Troy

Maybe you are right Pioneer; In some ways I do think I was better off than kids, of the same social class and environment, are today. I think playing outside is much more fun than anything a kid could do on a cell phone. In @Cynique's day I heard a couple could buy a home, raise a family, own two cars, send their kids to college, take a vacation and retire -- all on one salary. Today at least in NYC you need a roommate, you can't afford a car, and both you and you parents are buried in student loan debt -- forget about owning a home. Best one can hope for is a parent to die and leave you their house. Maybe social media and all the trivial "news" it spews is huge virtual pacifier placating what would otherwise be rampant human misery.

Is the world really so bad off today compared to the past? While you may not have suffered under the weight of Jim Crow, you are old enough to know large scale wars and the death and rationing that came with it. You remember the fear of pending nuclear annihilation that drove many to build bomb shelters. You are old enough to remember how diseases like whopping cough and polio ravaged the country... What did people do for kicks back then? Is being locked to a cell phone 24/7 a better diversion than what people did 25 years ago and earlier. I spent my time playing out doors -- all sorts of games like tag and basketball. I watched TV for a couple for hours on Saturday morning (cartoons) and after that I was in the streets playing. Keep in mind I'm not a Luddite or a technophobe. I'm sure I understand and have used social media more than most and I'm absolutely better versed on web based technologies. I also get out and travel the country extensively. Perhaps this is why I see things differently than you and the people you encounter on a daily basis. I, objectively, have a much broader perspective on this issue than most people. ...I guess we will have to continue to disagree about the adverse impact of social media and the like.

Why would you not read the entire article @Delano? When ever someone posts something from another source, if it is a subjects that interests me I always go to the original article. If that article referees a source (if it i an article about another article which makes up so much of the stuff on the web nowadays) I'll check out the original source More often than not, I'll discover that the person (and I'm not just talking about you) is sharing something that is actually not supported by the original source. When 45 asserts that "the news is fake," he is wrong the news generated by journalists is pretty good. The problem is that we have so much less of this and much more of what you find circulating around the web and social media: uninformed opinions on opinions or events masquerading as "news."

@Cynique I'll agree that the current weather event in Chicagoland is newsworthy. I actually never did not think it was, which is why I started the thread. The larger point I was making subsequently is that much of what is reported as "News" is not news worthy. More importantly, the non-stop barrage of exaggerated, sensationalized, even fake information of little consequence that we call "news," is detrimental to our society. Cynique, you grew up in a world before TVs were in every home. For most of your adult life social media did not exist. You discount this difference as inconsequential, but i assure you it is not for the people who grew up in an time when they know nothing else but constant access to marketers who understand their motivations better they themselves do. @Cynique I asked you previously if you thought that the fact that many people are tied to their phones 24/7 is bad or good Did you ever answer that question? What do you think? Please forget the fact that you and I are not tied to our phones; I'm sure you must know people who are.

It is in the article you shared, which I assume you read in its entirety. If you did, you would not have needed to ask that question @Pioneer1 again I say it is relative. If you put the building on the moon the result would be different -- even though the "law" has not changed. We can define narrow conditions in which possible outcomes are limited to the point that one simply cannot imagine a different outcome. You call this reality. To the other extreme others have posited an infinite number of universes with different physical constants were the incomprehensible can take place this too is reality, albeit one may may never experience. What is real is what we can perceive -- the example of the mentally disturbed man you provided aside.

OK @Cynique what are the dire consequences of avoiding social media and the news on TV?

@Delano that article is the reasin why the internet is like the wild west. People can say and do anything. Quantum physists do not say the the marco world, the one we can see with our eyes, behaves like the quantum world, nor do the say any of it has anything to do with consciousness. People like ones who wrote that article are making things up and misleading people.

I don't consume social media or watch broadcast TV. I do listen to the radio. Short of dropping off the grid I'm not sure how i could have avoided the "news" telling me the number of days in the government shutdown. So it is cold in Chicago? why should the folks down here, many of whom have never been north of the mason dixon, care? Why is this news? How do we benefit from the info? I have the radio on because some of the information i get is useful (like my local weather report) so i don't tune it out and I just put up with the unless info, like the closing value of the s&p 500.

