You can be certain the sun will appear to rise in the east each morning and Thomas Friedman will write something about globalization. What is this globalization and how does it manifest itself? Is it carrying coals to Newcastle because people somewhere else have an abundance of coal or is it an abundance of cheap labor that justifies the effort of selling cheaper in markets perfectly capable of filling their own coal needs?
There are some critical thinkers in America convinced the cost of their happiest meals will double when the people serving them double their wages. It is difficult not to be morally outraged when you have a political party offering up these valuable ideas to a gullible public. Senator David Perdue won't be apologizing authentically or otherwise for telling his faithful followers a vote for him was the only thing standing between the people of Georgia and Ebola infected ISIS terrorists massing across the Rio Grande.
The confluence of globalism, Moores law and nature that should be of concern doesn't has much to do with trade in bad ideas. It is the global phenomena of tribal ideas about the enemy being planted electronically in the fertile imaginations empty minds that is most troublesome. Some people claiming to be conservative did not believe David Perdue's ad. Some did proving not all conservatives are fools but all fools are conservative. The moral of the story is not all protests are created equal. Some are manufactured.
There are some critical thinkers in America convinced the cost of their happiest meals will double when the people serving them double their wages. It is difficult not to be morally outraged when you have a political party offering up these valuable ideas to a gullible public. Senator David Perdue won't be apologizing authentically or otherwise for telling his faithful followers a vote for him was the only thing standing between the people of Georgia and Ebola infected ISIS terrorists massing across the Rio Grande.
The confluence of globalism, Moores law and nature that should be of concern doesn't has much to do with trade in bad ideas. It is the global phenomena of tribal ideas about the enemy being planted electronically in the fertile imaginations empty minds that is most troublesome. Some people claiming to be conservative did not believe David Perdue's ad. Some did proving not all conservatives are fools but all fools are conservative. The moral of the story is not all protests are created equal. Some are manufactured.
1
The trouble with the smartphone phenomenon, in my opinion, is that it only tells what the smartphone user wants to tell. If somebody is anti-police, he or she would not record anything that would put police officers in a favorable light. It makes everybody's job harder, including journalists who have to try to vet the truth from the lies.
6
Moral outrage occurs when people are backed into a corner, their so-called leaders have failed the common people and the political system is so rigged by the rich that there is no credible hope of change.
As we have seen throughout the world, seething moral outrage is but one small step from revolt and even further repression.
The increase in moral outrage perfectly correlates to people's abandonment by the political class who serve only themselves and the 1%.
As we have seen throughout the world, seething moral outrage is but one small step from revolt and even further repression.
The increase in moral outrage perfectly correlates to people's abandonment by the political class who serve only themselves and the 1%.
8
ACLU founder Roger Baldwin believed not only that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but that the effective defender of civil liberties should be ever in a state of "righteous indignation."
3
Academics from their ivory tower tout about the importance of objectivity and how "radicals" are overly moralistic, but it seems to me that their "objectivity" is a form of privilege. If your intention is to have a conversation and learn still then you are different from that of a person who is out protesting. One feels the need to ponder, while the other feels urgency. Lumping protestors and activists against institutional racism and that of the case of Cecil the lion missed the important point of the very big difference between the two examples. Would we compare the Civil Rights Movement to the religious-like fervor and protest of the killing Cecil or sport fans protesting the losing of their team? One is due to an accumulation of injustice while the other is more of a one time phenomenon; is it comparable? Disrupting, blocking roads, trying to get media coverage, and protesting are all things the women's right movement, labor movement, LGBTQ movement, and civil rights movement did. We praise Dr. King today, while we point our fingers at those who block our traffic and make us uncomfortable as a nuisance. It's all about perspective.
5
Interesting how Tom gives a pass to the news media, who is partially responsible for the fast transitions from one crisis to another, whiplashing the public around.
They will promote one story relentlessly for a few days, then move on like a herd of cattle to another, endlessly while dragging their readership/viewership onto the next hot story.
They will promote one story relentlessly for a few days, then move on like a herd of cattle to another, endlessly while dragging their readership/viewership onto the next hot story.
7
We are near the end of a global corporate revolution. It has already taken over the U.S. government. Research shows that only the policies of global billionaires and their corporations are implemented by our politicians.
This has come to pass because of a lack of protest. The last wave of protest during the Great Recession resulted in policies that actually helped people, but then people got comfortable and started trusting politicians to do the right thing. This is always a mistake. You don't hire someone to do a job, then check back in four years. You have to manage them.
Right now there is a Movement of Movements building to take power from the global 1%, which controls half of the world wealth, and give it back to the other 7 billion people that actually created it.
The Great Recession, lost retirements, foreclosed homes, police brutality (because their job has always been to protect the rich against the rest of us), climate change, falling wages, etc can all be traced back to a greedy few who manipulate markets and governments to extract wealth that they can stash in offshore accounts.
We must move society to the next level, or we will slip back into a corporate serfdom.
We must make democracy responsive, to a responsible, and involved People.
Viva la Evolution.
This has come to pass because of a lack of protest. The last wave of protest during the Great Recession resulted in policies that actually helped people, but then people got comfortable and started trusting politicians to do the right thing. This is always a mistake. You don't hire someone to do a job, then check back in four years. You have to manage them.
Right now there is a Movement of Movements building to take power from the global 1%, which controls half of the world wealth, and give it back to the other 7 billion people that actually created it.
The Great Recession, lost retirements, foreclosed homes, police brutality (because their job has always been to protect the rich against the rest of us), climate change, falling wages, etc can all be traced back to a greedy few who manipulate markets and governments to extract wealth that they can stash in offshore accounts.
We must move society to the next level, or we will slip back into a corporate serfdom.
We must make democracy responsive, to a responsible, and involved People.
Viva la Evolution.
17
Protesting is enhanced voting. Like voters, facts matter less than perception to protesters and predisposition is based more on illusion than experience. Protesters loot and burn their neighborhoods, expel a harmless woman from a political rally because of her religion and occupy a government building all in order that their opinions be broadcast louder than that of those who only vote.
And it works!! For example, there are no stories on the pages of the Times that describe the outrage of a hypothetical middle class senior citizen who trudges through snow in Minneapolis to vote against a corrupt city councilperson. But if that same hypothetical senior were to strap a bomb around her waist and occupy city hall in protest against government corruption she'd get at least 800 words in the Times and a dozen other news papers. Her protest would be a thousand-fold more effective than her vote.
And it works!! For example, there are no stories on the pages of the Times that describe the outrage of a hypothetical middle class senior citizen who trudges through snow in Minneapolis to vote against a corrupt city councilperson. But if that same hypothetical senior were to strap a bomb around her waist and occupy city hall in protest against government corruption she'd get at least 800 words in the Times and a dozen other news papers. Her protest would be a thousand-fold more effective than her vote.
6
The "my way or the highway" approach to discussion ends the journey before it ever gets started.
e pluribus unum
e pluribus unum
2
You’d have to believe that the exercise could actually accomplish something. If not, then it’s a way of at least having duly noted for posterity that you don’t consent to the status quo.
3
Studies show mathematically that every time 3.5% of a population goes into protest mode they win.
Can we get ten million people on the streets of the U.S. to take power back from the .01% and create real democracy?
I believe that we will win.
Can we get ten million people on the streets of the U.S. to take power back from the .01% and create real democracy?
I believe that we will win.
1
"it is when we become more corrupt that moral distinctions become more refined."
Proust
Proust
21
Many apparently regard being in a perpetual state of righteous indignation as admirable. I call it Chronic High Dudgeon Syndrome (CHDS), a disorder that surely deserves space in the DSSM.
3
The only thing worse than moral outrage is moral indifference.
25
Balanced, thoughtful article. Well done!
2
“When moral outrage skips over moral conversation, then the outcome is likely going to be acquiescence, not inspired solutions,” is going up on my wall
6
Much of what is happening reminds me of the French Revolution.
Spoiler Alert:
It didn't end well.
Spoiler Alert:
It didn't end well.
7
It ended better than it started.
4
Many actions and words are outrageous and worthy of outrage. But the part that bothers me is the "off with their heads" mentality of the outraged, as if all flaws are fatal flaws. We must all remember, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. One day it might be your turn to say or do something really stupid and you'll wish we lived in a climate of redemption and forgiveness instead of judgement and damnation.
8
Big talk for a puerile audience. It would be a good column for a university symposium. Unfortunately, the electorate and the readership are middle schoolers, 12 year olds. David Hume works with 1% of the population. Rafael Cruz is a type of problem: a smart but puerile man. Thomas,help us out: How do you recommend that we bring change in our local communities of people who REALLY think well of Trump?
2
Ha! Silly humans.
1
I have tired of the term "outrage" and felt so for some time. If I had found in my life that people of moral or ethical outrage had been principled people themselves, I might have been able to stand so many self-appointed judges, but that is not the case. The outraged are most likely hypocrites in my experience and so I give no quarter to their views until I know they are Mother Theresa herself.
4
While I'm for the commercial airlines refusing to transport wildlife trophy animals --let them go by ship--I believe the immediate, almost unpremeditated social media response to moral outrages and social injustice is causing more compassion burnout & insensitivity than demands for action. The lion got more immediate action than the starving children in Syria or dead children washing up on the Greek shores.
9
As many say, technology, social media, etc. amplifies and facilitates change. There's also that saying about the squeaky wheel, which diminishes the voice of the more even keeled and perhaps more nuanced strand out of moderates out there.
3
Protests are a sign that there isn't enough work for people. I never have time to protest because I actually have a full time job which I use to support something old fashion called a "family." Even while I was in college I didn't have time to protest because I was doing something old fashion called "studying."
6
The lack of work is what people are protesting--among many other injustices.
5
At Yale, Dartmouth, Brown? Give me a break. Those people will never be in need of a job. Injustices exist people are not willing to work hard or even try hard.
