Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #4560 > unrolled thread

In the land of free speech, this is scary.

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  In the land of free speech, this is scary. Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-08-27 19:10 -0300
    Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-08-27 19:24 -0400
      Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-08-27 20:59 -0300
        Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-08-27 22:57 -0400
        Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. "D.D." <xyzzy@inbox.com> - 2014-08-27 21:51 -0700
    Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-08-28 13:02 +1000
      Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-08-28 20:59 +0000
        Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-08-29 15:24 +0100
          Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-08-29 18:07 -0300
            Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-08-30 17:09 +0000
              Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-08-30 13:08 -0600
                Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-08-31 01:23 +0300
                  Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-08-31 17:04 +0000
                    Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-08-31 22:06 +0300
                  Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-08-31 13:57 -0600
                    Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-08-31 23:26 +0300
              Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-08-31 00:31 +0100
                Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-08-30 23:42 +0000
                  Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-08-31 08:11 +0100
                    Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-08-31 08:29 +0000
                    Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2014-09-01 20:22 +0100
        Re: In the land of free speech, this is scary. Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-08-29 18:04 -0300

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#4560 — In the land of free speech, this is scary.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/

	Over half of Americans are SCARED to discuss Snowden's
revelations outside their homes.
	OMG
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4561

Shadow <Sh@dow.br> writes:

> http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/
>
> 	Over half of Americans are SCARED to discuss Snowden's
> revelations outside their homes.
> 	OMG
> 	[]'s

The way the question is phrased, I don't think it means what you imply.

Of course, I'm not sure what you implied.

In America, if you make public your opinions, your audience
is going to label you a liberal or a tea party type.

The news media and the politicians have cranked up the idea
of party differences to the point where people can't be civil.

So, there are a lot of places I wouldn't discuss Snowden.
But it's not the government I'm worried about.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4562

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:24:01 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
wrote:

>Shadow <Sh@dow.br> writes:
>
>> http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/
>>
>> 	Over half of Americans are SCARED to discuss Snowden's
>> revelations outside their homes.
>> 	OMG
>> 	[]'s
>
>The way the question is phrased, I don't think it means what you imply.
>
>Of course, I'm not sure what you implied.
>
>In America, if you make public your opinions, your audience
>is going to label you a liberal or a tea party type.


http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/08/PI-2014-25-socialDebates-01.png

	People somewhat willing, somewhat unwilling or very unwilling
to discuss it AT A FAMILY DINNER is 60% vs 40% that would be
completely at ease.
	I see no other way to interpret that other than fear.

>
>The news media and the politicians have cranked up the idea
>of party differences to the point where people can't be civil.

	I don't think who was/is in power makes any difference at all.
	Well, divide and conquer, I suppose. Been done before.
>
>So, there are a lot of places I wouldn't discuss Snowden.
>But it's not the government I'm worried about.
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4564

Shadow <Sh@dow.br> writes:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:24:01 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Shadow <Sh@dow.br> writes:
>>
>>> http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/
>>>
>>> 	Over half of Americans are SCARED to discuss Snowden's
>>> revelations outside their homes.
>>> 	OMG
>>> 	[]'s
>>
>>The way the question is phrased, I don't think it means what you imply.
>>
>>Of course, I'm not sure what you implied.
>>
>>In America, if you make public your opinions, your audience
>>is going to label you a liberal or a tea party type.
>
>
> http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/08/PI-2014-25-socialDebates-01.png
>
> 	People somewhat willing, somewhat unwilling or very unwilling
> to discuss it AT A FAMILY DINNER is 60% vs 40% that would be
> completely at ease.
> 	I see no other way to interpret that other than fear.

Yes, but what do they fear?

Very interesting chart.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4566

On 08/27/2014 04:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
> http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/08/PI-2014-25-socialDebates-01.png
>
> 	People somewhat willing, somewhat unwilling or very unwilling
> to discuss it AT A FAMILY DINNER is 60% vs 40% that would be
> completely at ease.
> 	I see no other way to interpret that other than fear.