Lol! Man you were a homophobe at 7 years old! I wonder why he grabbed YOUR hand.

Pioneer to the people who perceieve the world to be flat how does that effect their objective reality? I dont think it does. Eveything is realtive. Including what we call reality. Even the very passing of time is relative.

I attracts listeners and keeps the audience engaged. Which means more ad dollars. Here I am in Florida and I know Australia is drying up and Chicago is freezing. The government shut down was the worst. Everyday I had to hear how many days the giverment was shut down. Who cares if it was 23, 14 or 37 days? It is like hearing the Dow Jones Industrial Average everyday. The daily number is useless information but we gotta here it. @Pioneer1 the end times draw nigh. Repent before it is too late.

Minus 60 windchill! Forget millennials, few people on Earth have seen temperatures that low.

My position has evolved. Everyone's reality is different. For me 2+2=4 is objectively and subjectively true. For you, this may not be the case. If you believed the answer was 3 that is your reality, both objective and subjective From my perspective, the answer of 3 is your subjective reality.

It depends upon your relgion.

That is the same as asking, "what about objective perception vs subjective perception." Again, there's no difference; is is the same thing.

I did not take the sacrasm seriously.... well stay warm.

In 2019 the Coretta Scott King Award celebrates it 50 year. They are having a gala celebration.

Google's YouTube has increasingly become a cesspool of misinformation -- so much so that otherwise smart people are convinced that things which should be ridiculed as ridiculous on their face are plausible because of high production quality and documentary-like editing. Videos pushing all sorts of garbage gain traction and credibility. Young people are particularly susceptible to this form of misinformation. Sometimes I'll be watching some YouTube video, fall asleep, and wake up to some crazy video. Google's revenue driven algorithm pushes these bogus videos -- no Russian Trolls are necessary. Again, Google does not care that the video they push with their algorithm are full of lies. All they care about is serving advertising. In fact, if the video spouts some BS like the Earth being flat -- their algorithm will push this video because they know people are more likely to watch them. Google has even prevented some entities from (like AALBC), who produce accurate and often quality content because we don't have enough views or followers -- something Google itself is largely responsible for! A video of an author reading from a literary novel is never pushed by Google -- people have to look for these videos. However a video of someone denying climate change is pushed by Google's algorithm. The conspiracy theory video creators are rewarded financially by Google and the creators of videos promoting Black literature are punished. Is Google racist? What difference does it make, if their behavior is indistinguishable from one? Editors Note: I recognize that I'm putting AALBC at serious risk of being buried in search, in retaliation, by Google. This is not hyperbolic or neurotic, but the truth.

Hey @Cynique, I'm listening to the news and I heard a report saying that Chicago may reach temperatures lower than -27 degrees! Did I hear that correctly? Negative 27! Those are the kind of temperatures when car batteries die, pipes burst, and being outside without proper gear is simply lethal. Is it as bad as the national news makes it sound?

You can't tell the difference. Perception is reality. Any changes in one's perception must come from external sources, provided one is open to receiving new information Here is the video Del linked to

In a word, yes. Because they have given up control and given it to someone else. The is the definition of exploitation. Come on Cynique, you know that is not what I'm talking about. A phone is a tremendous convince and the new ones are a marvel of technological development. Suggesting this is just a guy thing is a cop out too, for their are women that feel the same way. Just because you don't care about the subject does not mean it is unimportant. Surely you are not suggesting that people using their phones obsessively, as I've described, is a good thing and or of little consequence?