2
Forget Friedman's three large forces at play today. The masses have always wanted what their rulers/overseers have had since the beginning of recorded history. That "globalism" has always been in play.
1
The notion that technology has reduced the distance between us is indeed the root cause of the rise of uneasiness. I know more about the four corners of the earth than I do about my own town. Because of this , people react with outrage at issues that they could not have been exposed to be fire, much less influence. And just as the widespread proliferation of small arms like AK-47s and RPGs has led to the age of permanent guerilla warfare in the developing world, the cell phone has introduced permanent geurilla warfare to the intellectual world and civil society. Where do we go from here?
3
Mr. Friedman trvializes the "Age of Protest" by emphasizing its roots in a communications revolution that makes remote events seem nearer and (often) more threatening than they really are. For many Americans, the loss of security to global competition, technological change and financialization of the real economy is not just a matter of perception but of real, material impacts on daily life. Witness, for instance, the shocking study showing rising death rates for middle-aged white Americans (NYT, Nov. 2, 2015), a trend driven by rising rates of alchohol and drug abuse combined with suicide. Whille Mr. Friedman's assumed audiience of the nation's leadership class might heed his advice to "pause to reflect", what would he advise the laid of electrician in Joliet to do?
2
Where's the mention of the armed "protesters" at the Oregon wildlife refuge? They claim to have a case. They talk a lot about the constitution but in their interpretation, that centerpiece of our commonwealth points only in their favor. They never mention that the constitution has set out valid ways to redress grievances.
All protests are born of the inner spirit of the basics of politics-action according to one's own interests. Any protest that is true and right would be done in the tradition of Gandhi, unarmed and peaceful.
The best protest I have witnessed recently is the one President Obama gave to us last night in the form of the SOTU address. In bold and clear language, he called on the Congress and the people of this nation to work together, to lose their selfishness and listen to everyone at the table.
President Obama, his detractors numbed by the high born sting of his words, called on us to put legs to our protests, by standing up and peacefully engaging in the concept of a working democracy. We should all get off the couch and follow his lead. That is the best example we can be to the world.
All protests are born of the inner spirit of the basics of politics-action according to one's own interests. Any protest that is true and right would be done in the tradition of Gandhi, unarmed and peaceful.
The best protest I have witnessed recently is the one President Obama gave to us last night in the form of the SOTU address. In bold and clear language, he called on the Congress and the people of this nation to work together, to lose their selfishness and listen to everyone at the table.
President Obama, his detractors numbed by the high born sting of his words, called on us to put legs to our protests, by standing up and peacefully engaging in the concept of a working democracy. We should all get off the couch and follow his lead. That is the best example we can be to the world.
1
There are serious protesters, organizing, taking to the streets, marching or occupying non-violently to draw attention to injustice or seeking social change. But it seems like there is a large demographic for whom protest is a hobby. It is easy to delight in the shaming of others and elevate ourselves in the process. But these are very base emotions, and don't contribute to the betterment of our society.
6
"If we can do that — a big if — Seidman concluded, “we can be truly great again because we’ll be back on our journey towards a more perfect union.”
I am thinking about HOW we can revitalize the economy with more hope for the future. The letters of HOW can also form WHO and I am thinking about how Hillary Clinton might be part of the answer for the economy.
People are saying that Hillary is part of the problem, but I am thinking that having a woman president might be part of the solution. With a woman president in the White House, we would be constantly reminded about upward mobility for women and others who feel left out. Women who rise up in the workforce would bring in more family income. They could inspire other people (not just women) to rise up.
I see Hillary as part of the HOW of economic growth for the nation. THANKS MUCH, Tom Friedman. You inspire!
I am thinking about HOW we can revitalize the economy with more hope for the future. The letters of HOW can also form WHO and I am thinking about how Hillary Clinton might be part of the answer for the economy.
People are saying that Hillary is part of the problem, but I am thinking that having a woman president might be part of the solution. With a woman president in the White House, we would be constantly reminded about upward mobility for women and others who feel left out. Women who rise up in the workforce would bring in more family income. They could inspire other people (not just women) to rise up.
I see Hillary as part of the HOW of economic growth for the nation. THANKS MUCH, Tom Friedman. You inspire!
6
Would love to see a woman in the White House, but please don't let it be Hillary Clinton. There is no more corrupted or corruptable person in Washington D.C. than she. I could be on board with Jane Harman. She seems well grounded and can appeal to both sides of the aisle.
1
Do check into Jane Harman's record before you champion her.
Dear JOK, The choices are limited to what's available. Perhaps some day we will be able to robotize leadership and get what we want.
How about a Pres. Ted Cruz? If we are so picky, then we might get Ted and a brand new recession. Take your pick?
How about a Pres. Ted Cruz? If we are so picky, then we might get Ted and a brand new recession. Take your pick?
2
If the lack of distance promoted understanding, and then from that understanding, learning something from the experience, rather than arousal, maybe we would not end up playing "moral outrage ping-pong."
Yes, leaders may have a role to play, but the real work is on the level of interior development of the individual, and such work is usually not conducive to fame or fortune, from leadership or from anything else for that matter. So most people gravitate towards other endeavors, endeavors with more social approbation involved, and we just muddle along without engaging in a process of improving interior development -- at least, that's what it looks like to me. I think one needs good emotional posture for the work of interior development, and a lot of what needs to be cultivated in order to become very material successful or powerful or socially admired impedes such emotional posture -- I think there are trade-offs, even if not everyone is aware of them.
Yes, leaders may have a role to play, but the real work is on the level of interior development of the individual, and such work is usually not conducive to fame or fortune, from leadership or from anything else for that matter. So most people gravitate towards other endeavors, endeavors with more social approbation involved, and we just muddle along without engaging in a process of improving interior development -- at least, that's what it looks like to me. I think one needs good emotional posture for the work of interior development, and a lot of what needs to be cultivated in order to become very material successful or powerful or socially admired impedes such emotional posture -- I think there are trade-offs, even if not everyone is aware of them.
1
It's very interesting to witness the speed at which social media can force change, especially when protesters realize they can use it to sway business interests. Overall, I don't think our moral values have changed at all. The same people would have been outraged by the lion hunter story years ago; the difference is that they wouldn't have heard about it, at least not until it was too late to act. Now, with a stir of the social media pot, you can deliver instant justice and force policy changes at major corporations, not to mention destroy a dentist's career.
17
Yes, in these times the press must be ever more diligent about which "protests" they promote. For instance, they call the anarchists who took over the Wildlife Refuge in Oregon "an armed militia". They are no "militia". Their states each have a true militia known as the National Guard. They are terrorists who want something for nothing and have taken over OUR land and threatened OUR government officials. They must be arrested, stripped of any government assistance they are receiving, made to pay the fines they owe for grazing their cattle on OUR land and put in jail. The vast majority of Americans feel It is time for this angry, white, christian, gun-toting anti-America rhetoric to stop. The proof is in the fact that they are receiving "hate mail" from people across the land and members of the International Audubon Society are going to converge on OUR Wildlife Refuge in April and let them know whose land it really is. OURS.
3
If they were any other race, you would have nothing but sympathy for them.
4
That is simply not true, tehy. I do not know you - why would you say such a thing?
1
The problem is not primarily the speed of communicating "stuff" - mostly junk - on the Internet, the problem is that "journalism", as the arbiter between fact and fiction, has largely disappeared in the US. That is what Donald Trump discovered - the media allow him to put virtually anything out there, and the media will amplify this without any critical review. Virtually every day the media trumpet (sorry) an "exclusive interview" with Trump, but it is not an interview in the traditional sense, it is merely a platform to spout more of his craziness.
6
It seems like Friedman is confusing protest with mob rule. Protest is a sign of a healthy democracy, whereas mob rule is a sign that democracy has degenerated. Protest happens when informed citizens organize in the public sphere around moral/ethical concerns but do not destroy that public sphere in the process of their organization. The mob doesn't care about the public sphere. The mob simply wants its way and doesn't care what it destroys in the process.
I don't just blame "the people" for degenerating into a mob. The public sphere is being eroded by the forces of global capitalism, which turn citizens into consumers and destroy the ethical spirit of protest. Consumers don't care about truth or dialogue. They want bread and circuses. They want gladiator fights.
I don't just blame "the people" for degenerating into a mob. The public sphere is being eroded by the forces of global capitalism, which turn citizens into consumers and destroy the ethical spirit of protest. Consumers don't care about truth or dialogue. They want bread and circuses. They want gladiator fights.
34
Deepa,
The sign of a healthy democracy is a ballot box that regularly changes the direction of the pendulum. Obama will be seen as a great President because he has slowed a pendulum that has gone far beyond its optimum point in a rightward direction.
The sign of a healthy democracy is a ballot box that regularly changes the direction of the pendulum. Obama will be seen as a great President because he has slowed a pendulum that has gone far beyond its optimum point in a rightward direction.
1
"If you go to The Guardian’s website these days you can find a section that is just labeled “Protest.”
I prefer moveon.org where I can make my voice heard on the important issues of the day. No need to argue with trolls and know-nothing foxbots (hello, WaPo). And I put my money (alas, a mere pittance) where my mouth is. Power to the people!
I prefer moveon.org where I can make my voice heard on the important issues of the day. No need to argue with trolls and know-nothing foxbots (hello, WaPo). And I put my money (alas, a mere pittance) where my mouth is. Power to the people!
2
Much of the moral arousal and protest projects disgust only to get window dressing change. This change is largely political, aimed at stopping dissent, but keeping top-down status quo. In this way the protest becomes a disservice if it heightens the argument, rather than focusing civil dialogue. Then again, perhaps the level of protest is in direct correlation to the willingness of the powerful to engage in consistent, organized civil dialogue.
