"I don’t want to hear it, but then I don’t want to be ill-informed — or worse, complacent by not paying attention. How to balance?"
A question addressed to Washington Post advice columnist Carolyn Hax, who begins her answer "You and me both."
I'll bet huge numbers of Americans identify with this question, and a lot of them won't even admit it because even to ask is to risk appearing ill-informed or complacent (or, if I may add a concept, unempathetic).
I believe that most people who have this question find that the answer is to be a chameleon. Just reflect whatever the people around you are saying so you'll be seen as a good person and you won't be prolonging the experience.
Hax's answer is about restricting your intake of news. She assumes the questioner's issues are about the inside of her head and not in her social relationships. And, in fact, the questioner does say "I don’t want to be ill-informed — or worse, complacent." I'm hearing "I don’t want to appear to be ill-informed — or worse, complacent."
I think this is why so many showbiz people and college students seem to be on the left.
ADDED: If the questioner really is concerned about the inside of her own head, my advice is: Only read the news. Don't watch it on television. Television news controls your time. It's designed to operate on your emotions and to make you feel that you are monitoring what's going on in the world and caring people in real time. You could watch all day and not become more informed than if you spent 10 minutes scanning the headlines and dipping into the opening paragraphs of the articles in the top newspapers.
On an advanced level: Read the news to develop your powers of critical thinking. Don't let it buffet you with one thing or another. When you read a news article, stop and ask yourself: What do I really think about this? If you can write one sentence in answer to that question, you can have a blog. But keep it private, unless you're not afraid of showing your true colors.
And better than that: If you really care about people, instead of keeping vigil in front of the tube, do something for somebody in your own town (or house!).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०८ टिप्पण्या:
Per the link: Why should anyone take advice from someone who thinks there is "no shame" in supporting "the ideals of communism"?
Anyway, until Dem soap opera women change their viewing habits, we will get more drama. It is too useful for the MSM and its political cronies.
I think this is why so many showbiz people and college students seem to be on the left.
You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that people on the Right are attacked and driven out when they speak?
Inform over dysfunction.
Complacency is a virtue. Stop standing at attention to other people's causes. You don't have to stand or kneel. Just yawn when you have to tawn
Paying attention to the news channels these days will keep you uninformed. Really pay attention, and you'll notice you don't hear anything about cabinet secretaries or international events unless it fits the drama of the day. Pulling away has been good for my mental state, and I realize I do not know less about the world than I did before if I just do a quick peek at headlines from around the world.
I was going to watch some NFL this weekend, but just couldn't deal with seeing the political stuff. I'll be back in a few weeks.
I am better informed by the internet, and I don't mean goofy facebook posts, than by reading newspapers, which all lean hard left.
I read British newspapers online. Anything political is better seen there than in US papers.
Instapundit is a better source of fast news than the LA times or NY Times.
Gatewaypundit got caught with a mistaken identity error and will have trouble regaining respect.
I even remember when Little Green Footballs was a good source of news. Times change.
My dog is informed about what's going on in the kitchen. Certain things she gets to share make specific noises as they come out of the refrigerator, and she selectively appears when that happens.
Extra sharp chedder cheese wrappers in particular; she also recognizes the cheese drawer sliding out.
Yet she has time for other things too.
Putting an emptied peanut butter jar or butter tub on the floor makes a specific putting on the floor noise, too.
Dogs have evolved for this.
Curiosity is a sure sign of high intelligence.
I listen to Radio Japan news
http://www.nhk.or.jp/rj/podcast/rss/english.xml
every day. They have their own hangups but they're not the American ones.
I dislike it when people just bring up politics apropos of nothing, and then assume that you're just going to agree with whatever they say. Are you just looking for someone to agree with you? Do you need affirmation? Or do you want to actually have a real discussion, do you want me to challenge your assumptions? I get the feeling that most people just want you to nod your head and agree, they don't want to have to actually be questioned.
If you're not careful in a lot of situations, disagreeing with a person's political opinions can seem like you're saying they are ignorant or stupid. It becomes personal, whether that was your intention or not. So everything has to be carefully phrased.
I'm hearing "I don’t want to appear to be ill-informed — or worse, complacent."
Social perception matters, but I hear most of all that the writer does not want to appear ill-informed or complacent even to herself.
"You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that people on the Right are attacked and driven out when they speak?"
