Thanksgiving Got Shorter After the 2016 Election, Study Says
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Well that is certainly interesting. This comes out to 70 pings for every smartphone in November. I am assuming dataset they've got is limited to U.S. only, there is a single cell phone per person, and there are 300 million people in U.S. (both are minor underestimations).
Now I am wondering what other information is available for purchase and how it is used.
i'm writing my complaint letter right now. i only wish there was an angle for a class action lawsuit.
Maybe that will play out over the next couple years, now that the latest political developments seem to have really stretched the boundaries. Perhaps we will collectively decide it just isn't worth it to squabble. If we get super lucky we will realize we are being played, and we'll join together and turn on those who are driving the division.
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. -- The Open Society and Its Enemies
Popper doesn't conclude that one must absolutely intolerate intolerance, but that one must reserve the right to not tolerate intolerance when the expression of that intolerance "answers arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." One might even argue that by refusing to "meet them on the level of rational argument, but beginning by denouncing all argument" you are in fact that intolerant person that Popper argues must be met with intolerance.
The trending method of improving diversity and inclusivity is through exclusivity. This will not work. People and groups who don't talk to each other grow further apart and trust each other less.
However at this point "racists" organized and wound up controlling Congress, the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. The people that you'd like to ignore are currently running the place. Ignoring them might not be the best idea...
That said, few people of any political persuasion are able to engage in that exercise.
This is the main reason that election campaigns have moved on and focus much more heavily on turning out their own supporters than persuading "undecided" voters, who are a statistical nullity.
So I just grab a book and six pack and head to the roof of the the Jack in the Box a few blocks away. Easy to get up there and I can read and drink in peace.
Fast forward a year.
Now I live alone. Christmas at my apartment. Corey is in San Diego. The Trump supporter who has no real connection to any family that will be at my apartment asks for directions to the C-mas party. I tell him he is not invited. He is not happy. I do not care.
Seriously. Life is short. I am not going to try to get along with openly racist people. They can die in a fire.
I’ve know pople to change their likes and beliefs. I’ve never known anyone to change their psychology. A narcissist is always a narcissist. Unfortunately.
It’s not some pious virtue. It’s just what you learn to do as a functioning adult.
I got a few downvotes around the time Trump got elected[0] because I tried to say here that maybe we should look into why people made this choice instead of being angry with them.
At that time, for days on end it felt a good chunk of users would bulk downvote everyone whos opinion was more nuanced than black and white and most voters are too dumb to understand their own good. (A good chunk of users also upvoted but since I think I write reasonable comments I hope they upvoted me because of that, not just because I seemed more aligned with them :-P )
[0] I still don't like him, and I repeatedly said so then too
> how can you tolerate being around them even if they try to keep that stuff quiet?
Relationships are not defined by someone's beliefs. To take a less emotional relationship, that of coworkers, its healthy if people of different religions can work together even if most religions denigrate unbelievers. Polarization and strict separation of people under different religions has a long history of violence and nations that have people of multiple religions "getting along" is usually seen as a sign of progress.
Going back to relationship within a family, it likely when there is a strong difference in political or religious believes that both parties will view the others view as laughable and ridiculous. There might be someone expressing a religious experience and the other person mentioning Flying Spaghetti Monster. Neither is ground for not having a nice Christmas dinner and reminiscing about childhood memories. Occasionally politics or religion will pop up and in my experience it is either dropped instantly or becomes part of friendly banter.
I believe on the contrary that you can have political beliefs that are philosophical and ethical and way above some group-politics that sees some groups oppressing others.
what I'm saying is that if you believe in universal Healthcare or into the free market, it shouldn't change relationships.
I wish it was Universal Healthcare vs. Free Market, that way we could have rational discussions on most issues.
How am I supposed to square this ideal that politics doesn't need to involve oppressing people, when I see this one friend who's basically being told she can't legally use the bathroom that's right for her?
Like, how is that not oppressing?
Additionally, a subset of these people also believe that it should be socially acceptable to say disparaging things about blacks, Jews, and other groups that "enjoy" social protection from such behavior.
Edit: grammar.
Drug addiction absolutely is a political issue, and a hot one at that. Same with race issues and immigration. White bread or wheat would be an example of a non-political issue.
It's possible that you live in a country where these are not political issues, but I'm from the USA and these topics are discussed by politicians on a daily basis. They have the secret to fixing the heroin issue, or the immigration crisis, or the Muslim terrorists, etc.
Comments about individuals are not political discussion, unless chepaslaaa's girlfriend holds public office.
I believe the recent presidential election has proven otherwise.
Yes, I know, grandfathers with thicker heads than mine exist. Even if they can't get it through their heads that such views are wrong, maybe they can understand that people get in their grill every time they say it, and the whole family turns against them. After a few times, they may start to get the idea that they shouldn't say such things. (Or maybe they never will. Either way, I don't think I'm going to let racist comments about individuals slide in my family.)
It's easy to agree to not talk about politics when you agree on everything else.
Politics is not "squabbling". America is a democracy - decentralized discussion of ideas is how democracy works. Social cohesion through silence is what creates hyperpartisan cultures like our own.
The problem is most Americans use mass media as their role model for communication... and modern media thrives on angry controversy.
Don't evangelize or try to convince, just deeply understand the other person. What values does a person hold (their "axioms"), and how are those prioritized? What opinions make up their practical world view, how do they resolve conflicts... unwrap the onion one layer at a time. And let them do the same to you.
The act of explaining often tunes people in to inconsistencies in their belief, and erodes the emotional foundation. From there, techniques like the Socratic method are useful for debate
As a teenager, I thought this was the default in society. It was only after leaving home and going to college, that I realized it was the opposite. Whereas my family took disagreements as an opportunity for lively debate (and a bit of fun in the process), too many people take disagreements as an insult and a personal affront. One can only hope that this tide will swing back around the other way.
How could a researcher using smartphone location data control for that?
And at the root of this division lies the mainstream media.