2
PROTEST BYPASSES SOLUTIONS
Protest is negative: it specifically avoids the difficult job of finding solutions to the source of outrage. It wallows in negative that creates more problems. It is a "cheap shot."
It grows in popularity when there is a lack of responsible, capable, well-communicating leadership, leadership that inspires followers to the difficult task of finding solutions. Or when demagogues (e.g., Tea Party, Trump) are allowed to get away with "simple solutions" (no new taxes, carpet bombing, sending them all back) instead of being made the laughingstocks they truly are.
Failure to compete with simplistic, fraudulent, populist demagoguery effectively broadcast by the Republican Party is the single biggest failure of the Obama Adminnistration. Bill Maher and others do it better.
Protest is negative: it specifically avoids the difficult job of finding solutions to the source of outrage. It wallows in negative that creates more problems. It is a "cheap shot."
It grows in popularity when there is a lack of responsible, capable, well-communicating leadership, leadership that inspires followers to the difficult task of finding solutions. Or when demagogues (e.g., Tea Party, Trump) are allowed to get away with "simple solutions" (no new taxes, carpet bombing, sending them all back) instead of being made the laughingstocks they truly are.
Failure to compete with simplistic, fraudulent, populist demagoguery effectively broadcast by the Republican Party is the single biggest failure of the Obama Adminnistration. Bill Maher and others do it better.
3
Millions of Americans protested the Vietnam War with one simple demand: end the war and bring home the troops. Was that a "negative" or a "positive" goal?
What's much more difficult is to organize protests about complex multi-factor problems like income inequality. Instead we get sloganeering about things like "breaking up the big banks." No one is going to take to the streets to fight for more progressivity in tax rates or for abolishing deductions that benefit the wealthy.
What's much more difficult is to organize protests about complex multi-factor problems like income inequality. Instead we get sloganeering about things like "breaking up the big banks." No one is going to take to the streets to fight for more progressivity in tax rates or for abolishing deductions that benefit the wealthy.
10
When moral outrage leads to demands of firings or resignations we become prisoners of our own self-censorship.
To speak without thinking, in hast, or in anger may lead to some ugly statements. But how may times have we all wished someone dead? I'd rather hate Trump's childish and vitriolic xenophobia than have a nation of silent automatons who fear to make a sound.
To speak without thinking, in hast, or in anger may lead to some ugly statements. But how may times have we all wished someone dead? I'd rather hate Trump's childish and vitriolic xenophobia than have a nation of silent automatons who fear to make a sound.
4
We might do well to remember that during the original American protest a lot of British tea merchants were mightily discomforted by the action of those protesters spilling their tea into the harbor.
1
Bob,
I normally agree with what you say but this time you are historically inaccurate. British tea merchants save the East India Company supported the Boston Tea Party. The tax imposed by and for the East India Company was designed to put the smaller tea merchants out of business. The original Boston Tea Partiers were the the Mom and Pop business owners and the reason for disguises was so the authorities could not identify the pillars of the Boston merchantile society as those dumping East India Company tea into the harbour.
I normally agree with what you say but this time you are historically inaccurate. British tea merchants save the East India Company supported the Boston Tea Party. The tax imposed by and for the East India Company was designed to put the smaller tea merchants out of business. The original Boston Tea Partiers were the the Mom and Pop business owners and the reason for disguises was so the authorities could not identify the pillars of the Boston merchantile society as those dumping East India Company tea into the harbour.
4
So little of American history is history and so much is Disney. The Boston Tea Party was in fact a protest by small business protesting the power of the "Too Big to fail East India Company" and its ability to legislate taxes that could impose taxes that endangered their continued existence.
3
Not just the British tea merchants. A lot of Americans were discomforted by the actions of the Sons of Liberty. Some Americans even preferred British rule. At that decisive moment in American history, its unlikely that a majority actively supported the revolution.
1
The last age of protest started in the mid-60's and perversely gave us Richard Nixon as our President.
1
Correction--the right-wingers who wanted the unjust status-quo to continue gave us Richard Nixon.
3
MORAL INDIGNATION
Moral imagination diminishes with distance
declared once David Hume.
The way that nations fume
against Israel with great prejudiced persistence
demonstrates the opposite for moral indignation,
which grows with distance from
Israelis, like a bomb
whose stink is greatest when you're far away from this great nation.
Although not therapeutic, moral outrage is a way
to make it seem to those
who morally oppose
the Zionists that they've the right to block their right of way.
[email protected]
Moral imagination diminishes with distance
declared once David Hume.
The way that nations fume
against Israel with great prejudiced persistence
demonstrates the opposite for moral indignation,
which grows with distance from
Israelis, like a bomb
whose stink is greatest when you're far away from this great nation.
Although not therapeutic, moral outrage is a way
to make it seem to those
who morally oppose
the Zionists that they've the right to block their right of way.
[email protected]
What is "moral" to a primate ape that evolved by DNA genetic biological natural selection in East Africa 180-200, 000 years ago bound to crave fat, salt, sugar, water, habitat and sex is colored by chronological ecological isolation. Leaving behind the most best adapted offspring over time is the goal of all of our moral outrage and protest.
1
A thoughtful piece. I have to wonder if this helps account for the behavior online of many of Sanders' more vociferous supporters, those with epithets like "stupid," "idiot," & "irrelevant" so readily on their lips. Theirs is the candidate who was going to "bring us together." Are these folks his ambassadors? Really the Sanders campaign needs to address this because it only undermines how gracious Bernie himself appears to be. Would I place my future in this crowd's hands? Uh-uh.
3
Thomas,
I still remember your Flat Earth and have watched with joy as Canada has joined Japan and Western Europe in bailing out. Democracy has a strange way of changing government and banking policies.
The sanctity of the privately owned and controlled economy and a privately owned government has given the US the a strong vibrant economy that has allowed it to exploit its unique position in a Flat Earth that has seen most of the Western democracies abandoned because their middle class has not seen fit to make the sacrifices.
I still remember your Flat Earth and have watched with joy as Canada has joined Japan and Western Europe in bailing out. Democracy has a strange way of changing government and banking policies.
The sanctity of the privately owned and controlled economy and a privately owned government has given the US the a strong vibrant economy that has allowed it to exploit its unique position in a Flat Earth that has seen most of the Western democracies abandoned because their middle class has not seen fit to make the sacrifices.
1
I have some 'leadership' advice for Mr. Seidman, "As distance decreases, the moral imagination increases" is not the opposite of "the moral imagination diminishes with distance." Just as "The farther I am from the bullhorn, the softer it is" is not the opposite of "The closer I am to the bullhorn, the louder it is."
Go back in time like 30 yrs. What people knew about the world was rather limited. There were the major media outlets, but, back then, even the NY Times and other newspapers that have national influence did so not directly, but through repetition and imitation by evening network newscasts and what filtered down to local and regional news outlets.
Now, when anything happens, what people know about it is immediately defined and modified by the oozing, frothing comments of thousands, even millions of people. A police officer shooting a running, unarmed man in North Charleston, S.C., would likely never have bubbled up into an important part of a national story. Going back to the 1960s, one reason that Martin Luther King inserted himself into racial clashes was to bring media attention to what would otherwise be obscure local events.
The established powers, from media outlets to governors and presidents, have lost control of the narrative. When French president Charles De Gaulle came to the U.S., he asked, "How do you govern?" without controlling television. Decades later, another French president came to visit and the first place he wanted to drop in was CNN. These foreign leaders realized that power flows from controlling what people know.
We are in a new era that we don't fully understand. To an extent, we probably overreact to these changes in an effort to keep current. Leaders, presidents on down, are less likely to be able to instruct us. We tell them.
Now, when anything happens, what people know about it is immediately defined and modified by the oozing, frothing comments of thousands, even millions of people. A police officer shooting a running, unarmed man in North Charleston, S.C., would likely never have bubbled up into an important part of a national story. Going back to the 1960s, one reason that Martin Luther King inserted himself into racial clashes was to bring media attention to what would otherwise be obscure local events.
The established powers, from media outlets to governors and presidents, have lost control of the narrative. When French president Charles De Gaulle came to the U.S., he asked, "How do you govern?" without controlling television. Decades later, another French president came to visit and the first place he wanted to drop in was CNN. These foreign leaders realized that power flows from controlling what people know.
We are in a new era that we don't fully understand. To an extent, we probably overreact to these changes in an effort to keep current. Leaders, presidents on down, are less likely to be able to instruct us. We tell them.
6
That people are ethically concerned about the environment in which the live, however broadly taken, and willing to work for change strikes me as just what democracy is all about encouraging. I welcome peaceful social activism, and as for the Yale students who are being criticized I applaud and stand with them.
You applaud and stand with Yale students who want to limit others speech so that they are not personally offended? And you therefore think that the free expression of ideas is not central to institutions of higher learning? The only answer to offensive speech is more speech, not limits, which are frankly un-American.
6
One of the problems is that the social network platforms, and worse of all, Twitter, givers everybody a platform to just vent, without any considered thought at all. My son recently cancelled his Facebook account, and congratulations to him. Social media resembles more the screaming matches of cable network TV than a discussion on NPR. The example of the dentist and the lion is unbelievable. The man didn't do anything illegal, hunting is a big part of income in a poor country, and yet, all those with nothing better to do than sit in their comfortable chairs, feel utterly justified in vilifying something without giving a moment's thought to consequences to those less blessed with luxury and comfort. When Trump, and I am no fan of his at all, speaks of a 'silent majority' then he is on to something. Because on the social media, those yelling the loudest, no matter reason and argument, get all the attention. Pathetic.
7
Perhaps the reactions to the lion's death might be a signal to the Zimbabwean government that it needs to rethink its policies concerning tourism. I think the days are long behind us when Teddy Roosevelt could go off on big-game hunts that were followed by millions of Americans. Many large animal species are endangered because of hunting and poaching, and governments that encourage or overlook these behaviors might want to consider other methods of raising revenues like educating their people and finding productive employment for them.
