Why liberals are so condescending?

[quote name='AdultLink']Were you guys trying to prove the authors point? Or maybe you need to add things like 'southern rednecks', 'guns', 'god', 'racist', etc, when you bash anyone's opinions who don't agree with you?

Basically, anyone not liberal is not intelligent. Is that the gist or maybe we need to add those other terms?[/QUOTE]

Talk about hyper-sensitive. The example I was using was created by the conservatives - they say that liberals "lecture" and conservatives "talk" (or anything other than lecture, what they do isn't well-defined, it doesn't have to be for them to make the distinction, and really can't be, since there isn't a distinction).
 
[quote name='speedracer']It's funny what you notice when your ideology gets chucked out on its ass. Remember this when the tide turns.[/QUOTE]

And what idealogy would that be? Conservative or liberal?

Because it's neither. I really could care less about politics as much as the general direction of the country. I am working to be an IT manager, my friends are either people who build computers, nerds in general, or anyone with an interest in computers. I don't care to visit political get togethers, or any type of nonsense like that (Hell, I also hate sites like Facebook and twitter). My main rule is to always avoid political conversation with people I know, for reasons like... this forum.

I know of conservative friends in optometry, liberal friends in electrical engineering, and we talk about computers and technology.

But one thing I really don't like, is being told that not accepting someone's ideology makes me an idiot. And usually it's by forum trolls who never leave their house, but I still don't like it.

People have a right to not like your opinions. This doesn't automatically make people stupid, just like how not believing in God doesn't make you stupid (Which ironically, liberals treat their own words like bible thumpers treat the bible). Grow a pair and accept that fact.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Well maybe it depends on who is in power. But certainly right now, liberals are far more condescending to anyone who isn't a liberal, or anyone from the south, or anyone who even says something they don't like even if said person is also a liberal.[/QUOTE]

Nope, you just notice it more because it bothers you more as it's targeted indirectly at you.

There's just as much coming from the conservatives toward the liberals on fox news, Palin, the Tea Baggers etc.

There's just as many people saying liberals are out of touch, latte sipping intellectuals as there are people bashing conservatives as stupid hicks etc.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']And what idealogy would that be? Conservative or liberal?

Because it's neither. I really could care less about politics as much as the general direction of the country. I am working to be an IT manager, my friends are either people who build computers, nerds in general, or anyone with an interest in computers. I don't care to visit political get togethers, or any type of nonsense like that (Hell, I also hate sites like Facebook and twitter). My main rule is to always avoid political conversation with people I know, for reasons like... this forum.

I know of conservative friends in optometry, liberal friends in electrical engineering, and we talk about computers and technology.

But one thing I really don't like, is being told that not accepting someone's ideology makes me an idiot. And usually it's by forum trolls who never leave their house, but I still don't like it.

People have a right to not like your opinions. This doesn't automatically make people stupid, just like how not believing in God doesn't make you stupid (Which ironically, liberals treat their own words like bible thumpers treat the bible). Grow a pair and accept that fact.[/QUOTE]

And yet, here you are...trolling it up without 'facts' but I guess something like that might be too elitist.

You sure do like to defend Bush and attack Obama whenever given the opportunity, so don't be surprised when people automatically assume you're a Republican. You're really not giving them much room to work with.
 
[quote name='IRHari']And yet, here you are...trolling it up without 'facts' but I guess something like that might be too elitist.

You sure do like to defend Bush and attack Obama whenever given the opportunity, so don't be surprised when people automatically assume you're a Republican. You're really not giving them much room to work with.[/QUOTE]

I defended the knowledge of 9/11 due to it being only 1 month of knowledge. I don't defend Bush, I don't defend Obama. I could care less about anyone in Congress. Again, I don't care about politics, I care about the direction of this country, and as of right now, too many politicans are bought and paid for by big businesses to do anything for the people, make that left or right.

And none of you are friends so I say flame on :D
 
[quote name='IRHari']
Oh and Papa that really isn't a fair counterargument. Remember Palin used her crib notes for the Q&A. Obama, if you recall, recently schooled the House GOP during a televised Q&A. He chided the GOP for resorting to talking points and not engaging in substantive debate.