That's making the same point!
You have people around you who are a certain way and for social reasons you adopt their way. You see how outliers are disciplined. That drives home the value of being a chameleon.
“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.”
― Mark Twain
"You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that people on the Right are attacked and driven out when they speak?"
-- To give an idea, about 10 years ago, when I was looking at grad school, I was not too subtly warned to keep certain opinions to myself if I did end up going. Which is one of the many reasons (besides money) that I didn't.
And, mind you, I'm a fairly liberal Republican when it comes to social issues, and *still* I was warned about it.
As kids we put a chameleon on a plaid shirt and it turned a sort of off-red.
"Gatewaypundit got caught with a mistaken identity error and will have trouble regaining respect."
-- Didn't hurt the stations that accused -- which shooter was it? -- of being a Tea Party member despite that not being the case, so I don't see why Gatewaypundit should be too worried.
like a CBS lawyer, all the way down to a Hollywood porn star
The whole sweep of mankind.
It's a matter of filtering out the noise and being very skeptical of what you determine to be signal. Then, remember that we have it oh so cushy and nice here in the States and even if the Norks go Nuke, we will profit from the loss of Asian manufacturing capacity.
The mob rules, the CBS lawyer being the latest instance.
Soon you'll only get honest opinions from retired people.
"I dislike it when people just bring up politics apropos of nothing, and then assume that you're just going to agree with whatever they say."
-- I remember several years ago people talked about this about watching/playing movies/games for entertainment. I forget who, but someone called it something like "leftist sucker punch," where out of nowhere, you get harsh, anvil dropping, didactic haranguing from whatever you were watching/playing, before shifting back to the actual genre.
I avoid people who make me feel that same feeling in person.
What's a "newspaper", Gramps?
I thought Hax was insightful, sensible, and forthright when I followed her before my 2013 breakup with the internet.
I hope she hasn't gone political like that ridiculously PC former NYT "Ethicist."
But like the writer, many of her readers probably need help with their political emotions and reasoning.
The information is the easy part. Ask why the information is being brought up even if it's right.
Nobody notices the frames of their eyeglasses.
Newspapers brought you coupons and sales from advertisers in the old days.
In the really old days they brought you James Thurber.
Take a break on your journey through this vale with a visit to this site, "576 Border Collies Showed Up at a Park in Australia to Break a World Record":
http://www.travelandleisure.com/animals/border-collie-world-record
Be sure to watch the short video. Guaranteed to make you smile, probably laugh.
A vision of heaven, surely.
In the 70s there were the Columbus Dispatch and the Columbus Citizen-Journal, the former being completely unreadable pap and the latter tolerable. The CJ folded though and that was that. Columbus people started taking the Wall St Journal.
Until the 90s when the WSJ went lifestyle to get women.
Then even that was dropped.
When my nephew was applying to NYU law school in the mid to late 90s, I carefully edited the essay he had to submit with his application. I warned him that people there were very political and that if they got the least idea that he disagreed with them in any way, he would not be accepted. To this day, he says he would not have been accepted at NYU without me. When I went to law school, my Con Law I teacher, Professor S, who was a member of the ACLU, would word his exam questions as "How would a real judge decide this case and why?" I wisely took this to mean "How would a real judge named Professor S decide this case and why." I guess I know how to be a chameleon when I need to.
Pulling away has been good for my mental state, and I realize I do not know less about the world than I did before if I just do a quick peek at headlines from around the world.
No wonder we no longer see you at that firehose of arcanae, JOM.
But 2 years of brief glances at MSM headlines made me believe Trump was nothing but a creepy NY liberal in populist drag.
"What's a "newspaper", Gramps?"
"Newspaper" refers to the websites of the newspapers and I regard you as an old fogey if you think some special word or phrase is needed to specify that. Are you the kind of guy who calls a magazine in its on-line form an "ezine"? I see that in crossword puzzles all the time and it gets on my nerves.
-- Didn't hurt the stations that accused -- which shooter was it? -- of being a Tea Party member despite that not being the case, so I don't see why Gatewaypundit should be too worried.
Different audiences. The left is into confirmation bias. The right wants facts,
I used to read HuffPo.
We will be made to care. Not caring is a form of dissent and won't be tolerated.