1
We're just back to where we always have been. Rumors, gossip lead to Salem Witch Trials, Lynching, Killing the "other". Nothing has changed because we humans cam never change. It's not in our nature, our make up. When you become very old, like myself, you realize this truth.
8
The Age of Protest has completely engulfed and devoured the 2016 presidential campaign for both parties. About a year ago the pundits were predicting a sort of ho-hum contest between two relatively dull mainstream candidates--Hillary Clinton against Jeb Bush. No one anticipated how the rise of two polar opposites--Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump -- would completely alter the entire 2016 race. America is on the verge of dumping boring status quo candidates in favor of these two maverick candidates who aren't feeling anyone's pain but understand American anger instead. Ever since he announced his White House bid, Donald Trump vaulted into the lead among Republicans and has held it ever since. Bernie Sanders had been considered a longshot at best but is now leading Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and could upset her in Iowa instead. This time next year one of these protest candidates could easily be sworn in as president. Hey it could happen.
2
You are mistaken.
Anger is mainstream, and the press is delivering it to you.
The problem is that once angry people actually find themselves in power, they inevitably turn that anger on their own people.
Find me ANY historical example of an angry leader who didn't commit atrocities against his own people.
Anger is mainstream, and the press is delivering it to you.
The problem is that once angry people actually find themselves in power, they inevitably turn that anger on their own people.
Find me ANY historical example of an angry leader who didn't commit atrocities against his own people.
1
The upcoming election itself has become a protest, and that is a good thing. Bernie Sanders is running against politics as usual (super PACS), current policies, the extreme right, and income inequality. We need more about protest in mainline news like the NYt. We only hear about right wing protest by armed bandits, even justification for there so-called "ideology." They have no ideology except greed as do the Wall Street bandits.
1
Just for scale, let's take a sampling of my states news this week...In Michigan, the legislature just removed the right of school boards and municipalities to publicly discuss ballot measures 2 months prior to an election. They also stripped straight ticket and enhanced absentee voting.
Then, there is the entire population of Flint, poisoned by parsimonious and careless state officials. Our Governor is mulling over calling out the National Guard to Flint, but he left that city without access to safe water for days, in a Brownie Superdome moment. The residents are still expected to pay their water bills for their poisoned water.
Every time I tune in, there is an unbelievable story to hear. The small government folks have really outdone themselves. These are radical times; citizens are having their right to vote, constitutional rights to marry or end a pregnancy, or even to municipally provided clean water under assault, not by protestors but by legislators and state officials.
Then, there is the entire population of Flint, poisoned by parsimonious and careless state officials. Our Governor is mulling over calling out the National Guard to Flint, but he left that city without access to safe water for days, in a Brownie Superdome moment. The residents are still expected to pay their water bills for their poisoned water.
Every time I tune in, there is an unbelievable story to hear. The small government folks have really outdone themselves. These are radical times; citizens are having their right to vote, constitutional rights to marry or end a pregnancy, or even to municipally provided clean water under assault, not by protestors but by legislators and state officials.
8
The thing about protests that protestors too often forget is that they are not just talking to themselves. If onlookers and people watching at home don't like what they are seeing, especially when the rhetoric gets heated, they will tune-out the cause that is being promoted, even if it is something they might ordinarily be in sympathy with; and they will remember the names and political affiliations of the protestors when it is time to vote. This is an important reason why Republicans frequently get elected and why Trump stands a good chance of getting elected.
3
I understand both positive and negative comments about this column. Moral outrage has been our liberal engine for my long life. It's a necessity. But, I do appreciate Friedman's frame to get my perspective back. I'm too outraged! It's spilling over into my everyday interactions with people. It's not hope that I've lost, it's patience. I don't think the world is without hope, I'm just over stimulated by all the negative talk. Need a break.
4
excerpt: “People everywhere seem to be morally aroused,” said Seidman. “The philosopher David Hume argued that ‘the moral imagination diminishes with distance.’ It would follow that the opposite is also true: As distance decreases, the moral imagination increases."
Since "the world is flat" there are no distances, thus someone can set off a bomb anyplace claiming moral indignation anywhere else. We now live in a Twitter and Facebook world.
Since "the world is flat" there are no distances, thus someone can set off a bomb anyplace claiming moral indignation anywhere else. We now live in a Twitter and Facebook world.
Outrage is a natural impulse and can be an effective instigator for change. The problem as I see it is that we are too frequently and en masse channeling that impulse into disruption, punishment and shame-- a a cultural phenomena that arises from our justice system which is defined by crime and punishment. Seeped in this culture our first instinct when confronting wrongdoing is to criminalize the perpetrator and punish in a manner designed to deter recidivism (or to feel frustrated when wrongdoers are not punished, i.e. too big to jail).
Restorative Justice offers a different paradigm defined not by crime and punishment but by outrage and repair--restore victims and rehabilitate offenders using methods that bring the community together to solve problems, reinstate shared conventions of behavior and rebuild trust. Restorative Justice values and processes are making some headway in the States but we should all work to promote its values and processes further within each of our own little jurisdictions.
Americans are outraged and increasingly frustrated by failures of our leaders to punish (or otherwise effect desired change) and we are taking the task into our own hands. I would love to see the impact if, collectively, our more immediate impulse to outrage would be to empathize and repair.
Restorative Justice offers a different paradigm defined not by crime and punishment but by outrage and repair--restore victims and rehabilitate offenders using methods that bring the community together to solve problems, reinstate shared conventions of behavior and rebuild trust. Restorative Justice values and processes are making some headway in the States but we should all work to promote its values and processes further within each of our own little jurisdictions.
Americans are outraged and increasingly frustrated by failures of our leaders to punish (or otherwise effect desired change) and we are taking the task into our own hands. I would love to see the impact if, collectively, our more immediate impulse to outrage would be to empathize and repair.
12
“People everywhere seem to be morally aroused,”
At what? At other people's morals?
What exactly does the CEO of LRN list as a Decalogue of morals to his one percent master of the Universe charges? That they should take the moral high road and promise not to take any of their horde with them when they die like Zuckerman/Gates/Buffet? How are these high minded types any different from the miserable misers we read about in grade school? But now the misers of the world get to congregate yearly at Davos to moralize on the human condition. To instruct a billionaire on morals is like Germany and Sweden's latest mandate that Muslim immigrants undergo training that it's not OK to rape young women. They need to be taught that? To ask the CEO of LRN about morals is like asking Bill Gates for a definition of what a miser is. Imagine the protest, if, next time Mr. Friedman gets to speak at Davos, he began with "1 percenters (also known as philanthropists) are but the misers of old." Forget Moore's law. Finger the old vices, and you will find morals enough. The problem today is not the lack of morals, but the absence of vices.
At what? At other people's morals?
What exactly does the CEO of LRN list as a Decalogue of morals to his one percent master of the Universe charges? That they should take the moral high road and promise not to take any of their horde with them when they die like Zuckerman/Gates/Buffet? How are these high minded types any different from the miserable misers we read about in grade school? But now the misers of the world get to congregate yearly at Davos to moralize on the human condition. To instruct a billionaire on morals is like Germany and Sweden's latest mandate that Muslim immigrants undergo training that it's not OK to rape young women. They need to be taught that? To ask the CEO of LRN about morals is like asking Bill Gates for a definition of what a miser is. Imagine the protest, if, next time Mr. Friedman gets to speak at Davos, he began with "1 percenters (also known as philanthropists) are but the misers of old." Forget Moore's law. Finger the old vices, and you will find morals enough. The problem today is not the lack of morals, but the absence of vices.
1
Mr. Friedman, of "globalization, Moore's Law, and Mother Nature" only the third approximates a "force." The other two don't drive, but are driven by other factors and forces. Globalization is a long-term trend resulting from economic, political, and technological innovation, interconnectivity, and interdependence. Moore's Law is a statistical abstraction, or inference, derived from even more specialized technological innovation, itself, in turn, driven by other factors: advances in microminiaturization, nanotechnology, etc. But, as a law, Moore's seems not so much a force as an observation.
We need to define "Moral" first.
2
There has never been an age without protest unless the nation is fighting an existential foreign war -- basically that was a brief time in WW II.
It is the failure of memory and history that leads to Friedman's overwrought claim. I'm surprised he has fallen for it, but in fairness he doesn't fall for the simplest fallacy -- the collective "rewriting" of history to sanitize it and mythologize it into patriotic pablum for our children's history books, so the next generation will think that everything was hunky-dory.
It's this mythologizing that in fact leads to so much anger today -- it leads particularly to the craziness on the right -- the anger that today's world is going to the dogs because John Wayne was a hero, and everything was so perfect in a movie they saw.
He falls for the belief there is more protest -- today is not one of more protest, there is far less. No Viet Nam. Black Lives Matter is tiny compared to the Civil Rights Era. Ferguson is trivial compared to Watts. Occupy Wallstreet was a feckless disaster. Ammon Bundy and a few other losers are demonstrating what a pack of grifters the Sagebrushers are: taking federal loans and going off to play revolutionaries with their guns. For all the talk about health-care, nothing is happening that compares to Rostenkowski driving off with a little old lady as a hood ornament. Nothing will until Ryan actually produces a plan -- in which case Ryan better watch out.
It is the failure of memory and history that leads to Friedman's overwrought claim. I'm surprised he has fallen for it, but in fairness he doesn't fall for the simplest fallacy -- the collective "rewriting" of history to sanitize it and mythologize it into patriotic pablum for our children's history books, so the next generation will think that everything was hunky-dory.
It's this mythologizing that in fact leads to so much anger today -- it leads particularly to the craziness on the right -- the anger that today's world is going to the dogs because John Wayne was a hero, and everything was so perfect in a movie they saw.