Obama certainly didn't resort to cribnotes written on his palm for the Q&A. Although I guess you could dub the palm a 'Wasilla teleprompter.'

If you don't see that difference then you don't see that difference.[/QUOTE]



the argument is that both of them like almost every person on the planet has stupid moments. I only give a shit when 1 of the 2 takes heat, when both should for stupid shit like....57 states...writting on her hand.....corpse-man
 
It is pret-ty fun-ny that you guys perceive Obama and crew as condescending, but cannot find the same with Rush, Hannity, Palin, etc.

Those guys are nothing by condescending schtick, with the only difference is a half-assed final mention of "But I'm totally on your side and I'm MAD about it!"

So that's all it takes to pull the veil - about eleven words. The Dems ought to learn how to say 'em too. Then you people would be all-hell-broken-loose lost.

Also, rofl@thought that severely fatigued presidential campaign slip-up = Palin incapable of remembering to mention that "America is so cutesy good, you betcha."
 
[quote name='Strell']It is pret-ty fun-ny that you guys perceive Obama and crew as condescending, but cannot find the same with Rush, Hannity, Palin, etc.

Those guys are nothing by condescending schtick, with the only difference is a half-assed final mention of "But I'm totally on your side and I'm MAD about it!"

So that's all it takes to pull the veil - about eleven words. The Dems ought to learn how to say 'em too. Then you people would be all-hell-broken-loose lost.[/QUOTE]

Rush.....Hannity.......Olbermann people like that are all personality's if they weren't condescending they would all be ignored.
 
I'd like to ask a different question that takes this issue of condescension from another angle (despite the Atlantic article Msut linked pretty much handling the issue expertly).

Where are the conservative intellectuals? The conservative thinkers? Where are the analogs to the Paul Krugmans, the Chomskys, the Howard Zinns - and of the past, the Saul Alinskys? Sure, George Will is not a blowhard, and Buckley is gone, lamentably. So who takes their mantle? If we want to have political, intellectual debate and not the WWF, and not talking points and empty political memes, we need to have intellectual fodder. But people have always favored charismatic authority (like Glenn Beck and Limbaugh) over traditional functional leadership like a Buckley; the former are far more entertaining (though few moments trump Buckley threatening to slap Chomsky in his "goddamned face" on television, haha).

The Presidential Q&A from a few weeks ago exposed the political *leadership* of the right are unprepared for anything even remotely resembling intellectual discourse. The Tea Partiers can scream and shout slogans and shout down those who disagree with them, but they can't go point-counterpoint without having their lack of knowledge or comprehension exposed.

So it's not condescension because the political right as an institution is devoid of ideas. There are plenty of ideas. It's that the people who identify on the political right do not possess an intellectual comprehension or understanding of those issues, and come prepared with the verbal equivalent of a blunt piece of wood to a gun fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEIrZO069Kg

Pay particular attention to Chomsky's argument here, as I think it's rather relevant to any political era, including our modern one. And I'll be damned if I don't get all giddy inside hearing words like "equanimity" used on television, as I have a personal belief that our ability to communicate using English has significantly deteriorated over the past half century, largely because television is no longer showing too many programs like Buckley's Firing Line.
 
Intelligence is uncool, myke. Long live the six thousand year old Earth. Ages measured in thousands are easier to remember, and aren't all haughty like "billions" can be.
 
[quote name='Strell']Intelligence is uncool, myke. Long live the six thousand year old Earth. Ages measured in thousands are easier to remember, and aren't all haughty like "billions" can be.[/QUOTE]

More than anything else, the use of the phrase "you're a great American" on Hannity's radio show and television program infuriates me. They bandy it about like "and also with you"s in a Catholic Mass, and it serves as a defining line by which "great" and "not-great" Americans are defined. And that line is one of ideological perspective, not intellect, and it is offered without any genuine merit, achievement, or effort.

A "great American" is someone who researches their candidates' positions, voting records; a "great American" reads, writes, and thinks. An "American" puts bumper stickers on their car.