I don't care lots of times and I don't care that I appear not to care but I have noticed a certain dismissiveness (contempt?) on the part of more committed others because I am apathetic when they think I shouldn't be.
Beware of the locution "I can no longer remain silent". Some fatuity usually follows.
Spend your time reading classic literature and history books.
"In the really old days they brought you James Thurber."
Was Thurber in newspapers? I thought it was just The New Yorker.
I like the good old days when the newspapers all had "Nancy."
Why should anyone take advice from someone who thinks there is "no shame" in supporting "the ideals of communism"?
Indeed; you just have to keep in mind that these were/are the people Lenin characterized as "useful fools."
Althouse: "You could watch all day and not become more informed than if you spent 10 minutes scanning the headlines and dipping into the opening paragraphs of the articles in the top newspapers. "
Yes yes yes exactly!
Meade and I got into a conversation with a neighbor (the first time we ever met her) in which she said something so negative against Trump that we offered some balancing arguments, mainly just to calm her down so she wouldn't be so frantically worried. I certainly didn't say I endorsed Trump. As you know, I never say that. We put a lot of effort into being friendly to a neighbor without buying into her political drama.
On another day, when this woman happened to be in our yard talking to Meade, I strolled over to say hi, and she immediately accosted me with the assertion that I was for Trump and I needed to defend him on some issue that she wanted to pummel me with questions about. In my own yard! And I was only going over to say hi.
What did I do? I went meta.
I really agree with you about not watching news on tv, but reading instead. Years ago when there were all those videos of Bosnian refugees, I realized the videos were hitting me on a much deeper level than reading and that the images and the emotions they engendered stuck with me for days. I was doing some hospice type work at the time and didn't need the extra downers. In Scott Adams terms they were persuasive without giving me a lot of new info.
"When I went to law school, my Con Law I teacher, Professor S, who was a member of the ACLU, would word his exam questions as "How would a real judge decide this case and why?" I wisely took this to mean "How would a real judge named Professor S decide this case and why." I guess I know how to be a chameleon when I need to."
If I ever got the feeling, reading an exam, that a student was doing that, I would feel embarrassed — just empathetic embarrassment for the student and sadness that anyone would think of me like that.
I have had that feeling of overload since the start of the two year long Presidential campaign that led up to the last election. That campaign continues, although in other forms, and amazingly, more intensified forms. I am not sure if am repelled most by the extremism and intransigence of the contending views; the extension of politics and ideology into every facet of life; or the sense that, for all the drama, nothing of substantive significance to the nation is being addressed. I have found that it is, by the way, possible to achieve some distance and protection and from all of this hysteria by scrupulous avoidance of anything calling itself a broadcast news program. At least the written word, my information source of choice, is not conveyed by shouting.
How many true stories are ignored, say the unmasking, the awan spy ring, in favor of the grishenko nonsense (my shorthand for the Russian kerfluffle)
"I dislike it when people just bring up politics apropos of nothing, and then assume that you're just going to agree with whatever they say"
I've lived in liberal areas my entire adult life, although that will be changing soon (hello, Ozaukee County!). It happens all the time around liberals. They will say something derogatory about Trump (like they did about Romney, Bush, McCain, Reagan, Gingrich, etc) and then wait for you to agree with them. They want to make sure you are on Team Blue before they decide they like you. I normally just ignore the statement. That might be enough to give me away.
I did not know the conservatives I know were conservatives for quite some time before they dropped a hint I picked up on. The "tolerant left" has made us very wary. Conservatives know they can lose jobs, clients, and customers if it becomes known they are conservative. Leftists have no such worries.
Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
The telegraph and the mail, are a little better, but they get caught innthe narrative trap, with the former it has something to do with their owners the batclay brothers.
What did I do? I went meta.
Get off my lawn!
"I really agree with you about not watching news on tv, but reading instead. Years ago when there were all those videos of Bosnian refugees, I realized the videos were hitting me on a much deeper level than reading and that the images and the emotions they engendered stuck with me for days. I was doing some hospice type work at the time and didn't need the extra downers. In Scott Adams terms they were persuasive without giving me a lot of new info."
Sometimes it is what you want to choose. Experiencing those emotions can be the right thing to do. On 9/11 and the days after, I felt the need to sit and experience it on television -- to be with it. But I will not do that now with respect to every act of terrorism.
