SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the no-one's-leaving-until-we-have-unanimous-agreement dept.
The rise of populism has rattled the global political establishment. Brexit came as a shock, as did the victory of Donald Trump. Much head-scratching has resulted as leaders seek to work out why large chunks of their electorates are so cross.
...
The answer seems pretty simple. Populism is the result of economic failure. The 10 years since the financial crisis have shown that the system of economic governance which has held sway for the past four decades is broken. Some call this approach neoliberalism. Perhaps a better description would be unpopulism.Unpopulism meant tilting the balance of power in the workplace in favour of management and treating people like wage slaves. Unpopulism was rigged to ensure that the fruits of growth went to the few not to the many. Unpopulism decreed that those responsible for the global financial crisis got away with it while those who were innocent bore the brunt of austerity.
2017 Davos says: The 99% should just try harder.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:55PM (2 children)
Don't let them off the hook that easily. They know damned well that telling the right series of half-truths leaves an overall impression that is a lie. Most of us learned that very well at an early age after trying to half-truth ourselves out of trouble.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:30PM (1 child)
You miss my meaning. Telling half-truths is worse than telling outright lies, because the doublethink involved makes it harder to detect falsehood.
My framing is not an attempt to let anybody "off the hook". It's not about who is morally wrong or right. It's about understanding the real problem better. If you believe they are telling outright lies and are doing so willingly, then the solution is to fire them and only listen to honest people. But if you understand that they believe they are being honest, that they have been convinced they are doing good and not doing evil, then replacing them won't help. The replacements will do exactly the same for exactly the same reasons.
We must accept that the reasons and methods are bigger than any one person. We must accept that there isn't anybody we can fire and replace to solve the problem. We must accept that attempts to create good and true news sources will be co-opted by these same forces, often becoming worse than what we were trying to replace.
If we don't accept this, then we are merely prey. We will become mouthpieces for the same so-called fake news we tried to escape.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday March 29 2017, @08:08PM
Which is why I never believe anything the MSM tells me without confirmation from other sources these days. I rather think they may be lying more often than not.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?