It's also possible to interpret that two other ways... One is as a function of 
etiquette rules. A lot of people, particularly seniors, were taught to avoid any 
conversational topics that might cause disagreement between people at the table, 
so that everyone might enjoy 'agreeable' and 'pleasant' dinner conversation.

The other way to interpret it is simply that the person responding has a close 
family member that is very unpleasant to be around when certain topics are 
brought up.  In this case, it could be that the relative becomes nasty if others 
don't agree, or has strong/offensive political opinions on the matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4565

On 28/08/2014 8:10 AM, Shadow wrote:
>
>
> http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/
>
> 	Over half of Americans are SCARED to discuss Snowden's
> revelations outside their homes.
> 	OMG
> 	[]'s
>

The words "home" and "homes" do not appear in the article.

 From the article:

"Fully 86% of Americans reported in the Pew Research survey they were 
“very” or “somewhat” willing to have a conversation about the 
government’s surveillance program in at least one of the physical 
settings we queried —at a public meeting, at a family dinner, at a 
restaurant with friends, or at work."

That seems to directly contradict your claim.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4576

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> Wrote in message:
> On 28/08/2014 8:10 AM, Shadow wrote:
> 
> The words "home" and "homes" do not appear in the article.
>  From the article:
> "Fully 86% of Americans reported in the Pew Research survey they were 
> “very” or “somewhat” willing to have a conversation about the 
> government’s surveillance program in at least one of the physical 
> settings we queried —at a public meeting, at a family dinner, at a 
> restaurant with friends, or at work."
> 
> That seems to directly contradict your claim.
> 
> Sylvia.
> 

That poll could have been worded more precisly, I think.  I am
 unwilling to discuss Snowden at the dinner table too.  But mostly
 because my family uses the dinner table to talk about other
 things, not politics.  I might try it some day, but I might get
 stabbed with a fork :)

That said, the overarching point is: are Americans feeling more
 scared or more anxious?  And do they self-censor because of fear
 their words will have consequences and/or recrimination?  You
 betcha.  You don't find people talking freely on Facebook anymore
 now that the cops are all searching it as part of their
 background checks, for example: that much at least is
 true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4590

On 2014-08-28 21:59, RS Wood wrote:
> That poll could have been worded more precisly, I think.  I am
>  unwilling to discuss Snowden at the dinner table too.  But mostly
>  because my family uses the dinner table to talk about other
>  things, not politics.  I might try it some day, but I might get
>  stabbed with a fork :)

What do they talk about, if not politics?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4597

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:24:51 +0100, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:

>On 2014-08-28 21:59, RS Wood wrote:
>> That poll could have been worded more precisly, I think.  I am
>>  unwilling to discuss Snowden at the dinner table too.  But mostly
>>  because my family uses the dinner table to talk about other
>>  things, not politics.  I might try it some day, but I might get
>>  stabbed with a fork :)
>
>What do they talk about, if not politics?

	Probably nothing as unimportant as the part of the message you
snipped. About Justin Bieber, maybe ?
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4601

On 2014-08-29, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:24:51 +0100, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2014-08-28 21:59, RS Wood wrote:
>>> That poll could have been worded more precisly, I think.  I am
>>>  unwilling to discuss Snowden at the dinner table too.  But mostly
>>>  because my family uses the dinner table to talk about other
>>>  things, not politics.  I might try it some day, but I might get
>>>  stabbed with a fork :)
>>
>>What do they talk about, if not politics?
>
> 	Probably nothing as unimportant as the part of the message you
> snipped. About Justin Bieber, maybe ?
> 	[]'s

Good lord, my kids are in pre-school.  Open your mind.  Not everyone
discusses pop culture and/or international politics over their beans and
rice.  We for example have had some excellent discussions about
dolphins, witches, and trampolines, for example.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4602

RS Wood wrote:

> Good lord, my kids are in pre-school.  Open your mind.  Not everyone
> discusses pop culture and/or international politics over their beans and
> rice.  We for example have had some excellent discussions about
> dolphins, witches, and trampolines, for example.
> 

Good grief!  My kids are more concerned with their retirements.  One is a 
broker so investments are a hot topic around here and even the grandkids 
pay attention anymore.