He falls for the belief there is more protest -- today is not one of more protest, there is far less. No Viet Nam. Black Lives Matter is tiny compared to the Civil Rights Era. Ferguson is trivial compared to Watts. Occupy Wallstreet was a feckless disaster. Ammon Bundy and a few other losers are demonstrating what a pack of grifters the Sagebrushers are: taking federal loans and going off to play revolutionaries with their guns. For all the talk about health-care, nothing is happening that compares to Rostenkowski driving off with a little old lady as a hood ornament. Nothing will until Ryan actually produces a plan -- in which case Ryan better watch out.
1
Moral outrage, as you describe it, is the fundamental habitat of the right wing conservative. There is no room for discourse, or debate, because emotion takes up all the room they have in their brains. This is the reason we never move. Emotional anger is paralyzing. Attention all heads of knuckle: stop spitting and yelling, and start thinking. It gets easier the longer you practice.
2
Moral outrage is not limited to the right. It's widespread on the left, with respect to their social and economic issues.
4
The problem with progress it that it comes with costs, it creates winners and losers ... and backlashes are almost inevitable. Railroads and steamships were great technological leaps in their day, but not so good for the folks raising horses or making sails. The same is true in the social, political and economic arenas.
How is it realistically possible to reconcile deep seated religious beliefs with secular values that are diametrically opposed. Why do we expect the vague ideals of democracy to overcome tribal and sectarian rifts that are centuries old? What makes capitalism appealing to people whose only function is to enrich others in a far away place that considers them a threat?
As Fredrick Douglass pointed out: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
How is it realistically possible to reconcile deep seated religious beliefs with secular values that are diametrically opposed. Why do we expect the vague ideals of democracy to overcome tribal and sectarian rifts that are centuries old? What makes capitalism appealing to people whose only function is to enrich others in a far away place that considers them a threat?
As Fredrick Douglass pointed out: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
4
"[Now that] we are in a crowded theatre, where everything is personal..." Really? Are we personally touched by the plight of refugees whose lives are torn apart by wars, whether the "theatre" be in parts of Africa or the Middle East? Has the "decrease" in "distance" increased our moral empathy for those who suffer on account of ruthless politicking in the world? With the "decrease" in distance, we have now become better and more avid watchers of violence and outrage; it's like spectacle for the Western audience, unless the spectacle goes home to roost on our pocket books and our neighborhoods. It's then, that out of self-preservation that we wince and arouse ourselves to "protest" through hashtags and smartphones.
Real protest are aimed at making structural changes, bit by bit over time. The buckling of Delta airlines in the face of a protest against trophy hunters, is a mere blip in the radar of real change.
Real protest are aimed at making structural changes, bit by bit over time. The buckling of Delta airlines in the face of a protest against trophy hunters, is a mere blip in the radar of real change.
1
The fallacy of Friedman’s last paragraph is that Twitter and social media thrive precisely because instantaneously expressing outrage in 140 characters is much easier and more instantly gratifying than “deep and honest conversations.” Our national dialogue is out of control: you cannot even watch the Democrat presidential debates without real-time sniping by Republican candidates flashing across the screen. And now we have exported our cultural mindset to the entire world. At what point do freedom of speech and protest become mob rule?
To be sure, social media does a bang up job of getting the word out, and this is, overall, an especially good thing. Moral outrage at injustice via social media brings to light things that all too often were either ignored by the Fourth Estate or just too divisive to talk about. Would anyone be talking about the plight of the Rohingya had Nicholas Kristof _not_written his column last week? Perhaps, but more people know about it now.
But with outrage must come with specific responsibility....vetting. Too often posts are shared and re-shared that are inaccurate at best and damn lies at worst. Snopes has become a crucial public service! Opinions are too often formed on the basis of a sound bite or meme. This is definitely the down side.
But the upside may outweigh it all. What took us weeks of organization in the 60s and 70s now take a few moments on-line. Protesting can be more fluid and react more quickly to changing information, but it also means there's a great deal of misinformation going around.
This new dynamic requires a higher level of active fact-checking. This part of the new dynamic is going to need a great deal of new attention to get it right
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
But with outrage must come with specific responsibility....vetting. Too often posts are shared and re-shared that are inaccurate at best and damn lies at worst. Snopes has become a crucial public service! Opinions are too often formed on the basis of a sound bite or meme. This is definitely the down side.
But the upside may outweigh it all. What took us weeks of organization in the 60s and 70s now take a few moments on-line. Protesting can be more fluid and react more quickly to changing information, but it also means there's a great deal of misinformation going around.
This new dynamic requires a higher level of active fact-checking. This part of the new dynamic is going to need a great deal of new attention to get it right
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
12
Good column Mr. Tom Friedman. Too bad you couldn't see the connection between what you are praising, and the excellent example of good behavior and communication by President Obama.
4
The Social Justice Warrior movement is going to end the way McCarthyism ended .. when the movement starts eating its own. Even Thomas Friedman is waking up to this. Excellent column.
5
With so many voices in the mix from so many different sources, the media outlets are overloaded with choice. But they are also beholden to making money and appeasing stakeholders. The media has to be selective, while trying to maintain integrity. It is a very difficult line to walk.
A protest is NOTHING without coverage. And so the media is an integral part of that. Yes, Twitter and Facebook provide key alternative channels, but they're still marginal compared to the major media outlets. THAT is where we need the morality!
We will see articles with outcries against injustices, be it civil, financial, political, and criminal. But I *never* see follow-ups. It's one thing to call out something that merits attention, but what about solutions? Those are even more important than awareness.
A protest is NOTHING without coverage. And so the media is an integral part of that. Yes, Twitter and Facebook provide key alternative channels, but they're still marginal compared to the major media outlets. THAT is where we need the morality!
We will see articles with outcries against injustices, be it civil, financial, political, and criminal. But I *never* see follow-ups. It's one thing to call out something that merits attention, but what about solutions? Those are even more important than awareness.
15
We live in an age of repression and so we live in an age of protest. Elites retain their power but none of their persuasiveness. The children are advised to play nicely while the grownups sort out “globalization, Moore’s law and Mother Nature”. And Donald and Bernie come knocking….
7
Does this real conversation start with getting to facts? Friedman can talk about racists cops, but can he talk about the reality that what people are saying happened in Furgeson is simply full of lies and BLM and the mainstream media tarred a feathered a police officer who rightfully defended himself. This is just one example. To have an honest moral conversation, we must start with facts. Perhaps we should address the idea that moral outrage is often against facts that don't exist. Let's start with getting the facts right, then we can deal with the moral outrage that is left over.
13
You go to one extreme over Ferguson and Black Lives Matter goes to the other. Both wish to construct a simplistic narrative.
Each event must be weighed individually rather than being crammed into a Procrustean narrative. E.g.: From everything I can see of it, there's plenty of fault to spread around. I think you are correct that once Brown escalated the situation by grabbing for Wilson's gun, Wilson had no choice; but it should never have escalated to that point. Another question that must be raised here, I think, is why both cops and black citizens have gotten into the position where it is assumed every encounter must be a hostile confrontation. (It would never occur to me - and I'm a white woman - to back-talk, refuse to cooperate, or god forbid run, if a cop stopped me. You can be polite and cooperative without being obsequious. I wonder if black males don't perceive a cop stop as a challenge to their manhood and feel they have to throw down - which in itself would be the result of internalized pervasive racism devaluing black manhood.
The subject is a huge mare's nest, but everyone's got a 140-character answer - and that's the problem.
Each event must be weighed individually rather than being crammed into a Procrustean narrative. E.g.: From everything I can see of it, there's plenty of fault to spread around. I think you are correct that once Brown escalated the situation by grabbing for Wilson's gun, Wilson had no choice; but it should never have escalated to that point. Another question that must be raised here, I think, is why both cops and black citizens have gotten into the position where it is assumed every encounter must be a hostile confrontation. (It would never occur to me - and I'm a white woman - to back-talk, refuse to cooperate, or god forbid run, if a cop stopped me. You can be polite and cooperative without being obsequious. I wonder if black males don't perceive a cop stop as a challenge to their manhood and feel they have to throw down - which in itself would be the result of internalized pervasive racism devaluing black manhood.
The subject is a huge mare's nest, but everyone's got a 140-character answer - and that's the problem.
1
Causality of protests is not globalization, Moore's Law and mother nature. The US has been trading globally for centuries, technology advances have been happening for centuries as well. Most people don't even think about mother nature. Tom F is living in an echo chamber.
People are protesting because they don't feel people in positions of responsibility and power are looking out for them and are corrupt but NOW the unwashed masses have the tools get their story out and highlight what people in power are actually doing. The asymmetrical access to information and framing of events that people in power enjoyed in the past has shifted and it is more symmetrical. Now it is easier to assemble and rally around a cause. Now it is easier for the masses to turn their focus on problems and drive the outcome rather than a feckless leader who believes they control the agenda with their shallow soundbites and "let them eat cake" scorn.
Welcome to the 21st century.
People are protesting because they don't feel people in positions of responsibility and power are looking out for them and are corrupt but NOW the unwashed masses have the tools get their story out and highlight what people in power are actually doing. The asymmetrical access to information and framing of events that people in power enjoyed in the past has shifted and it is more symmetrical. Now it is easier to assemble and rally around a cause. Now it is easier for the masses to turn their focus on problems and drive the outcome rather than a feckless leader who believes they control the agenda with their shallow soundbites and "let them eat cake" scorn.
Welcome to the 21st century.
9
The greater symmetry of access to technology between the masses and the elites should enable the process of correcting governance, and foster solutions . This we should herald as progress. The use of Facebook and Twitter for political organizing creates a cyber community of like minded individuals which will help our moribund democracy. I have often proposed a CCC Cyber Citizens Congress where registrants could vote on line items that Congress bundles, and to register opinions on foreign policy. How long could the elected Congress ignore millions of citizens and listen only to the lobbyists ?