I like to watch election results on the news, even though it's an immense consumption of time compared to just ignoring it and reading about it in the morning, which will take less than a second per race (compared to 4 to 10 hours). I love to watch the faces and listen to the explanations and see the graphics. Election night 2016 was such an amazing thing that I have gone back to the videos and watched them again. When you know what's going to happen, it's very interesting to see it gradually occurring: When did Wolf Blitzer know and how did he start revealing it? They waited so long to admit Trump had won. They spun out so many stories about how Hillary might still win. It's really interesting to rewatch.
Now, that raises the question: Why watch the current news? If it's not happening in your immediate environment, why must you be so focused on what is happening now? Would it not be better to look at some other period in history and study that, where the facts are known and the consequences experienced, and the greatest writers on the subject can be selected to read?
"I did not know the conservatives I know were conservatives for quite some time before they dropped a hint I picked up on."
-- Most people in college assumed I was conservative-ish solely because I wasn't vocally anti-Bush.
"That campaign continues, although in other forms, and amazingly, more intensified forms"
I fear it might work because people who are not that political might decide that there is too much drama in the Era of Trump and if we elect a Dem, things might quiet down.
Mothers use the same reasoning when they finally give and buy the candy for their screaming brats. OK, here's the chocolate bar, just shut up please.
I know which of my friends are more right-ish or conservative solely because we don't talk politics; my left-ish or liberal friends feel perfectly safe vocalizing any political opinion without fear of a lashback.
If the questioner really is concerned about the inside of her own head, my advice is: Only read the news. Don't watch it on television
That is fantastic advice. Even radio news (that's you, NPR) works on seduction and selective reporting.
Furthermore, read less news and more history.
"she immediately accosted me"...
I learned my lesson in the SF Bay Area in Ronald Reagan's day.
Since then, in person, US politics is not my business.
"Furthermore, read less news and more history.'
Always good advice.
Its interesting what will set people off.
I recall, once, when a kid was in preschool, I got to talking with another parent, who had just adopted a little boy, a toddler, from Nicaragua, named Santiago - he had kept his name through the adoption. I noted, with admiration, that the name was a noble one, that it meant Saint James, patron of Spain, and was the ancient Spanish war-cry besides.
This did not go well.
Even with history, there is too much repetition of narrative, the exception in mark moyars triumph forsaken, which puts Ken burns paper weight to shame, or fall if heaven about the shah
Althouse - This professor was a nice guy and generally a good teacher. But, he would make statements like "everyone now agrees on abortion"(his point of view)." This was back in the 80s. I found my Con Law II professor, who was a conservative, much more intellectually honest. He would say "now, this is only my opinion" when he was telling us his opinion. I think he would have reacted like you.
Thanks for the lecture on ipapers and ezines, professor. It's nice to know what sort of irrelevant trivia sets you off. Maybe you have more in common with your lib neighbor lady than you realized.
Now, that raises the question: Why watch the current news? If it's not happening in your immediate environment, why must you be so focused on what is happening now? Would it not be better to look at some other period in history and study that, where the facts are known and the consequences experienced, and the greatest writers on the subject can be selected to read?
Bingo.
I can't applaud harder Ms. Althouse's recommendation to read the news rather than watch it.
I know which of my friends are more right-ish or conservative solely because we don't talk politics; my left-ish or liberal friends feel perfectly safe vocalizing any political opinion without fear of a lashback.
Bingo again.
The left knows who are you by your reticence. In a social setting they will probe you with comments (rarely outright questions) that are meant to elicit your comments which will reveal you for what you are. If you elect not to play the game, if you do not comment in like manner, they will know. I work at the University of Chicago, at the Oriental Institute, and I know how the game is played, I know it well.
Anyway, I normally don't talk politics. Too much agita. Not fun. The conversations go nowhere. It's interesting, being in a social setting with people who want to talk politics and not playing along. People get confused, resentful, angry. I don't care. It's also fun trying to talk such people about something other than politics. Sometimes this can be rewarding. People who respond positively -- even people to the left of me (i.e., just about everyone, it seems) -- have the potential to be friends.
Take the highly recommended history of the cold war, by that Norwegian historian, its much of the same tripe, consider sebastiens 1989 or winiks on the brink, Sebastian has a pretty god into in 1946, more detail then say Daniel yergin was able to provide.