EDIT: You know, I'm not so sure in spite of my smarm above. Look, I disagree with Buckley by and large, but he was well-studied, widely respected, and I'll be damned if he doesn't come off as both prepared to debate Chomsky, but cooler-than-a-cucumber in terms of his demeanor. Condescending? He sure is. But he has the right to be by virtue of what he's done to know what he knows.

Little realized fact: both father Buckley and his son Christopher were disenchanted with what the political right became over recent years. They didn't suddenly become liberal, of course (certainly not William!). But I'll let Christopher tell his tale, as it's more to the point and, following in family tradition, expertly reasoned and calmly written:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama
 
Yeah, you pretty much answered your own question Myke.

The blow hards like Rush, Hannity, Beck, Palin and the Tea baggers shout everyone down, screaming all the time about how intellectuals are latte sipping intellectuals who are out of touch with the "real America."

Any conservative intellectual has no chance to have their voice heard by the people dominating the dialogue on the right. After all they're latte sipping intellectual elitists, who cares if they have real ideas that could give the conservative movement a real, substantive voice. Lets just keep screaming "socialist" and other nonsense rhetoric.

Politics tends to cater to the lowest common denominator, and right now on the right that's Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and the Teabaggers. They don't want to hear facts, solid intellectual ideas. They want to shout down the opposition with rhetoric.
 
I don't get to be an idealist about many things, so let me continue to lament here. ;)

True fact: I had a latte today. unflavored, too - just milk and espresso, which, I think, makes me ultra leftist elite because I didn't mocha-fy it. Or perhaps I'm getting too much into my former barista snobbery (the amount of effort you devote to being a beer snob I split b/w beer and coffee) - wherein people who ordered "Caramel Machiattos" don't know a thing about good coffee, where too many sugar packets are blasphemy, where breve lattes are fucking disgusting, a ristretto shot a thing of perfection, and little in this world better than a fresh cuppa black coffee with a nip of Jameson in it. ;)

Truer fact: I don't own a coffee maker, I use a (gasp!) French Press at home. I should just grow a thick mustache and call myself Claude from now on, no? ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't get to be an idealist about many things, so let me continue to lament here. ;)

True fact: I had a latte today. unflavored, too - just milk and espresso, which, I think, makes me ultra leftist elite because I didn't mocha-fy it. Or perhaps I'm getting too much into my former barista snobbery (the amount of effort you devote to being a beer snob I split b/w beer and coffee) - wherein people who ordered "Caramel Machiattos" don't know a thing about good coffee, where too many sugar packets are blasphemy, where breves are fucking disgusting, a ristretto shot a thing of perfection, and little in this world better than a fresh cuppa black coffee with a nip of Jameson in it. ;)

Truer fact: I don't own a coffee maker, I use a (gasp!) French Press at home. I should just grow a think mustache and call myself Claude from now on, no? ;)[/QUOTE]

I drink Swedish Gevalia coffee with a Gevalia coffee maker. Latest flavor is german chocolate cake:

http://www.gevalia.com/coffee-clubs/seasonal-coffee-flavors.aspx

I must be more of a snob ;)
 
You think I'm condescending now, you bring Chock Full o' Nuts at-home service Gevalia into the equation.

Let me put it to you this way, AL: one of these days I'm going to start buying green beans and roasting them on their own. Getting ground coffee to your door ain't snobbery. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You think I'm condescending now, you bring Chock Full o' Nuts at-home service Gevalia into the equation.

Let me put it to you this way, AL: one of these days I'm going to start buying green beans and roasting them on their own. Getting ground coffee to your door ain't snobbery. ;)[/QUOTE]

Lol. Touché.
 
I mean, at least it's not that Boca Java crap Limbaugh (used to?) hock on his show. Those were shit beans from a shit company - and BACON flavor? I love coffee, I adore bacon, but like Brad and Angelina, some things ain't meant to be.