LOL! Oh trust me I know. This is why I no longer move my mouth to express an opinion on what Black women should do with their hair -- that and the fact that you and @Mel Hopkins beat me senseless for doing it I don't think so Cynique. This subject has already been studied and researched in great depth. I've previously shared information this research. You recall the book I shared previously Subliminal Seduction. The problem is today marketers are FAR more effective at controlling our behavior, because they have access to us 24 hours a day and they literally know more about us they we know about ourselves. Surely you know people who are unable to put their phone down for 5 minutes because they have been braining washed into this behavior. The phone is the first thing they look at in the morning and the last thing they put down before falling asleep. Some people are on there phone while using the bathroom and while making love. This is not normal, or even sane behavior, but it becoming normalized. You give us far more credit than we deserve in our ability to stave off this constant onslaught -- indeed most of us are so blind to what is happening that we'll argue tooth and nail they they are not being influenced. In my book none of my beliefs are beyond critique -- otherwise why would I be listening to any of y'all

I know a professional, Black, female hairdresser very well. She tells me that perming hair and using weaves is simply bad for one's hair. She was quite adamant about it, and told me this without prompting. Has anyone ever argued that perming your hair is not "bad" for it? If it is bad for your hair, then why does anyone feel compelled to fight for the practice? We all know that smoking kills more people than homicide and only evil or ignorant person would fight for people to continue doing it. There are even laws to greatly restrict the promotion of cigarette smoking, but none to make it illegal - why? We all know wearing 5 inch heals is bad for your feet, but why do we do it? Women have been convinced it makes them look sexy and men have been convinced of this too. The only ones truly benefiting are the people who make and sell this harmful footwear. How many of us know women that have actually had foot surgery that would be completely unnecessary were it not for their footwear. It is silly to argue that this is an attack on women. The fact of the matter is that women are much more of a target of, and harmed, by marketers. Women actually shop for fun and to make themselves feel better. Some some are compulsive shoppers -- who have purchased clothing they've never worn. Sure there are some men who like to go to the mall to "shop," but we all know that women are much more likely to engage in the behavior. And I know it is not ALL women. I doubt @Cynique, for example, is a shop-a-holic, or has a closet full of clothing with the tags still on them. But we all know such people and mst likely it is a woman. Even the NFL have tapped into the female market convincing them to buy overpriced apparel and tickets to watch men play. As with most issues, in this country, this is more about power than race. But as with most things in here Black folks are disproportionately harmed. This read like an ad hominem, I know you are better than that. Honesty, when you write, "Read between our lines." I don't know what you are talking about and I don't think I'm being intentionally dense. I might be dense, but it not intentional LOL!

Lord get the sticks out your butts you grammar prudes. @Cynique you know as well as anyone what @Delano writes is often riddled with grammatical errors typos and the like. it is not just one post of his i was referring to. I only get on Del when decides to complain about someone else's writing. As far as baloney is concerned i was teasing. I thought you knew that, but were probably not amused since you ignored it -- at least until the self appointed Tsar of grammar got involved.

That was a great response @Cynique. One thing struck me. It seems when you agree with Nubian he is shattering old ideas, but when you disagree he is clinging to old ones. As you know we've been down this well worn path of Black women's hair before and I've adjusted my opinion as a result. However as @NubianFellow has asserted it is not just about the hair. When I was in Nigeria, for example, every Black woman in a corporate environment wore a wig or weave -- and this us an environment where EVERYBODY is Black. The men wore suits despite 90 percent humidity and 90+ degree weather -- even if they were not in client facing roles. I also noticed skin lightening creams in the store. Here we have a Black nation rather than being in the vanguard of (re)defining Black style, they adhere fervently to western European cultural standards. This is not about just Black women's hair. So anyone who tries to make it only about Black hair is deliberately ignoring much broader implications. Oh course, my recent focus on corporate manipulation, comes into play here too. We all know women, of all colors, who feel bad about themselves because of the state of their hair, because of their failure to mimick some photoshopped-impossible-to-achieve standard. Keeping women in the state of perpetual dissatisfaction gets them to spend more money -- which is all that matters. You never hear men say the are "having a bad hair day," at least not yet. It is not just about hair; it is about those with wealth and power and how they control all if us. The impact on our hair is a minor indication of much braoder issues of domination.