2
So "moral conversations" are okay but as soon as we attempt to take any action, it becomes "moral outrage" which is not okay. Fortunately, many people before us did not hesitate to become outraged, or else women would still not be allowed to vote, there would still be "whites only" signs throughout the south, we still might be bombing Vietnam, etc.
Friedman's views on this topic are no surprise: the wealthy and elite love to sit in their parlors and converse on the troubles of the world, comfortable in their "moral imagination", diminished as it is, "with distance".
Friedman's views on this topic are no surprise: the wealthy and elite love to sit in their parlors and converse on the troubles of the world, comfortable in their "moral imagination", diminished as it is, "with distance".
22
The world has not changed - all the positive and negative forces are playing at the same intensity as it used to play 5000 years back. The only difference is the technology that made these soectular dynamics of forces made visible to all people in the world by eliminating the limitation of time and space. This is the first time human mind has to confront the effect of elimination of space-time and causality. It is difficult for a society created by following the truth of space time causality to adjust to this new world - human brain has to reconfigure in a dramatic way to adopt this new reality. The protests, terrorism, anger, NGOs, corporate philanthropy, citizen United,.... Are all the trial and error experiments in that process. Ultimately human mind have to grapes the idea of "potential divinity of all" and learn to practice new laws of morality, love, empathy, truthfulness, simplicity,.... We will reach that state one day.
This is amongst Friedman's worst columns in a long time.
The "age of protest" is upon us because of climate, globalization and Moore's Law? When does this old canard that Friedman has been trotting out for years expire?
The age of protest is upon us because the institutions that govern and organize our society are corrupt. Black Lives Matter. The Tea Party. Occupy. The anti immigration protests in Europe. even the jihadist uprisings in the Middle East. All because people are revolting against an unjust, self-serving corrupted elite. Period.
Friedman needs to write a new book. The ideas from the old one are well past their sell-by date.
The "age of protest" is upon us because of climate, globalization and Moore's Law? When does this old canard that Friedman has been trotting out for years expire?
The age of protest is upon us because the institutions that govern and organize our society are corrupt. Black Lives Matter. The Tea Party. Occupy. The anti immigration protests in Europe. even the jihadist uprisings in the Middle East. All because people are revolting against an unjust, self-serving corrupted elite. Period.
Friedman needs to write a new book. The ideas from the old one are well past their sell-by date.
4
Reading Thomas Friedman's weekly rants has become so tiring - its the same story line he has been harping on now for over a decade. Maybe a sabbatical is in order to gain a new perspective....
5
It used to be that we'd get most of our news from trusted newspapers that built their reputations over a long period of time, proving themselves by substantiated accuracy and integrity. Television news programs started that way as well.
And today? It has all changed. Everything is caught in a whirlwind of voices coming from so many different sources, with little delay. It is now VERY difficult to know what we can trust. And a lot of people just throw their hands up and believe according to their whims, rather than facts. How can we be a COORDINATED society this way? How can we find TRUST? I'm at a loss for an answer.
And today? It has all changed. Everything is caught in a whirlwind of voices coming from so many different sources, with little delay. It is now VERY difficult to know what we can trust. And a lot of people just throw their hands up and believe according to their whims, rather than facts. How can we be a COORDINATED society this way? How can we find TRUST? I'm at a loss for an answer.
5
Ah yes, the problems of the world that generate protests are the result of "the three largest forces on the planet — globalization, Moore’s law and Mother Nature."
No mention of the pathological greed of the 1 percent who in 2016 will come to own more than 50 percent of the wealth of the world, according to research by the international organization Oxfam. This means a handful of people --megalomaniacs like the Koch brothers-- will have more money, land and other wealth than all the rest of us 99 percent of the population combined.
I despise (yes that's the only word that fits) the dishonesty of Mr. Friedman's piece, in what he chooses to ignore in making his case. Unfortunately, this is typical of him. He also doesn't mention the terrible consequences of the Iraq war now playing out in the Middle East, a war he enthusiastically championed before it began.
The question I and many other readers have is why this individual whose columns simply cannot be trusted to inform honestly on any subject, still has a coveted place on the op-ed page of the New York Times.
It's probably for the same reason this newspaper will not honestly and thoroughly cover and report on the campaign of Bernie Sanders. The Times appears to have abandoned journalism' sacred duty to inform the American citizenry of what people NEED to know, and now --whether consciously or unconsciously-- serves the interests of the rich and powerful and their status quo.
No mention of the pathological greed of the 1 percent who in 2016 will come to own more than 50 percent of the wealth of the world, according to research by the international organization Oxfam. This means a handful of people --megalomaniacs like the Koch brothers-- will have more money, land and other wealth than all the rest of us 99 percent of the population combined.
I despise (yes that's the only word that fits) the dishonesty of Mr. Friedman's piece, in what he chooses to ignore in making his case. Unfortunately, this is typical of him. He also doesn't mention the terrible consequences of the Iraq war now playing out in the Middle East, a war he enthusiastically championed before it began.
The question I and many other readers have is why this individual whose columns simply cannot be trusted to inform honestly on any subject, still has a coveted place on the op-ed page of the New York Times.
It's probably for the same reason this newspaper will not honestly and thoroughly cover and report on the campaign of Bernie Sanders. The Times appears to have abandoned journalism' sacred duty to inform the American citizenry of what people NEED to know, and now --whether consciously or unconsciously-- serves the interests of the rich and powerful and their status quo.
5
"He also doesn't mention the terrible consequences of the Iraq war now playing out in the Middle East, a war he enthusiastically championed before it began." A reading of his articles at the time left me the impression that he had reluctantly accepted the war, not enthusiastically championed it. Maybe you could cite a particular article you had in mind?
The gigantic statue of Mao has been demolished due to protests on the net as to how it would help reduce poverty, aided by Central government's displeasure at not granting permission. Ironically, it was erected by entrepreneurs in the largely rural province in China.
These are confusing times, Mr. Friedman with false flags & propaganda disseminated by power & money. Fear not, as entertainment & spectacle will inevitably distract & placate the masses as no one is yet reduced to eating dirt and, yes, that has happened.
These are confusing times, Mr. Friedman with false flags & propaganda disseminated by power & money. Fear not, as entertainment & spectacle will inevitably distract & placate the masses as no one is yet reduced to eating dirt and, yes, that has happened.
1
Morality is to subjective to bring every arguement. Why the need to feel at one with the congregation or peer group is beyond me. If an arguement can lead to two opposite conclusions you need to examine what you are argueuing.
Protesters protest because it's in their temperament to protest. Conservatives temperament demand the status quo although they're less public about it. Two brothers grow up, one saves every penny the other lives beyond their means. Both couldn't like the other . Why bring morality in it when they are following their temperment.
I remember being told if you sat with a communist for an hour you would become one. Morality wws their biggest sales pitch. No one's more moral than a communist not even the pope. How did their morality mesh with reality?
Protesters protest because it's in their temperament to protest. Conservatives temperament demand the status quo although they're less public about it. Two brothers grow up, one saves every penny the other lives beyond their means. Both couldn't like the other . Why bring morality in it when they are following their temperment.
I remember being told if you sat with a communist for an hour you would become one. Morality wws their biggest sales pitch. No one's more moral than a communist not even the pope. How did their morality mesh with reality?
I get why, historically, news stories have mostly been negative. As in "if it bleeds, it leads". But in the current, and presumably forever, climate of 24 by 7 news, we need a new paradigm. Otherwise, we end up with constant terrorism, and a never-ending queue of rabble-rousing politicians. The bad news telling becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The world is actually not coming to an end. Not yet, anyway. There are still far more good stories than bad ones. But sometimes it feels like the news media want more and more bad news, to agitate people, which leads to more and more bad news.
So, reporters, editors, and TV news producers need to stop acting like a herd, and work a little harder to tell the truth, which is that there are still a lot of untold, good stories.
The world is actually not coming to an end. Not yet, anyway. There are still far more good stories than bad ones. But sometimes it feels like the news media want more and more bad news, to agitate people, which leads to more and more bad news.
So, reporters, editors, and TV news producers need to stop acting like a herd, and work a little harder to tell the truth, which is that there are still a lot of untold, good stories.
49
How do you think gay marriage became a right so fast? Hyper awareness and a relentless wave of protest. That's the positive side.
Social media can heighten interpersonal conflict. Kids in the inner city kill over insults to their honor that explode across the internet. Of course, if they didn't have a gun bazaar at their ready, the murder rate would plummet. That's a negative example.
As the actor Betty Davis once warned, "Fasten your seatbelts. Its going to be a bumpy ride."
Social media can heighten interpersonal conflict. Kids in the inner city kill over insults to their honor that explode across the internet. Of course, if they didn't have a gun bazaar at their ready, the murder rate would plummet. That's a negative example.
As the actor Betty Davis once warned, "Fasten your seatbelts. Its going to be a bumpy ride."
5
We're not half mad enough yet. No bankers in orange jumpsuits, picking up trash....
7
Our personal technologies perpetuate the persistent storm of moral outrage, as they unintentionally cause a subtle and dangerous sequela - a bombardment of data that keeps us so busy processing minutia that we cannot afford the necessary time to consider a thoughtful response to the outrage. We can only, then, throw our incendiary 140 characters on the flames.
3
... That requires leaders with the courage and empathy “to inspire people to pause to reflect, so that instead of reacting by yelling in 140 characters they can channel all this moral outrage into deep and honest conversations.”