-- 
Will Honea

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4606

Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net>:

> Good grief! My kids are more concerned with their retirements. One is
> a broker so investments are a hot topic around here and even the
> grandkids pay attention anymore.

I wonder if retirements are sustainable in the long run. Investments or
no investments, the real retirement plan is the willingness of the
younger generations to provide for you. As the average lifespan
approaches 100, the working-age generations might simply refuse to hold
up their end of the bargain (which they never agreed to in the first
place).


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4615

On 2014-08-30, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net>:
> Investments or
> no investments, the real retirement plan is the willingness of the
> younger generations to provide for you. As the average lifespan
> approaches 100, the working-age generations might simply refuse to hold
> up their end of the bargain (which they never agreed to in the first
> place).
> Marko

Bingo - and the trick to getting your kids to decide to put up with your
crotchety, old, neckbeared self is to spend many long evenings
discussing cartoon characters at dinner :)  Then hopefully (despite what
happens during adolescence), they'll think "that old fart wasn't quite
so bad.  Guess we'll put him in the nice residence, not the cheap one." 

:)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4619

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:

> Bingo - and the trick to getting your kids to decide to put up with
> your crotchety, old, neckbeared self is to spend many long evenings
> discussing cartoon characters at dinner :) Then hopefully (despite
> what happens during adolescence), they'll think "that old fart wasn't
> quite so bad. Guess we'll put him in the nice residence, not the cheap
> one."

Ah, that's the age-old retirement plan: have children. It may well come
to that.

Personally, I don't ever want to place such a burden on my children.
They don't owe me anything.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4621

Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> I wonder if retirements are sustainable in the long run. Investments or
> no investments, the real retirement plan is the willingness of the
> younger generations to provide for you. As the average lifespan
> approaches 100, the working-age generations might simply refuse to hold
> up their end of the bargain (which they never agreed to in the first
> place).
> 

Like most people, you are ignoring the corollary side of that increased life 
span: the age at retirement is also increasing. This implies an additional 
pressure on the younger generation's employment opportunity as they face not 
only reduced opportunity due to automation but a log jam at the top which 
has stymied orderly advancement in many career fields.  Since I am in my mid 
70s already, I will likely miss real impact but the situation does present 
an interesting study from the perspective of a large-scale systems engineer.

BTW, I am reasonably certain that my kids will do little more than manage 
the assets we have acquired.  Their incentive will be to maximize the  
estate for their own eventual use.

-- 
Will Honea

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4622

Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net>:

> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
>> I wonder if retirements are sustainable in the long run. Investments or
>> no investments, the real retirement plan is the willingness of the
>> younger generations to provide for you. As the average lifespan
>> approaches 100, the working-age generations might simply refuse to hold
>> up their end of the bargain (which they never agreed to in the first
>> place).
>
> Like most people, you are ignoring the corollary side of that
> increased life span: the age at retirement is also increasing.

Unfortunately, that's not true. Our lifespans are increasing far more
than our productive years.

> BTW, I am reasonably certain that my kids will do little more than
> manage the assets we have acquired. Their incentive will be to
> maximize the estate for their own eventual use.

I'm moved.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4607

On 2014-08-30 18:09, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-08-29, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:24:51 +0100, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-08-28 21:59, RS Wood wrote:
>>>> That poll could have been worded more precisly, I think.  I am
>>>>  unwilling to discuss Snowden at the dinner table too.  But mostly
>>>>  because my family uses the dinner table to talk about other
>>>>  things, not politics.  I might try it some day, but I might get
>>>>  stabbed with a fork :)
>>>
>>> What do they talk about, if not politics?
>>
>> 	Probably nothing as unimportant as the part of the message you
>> snipped. About Justin Bieber, maybe ?
>> 	[]'s
> 
> Good lord, my kids are in pre-school.  Open your mind.  Not everyone
> discusses pop culture and/or international politics over their beans and
> rice.  We for example have had some excellent discussions about
> dolphins, witches, and trampolines, for example.