"On 9/11 and the days after, I felt the need to sit and experience it on television -- to be with it. "
The weekend of the Kennedy funeral, my wife watched TV for hours.
I went pheasant hunting. It was the opening weekend of the season.
I heard Oswald shot on the radio as we were driving from one field to another.
The second book is at the bottom:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolution-1989-Fall-Soviet-Empire/dp/0753827093
I own the great upheaval, and have read all but the civil war book:
https://www.amazon.com/BRINK-Dramatic-Behind-Scenes-Reagan/dp/0684809826
"I dislike it when people just bring up politics apropos of nothing, and then assume that you're just going to agree with whatever they say."
*****************
Even worse - they assume you are a festering bundle of barely controlled anger and rage, as they are, and wish to engage in an anger fest. Very insulting and offensive, especially when its a total stranger. In what world is that appropriate or desirable behavior?
The author of the first book, with at least one participant in the series:
https://www.csis.org/events/discussion-landmark-documentary-vietnam-war-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick
On another day, when this woman happened to be in our yard talking to Meade, I strolled over to say hi, and she immediately accosted me with the assertion that I was for Trump and I needed to defend him on some issue that she wanted to pummel me with questions about. In my own yard! And I was only going over to say hi.
What did I do? I went meta.
I generally don't talk about politics with neighbors. They don't want to hear anything I have to say, after all, as they continue to mourn Hillary!! I guess your first mistake was trying to appease her first outrage re: Trump. If that were to happen, I'd just shrug, and say "He's the President. I don't read much news about him, I find it mostly slanted against him by people who are still in denial that Hillary lost." I think that's a true statement that even the most partisan will agree with.
"If I ever got the feeling, reading an exam, that a student was doing that, I would feel embarrassed." The smart chameleons spared you the embarrassment.
Of course, by comparison with just about any law prof, I'm sure students felt less need to do the chameleon act in Althouse's classes.
Heartily agree with those suggesting reading and specifically more history in lieu of news of the moving pixel variety. I would add that one should read more good literature - nothing like a well written story to illustrate the various issues of the human condition.
I only watch news when visiting my parents. I can't tell if I am watching the news or a parody of the news most of the time.
AA wrote:
"If you can write one sentence in answer to that question, you can have a blog. But keep it private, unless you're afraid of showing your true colors."
Perhaps our Professor Blogress meant "not afraid"?
When I tell my Democrat friends that I don't watch the news, some of them get visibly angry, but I think there is a little tinge of jealousy there. They accuse me of being uncaring, of course, I tell them that there is no sense of proportion in the news and that there are 300 million + people in the United States and 7 billion + outside of it, and I can't fix all of their lives so I concentrate on helping people I actually see and know. They call me an asshole.
A couple of Democrat women have confided they can hardly even sleep some nights for all of the stress of it. I think, "That's your party doing that to you for purposes of gaining power, really looking out for you!"
"I dislike it when people just bring up politics apropos of nothing, and then assume that you're just going to agree with whatever they say."
You mean like every fucking Democrat I know? I quit Facebook for this reason, because if posted the kinds of stuff I post here, not only would I be "unfriended" on FB, but in real life too.
Then, remember that we have it oh so cushy and nice here in the States and even if the Norks go Nuke, we will profit from the loss of Asian manufacturing capacity.
Is that what you think Howard? If it is, I hope you and people who think like you never get near the button, or is that what you think the racist Trump thinks?
"Gatewaypundit got caught with a mistaken identity error and will have trouble regaining respect."
I used to read GWP several times a day. But there were countless times when there were glaring errors on basic facts, it would be pointed out to Jim Hoft and he never, ever corrected the errors.
Haven't been back there in nearly a year.
"I can't fix all of their lives so I concentrate on helping people I actually see and know."
-- Tell them you're thinking globally, but acting locally.
"I am overloaded with all the drama in the political landscape."
The media (e.g. Washington Post ipsum) foment drama in the political landscape. That is the essence of their business model.
Althouse's advice to lessen the drama is good; abjure TV babble and favor written media. Consider however that written media today - Associated Press writers not excepted - has come to resemble TV babble.
As an exercise, try reading aloud from your local newspaper. Pronounce each word clearly and separately. Examine sentence structure and grammar as you read. Edit for superfluous words. Identify mal-appropriately positioned phrases. Look critically for errors in logic.
