Strangely enough, they may both be right. From SKY News: "BREAKING: Police identify the gunman as an 18-year-old German-Iranian from Munich."
I think it's because we haven't taught them WHEN to fight. We need to teach people how to pick their battles, and when and how to ignore something and walk away from it. Learn how to not HAVE to be right all the time. Twitter, and social media in general, is like high school. It is predominately full of useless shit that doesn't mean anything or matter at all, and people get bound up in it. The drama is all-consuming, and yet when you step back and look at it, it's nothing. It's almost a phase that people go through and then leave behind. Sure, there are business reasons to engage, and is a handy source for the daily terrorist attack news, but otherwise, it's bullshit drama that should have been left in high school.
Anyone else finding that their social groups are going away from social media and toward texting/apps? I've noticed it a lot with work. For better or worse, they're my friends too and who I socialize with off the clock. We're all equally afraid of social media because we don't want what we say to be taken out of context by someone not involved. And it's a 50/50 mix of managers/employees so it's not some "behind the boss's back" thing (as a general rule at the company, what you do off the clock is your business just don't bring it into work). Anyone else notice a trend away from social media or is it just a hyper local thing for me?
I can see that. We aren't really teaching them to develop a thicker skin and proper discretion for when enough is enough. I told my kids that if someone starts a fight with them, they're expelled anyway under zero tolerance so may as well defend themselves.
Lots of people in my school stay away from social media and instead use apps because our director and owner are super intense and stalk all our profiles to find anything we say that would make the school look bad. We get write ups and suspensions for saying ANYTHING negative. I got in trouble for complaining about the rooms being too hot. So. It's not just you.
Nice job, and totally on point, as far as I'm concerned. Authority figures have really been pushing the idea that it's NEVER OK to fight, when that is wrong. Have you ever seen or heard of any school say, "you're allowed to fight when _____"? No... they even go further to say that even if you DON'T fight, you'll get punished if you just stand there and get beat up... the joys of zero-tolerance bullshit. I really think that parents have to get a hold of their kids and say, "hey, this is what we believe in... if the school says otherwise, screw them, we've got your back". Too many mixed messages and a weird headspace where we're never allowed to have differing opinions amongst authority figures.
The whole zero tolerance thing is complete bullshit. My nephew, who at 16 had never had any problems or been in a fight, was attacked by a kid with a long record of getting in fights. My nephew fought back and was not only suspended, he was not allowed back in the school and had to transfer schools. For defending himself. What kind of bullshit lesson is that teaching anyone?
Ha! As if schools are there to teach... it's about creating situations where judgement of the staff is fully and completely removed, and therefore cannot be questioned later, or sued as a result of their failed judgement. The end result is about insulating them from decision making and legal repercussions, not about "teaching" anyone anything.
To go back to this for a moment, I agree 100% with Nett's thoughts. Be it this board, Twitter, Facebook, or whatever...it's not public property. It belongs to someone or some entity that pays for the bandwidth. If they don't feel like footing the bill for you to spout whatever you feel like babbling about they shouldn't have to. They pay the bills, they get to make the rules, no how arbitrary those rules may seem. Don't like it? Go make your own site, pay the bills, spew all you want and you get to make the rules. I threw people out of my business for running around with racist flags. Those people whined about the first amendment and blah, blah, blah. Sorry motherfucker, this is my property, I paid for it, my rules, hit the fucking bricks. Like real property, every website belongs to someone or some entity, it's private property that they allow you to use. They have every right to censor you as they see fit....it's their house. Yes, it sucks and it's not fair, but no one ever said life was supposed to be fair.
If you haven't seen yet, the hashtag #DNCleaks is trending on Twitter right now. Wikileaks coming through with mostly nothing emails, but at least 10-12 are pretty shitty in nature. Here's the link to the Wiki if you want to peruse. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/ And the Twitter # if you want to see the worst people on the internet congregating in one place. https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNCLeaks?src=tren The Brand Loyalty of Latinos email is particularly damaging.