(I bought some of their coffee back in 2005 when I was all up ins those internet ponzi schemes for free xboxes and ps3s and ipods and stuff.)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't get to be an idealist about many things, so let me continue to lament here. ;)

True fact: I had a latte today. unflavored, too - just milk and espresso, which, I think, makes me ultra leftist elite because I didn't mocha-fy it. Or perhaps I'm getting too much into my former barista snobbery (the amount of effort you devote to being a beer snob I split b/w beer and coffee) - wherein people who ordered "Caramel Machiattos" don't know a thing about good coffee, where too many sugar packets are blasphemy, where breve lattes are fucking disgusting, a ristretto shot a thing of perfection, and little in this world better than a fresh cuppa black coffee with a nip of Jameson in it. ;)

Truer fact: I don't own a coffee maker, I use a (gasp!) French Press at home. I should just grow a thick mustache and call myself Claude from now on, no? ;)[/QUOTE]


Yeah I'm no where near as snobby/picky with coffee as I am beer.

Coffee I just need a nice, bold blend to grind myself (french roast for example) and I brew that strong. But then I commit blasphemy to a coffee snob by mixing it with some International Delight flavored creamer to make my own pseudo flavored latte! :D

Ironically, I used Carmel Machiatto flavored creamer this afternoon. :D Bean's I'm on currently are some Seattle Mountain (or something like that) french roast I bought at Costco. Have some Starbucks Christmas Blend and Komodo Dragon blend in the freezer than I got for x-mas.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Ironically, I used Carmel Machiatto flavored creamer this afternoon. :D[/QUOTE]

You're one fanny pack away from being a Great American, dmaul.
 
[quote name='IRHari']perdition, the problem was what she wrote on her hands. Jon Stewart argued that what he disliked about Palin was the...nothing. She's just a talking point machine. The things she wrote on her hands were just talking points, and they don't help people understand the issues.[/quote]

This thread shouldn't be about Palin's hands anymore than it should of been about me... but that was pretty damn funny.

Palin writing "tax cuts" on her hand was like a smurf writing "smurf" on their smurf.

A perfect example of so-called condescension is how conservatives only talk about tort reform when ostensibly discussing healthcare reform.

Example being how FoC did a very thorough take down of dopa, albeit it was just on a message board until Obama did basically the same thing to congressional Republicans.

Like myke said where are the intellectual heavyweights among the cons?

It isn't mean or condescending to point they both have nothing and cling to a lie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think think the right had to single out a group of people on the liberal side and it just happened that educated people who are well spoken were a good target. The problem with that of course is that now they can't have any of those types on the right or they'll be self hating, so they keep those folks mostly hidden. So you get what we have today, a group of people who despise anyone who is well spoken and knows how to back up a stance with facts. When you don't have anyone like that, you end up with talking heads like Beck and O'Reilly, all flash and no substance. In O'Reilly's case he just shouts at people until they shut up, Beck just refers to his "Chalkboard O'Conspiracies®."

Which is the way they want it, and they got it.
 
The intellectually honest and well-thought out people who fall under the "right" umbrella are mocked by Wilsonian and/or neo-con tyrants for not ascribing to their disturbing views on foreign policy, monetary control, and their economic system of "capitalism". The Bill Kristols of the world distribute talking points to the Glenn Becks of the world, who then pick a topic or two to shout about until the targeted individual is discredited in the mainstream of American opinion.

A good example of this is the anti-Semite slur: any time a paleo-conservative talks about the misgivings of our foreign policy in the Middle East, a rebuttal is rarely offered. Instead, the anti-Semite charge barrels out at around 1,000,000,000 MPH, usually followed by screeds about how said person would have supported Hitler, or that the person in question wishes to have Israel wiped off the map.
 
I think it's funny that liberals have the stereotype of being highly educated, snobby intellectuals. I'll bet a far larger percentage of the party are 18-25, first time voters who are students, not very wealthy, and not particularly intellectual. It also seems strange that typically the older people get, the more conservative they become. I don't think those 60 year old republicans were necessarily republican their whole lives.

I think powerful politicians tend to influence a generation's political stance. It pre-dates me a bit, but it seems like everyone loved Reagan, liberal folks still supported a lot of what he did, and he essentially influenced a generation of 20-somethings to lean conservative, just like JFK did for liberals of his era.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's just an example of stereotypes. Yeah, people with a lot of education (Ph Ds etc.) tend to be more liberal than their less educated peers.