After last winter's floods in the West of England, my ten-year-old
god-daughter said, out of the blue, that the queen should earn the money
she gets by going there with a bucket to help clean up. I like to think
she may have listened more closely to my conversations with her father
than either of us realised. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4608

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:31:41 +0100, Hils wrote:

> On 2014-08-30 18:09, RS Wood wrote:
>> On 2014-08-29, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:24:51 +0100, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-08-28 21:59, RS Wood wrote:
>>>>> That poll could have been worded more precisly, I think.  I am
>>>>>  unwilling to discuss Snowden at the dinner table too.  But mostly
>>>>>  because my family uses the dinner table to talk about other things,
>>>>>  not politics.  I might try it some day, but I might get stabbed
>>>>>  with a fork :)
>>>>
>>>> What do they talk about, if not politics?
>>>
>>> 	Probably nothing as unimportant as the part of the message you
>>> snipped. About Justin Bieber, maybe ?
>>> 	[]'s
>> 
>> Good lord, my kids are in pre-school.  Open your mind.  Not everyone
>> discusses pop culture and/or international politics over their beans
>> and rice.  We for example have had some excellent discussions about
>> dolphins, witches, and trampolines, for example.
> 
> After last winter's floods in the West of England, my ten-year-old
> god-daughter said, out of the blue, that the queen should earn the money
> she gets by going there with a bucket to help clean up. I like to think
> she may have listened more closely to my conversations with her father
> than either of us realised. :-)

The money she gets is in exchange for the income from the Crown Estates. 
Not even many Brits know this.

  http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/
CrownEstatesxyz.aspx



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4609

On 2014-08-31 00:42, Bob Eager wrote:
> The money she gets is in exchange for the income from the Crown Estates. 
> Not even many Brits know this.
> 
>   http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/
> CrownEstatesxyz.aspx

There are also hidden costs, paid by taxpayers:

http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances

And there's the way members of the royal family get to veto laws they
don't like, though it has been argued that the royal veto is used as a
proxy by politicians and bureaucrats to sabotage legislation they'd
prefer went away:

http://disinfo.com/2013/01/how-does-the-british-monarchy-get-away-with-it/

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

While the "owners" of most of Britain (including the royals) also
receive subsidies paid from taxes levied on largely landless city-dwellers:

http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2011/03/million-acres-land-ownership

The queen also "owns" 6.6 billion acres of land, a hangover from Roman
imperialism and Norman feudalism (helped along the way by war and the
theft of indigenous people's land).

http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4610

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:11:09 +0100, Hils wrote:

> On 2014-08-31 00:42, Bob Eager wrote:
>> The money she gets is in exchange for the income from the Crown
>> Estates.
>> Not even many Brits know this.
>> 
>>   http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/
>> CrownEstatesxyz.aspx
> 
> There are also hidden costs, paid by taxpayers:
> 
> http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances
> 
> And there's the way members of the royal family get to veto laws they
> don't like, though it has been argued that the royal veto is used as a
> proxy by politicians and bureaucrats to sabotage legislation they'd
> prefer went away:
> 
> http://disinfo.com/2013/01/how-does-the-british-monarchy-get-away-with-
it/
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-
bills
> 
> While the "owners" of most of Britain (including the royals) also
> receive subsidies paid from taxes levied on largely landless
> city-dwellers:
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2011/03/million-acres-land-
ownership
> 
> The queen also "owns" 6.6 billion acres of land, a hangover from Roman
> imperialism and Norman feudalism (helped along the way by war and the
> theft of indigenous people's land).
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-
australia

All from strongly anti-monarchy sources, of course!

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web