Study: Lack of tolerance, institutional confidence threaten democracies

Apr 2019
4,128
708
America
No, you don't, or could deal with the fact that if you allow the free-market to do its thing you get - Google and Twitter. And if they don't like you, start you're own damn versions. They are neither Public Utilities nor Public Accommodations.

As you suggested, they get to play by their own rules, not yours.

Suck it up, Buttercup...
Anti-Trust laws still apply to them. We will see what happens.
 
Dec 2015
18,894
18,370
Arizona
We are watching this play out in our nation, with the right side's incessant attacks upon the media and a president who advises us not to believe what we see and hear as he calls the media the enemy of the people.

Study: Lack of tolerance, institutional confidence threaten democracies
The stability of democracies worldwide could be vulnerable if certain cultural values continue to decline, according to a new study published in Nature Human Behaviour.​
The findings by researchers from the United States and New Zealand are based on an analysis of survey data from 476,583 individuals in 109 countries.​
"It is often taken for granted that democratic culture will just follow once democratic institutions have been installed," said Damian Ruck, a postdoctoral research fellow in UT's Department of Anthropology. "But when looking at the data we see democratic cultural values, such as openness and tolerance, precede both economic developmentand democratization."​
"This has important policy implications," Ruck said. "It suggests that democratic institutions will not be sustained in nations where openness and tolerance, hallmarks of a liberal democracy, are low. The recent rise of nationalist politics could be cause for concern."​
Where confidence in institutions such as the government and the media is low, democracy tends to be unstable. In the study, some Western nations were among those with multidecade declines in institutional confidence, raising concerns of future political instability.​
"In the 20th century, we became accustomed to seeing low-confidence autocracies become democracies," Ruck said. "But our analysis shows that this also works the other way around: low-confidence democracies can turn towards autocracy."

Yeah--well I think America has definitely arrived at the UNSTABLE Train Station. Most of us don't trust anyone. Maybe it's just me, but I honestly trust the MEDIA more than the government at this moment and there are good reasons for that. I can easily sort out what is true in the media. It's a lot harder to filter through the lies coming from D.C.--all the 'he said she said' junk. But we are not an autocracy YET and most of us will continue to support our constitution and democratic principles.
 
Apr 2019
4,128
708
America
Yeah--well I think America has definitely arrived at the UNSTABLE Train Station. Most of us don't trust anyone. Maybe it's just me, but I honestly trust the MEDIA more than the government at this moment and there are good reasons for that. I can easily sort out what is true in the media. It's a lot harder to filter through the lies coming from D.C.--all the 'he said she said' junk. But we are not an autocracy YET and most of us will continue to support our constitution and democratic principles.
Most of us don't trust anyone.
Thanks Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BondJmsBond
Sep 2019
170
63
CA
Didn't say that. I said, in essence, the U.S. is a two-party system and has been for 150 years.

"As for Free Market...no...there is no "nuff said"."

And there is a better system, it's called a Mixed-Economy. We just have a piss-poor version of it.

iPhones and undies are the Free-market, power and water are the People.

Either up your game, I'm not going to spoon-feed you, or move along.
Does historically saying something give you justification? If so, please consider what democrats used to call black people and tell me that term is also OK. Listen, just because people have referred to their opponents disparagingly as right wingers doesn't make it any better than what democrats referred to their slaves as. Making a derogatory remark is still making a derogatory remark.

I admit, I like some of the parts of a Mixed Economy as well but it too has it's downsides just like a Free Market does. Things like:
1. nationalization - we would give the government the means to own any industry and frankly it can't even manage itself well why on Earth would we expect it to manage and grow an industry?
2. Government control going too far - if we gave the government an industry like cell phones and they suddenly said everyone must own an iPhone, how would you feel not having access to the other choices as we should have in a free country? How do we control the government when it's literally uncontrollable right now?
3. mismanagement of resources - The government will ultimately hinder the overall use of available resources. They focus on what they need rather than using what's available because as a whole the government does what they want without much consideration to availability or more useful practices.
4. Higher Taxes - more state intervention in the economy, it would mean that the government would invest more and would get their funds largely from tax revenues. More taxes would be required from the people, which can lead to negative consequences.

So, like I said, I'm willing to discuss each and weigh our options, but don't walk in here and think you're more intelligent because some moron professor fed you a bunch of biased opinion and played it off as fact.

Oh, and as for your Power and water are the people...please look up California's PG&E and explain how well the state government has managed PG&E. I mean, they are bankrupt, they are proceeding with blackouts because they have mismanaged their funding for decades while democrats controlled them...but yeah, what do I know...you clearly know best as the young naive buck you are. Government controlling ANYTHING is a recipe for disaster. I've seen it not only in our country but other countries as well. I've lived in many different countries throughout my life...how many have you lived in? How many have you personally had to deal with that controlled segments of industries? I'd wager none because you still have this belief that the "people should control the power and water". That's a young naive person speaking who has never lived outside the USA and has zero real experience in life. Only an ignorant person would think that a government controlling those two things is ever good because you swallowed what your professor fed you like a good and naive student.

I was once offered a position as a university professor and I turned it down. My response to the offer was, "those who can't do...teach." I suggest you remove your head from your rear and look around at examples of both good AND bad where governments do control water and power so you see both sides and then consider how our insane government would fair.
 
Jun 2019
564
256
ROT
Does historically saying something give you justification? If so, please consider what democrats used to call black people and tell me that term is also OK. Listen, just because people have referred to their opponents disparagingly as right wingers doesn't make it any better than what democrats referred to their slaves as. Making a derogatory remark is still making a derogatory remark.

I admit, I like some of the parts of a Mixed Economy as well but it too has it's downsides just like a Free Market does. Things like:
1. nationalization - we would give the government the means to own any industry and frankly it can't even manage itself well why on Earth would we expect it to manage and grow an industry?
2. Government control going too far - if we gave the government an industry like cell phones and they suddenly said everyone must own an iPhone, how would you feel not having access to the other choices as we should have in a free country? How do we control the government when it's literally uncontrollable right now?
3. mismanagement of resources - The government will ultimately hinder the overall use of available resources. They focus on what they need rather than using what's available because as a whole the government does what they want without much consideration to availability or more useful practices.
4. Higher Taxes - more state intervention in the economy, it would mean that the government would invest more and would get their funds largely from tax revenues. More taxes would be required from the people, which can lead to negative consequences.

So, like I said, I'm willing to discuss each and weigh our options, but don't walk in here and think you're more intelligent because some moron professor fed you a bunch of biased opinion and played it off as fact.

Oh, and as for your Power and water are the people...please look up California's PG&E and explain how well the state government has managed PG&E. I mean, they are bankrupt, they are proceeding with blackouts because they have mismanaged their funding for decades while democrats controlled them...but yeah, what do I know...you clearly know best as the young naive buck you are. Government controlling ANYTHING is a recipe for disaster. I've seen it not only in our country but other countries as well. I've lived in many different countries throughout my life...how many have you lived in? How many have you personally had to deal with that controlled segments of industries? I'd wager none because you still have this belief that the "people should control the power and water". That's a young naive person speaking who has never lived outside the USA and has zero real experience in life. Only an ignorant person would think that a government controlling those two things is ever good because you swallowed what your professor fed you like a good and naive student.

I was once offered a position as a university professor and I turned it down. My response to the offer was, "those who can't do...teach." I suggest you remove your head from your rear and look around at examples of both good AND bad where governments do control water and power so you see both sides and then consider how our insane government would fair.
"That's a young naive person speaking who has never lived outside the USA and has zero real experience in life. Only an ignorant person..."

Is that your version of respecting the other side? Engaging in meaningful debate?

Interesting. That's a winner, stick with it...
 
Dec 2015
18,894
18,370
Arizona
Let's for one second all be open minded, myself included.

I've lived through a number of presidencies in my life and I remember the news and how they report from as early as I can recall to now. Both parties have a lot of negative things they've done over the years so throwing mud is both unnecessary and doesn't get us anywhere. I remember the Reagan assassination attempt and how badly the media reported it back then and it was pretty awful. Some networks reported he wasn't hit, others reported there were multiple assailants, others said his hair was the wrong color. It was pretty awful all around and everyone beat up the media for the mistakes...which they continue to make today sadly.

The media isn't perfect. They have 2 jobs to do, 1 report "news", and 2 increase/keep their audience. The truth is, as we all know...it's all about money. Without an audience, there are no sponsors and without them, they close their doors. So, the Media has to retain their audience or they will lose sponsors and eventually close. How do they do this? They do so by selecting the "News" they think will ENTERTAIN and interest their audience. Basically, they have to put on a show to some point. Now all of this is relatively straight forward and I'm sure we can all agree, there is nothing I've said that isn't true and honest.

So let's look at any media outlet, each has to retain and even grow their audience to continue to earn sponsors. So, how do they report a real news story if it causes their audience to turn them off? Honestly, they can't...more than a couple times before they lose their audience completely and in turn lose their sponsors. So, if let's say CNN had a story discussing some of the good things a president has done for our country, and most of their audience didn't like the president...well, their audience would turn them off or switch channels. What if they did it repeatedly...they risk losing their entire audience who would rather tune into a station that doesn't try and state good things about the president they hate. So what does CNN do...they double down and continue to pound their hate drum to keep their base audience tuned in so they keep their sponsors and their jobs. Problem is, that's not news...that's what we referred to as Yellow Journalism. Milestones: 1866–1898 - Office of the Historian

Today, we see more sensationalism than news worthy stories because everyone is worried about keeping their audience and putting on a show to draw in a bigger audience. News is moving more towards sensationalism and nothing more. Even Modern Day Yellow Journalism link shows some amazing examples of yellow journalism in today's world as part of a college class students can learn about for mass media. To say yellow journalism doesn't exist is to deny reality. To say that our news media isn't making every effort, including sensationalism to keep their audience and even grow their audience in any way they can is naive at best.

So, if we are to evaluate our news media, and I mean ALL of them and each of them, we see countless examples where they leaned toward sensationalism over actual news content. I don't blame them (entirely), they are running a business and have to keep it making money. I do however need to stop people from playing dumb and thinking that the media isn't sensationalizing and editing actual news content to appeal to their base audience.

Let's look at the claims of President Trump calling the media "fake news". Would it be better if he called them Yellow Journalism instead because everyone of them are responsible for that without any doubt. What about all the stories news agencies don't present because they might lose their audience? Don't you think CNN would rather speak about the president negatively rather than identify the success stories he's had during any year of his presidency? There's a term called Lie by omission which is defined as: "when a person leaves out important information or fails to correct a pre-existing misconception in order to hide the truth from others." So, let's consider then what each of these networks do on a regular basis...they lie by omission because they choose what stories they present to their audience so they don't LOSE their audience. Lying by omission is absolutely what everyone MUST do though to keep their base...so can we blame them for doing their job and keeping their audience entertained? Actually, yes we can blame them because at some point they are no longer a news agency and are an opinion show. Consider for one second the news coverage when Obama gave Iran about 50 billion in frozen assets without congressional approval. Most downplayed the act and didn't report it as largely as they should even though it was unheard of for a president to ignore procedure like that. Now consider the wall that Trump wants to build...most media goes out of their way to admonish the idea even though Hillary Clinton, Obama, Schiff and many more democrats all voted for the same exact thing themselves and the media even forgot that California, a major democratic party state, built a wall in San Diego and admits that it works well. The media spent weeks, months and years admonishing "Trump's" plan even though it was originally presented by democrats who approved of the plan when they created it for national security. Why do you think the media didn't fairly report this information? Simply put...because they'd lose their loyal audience and viewers. When everyone else is busy spewing hate at the hated president, reporting the truth didn't seem like a reasonable idea. Even CNN contacted a news agency in San Diego that was originally vehemently opposed to the wall in their city. When they learned that the news agency changed their opinion and now love the wall for what it's done locally, CNN dropped them. San Diego TV station: CNN didn't want our 'local view' when it found out officials like the wall
You're calling for open-minds and then instantly single out CNN while repeating lies yourself? WOW!
You can call it Yellow Journalism (or Capitalism) if you want to, but there are some differences. The rivalry war between Hearst and Pulitzer began with a simple cartoon---a competition-- but ended with the Spanish-American War. Maybe the two magnates didn't actually purchase the war, but it certainly didn't hurt their bottom line and any wars fought in the 20th and 21st centuries will benefit our current mega corporations/parent organizations like Turner Broadcasting, Disney, Fox and Columbia Broadcasting.
Lots of people make money from war. Those same people make money from broadcasts and the 24/7 news blitz. So yes! Sensationalism SELLS---just like SEX sells--SCANDALS sell--impeachments sell--and politics sell, especially politics that include a sitting president's blackmail, porn stars, fraud, and advisors ending up in prison or when a president's pal hangs himself or when a president's wife poses in the nude or when a president conjures up an imagined orgasm at a political rally. AND you think--you actually THINK that Turner, Disney, Fox and Columbia ARE NOT going to report that to the America people? Maybe you think those capitalistic companies SHOULDN'T report that "news" to the American people--the voters??

It seems to me that the press doesn't need to make up anything. They don't NEED to leave out anything (lies of omission). They don't need to HYPE anything these days because OUR daily reality is FILLED TO overflowing with BIG, GIANT, SCANDAL WHOPPERS--real scandals--brought to us by ONE PERSON-- Donald J Trump.
AS far as other presidents go--as far as other candidates go---YEAH--YOU BETCHA they considered "the wall". They repaired the wall, added fencing, sent troops to the border, improved surveillance, etc. What they DID NOT do was repeatedly claim that MEXICO WOULD PAY FOR THE 2000 MILE WALL. So get your facts straight.
Obama gave Iran about 50 billion? You bet he did because it was Iran's money and they signed an agreement involving nuclear proliferation to retrieve that money AND it was ALL OVER the news. The GOP was irate. Fox had a field day.
Every discussion site around the nation, including DTT, hashed it out a million times. So don't suggest that the agreement was downplayed. It wasn't.
If you don't want the sitting president to be a sitting DUCK in the press, then maybe you should TELL YOUR president to behave himself---to act like a responsible adult--to treat people with respect---to wash his potty mouth out with soap--to TRY to display some sort of dignity---to speak with a filter---to READ the constitution and to STOP governing by TWEETS.
That would be a good beginning. AND one more thing which I have posted a hundred times or more: When the press reports quotes, video, text, documents and real-time events.........they aren't employing yellow journalism. They're reporting REAL news and REAL facts.
 
Sep 2019
170
63
CA
"That's a young naive person speaking who has never lived outside the USA and has zero real experience in life. Only an ignorant person..."

Is that your version of respecting the other side? Engaging in meaningful debate?

Interesting. That's a winner, stick with it...
I could have phrased it differently and all warm and fuzzy but it remains true non-the-less. I was ignorant of many facts of life until I went out and lived life and travelled the world. When I chose to live abroad and helped others it benefited me immensely. Both my step kids were the same in being ignorant and/or generally naive because they led sheltered lives in a bubble until I got them out in the world.

Wisdom comes with time and experience. Kids leaving college have neither in comparison to an older person but do have some in comparison to a child. If I were to come to you and say I believe in Santa because he brings me gifts every year, you'd assume I was a young child. Is it wrong to say I'm naive and ignorant to the truth that it's really my parents delivering presents under the guise of Santa? Nope, that's exactly true. It may not be warm and sweet but it's accurate.

If you or anyone comes to me and says Mixed Economy is the best form of Economy then I'd bet you are either in or just graduated college, or you haven't taken the time to really research the downsides and long term risks. Thus, by its very definition, you are naive and/or ignorant to the risks.

As the person I am, I am open to discussions, but the OP was being disrespectful so I felt no need to be kind in return and I called it like it is. I think a mixed economy does have some advantages but I also feel the same about a free market economy too. What I am concerned with are the disadvantages and how we can mitigate those disadvantages so they don't continue to damage our country.

So are you only wanting to call out what you feel is hypocritical or did you actually have something meaningful to add? I guess not...just more vitriol.
 
Nov 2005
9,568
4,183
California
You cannot legislate respect for anyone, including gays. Private business should follow their own rules.
:rolleyes:
Employment discrimination laws are not about "respect". There is no law mandating "respect" in business and adding sexual orientation to the existing list of employment discrimination protections will not magically force any employers or co-workers to "respect" anybody.

We already have laws in this country which prevent discrimination against Christians in employment. I have yet to hear any serious push from Repubs for rolling back that legislation which Christians have enjoyed for well over half a century.
But of course, for another group the mentality is (supposedly) "Private business should follow their own rules."
 
Sep 2019
170
63
CA
You're calling for open-minds and then instantly single out CNN while repeating lies yourself? WOW!
You can call it Yellow Journalism (or Capitalism) if you want to, but there are some differences. The rivalry war between Hearst and Pulitzer began with a simple cartoon---a competition-- but ended with the Spanish-American War. Maybe the two magnates didn't actually purchase the war, but it certainly didn't hurt their bottom line and any wars fought in the 20th and 21st centuries will benefit our current mega corporations/parent organizations like Turner Broadcasting, Disney, Fox and Columbia Broadcasting.
Lots of people make money from war. Those same people make money from broadcasts and the 24/7 news blitz. So yes! Sensationalism SELLS---just like SEX sells--SCANDALS sell--impeachments sell--and politics sell, especially politics that include a sitting president's blackmail, porn stars, fraud, and advisors ending up in prison or when a president's pal hangs himself or when a president's wife poses in the nude or when a president conjures up an imagined orgasm at a political rally. AND you think--you actually THINK that Turner, Disney, Fox and Columbia ARE NOT going to report that to the America people? Maybe you think those capitalistic companies SHOULDN'T report that "news" to the American people--the voters??

It seems to me that the press doesn't need to make up anything. They don't NEED to leave out anything (lies of omission). They don't need to HYPE anything these days because OUR daily reality is FILLED TO overflowing with BIG, GIANT, SCANDAL WHOPPERS--real scandals--brought to us by ONE PERSON-- Donald J Trump.
AS far as other presidents go--as far as other candidates go---YEAH--YOU BETCHA they considered "the wall". They repaired the wall, added fencing, sent troops to the border, improved surveillance, etc. What they DID NOT do was repeatedly claim that MEXICO WOULD PAY FOR THE 2000 MILE WALL. So get your facts straight.
Obama gave Iran about 50 billion? You bet he did because it was Iran's money and they signed an agreement involving nuclear proliferation to retrieve that money AND it was ALL OVER the news. The GOP was irate. Fox had a field day.
Every discussion site around the nation, including DTT, hashed it out a million times. So don't suggest that the agreement was downplayed. It wasn't.
If you don't want the sitting president to be a sitting DUCK in the press, then maybe you should TELL YOUR president to behave himself---to act like a responsible adult--to treat people with respect---to wash his potty mouth out with soap--to TRY to display some sort of dignity---to speak with a filter---to READ the constitution and to STOP governing by TWEETS.
That would be a good beginning. AND one more thing which I have posted a hundred times or more: When the press reports quotes, video, text, documents and real-time events.........they aren't employing yellow journalism. They're reporting REAL news and REAL facts.
Nope...I'm not calling anyone out...I used an example...which would you like me to use so I don't offend your sensitive feelings? would you like me to use NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, which?

It doesn't matter who we're talking about...all of them do it. That's what you refuse to grasp. I'm not playing favorites...I'm calling them ALLLLLLLLL out!!!

what's a scandal to you? A president using their power to inquire about someone? Name a single president that hasn't done it...all of them do it and if you think only this one has, you're being ignorant.

So what to you is a scandal worthy of news? Bill Clinton flying around on the Lolita Express with Epstein? Nixon and watergate? What classifies as a real scandal to you? I ask because both parties are littered with perfect examples and sitting here throwing out a tit for tat this person did this or that person did that is utterly useless since this is about the news. What we, the American people, need more than anything is actual news...not just the news a network wants to discuss while they hide the rest since it disparages their people...we need the truth.

To me, I understand there are a lot of politicians on both sides who are pretty flipping awful. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying that I think it's fair and much more honest if we get all the information and not just the info which applies to our enemies don't you? I voted for Obama and I was pissed when he bypassed congress and released money to Iran. Likewise I am exhausted from listening to the nonsense our president tweets on a daily basis but none the less...the impeachment was a complete waste of time like clinton's was. It's wasting countless tax dollars and distracting our government from helping our people...why....because rather than the media do stories on the current homeless crisis and how it's getting worse, we are covering stupid tweets by the president and a wasted impeachment process on the news. Meanwhile I watch as businesses are spending their own money to plant cactuses boulders to prevent homeless people from camping out and scaring away customers.

Obama didn't have the authority to give that money no matter what was signed...that's what you're missing. Consider how pissed you were when Trump began using money from other areas to build his wall. That was all legal and acceptable...what Obama did was not, sorry to point that out and yet no one called him out because everyone was either in love with him or scared to say anything against him and be labeled a racist for disagreeing with him. It's insane to me that while I can accept and acknowledge all the bad my party has done, people like you have blinders on and think your party walks on water. Well, they don't...and frankly its about high time everyone removed their heads from the ground and looked at what's going on everywhere by all groups and parties. I don't care who it is...we all need to be aware and come together regardless of opinion if we're to improve anything.

Listen, I get it...we disagree...but regardless of our disagreement, I still respect you and your opinions. I'd welcome the chance to debate you over a coffee or tea sometime because it's enjoyable for me to hear the counter arguments so I can reevaluate my position. However, with regards to the media...its ALL turning to yellow journalism and sensationalizing nonsense. Thanks for the history lesson you googled and pasted on here but again...yellow journalism is pretty easy to see in everyday life if you open your eyes and stop covering them.