But you're right that they're only a small part of the liberal base. They just get picked on by the conservative talking heads as they want to set up liberals as being elitist and out of touch. When the bulk of people voting for democratic candidates are just lower to middle class average folks just like the bulk of the republican base.

Just a way to create more of an us vs. them dialogue.

As for changing to be more conservative when you get older, I think that's just a case of people having fairly weak/ungrounded principles that they can push aside when they make more money, are worried about retirement and care more about their finances than social issues.

People get older they tend to vote more for republicans, I've seen less evidence that they get more conservative on social issues like abortion etc. Many just stop voting as much for that and and vote for who they think will tax them less.
 
People fear change as they age because it upsets the balance of the world they grew up in and gained comfort in. You can see it in your taste in music, perhaps. You hit a certain age and suddenly the things "kids today" listen to ain't music, it's noise, it's garbage, it's vapid, talentless nonsense. Kids today don't have taste in music.

And you know what? I feel that way - I have to correct myself because it's just an age-turns-into-cultural-distance thing. But it's particularly absurd for me to call the music kids listen to today talentless noise that isn't music, because I grew up (and still do, mostly) listening to hard core and grindcore bands (e.g., Agathocles, Hellnation, Charles Bronson, Nausea, Dystopia, etc.). I do like me some snobby jazz (fuck yeah Ornette Coleman), but when you listen to this in your iPod, you have *no right whatsoever* to call someone else's tastes poor or not musical:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HEgjrztOFM

;)
 
I've already resolved to at least keep up with technology as I get older. And yet, I hate twitter, and Facebook, and myspace, and texting, etc.

The other thing is that growing up has taught me - and toward more broad realization, my generation - that nothing can be depended on. Banks have failed, job security is in the toilet, recessions, looming possibilities of drafts, etc. Even when I left my various schools, they instantly built new buildings, got new equipment, installed computers, and so forth. If it weren't for the fact that I have some truly amazing friends, I'd think I was born at least ten years too early.

But then again, I did get to be around for the SNES RPG era, aka "the last time RPGs were any good." Maybe that's worth it on its own.
 
That's kinda the point - fear as cultural distance, ergo conservatism.

keeping up with tech means welcoming all that bullshit, for better or worse. not twittering is the new "too old to set the clock on the VCR so it blinks 12:00 all the time."
 
Not really. I set the clock on the VCR, I know what time it is.

I don't twitter, I don't find out my friend is pissed that McDonalds put mustard on his burger.

One of those things is useful. One is fucking annoying, because he's going to bitch about it the next time I see him, regardless of if I read it or not.

/debates starting a thread about how all this social networking is fuckING. BULLSHIT. and that the rate of introducing new ways to inform people of just how bland and boring their lives are NEEDS TO SLOW DOWN. I love you Google but this Buzz shit is unrequired.
 
right, right, right. but keeping up with tech also means utilizing it properly in a cultural context, not just owning something.

let me phrase it this way - do you have a friend who refuses to send or receive text messages (irrespective of having a capable phone or not)? if so, do your other friends have long conversations wherein they complain about what a fucking luddite he or she is for not texting, and what a pain in the fucking ass it is to call them on the phone with the same item they would text them with anyway?
 
I agree with all of that stuff about age and cultural distance.

But I don't think that plays a huge role in why people start voting more for conservative candiates as they old--as the liberal candidates are just as old most of the time and just as out of touch with the young generations as the conservative candidates.

Getting out of touch with music and other aspects of culture doesn't mean getting more conservative in your values and switching to pro life, pro death penalty, etc. The change seems to come on fiscal issues, and I think that's more something that increases as people build up more wealth and worry about retirement.

But that's just conjecture, I'd love to see some studies on changing views on social and fiscal issues with increases in age and income. There's got to be tons of them in the political science literature. But it's not my area and I don't have the time to go digging through another fields literature unfortunately.
 
I don't know. If that conversation comes up, I usually excuse myself. If I cannot do that, I usually kill knock everyone unconscious, because that conversation is boring as shit.