This is a description of our current leader - Persident Obama. And he has become such a fruitful target of those who do not (or are encouraged by their leaders) channel their moral outrage. Fear mobilizes people and has become the quickest way to power. Just watch the Republican clowns straining to become POTUS. The favorability ratings for Obama do not bode well for leaders who foster "deep and honest conversations". Honesty has become a liability. 70% of Trump's statements are falsehoods - and Republican voters like it.
I am not sure what will reverse that trend. Something will. America's hallmark is to eventually correct itself.
This is a description of our current leader - Persident Obama. And he has become such a fruitful target of those who do not (or are encouraged by their leaders) channel their moral outrage. Fear mobilizes people and has become the quickest way to power. Just watch the Republican clowns straining to become POTUS. The favorability ratings for Obama do not bode well for leaders who foster "deep and honest conversations". Honesty has become a liability. 70% of Trump's statements are falsehoods - and Republican voters like it.
I am not sure what will reverse that trend. Something will. America's hallmark is to eventually correct itself.
2
A big part of the problem is that lack of the 'fuller context'. Remember Gilda Radner as Emily Litella? Back when 'Saturday Night Live' was funny (yes, children, there was once such a time), 'Emily' would rant on 'Weekend Update' about some misperceived issue:
'What's all this I hear about making Puerto Rico a steak?! Next thing you know they'll want a baked potato and sour cream!'
Someone offscreen would then correct her - 'that's "state", not "steak", Emily." 'Oh, that's different. Never mind.'
But no one now ever says 'I stand corrected'. We're all in too much of a rush to read carefully. Which is how Justine Sacco, chronicled in the NYT Magazine last year, got in the eye of a Twitter storm. (I confess I read her tweet carelessly the first time I read the article, and jumped on the outrage bandwagon. Then I looked again at it and realized she'd been misinterpreted.)
BTW that's why I've stopped reading replies to my NYT comments. I'm tired of being ranted at by Emily Litella. When Radner did it she was funny.
'What's all this I hear about making Puerto Rico a steak?! Next thing you know they'll want a baked potato and sour cream!'
Someone offscreen would then correct her - 'that's "state", not "steak", Emily." 'Oh, that's different. Never mind.'
But no one now ever says 'I stand corrected'. We're all in too much of a rush to read carefully. Which is how Justine Sacco, chronicled in the NYT Magazine last year, got in the eye of a Twitter storm. (I confess I read her tweet carelessly the first time I read the article, and jumped on the outrage bandwagon. Then I looked again at it and realized she'd been misinterpreted.)
BTW that's why I've stopped reading replies to my NYT comments. I'm tired of being ranted at by Emily Litella. When Radner did it she was funny.
5
The junction of thoughts in David Brooks' column on Ted Cruz and this column should give us all pause: time to reflect on how to navigate the warring forces in our country and the world.
Leaping to action will lead us into more problems.
Leaping to action will lead us into more problems.
I am amazed that you were actually paid for a column that is almost entirele the quoted thoughts of another writer.
Must be nice to have a contract that doesn't require any effort except to transcribe someone else's ideas and surround them with proper puncuation marks!
Are you getting old or just lazy?
17
Dear Thomas L. Friedman: The word "disruption" is very 2014. Time to retire it.
1
Some racially biased emails, though disgusting are also quite funny, even if you don't believe in the stereotypes. PC should die, long live freedom of speech. Many comedians make their living insulting people and using stereotypes. Having such emails on your computer does not necessarily say anything about your stances on equality and sexism.
3
Great piece and one more thing to add. We live in the era of co-creation.
Our President, his administration and other elected officials in Congress need to understand that meaningful conversation is not just pausing, reflecting and listening to each others ideas. It's problem solving and co-creating together to great a better world - from those with the 'seemingly' most influence (hedge funders) to those who are 'seemingly' invisible (the homeless).
Our time in 2016 is now marked by a different and welcome dynamic. We will only move forwards toward that more perfect union by implementing ideas together. These are the chords Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have struck on the campaign trail, and this is what has historically been lost once someone is elected into office.
If we're all becoming reporters, news photographers and documentary filmmakers as a byproduct of globalization we're all stepping up and holding our leaders and the world accountable for actions taken. It's a good thing.
Our President, his administration and other elected officials in Congress need to understand that meaningful conversation is not just pausing, reflecting and listening to each others ideas. It's problem solving and co-creating together to great a better world - from those with the 'seemingly' most influence (hedge funders) to those who are 'seemingly' invisible (the homeless).
Our time in 2016 is now marked by a different and welcome dynamic. We will only move forwards toward that more perfect union by implementing ideas together. These are the chords Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have struck on the campaign trail, and this is what has historically been lost once someone is elected into office.
If we're all becoming reporters, news photographers and documentary filmmakers as a byproduct of globalization we're all stepping up and holding our leaders and the world accountable for actions taken. It's a good thing.
3
I fear all the "moral outrage" in this "age of protest" will do little good so, long as human greed and myopia (not just with the "have's, but equally with the "have-nots") are rampant in human nature. It seems that with ever-increasing technology (for destruction) and with our human failings, we're headed to a very bad place as a specie.
3
African-Americans have been wasting time trying to have 'conversations' with White America for many decades. See, the thing about a 'conversation' is that it requires that the other party being communicated to actually listen. It also requires that the other party being communicated to take responsibility for educating themselves on issues and people outside of their experience, the pain that their actions cause, and for how they contribute to the present problem by not stepping up to call out racial discrimination and unearned privilege - especially when they stand to benefit from it. This has not been happening from far too many white Americans - the vast majority of whom have no African-American social relationships, as one recent study/poll demonstrated. It took videos (and subsequent police arrests for murder) to "prove" to some that African-American men were being fatally shot by police without justification. And even still, messages boards (including this forum) remain full of people who deny the evidence in front of them. The editorial itself is one big whinefest lacking accountability. When White America is psychologically ready for the 'conversation,' then protests, U.S. Justice Department investigations, lawsuits, etc. will no longer be necessary. Until then, deal with it.
7
Conversations are two way. Much of White America has been listening, but here's the deal- large parts of White America, without necessarily being racist, disagree with elements of your analysis. You say police are oppressing your communities, many people outside that community see staggeringly high rates of violent crime in those communities, and think that that police presence is justified. Ect.
A conversation has to be more than just Black America yelling at White America to agree with them on absolutely everything and if you don't agree with absolutely everything you're a racist, which is what the "conversation" usually winds up turning into.
A conversation has to be more than just Black America yelling at White America to agree with them on absolutely everything and if you don't agree with absolutely everything you're a racist, which is what the "conversation" usually winds up turning into.
5
To Jeff P's comment I would add that 'black America' is no more a monolithic, homogenous entity than 'white America'.
I am a woman who (in part just to forestall complicated explanations) answers to 'gay'. Yet I get really, really irritated when people with whom I don't agree voice opinions that are not mine, and not those of a lot of others as well, and appoint themselves or their faction as speaking for 'women' or 'the gay community'. If you argue with them, they question your bona fides as a member of that community - the old 'no true Scotsman' ploy.
When you are ready to see me as an individual, Chitown, we can have a serious discussion. But not while I'm still reduced to 'White America'. Deal with that.
I am a woman who (in part just to forestall complicated explanations) answers to 'gay'. Yet I get really, really irritated when people with whom I don't agree voice opinions that are not mine, and not those of a lot of others as well, and appoint themselves or their faction as speaking for 'women' or 'the gay community'. If you argue with them, they question your bona fides as a member of that community - the old 'no true Scotsman' ploy.
When you are ready to see me as an individual, Chitown, we can have a serious discussion. But not while I'm still reduced to 'White America'. Deal with that.
4
We are already in a time where the entire racial dichotomy has become a sideshow because the real issue is the destruction of the American middle class: for black, for white, for every type of citizen. The plutocrats who are responsible for their evil work of taking American jobs away and replacing them with the opportunity to earn money in the illegal pharmaceutical industry, or in human trafficking ventures, for examples, are delighted to read about racial divisions and fights. Because it means they have already won.
3
" ...it’s a wonder that every newspaper doesn’t have a “Protest” section." I, for one, would be grateful if the NY Times had such a section and would include coverage of the Right to Life March, which in 2015 drew, over 850,000 who marched up Constitution Avenue to the Supreme Court. If any other group had such a huge gathering, it would be Front Page News in the largest possible font.
1
Having large numbers of people is not, in itself, news. Everybody knows that there's a significant movement to destroy the rights of women. They show up and march every year. Nothing about their message is new, nothing about the numbers is new. It's not major news, it's a sidebar at most.
Major news is stuff that breaks existing patterns. "200 million Americans commute to work" is not news just because it's a thing with lots of people doing it. It happens every day, and fits the established pattern. "10,000 Americans prevented from going to work because of subway breakdown" is news, despite far fewer people being involved, because it's outside the normal pattern.
The ongoing existence of the anti-choice movement isn't news. If you want the movement to make headlines, do something novel.
Major news is stuff that breaks existing patterns. "200 million Americans commute to work" is not news just because it's a thing with lots of people doing it. It happens every day, and fits the established pattern. "10,000 Americans prevented from going to work because of subway breakdown" is news, despite far fewer people being involved, because it's outside the normal pattern.
The ongoing existence of the anti-choice movement isn't news. If you want the movement to make headlines, do something novel.
2
I enjoy reading the Opinion Pages and thank the NY Times journalists for their time and effort. Your post states "where everyone with a smartphone is now a reporter, news photographer and documentary filmmaker." This is true but it does lead to situations where current news is being disseminated without knowing the underlying truth that caused the situation to develop. In situations in which a bystander videos a citizen being shot by the police the actions speak for themselves. Especially when the video contradicts the written police report. This window where everyone's smart phone / camera allows immediate dissemination of the news is a form of instant truth. There is a reciprocal: many times good journalism requires a substantial amount of time and effort to find the underlying causes of an issue. Without that work, checking the details, speaking to bystanders, searching for other explanations, responses and instant journalism may be based on the wrong assumptions. Humans seem to be evolving with an insatiable need to have immediate information, to text immediate replies, to be in contact with someone, anyone 24/7 and seems to follow Moore's law in it's spread. Texting is a perfect example. People take their eyes off the road as the urge to respond to a text message overwhelms their common sense. We need some Darwinism here in which civilization evolves in a manner that allows us to develop the patience to understand what we see and thoughtfully respond.