Inexpensive morning entertainment in the Gritzkofe household.
...written media today *have* come...
GWP is fine, you just don't trust him explicitly to do your thinking for you. WaPo makes a ton of mistakes too, and often hides them. I read them all with a skeptical eye, from the New York Times to ZeroHedge.
Its hard for me to watch Cable TV now. 15 minutes to get 2 minutes of news.
Same with the Sunday Talk shows or Politician speeches. So much faster to just read the transcript. Assuming I'm interested at all.
95% of the people who've gone on ranted - unasked - about Politics in my presence have been liberals.
Its seems to be a Liberal/Left quirk. They hate/love XYZ and they assume everyone else does. They get their views reinforced on TV, movies, Newspapers, and now even sports talk and ESPN.
Usually I say nothing and change the subject. Trump supporters really are the Silent Majority.
"If you really care about people, instead of keeping vigil in front of the tube, do something for somebody in your own town (or house!)."
************
I am no Christian nor religious at all, but there is something to be said for the spiritual/religious idea that you quietly help out in your community in small ways - with no expectation of accolades for doing so, rather, it is supposed to humble you and shrink your ego. You just DO IT because that's what mature adults who aim to be productive members of society DO.
It is deplorable that at some point, unless a person gets on board with some very vocal, media-worthy, cause of the day - with maximum exposure and drama, you are deemed "not woke" or selfish. "Helping" appears to have been turned into just another way to stroke one's ego. Deplorable indeed.
Same with the Sunday Talk shows or Politician speeches. So much faster to just read the transcript. Assuming I'm interested at all.
I have quit watching Sunday talking heads after years of watching them all.
I know what they are going to say,
Nonapod said...
I dislike it when people just bring up politics apropos of nothing, and then assume that you're just going to agree with whatever they say.
Right on, brother!
Michael K pontificated...
The left is into confirmation bias. The right wants facts,
The man of anecdotal confirmation bias is hilarious, but he doesn't realize it.
rcocean said...
95% of the people who've gone on ranted - unasked - about Politics in my presence have been liberals.
Its seems to be a Liberal/Left quirk.
It seems me to be more like a crisis of faith these days.
"Why should anyone take advice from someone who thinks there is 'no shame' in supporting 'the ideals of communism'?"
That's a distortion. She amplified why he should have no shame by saying, "He’s learning, and it takes guts to think out loud the way he did." She's approving of a 14-year-old starting to "explore ideas." She also suggests that he have a civil conversation with the relatives who had actual knowledge the "painful realities" of life in the Soviet Union.
I agree. Let someone school this kid on life under actual Communism and also talk to him about why the "real Communism has never been tried" argument is bogus. That's exactly how he'll learn -- by getting arguments for and against, plus a dose of reality by people who've been there.
I have a friend who's a NYC liberal - at least that's what I thought. His wife runs a major magazine and he's well connected as a high end executive and personal performance coach. In every public conversation I've been in with him, he's expressed an extreme level of social tolerance and all the other typical liberal views.
He and I were on a call one evening and the discussion moved to the Muslim refugees. He dropped into a f-bomb laden rant about his Europe effed up letting them in and how we're just inviting terrorism if we allow muslim immigration to continue. He also thought it was insane we didn't have a secure border.
I'm more libertarian but I definitely moderate my views in different settings - mostly to avoid the drama.
So, yeah, if my confirmation bias is correct, I think you're right.
Meade and I got into a conversation with a neighbor (the first time we ever met her) in which she said something so negative against Trump that we offered some balancing arguments, mainly just to calm her down so she wouldn't be so frantically worried. I certainly didn't say I endorsed Trump. As you know, I never say that. We put a lot of effort into being friendly to a neighbor without buying into her political drama.
On another day, when this woman happened to be in our yard talking to Meade, I strolled over to say hi, and she immediately accosted me with the assertion that I was for Trump and I needed to defend him on some issue that she wanted to pummel me with questions about. In my own yard! And I was only going over to say hi.
What did I do? I went meta.
This bullshit is why I am afraid to move to a blue city. I mean, they are objectively nicer places to live (don't tell them I said that) and the pull is strong, but I also want to make friends and be able to avoid politics. But I'm afraid politics won't avoid me!