I can keep up with things in a cultural context, because I'm not making sitcom level jokes about how "Google someone? I barely know them!" But f u.c k if I don't already have an endless amount of ways to stay connected to everyone I know all the time. I barely have enough interesting things to say (note: not interesting at all) when I'm face to face with someone. That reservoir of information and events needs to build up.

I start twittering "Oh shit nickel on the ground!" and suddenly my day is done.

Read another way: I do not need to keep up with everyone I know constantly. Hell, I hate having a cell phone. Except when myke calls me to complain of double-booted cars in Houston though.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But that's just conjecture, I'd love to see some studies on changing views on social and fiscal issues with increases in age and income. There's got to be tons of them in the political science literature. But it's not my area and I don't have the time to go digging through another fields literature unfortunately.[/QUOTE]

on the real tip - but I wouldn't look up any work by Gerard Alexander, haha.

I think it's somewhat related, but I got things to do, so I'll leave it at that. It's not a far stretch from "darn kids today" culturally to politically, particularly when the two are so intertwined.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I think it's somewhat related, but I got things to do, so I'll leave it at that. It's not a far stretch from "darn kids today" culturally to politically, particularly when the two are so intertwined.[/QUOTE]

To an extent, but again politics--at least at the national level--is an older man's game. So it's not like they're voting for young whipper-snappers until they're in the 70s and beyond and voting for 40-60 year olds for the most part.

And I think it would vary by issue. I don't see many people changing stances on things like abortion and other hot button issue that tend to dominate that liberal vs. conservative saber rattling. But again, I haven't seen studies to have a real opinion on that. I've just not seen people/relatives change views on those kind of issues as they get old. By high school/college people are usually pretty set in their ways on social issues like that unless they have some personal experience with the issue that changes their views. I don't think many pro choicers hit some age and just decide abortion is wrong etc.

Fiscal issues are another matter, and I have seen studies showing people support smaller government, less pending etc. as they age vs. when they were younger. But we know a huge chunk of the population votes on hot button social issues and doesn't know the first thing about economic issues beyond what Beck or Olbermann is shouting at them.

At the local and state level it probably comes up more and earlier in a person's life course since average ages of state congressman etc. is a good bit lower as those are politicians starting their careers etc. So I could see more of the "those darn kids" cultural attitudes spilling over to voting among middle aged and older voters.
 
[quote name='Strell']I don't know. If that conversation comes up, I usually excuse myself. If I cannot do that, I usually kill knock everyone unconscious, because that conversation is boring as shit.

I can keep up with things in a cultural context, because I'm not making sitcom level jokes about how "Google someone? I barely know them!" But f u.c k if I don't already have an endless amount of ways to stay connected to everyone I know all the time. I barely have enough interesting things to say (note: not interesting at all) when I'm face to face with someone. That reservoir of information and events needs to build up.

I start twittering "Oh shit nickel on the ground!" and suddenly my day is done.

Read another way: I do not need to keep up with everyone I know constantly. Hell, I hate having a cell phone. Except when myke calls me to complain of double-booted cars in Houston though.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I will see on that Twitter is the one thing I've stayed away from.

I do enjoy Facebook, as it's a great way of keeping up with acquaintances, distant family etc. who you don't have the time or interest to call or e-mail regularly, but want to keep contact with.

Even for close friends and family it's a great way to share pictures that everyone can see without having to e-mail people and let them know you have them on some other site etc.

Texting I do--have the $5 a month for 250 texts plan. I'm not huge on it, but a lot of friends are. And it is handy when you just need to send someone something like the address of where they're meeting you etc. Picture messages are nice at times as well when you see something you want to show the girlfriend etc.

So I mixed on. I'll keep up with technology and fads that I find useful, and avoid the ones that I don't I guess. But of course, I'm only 31, we'll see how well I do at that when I'm 50 and up. :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']h technology and fads that I find useful, and avoid the ones that I don't I guess. But of course, I'm only 31, we'll see how well I do at that when I'm 50 and up. :D[/QUOTE]

I find that as I age along with my family and my wife's family that technology has become a far larger factor in the family.


It seems the youngest in the family (excluding under 10 basically) text the most.

We all use facebook it seems the middle sections of the family use it the most. (25-55)
and it is a great way to keep up with friends/family long distances away.

