then the next question is why someone might choose to gain fame and notoriety via mass murder and suicide with a gun? Where did they get the idea that the best way to end one's life is to get revenge against no one specifically or humanity "in general", when it's so much rarer for people in other countries. >24 hour cycles seem to have little to no advantage as I've seen however.
It's a relic from the pre internet era, allowed people to tune into the news anytime they wanted to instead of having to wait till 6pm. It was more convenient.
There is nothing intrinsiclly special about 24 hour television news media that makes it especially more detrimental to society. It has nothing to do with how long it's on the air or how much content it has (most repeat the same news cyclicly in a 24 hour period anyway) but rather to do with how they maintain attention in the long term, which is not particularly unique to 24 hour news channels, they exploit negativity bias for consumers attention and use confirmation bias to build consumer loyalty. >This is only if they decide to be the best.
The free market is essentially an elimination challenge. It's kind of why it has a tendency to monopoly/oligopoly. If you're to survive in your own niche, you have to meet a bare minimum of competitiveness, if you want your niche to remain your
niche.>This is the thing; you don't have to be EA.>You can make a game company that's decent, produces good content, and does it in an ethical way. You can earn more than enough money this way.
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. >You won't be the best doing it this way. Not in terms of raw profit. But that is not required.
As I alluded to earlier, that's fine and all if you didn't have competition looking to take consumers away from you or else offer to absorb you into them peacefully. >>4981>This is something of a problem with the way that stockholders work. People with no interest in the company beyond what they get out of the money in it, no interest in the field or what they produce, will ultimately only care about the growth of that company.
Yes, this is the foundation of Capitalism, what sets it apart from other forms of free market systems. This is how it works. >>4981>Everything else is meaningless, as it does not matter to them, only the profits do.>That's a bit of a different subject in its entirety, but, suffice to say, I am rather heavily against investment and stocks which control over companies.
This is pretty much being against the fundamental driving force in capitalism. Not that I have a problem with this>However, I do not think that is a practical option for the general population.
You mean, googling for an alternative source on a story you just read isn't practical? In the age of the smart phone? >If nothing else, simple time messes that up. A lot of people are working more than full-time. A lot of people have a lot of other things to do in there lives then simply research the latest news but they don't particularly care about.
This isn't really a problem though if we just emphasize critical thinking skills and the justifications for it as a civic virtue. Sometimes it's as simple as just making sure to have a good grasp on the fact that if you only watch one news source you're only getting one perspective and let that indicate how much confidence you can justifiably have. Sometimes it's as simple keeping that in mind. >>4981>And, too be quite honest with you, I do not think most people really care. A lot of it feels like little more than cheering your favorite sports team.
Most people have a bias to see information that has no bias as being biased against them. It's a normal phenomenon of human cognitive psychology. You can't retain audiences if they think you're biased against them.
Of course, that's a cultural problem I would trace back to goid old fashioned American anti-intellectualism.