Okay, I found that particular email on Twitter and read it through a dozen times and can't find anything offensive or scandalous about that, but it's 3am and I've been drinking so it's very possible I'm missing something obvious. But so far the Twitter commentary seems to be a complete lack of reading comprehension where they think they mean Mexicans are a brand, or they just don't know what the phrase "brand loyalty" is referring to. So, from someone not in the Twitter masses, why is it particularly damaging?
Generally, I don't give a shit about people bullied on the internet by strangers, and I find it strange that people care as much as they do. I just can't equate it to being bullied in real life, although I would say being bullied on the internet by people you work with/go to school with is more or less the same thing. These people are trolls. No mature or mentally stable person should take these things that seriously, and I'm not even sure the people acting so broken up inside care as much as they claim, or if they're just following a narrative. Bit of both, I guess. I have no idea what Milo's involvement in gamer gate was, but I saw the feminist side of that and it was the most insipid delusional spin everything into I'm a victim horseshit I've ever seen. I don't think it can be topped, only equaled. However much they got mocked, they likely deserved most of it. Sure, twitter is a business and can do whatever they please as far as moderating and banning users for any reason. If they go too far people will start drifting to a competitor. Like others have said, I find the drama on most of the sites like twitter pointless. The victories both sides claim when this stuff happens is just weird and lame. That's why I could barely make any headway into the article DCC posted. All I can think is 'What a strange and annoying person. I hope they stay on the internet because I would hate to be around people like this in real life'. What's that quote feminist bloggers are using these days? "The comment section on any article about feminism justifies feminism." Yeah, of course it does. It's what has made the conversation about sexism and racism so empty. They're not talking about people or society anymore, they're just talking about the trolls. It's fucking stupid.
I have the feeling it's going to be used in a very similar manner to the 2012 election when Romney made the "Binders of Women" comment or the 47% comment. Nothing about the email is inherently terrible, but it does paint the DNC as dehumanizing of Latinos, something Trump should jump on and exploit.
I read some of the others as well. There was a lot about how they controlled much of the medias narrative which makes the news outlets look worse for it. And there was one that confirmed Hillary's Wall Street relationships that they said was important to try to keep the public ignorant of. But much of that was stuff most people already knew. The stuff about Bernies campaign was pretty shitty as well. If I were Bernie, I would withdraw my endorsement. But I don't know if you can do that.
....does it though? Does a marketing company gathering information about men aged 18-34 to figure out how to better sell to them "dehumanize" men ages 18-34? I'm sure they have a similar file somewhere for all of the demographics that get pandered to during an election, and that the Republicans do as well and it's naive to fault either party for that. In fact, I've read several interviews with the women in charge of doing exactly this for Republicans and women, and they need (at least) two entire jobs dedicated to that rather than an email. Although I WOULD love to see Trump attack someone else for dehumanizing Latinos, or even for emptily pandering to them in a post Trump Tower Taco Bowl world.
I'm so disappointed. He seems...fine? I guess? But I was really hoping she'd pick someone more exciting. Although I knew deep down all along she'd feel like she'd have to pick someone boring and that Trump would pick someone to double down on insanity so I guess this was the only predictable move of this campaign season.
A marketing plan to sell someone a product is slightly different than trying to court voters in an election. You can of course use similar information, and it's a smart move knowing your demographics and finding a way to pander to them and get them out to vote for you. However, most of this is done behind the scenes and not publicly admitted to as opposed to the openness about courting certain demographics for marketing. As much as we want to give credit to the average American voter for their ability to critically think about issues, when this type of news comes out about a campaign with a bullet point plan to pander to a racial group to secure their vote, it can have a drastic effect on the candidate. If we found Trump's bullet point plan to pander to women of a certain age and demographic because of their loyalty to brands based on their shopping history, you don't think it would be the leading news story on every channel further proving Trump is a sexist, misogynist, woman-hater? *Edit: It might just completely go away and no one pays it a second glance. It hasn't been discussed on any cable news network yet, which is kind of disgusting in it's own right.