Twitter is useful for marketing lol mostly anymore it seems. But the about 1/2 our family still uses it for just quick bursts of information to one another. (of those that use twitter almost all of us travel alot for work).

myspace is basically non-existent anymore.


Social networking and texting are useful tools for communication in the "go-go" digital age that we live in.


so beware dmaul my grandparents use social networking more and more as time goes on.
 
Facebook has its uses, for reasons dmaul suggested. Finding old friends, easily sharing pictures, etc. It's a one stop sort of thing, and even though it's gotten grossly bloated and so forth, it still works very well for its intended purpose.

I'm mostly dumbfounded at the need for a dozen different SMS variants. I don't care about what *I* do during the day, much less anyone I know. Unless I personally knew Batman. I could make an exception for Batman.

Point being is that why do we need yet another "check me every day!" app. There's already half a dozen things I feel an urge (not need) to check every hour. At some point I hope the more vestigial versions of such things die off and it goes back to something resembling simplicity. But I guess no one just wants a regular cuppa Joe these days...
 
[quote name='Strell']Point being is that why do we need yet another "check me every day!" app.[/QUOTE]

In terms of actual needs, we don't. There's still a cat-and-mouse game going on that makes so many of these poor financial investments (e.g. the $1-2 billion Rupert Murdoch spent on myspace).

But facebook will be dead in 15 months like myspace is now. Teens/young adults who are petrified of their parents being on there, people using farmville-mafia apps, becoming fans of pickles and nickelback, etc. Something will replace facebook, something will replace that, and something will replace that.

For generations - and when we're old, our grandchildren will lament that we sent them a friend request on facespace.
 
"Fans of Pickles" would be a great name for....something.

If it were band, their first CD could be called Salubrious Motherfuckers.

"Salubrious Motherfuckers" might be a better band name.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But facebook will be dead in 15 months like myspace is now. Teens/young adults who are petrified of their parents being on there, people using farmville-mafia apps, becoming fans of pickles and nickelback, etc. Something will replace facebook, something will replace that, and something will replace that.[/QUOTE]
Google released Buzz yesterday. It's social networking in your Gmail account.
 
They bloated the fuck out of facebook. Wtf is up with all these god damn applications? They must think that what killed myspace was a lack of extraneous bullshit (well, I guess they get paid...).
 
I just play Mafia Wars and Texas Hold'em on facebook.

Another month or three and I'll complete all of the jobs on Mafia Wars. Then, I can focus on finding a decent game on kongregate.com or passing my CCNA.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Google released Buzz yesterday. It's social networking in your Gmail account.[/QUOTE]

I've been playing with it and I much prefer it. I hope it catches on so I never feel the need to log into facebook again.

As a side note, why aren't there other spin offs of facebook that address other body parts besides just the face? Just sayin.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']People fear change as they age because it upsets the balance of the world they grew up in and gained comfort in. You can see it in your taste in music, perhaps. You hit a certain age and suddenly the things "kids today" listen to ain't music, it's noise, it's garbage, it's vapid, talentless nonsense. Kids today don't have taste in music.

And you know what? I feel that way - I have to correct myself because it's just an age-turns-into-cultural-distance thing. But it's particularly absurd for me to call the music kids listen to today talentless noise that isn't music, because I grew up (and still do, mostly) listening to hard core and grindcore bands (e.g., Agathocles, Hellnation, Charles Bronson, Nausea, Dystopia, etc.). I do like me some snobby jazz (fuck yeah Ornette Coleman), but when you listen to this in your iPod, you have *no right whatsoever* to call someone else's tastes poor or not musical:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HEgjrztOFM

;)[/QUOTE]

That's not always totally true. Musicians today don't use all guitar strings (Something you can blame on grunge), and today's music is alot more mindless.

Also, movies today can sell even if they are crap, like Meet The Spartans, Epic Movie, Date Movie, etc.

I don't think it would be 'hating change' if you liked bands like Queen, The Who, Led Zepplin, Chicago, and don't like today's music. It would be though if you were a gen x or early gen y and grew up on Nivana and stuff that made today's mindless music and hated today's music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top