politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The only people this was a "secret" too are people who weren't looking or listening.
It sucks how much people are ignoring this.
Well, a lot of people - mostly people in a certain age range - kept saying how magical the younguns are, how media savvy and how morally upright they were, and how they were going to get things right where the stupid boomers, Gen X and Gen Y got it all wrong...
And while I'd like to believe that, I've seen little evidence of better instruction anywhere K-12 or in higher education about logical fallacies and teaching about a good media diet. Being able to install an app on your phone doesn't make anyone media savvy; these things are designed so nearly any idiot can use it.
Why anyone ever thought that "the kids" were going to be able to have a better filter than older generations is like assuming kids plopped in front of Saturday morning TV that was meant to PREY on them were more "media savvy" about that environment....sigh.
If anything the easy access to information and apps are a lower barrier of entry than in the past meaning you can be dumber and still participate.
I don't want to shit on an entire generation but I am also not so impressed. This is a historic thing though where people don't think highly of younger generations. One needs to be aware of this bias.
Yes, exactly this. I'm old enough to remember the Eternal September and the inherent assumptions built into that criticism - prior to that, the Internet population tended to be skewed toward very smart people in the engineering/technique kind of sense, but also I would say quite a few were lacking in emotional intelligence and/or wisdom as well and it would be hard to argue they were any better at critical thinking and/or media literacy. I remember people lamenting how "easy" AOL made it ( ironically, probably something quite a few of our "tech savvy" younger generations of today might find way too onerous to bother with, LOL).
But I certainly do chuckle at the notion that "kids just know tech better" just by virtue of using a touch interface from early childhood and having intimate knowledge of a few branded platforms. I mean, UX, when it comes to commercial software products, is about making sure people are not breaking their brains on using those products. They are specifically designed so even the dumbest (usually with a "but can your mother/grandmother understand it" kind of discussion by the builders) in the population can use it. Familiarity with a product/platform is no more "tech savvy" than knowing all about Nike makes someone a top athlete.
I'm a highschool teacher. This generation of students isn't even more tech savvy, let alone media savvy. Your exactly correct about the design of modern technology; this generation grew up with tablets and iPhones, they have no idea how to do some incredibly basic tasks unless an app does it for them, and they no understanding of really core - and in my mind simple - computer use concepts like what a folder is, or how find a file on a device and attach it to an email.
We've begun teaching media literacy in the highschools, but it's unfortunately falling into the pitfalls or most education. We pull specialized articles from sources that students would literally never engage with, discuss how to read such articles and how they can be misleading, and never make the connection to the kind of content that students actually absorb. Students are day-in, day-out learning from influencers and social media, and we're handing them articles from 2010 reprinted into textbooks and news posts they'd never have the patience to read, while continually reinforcing that cell phones are toys that are meant to stay out of the classroom and used in private or with small groups of friends.
The kids aren't alright, but that's not on them.
Yep, I've been completely underwhelmed with what constitutes being "tech savvy" for a lot of people in that age range. For some of them, if it isn't a product (and a popular one), it's like it doesn't register for them. They think in terms of brands when it comes to technology.
Tech aside, I would love for schools at K-12 and at higher levels of learning to incorporate critical thinking and media literacy instruction. It would be an uphill battle though, probably at the very outset, but certainly after reactionary parents start noticing that their kids don't think just like them. For some reason, people seem to believe that school is just a glorified job training program, and that anything outside of that is off-limits, meaning, their kids are expected to come out believing the exact same shit going into school as when they come out. I view that as an education FAILURE if a student comes out believing exactly what their parents believe in the end without ever having questioned any of it. Of course, if children deviate even slightly from what their parents/pastor/community believes, the wingers think that is "indoctrination".
Kids should be forced to go through what I did to get on the Internet. Learn how modems work. Type
A:\install.exeand swap out a dozen floppies before you play that new game you love. (While you're waiting you can read the manual.) Want a porn video? Learn how to use a downloader and be prepared to wait a few days. Want a new machine? Build it yourself.I have written and moderated courseware for education students focusing on digital literacy. A requirement for graduation, pass/fail. I was so excited to start the project. I was so disappointed by the end.
The teachers to-be had very little digital literacy overall, and very little ability to recognize that or care. Too many passed, by design of the department heads. It was saddening to realize that most of them were headed out into the world with indifference to social media processes and little ability to recognize digital manipulation, and to share that indifference with children.
Just a few years ago this generation was walking out of schools to protest our lack of action against climate change. The shift is crazy.
It was mostly the girls doing that, and they haven't gone as hard right.
I actually disagree. They're the same kids. The problem isn't that this is a different demographic, or even that the same demographic has suddenly become malicious and ill-meaning. It's that that's not how they see Trump. They're not as educated on his past actions, being too young to vote and therefore too young to care during the 2016 or even the 2020 election cycle. They're bombarded day-in, day-out by news media and social media giving them conflicting information. For many of them, their beliefs boil down to "well, my parents seem to think Trump is good for the economy, and there's too much other stuff to pick through," and a single-issue voter is born.
Others are simply tired of standing for morally and ethically good issues, only to be constantly told that, as young men or white people, they're the issue. When you fight for someone else for so long and are still met with people who blame you for being born just because you seek a deeper understanding (as one 16 year old student in my class recently did when he tried to ask what the problems with Trump genuinely are), it becomes easy to fall into the political sports team paradigm.
And these are far from the only two reasons. But we have to try an understand that the same students who want the environment saved are the ones who vote Trump, because no other option speaks to them.