Was looking at nice houses in a suburb of Minneapolis today and man, those shady trees and lakes and parks and curving streets are seductive...there is a church of our denomination five minutes away....but will I be constantly surrounded by smug obsessive fanatics? I just don't know!
Thanks for the lecture on ipapers and ezines, professor. It's nice to know what sort of irrelevant trivia sets you off. Maybe you have more in common with your lib neighbor lady than you realized.
Why are you such a bag of dicks every time you show up here?
May I ask what "going meta" is? Is it this:
"To talk about what you and others are doing or conversing about, instead simply participating in the action or conversation." ?
With respect to the article, I have this image of the grocery-store checkout-aisle where the low-level shelves are loaded with candy and small toys. Every trip through sets small children off, as intended. You have to push them through ahead of yourself or else get the store to change its policy and put healthy snacks down there. Similarly, as Althouse says, it's better read print. Avoid the sugar rush. But relevant or even irrelevant reading isn't simple these days. What I notice about the time since Trump is that the histories or the books which seem relevant (or irrelevant) keep shifting. I was reading about the Indian Mutiny (by Kaye) as the most irrelevant thing I could think of but neither the history nor even the name is irrelevant. But no one will ask what I think about it and so I can think in peace and even bring up what I'm doing which seems dull and off-putting enough to prevent questions about Trump.
"I know what they are going to say,"
Especially, since ever other guest is John McCain or Lindsey Graham.
But I exaggerate - somewhat.
"Soon you'll only get honest opinions from retired people."
I thought that was already the case.
"In the really old days they brought you James Thurber."
Was Thurber in newspapers? I thought it was just The New Yorker.
He was with the Columbus Dispatch before that. Some of his New Yorker stories are about Columbus, the day the dam broke, and about a dog.
Now, that raises the question: Why watch the current news? If it's not happening in your immediate environment, why must you be so focused on what is happening now?
It's easy and it's fun, if you're one of the minority of women 40% who are into it. Big enough to pay the network bills.
The rhetorical challenge is to get women to take that interest of theirs into account when they vote on stuff as a bias that ought to be cancelled out.
I suppose the 40% might drop then, and the networks will change a little to get more borderline women with something else. But it won't be actual news. There's no market for actual news. That's their problem.
Print isn't as bad as TV because there are fewer dimensions to manipulate you with. But the Satanic preschool panic of the 80s finally cured me of trusting the news. Nevertheless, you must learn to see the fnords.
http://www.boogles.com/local/Illuminati/fnord.text
Was looking at nice houses in a suburb of Minneapolis today and man, those shady trees and lakes and parks and curving streets are seductive...there is a church of our denomination five minutes away....but will I be constantly surrounded by smug obsessive fanatics? I just don't know!
10/3/17, 4:50 PM
Pants, you can look up how that suburb voted in past elections.
I am moving from a very blue suburb to a red one that is just over the county line. And it is every bit as nice although not as convenient for me.
I like the good old days when the newspapers all had "Nancy."
10/3/17, 11:03 AM
What an odd cartoon that was. Nancy, with her weird Afro, Sluggo, a bald kid who appeared to be wearing a bowl on his head, and Aunt Fritzi, eternally stuck in 1947.
I am moving from a very blue suburb to a red one that is just over the county line. And it is every bit as nice although not as convenient for me.
I looked up our area in Tucson which is a fairly blue town. University and all.
Voted Trump.
If I ever got the feeling, reading an exam, that a student was doing that, I would feel embarrassed — just empathetic embarrassment for the student and sadness that anyone would think of me like that.
I hate to be the one to break it to you.........
Misplaced Pants: Why are you such a bag of dicks every time you show up here?
**************
LOL! Here in Seattle, there is a popular burger place called Dick's and its common to say "Let's go for a bag of Dick's". So you really insulted the guy AND made some of the folks here very hungry. Win Win!
http://www.ddir.com/
I'm kinda feeling like a bag of Dick's right now....
I recall the comment that FDR was a "chameleon on plaid." It was quoted by Gore Vidal somewhere.
ALP
I'd love me some Dick's but it would involve a plane trip; I'm a Texiled fourth generation Puget Sounder. Born in Tacoma and raised in the area and have a giant family all in and around Seattle.
I would go live in some politically balanced-ish place like Snohomish or Pierce County if I could afford to move back home. (Thanks Bezos!) Should have kept the house I sold in 2010.
I identify with this... person.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा