PDA

View Full Version : To Hell in a hand basket


Thomas coupling
27th Oct 2018, 23:27
Is it simply better journalism or better comms or better coverage...................or is the world really going to hell in a handcart?
Trump - An alleged mysoginist / racist / multiple bankrupt / womaniser.......
Duterte - paying killers to wipe out hundreds of 'criminals' without proof....
Maduro - A socialist leader worth millions???? Whose security forces carry out arbitrary arrests, murders, extrajudicial executions, torture, sexual abuse and rape on orders from Maduro's government.....
Bolsanaro - about to rule Brazil. Openly called another MP (in public) someone who was so ugly, even he wouldn't rape him. An unapologetic racist, sexist, homophobic advocate of torture.
China / Russia / Saudi Arabia - dictatorships, persecuting millions of domiciles and non domiciles.
Erdoğan / Egypt - decline into authoritarianism.

Has this always been going on globally or has the human race lost its way...is bored with 'sameness' and wants disrupters to take their country down another path come hell or high water?
On the 100th anniversary of the killing of millions of people worldwide - have "we" forgotten what it's all about and are 'we' now all too soft and cozy in our environment........
What will our children inherit, I ask?

obgraham
28th Oct 2018, 00:18
Had a similar discussion with Mrs Obg yesterday on a slight variation, to wit: "Was political discourse as toxic in days gone by as it is now?"

My view is that is not a whole lot different, but two factors have changed:
1.The availability of instantaneous media and access to information. Everyone can be made aware of what is going on as it happens, not days or weeks later after a responsible (or irresponsible) press has massaged the data. That and the fact that most everyone can read and write, whereas 100 years ago that was not the case.
2.Countries and cultures were largely homogeneous in days of old. Relatively few people moved to different countries or had to adapt to a different culture. The adventurist types we read about were the outliers. So it was likely that the majority of a given population had the same upbringing, values, and did not question them.

That said, as I explore history, say 19th century US history, there was a lot of political skullduggery. Senators bashing each other with their canes. Yellow journalism. Robber barons. Regional wars. Class warfare. The powerful abusing the less advantaged. It's just that back then such events did not really affect the bulk of the population, who were engaged in subsistence living, be it in agriculture or factories.

And then, as you allude, two massive instances of completely ignoring the value of a human life, on a scale never before imagined and so far never repeated.

Times are different. Human behavior is similar.

BAengineer
28th Oct 2018, 00:31
Is it simply better journalism or better comms or better coverage...................or is the world really going to hell in a handcart?


Is it that bad?. Or are you simply watching too much 24 hour cable TV news?

For the first time in many years we have no major wars around the globe, (even NK has started talking), global poverty is falling fast, there are no major famines, etc. etc - is it the lack of major catastrophes that makes the little stuff look more important?

charliegolf
28th Oct 2018, 12:37
Had a similar discussion with Mrs Obg yesterday on a slight variation, to wit: "Was political discourse as toxic in days gone by as it is now?"

My view is that is not a whole lot different, but two factors have changed:
1.The availability of instantaneous media and access to information. Everyone can be made aware of what is going on as it happens, Regional wars. Class warfare. The powerful abusing the less advantaged. It's just that back then such events did not really affect the bulk of the population, who were engaged in subsistence living, be it in agriculture or factories.

Times are different. Human behavior is similar.

Added to this, OBG, 24/7 coverage means there is (ridiculous as it sounds) nowhere near enough news to go around. So every little bit of sh1t gets aired, magnified and made into 'important breaking news'.

CG

Pontius Navigator
28th Oct 2018, 13:09
Before WW2 (better define which war) UK had the British Board of Film Censors which defined what the ordinary person was allowed to see and hear. Books were similarly censor until well after the war.

Oddly British Newsreel films shown in cinemas was not similarly subjected to State control. Instead the Newsreel companies, fearful of state intervention, had self-censorship and toed the party line. An example was their treatment if the Abdication Crisis.

In general the population were only told what the ruling class permitted. Tugging forelocks was the norm. They knew best.

Now news including biased news, fake news or limited news is available to all though there are many who chose not to be informed.

funfly
28th Oct 2018, 14:06
I came up in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, what people nowadays talk of as the good old days.
Homosexuality illegal, abortions illegal with girls dying after usingback street abortionists.
Polititions mainly from the upper crust.
Cold war, remember the Cuban episode.
High unemployment, a lot of poverty. Womens place considered in the home, unequal pay male/female
Etc. etc.

ORAC
28th Oct 2018, 14:16
Nostalgia’s not what it used to be.

Pontius Navigator
28th Oct 2018, 14:24
Funfly, and a weekly visit to the barber, whether you needed to or not for something for the weekend :)

I admit to being surprised in mid-70s in Scotland when this young woman, probably in her teens, went to the counter in Boots and asked for a box of condoms. It used to be a man's prerogative.

funfly
28th Oct 2018, 14:27
When I was in my teens, I bought a packet of condoms. Carried them around for years!

dook
28th Oct 2018, 14:50
When I was in my teens, I bought a packet of condoms. Carried them around for years!

Not a good childhood then. :{

Thomas coupling
28th Oct 2018, 19:01
BAengineer: Are you walking round wearing blinkers and ear duffs?
Some of the biggest famines the world has ever known are in progress. Have you looked at Yemen lately?
Poverty is endemic in portions of the world you obviously aren't acquainted with. 14 million are in poverty in the UK FFS!
750,000 brits died in the 2nd world war. Over 500,000 have already died in Syria alone! Then there is Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Yemen/Sudan/Ukraine.
Smell the coffee.
So no - not watching cable news - simply looking at whats happening around me! Try it sometime, you might actually be surprised.

Responses seem to be biased on improved reporting as the primary reason. I;m not too sure.......

sitigeltfel
28th Oct 2018, 19:09
14 million are in poverty in the UK FFS!

Fumier de cheval.

BAengineer
28th Oct 2018, 19:52
There are not 14 million in poverty simply because the JRF dont actually measure poverty - they measure inequality.

Thomas coupling
28th Oct 2018, 23:35
:D........................

Lonewolf_50
29th Oct 2018, 20:42
TC:
as the number of humans on the planet increases, the amount of friction between people increases (unless modified by an outside force / idea)

The world is not going to hell in a hand basket. Humans are behaving as humans have always behaved.
You and I grew up in the Cold War. On any given day, the missiles might fly. At the moment, we are living with the benefits of a multi polar world, rather than the previous model.
It's messier, but at least the Götterdämmerung isn't on hand each morning as we wake up.
Have a pint, and learn to love the noise. It's the side effect of this nice feature that allows you and me to have a discussion across the miles any time we like ....

Mr Optimistic
29th Oct 2018, 21:56
14 million out of what, 65 million. Twenty per cent starving ? Wow. Anyway, isn't it in a handcart?

Andy_S
30th Oct 2018, 11:45
14 million out of what, 65 million. Twenty per cent starving ?
No. 20% who can’t afford the latest Smartphone. That’s how we define poverty these days.

ORAC
30th Oct 2018, 12:56
A household in the UK is defined as being in relative poverty if it’s income is below 60% of the median household. The UK median income in 2017 was calculated as being £27,300. Making the definition of poverty anybody with an income less than £16,4000pa.

Someone earning the UK living wage (not minimum) and working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year will earn £15,600.

Which puts its the definition of poverty into perspective.

PDR1
30th Oct 2018, 14:11
When I was in my teens, I bought a packet of condoms. Carried them around for years!

I once asked my dad why condom machines in the pub sold singles raher than packets. he said that it was because the sort of girl you meet in a pub is only good for one unplanned quickie. He then explained that in the chmists you could buy them in packs of three or packs of twelve. The 3-packs were for those with girlfriends - friday, saturday and sunday, The twelve-packs were for married folk - january, february, march...

PDR

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Oct 2018, 20:19
A household in the UK is defined as being in relative poverty if it’s income is below 60% of the median household. The UK median income in 2017 was calculated as being £27,300. Making the definition of poverty anybody with an income less than £16,4000pa.

Someone earning the UK living wage (not minimum) and working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year will earn £15,600.

Which puts its the definition of poverty into perspective.
Alternatively, it puts the definition of "living wage" into perspective.

Mr Optimistic
30th Oct 2018, 22:50
Surely it must be related to circumstance. With the UK single pension as what, £8k, are all pensioners in poverty? If you have an income of £20k and 3 children, that seems poor. But, do they factor in the benefits received, pension credits and the rest?

​​​​​​It's all the tendencious rubbish, aimed to promote an agenda. In response to the budget the BBC were setting the debate with an article about how it didn't help poor families: oddly that article has disappeared.

Lonewolf_50
31st Oct 2018, 20:30
If you have not read Mikhail Gorbachev's recent opinion piece, I think it fits in this thread nicely.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/mikhail-gorbachev-inf-treaty-trump-nuclear-arms.html