5
One of the most meaningful recent protests in America was the Occupy Wall Street protest in Lower Manhattan protesting the sustained, systematic economic violence of Wall St. sociopaths that drove this nation and the world over the deadly 2008 cliff.
That protest was systematically exterminated by the government and banksters working closely together to quash democracy and reform of Wall St. greed.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) found a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector (bankster) activity that was completely merged into one monstrous whole under one entity Orwellianly named the Domestic Security Alliance Council.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-cra...
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, PCJF director, said their documents show that the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being a peaceful organization – designated OWS repeatedly as a "terrorist threat":
"FBI documents reveal that from its inception the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat … The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park."
Fortunately we still have Bernie Sanders around to continue the protest.
What will Wall St. do now ?
That protest was systematically exterminated by the government and banksters working closely together to quash democracy and reform of Wall St. greed.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) found a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector (bankster) activity that was completely merged into one monstrous whole under one entity Orwellianly named the Domestic Security Alliance Council.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-cra...
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, PCJF director, said their documents show that the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being a peaceful organization – designated OWS repeatedly as a "terrorist threat":
"FBI documents reveal that from its inception the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat … The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park."
Fortunately we still have Bernie Sanders around to continue the protest.
What will Wall St. do now ?
152
To you point, the Arab Spring did the same and was extinguished by Saudi money. Ever notice how Friedman dances around that one?
4
Wall Street will try to kill Sanders if they think he might win.
I truly think we need to force the NY Times to publish reader-selected, cogent rebuttals to the opinions presented by their newspaper. E.g., I look to Socrates every day in nearly every comments column to get the real skinny and a good dose of the facts that NYT opinion writers studiously ignore.
I think he needs his own column, along with quite a few others. and I'm not joking. It would be an immeasurable help in sorting through the many lies, omissions and downright crapola this paper foists on its paid readership.
I think he needs his own column, along with quite a few others. and I'm not joking. It would be an immeasurable help in sorting through the many lies, omissions and downright crapola this paper foists on its paid readership.
6
So wise, this sage.
Perhaps a column o n this moral outrage (and intellectual clueless ess):
" We needed to go over there, basically, and take out a very big stick right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble.… What they [Muslims] needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house from Basra to Baghdad and basically saying "Which part of this sentence don't you understand? You don't think we care about our open society? You think this bubble fantasy, we're just going to let it grow? Well, suck on this!" That, Charlie, is what this war was about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia! It was part of that bubble. We could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could."
Charlie Rose (30 May 2003).
American boys and girls, hehehehehe. A billionaire, yet salt of the earth, willing to let the boys and girls, you know just ordinary folk from what was once the middle class, blood be shed because we can.
Perhaps a column o n this moral outrage (and intellectual clueless ess):
" We needed to go over there, basically, and take out a very big stick right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble.… What they [Muslims] needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house from Basra to Baghdad and basically saying "Which part of this sentence don't you understand? You don't think we care about our open society? You think this bubble fantasy, we're just going to let it grow? Well, suck on this!" That, Charlie, is what this war was about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia! It was part of that bubble. We could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could."
Charlie Rose (30 May 2003).
American boys and girls, hehehehehe. A billionaire, yet salt of the earth, willing to let the boys and girls, you know just ordinary folk from what was once the middle class, blood be shed because we can.
6
I was just thinking about how things were 100 years ago. In many parts of the world, there were tribal people living the same life they had lived for thousands of years. They were avowedly primitive guys, who lived in mud huts, mutilated and tattooed their bodies, and bought and sold women and children. They were considered colorful, but nobody really cared what they did except a few missionaries.
Anyone who lived further away than the next town had everyone's permission to do whatever seemed best, and good luck with that.
Anyone who lived further away than the next town had everyone's permission to do whatever seemed best, and good luck with that.
5
And some pretty awful stuff was done. When offered an alternative, most of those peaceful savages grabbed at it.
"the three largest forces on the planet — globalization, Moore’s law and Mother Nature"
Those are symptoms, not the forces. They are symptoms like the protests are symptoms.
The force is the right wing greed machine that defines the terms of globalization, that takes for a tiny elite all the productivity of the Moore's Law advances, and that abuses the environment to the point of global warming.
This is not necessary, not inevitable. It is a choice. Those with the power took it all. There was no check on them.
Hence, protests.
Those are symptoms, not the forces. They are symptoms like the protests are symptoms.
The force is the right wing greed machine that defines the terms of globalization, that takes for a tiny elite all the productivity of the Moore's Law advances, and that abuses the environment to the point of global warming.
This is not necessary, not inevitable. It is a choice. Those with the power took it all. There was no check on them.
Hence, protests.
127
@ Mark Thomason- Mark I add this reply as concerns greed and how the need to make as much money as possible has affected police handling of reports of sexual abuse in Sweden. The context is the report from Cologne about groups of men said to be from Morocco-for example-surrounding and abusing females.
Times commenters provided comments about those "medieval men", 100s of 1000s who have come to Germany and Sweden all programmed for sexual violence (Heather got 1742 recommends for that one) but the commenters seemed often to imply that German or Swedish men never do that.
So today we read that at the "We Are Sthlm" festivals for people 19 years of age or younger that go back to 2000, I believe, there have been many incidents of girls being surrounded by rings of men, apparently ethnic Swedes, and manhandled by the men. DN reports that this becomes worse year by year. Yet the police report that things were calm and normal. Then we learn that the festival organizers instruct their workers not to overreact. Implicit is that this is normal behavior and females have to live with it.
In simplistic terms, "Do not give the festival a bad reputation, we do not want girls to stop coming."
Larry
Times commenters provided comments about those "medieval men", 100s of 1000s who have come to Germany and Sweden all programmed for sexual violence (Heather got 1742 recommends for that one) but the commenters seemed often to imply that German or Swedish men never do that.
So today we read that at the "We Are Sthlm" festivals for people 19 years of age or younger that go back to 2000, I believe, there have been many incidents of girls being surrounded by rings of men, apparently ethnic Swedes, and manhandled by the men. DN reports that this becomes worse year by year. Yet the police report that things were calm and normal. Then we learn that the festival organizers instruct their workers not to overreact. Implicit is that this is normal behavior and females have to live with it.
In simplistic terms, "Do not give the festival a bad reputation, we do not want girls to stop coming."
Larry
1
Nice way to interpret a honest and critical self examination of the state of the Left by a respected member of the Left as somehow a partisan jab at a "right wing greed machine". You are beyond reach Mark.
2
Yes, but so many of those protesters have decided it's not worth the effort to vote. Thus we get a very fine president whose hands are largely tied because Republicans fill the Congress. Can you imagine what Obama would have done with a Democratic Congress and an American population that protested loudly when the Republicans tried to block him with the unconstitutional use of the filibuster? Can you imagine??
A quiet protest is best. I went door to door collecting signatures ( 1,040 ) here in Orlando to stop the City's plan to put a 90 foot sidewalk through my narrow side yard. There is a sidewalk up and down the street on the other side, and the lack of one in my yard is inconsequential, as when they walk up to my driveway they see the grass yard, and then cross over to the north side of the street. But my protest is over the City putting people through the yard on the planned sidewalk and out to the corner of the property. They will have to then cross over to the north, but a blind curve exposes them to cars coming around it with only 8 seconds of reaction time at 25 mph. The driveway is 115 feet safer away. So I can complain about a sidewalk taking up 20 pct of my yard. But I am definitely protesting the City of Orlando creating a less safe situation. ( the City is coming out to look at an intersection crosswalk three houses further away on January 20. So giving them some credit, but they say " the sidewalk is going through " nonetheless ).
Robert Hook, Orlando, FL
Robert Hook, Orlando, FL
2
A fine column. I would like to add the distrust of institutions. When the German press tries to hide the Cologne sexual assaults, when a big U.S. pharmaceutical company, as reported in the NYT, hides information on dangerous chemicals, when the church hides sexual assaults by priests, or politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths, people get mad.
43
Great article. My only addition is that protesters also have to know when they have won! An excellent example for me of this conundrum is those who protest under the banner of "Black Lives Matter." Even when the government concedes that the shooting of a black man was wrong, indictments happen, and trials are held, protests angrily continue over the same case. Destroying one's own community through looting, violence and disrespect to black elected officials and policemen does not help. The participants are then strangely silent when black men kill black men, something that is an epidemic situation. One Black Lives Matter leader proudly proclaimed, "This ain't your mother's civil rights movement!" My answer to that person would be sadly, it isn't. Martin Luther King did not protest just to protest. He had a clear legislative agenda---and when it was obtained, he moved on. Black Lives Matter and protesters who use their tactics not only don't achieve legislative and lasting solutions, they weaken their credibility when they seem never satisfied. And before someone writes that I am a white racist---I am African American and very much a social activist. I support their cause, but not their tactics for the reasons so eloquently given in this article. We can't just be angry and zero sum, or no one wins. Certainly not the black communities who desperately need police protection.
52
Thank you! I could not agree more. And I am African American as well.
I would add one more disrupter to globalization, Moore's law and Mother Nature. Secularization and liberal (small L) ideals butting up against traditional and religious mores across all sorts of national boundaries.
When we are more and more interconnected, armed with technology, displaced by nature, war, and economic disruption, and we are fundamentally at odds with how we define our world and our reality, we can expect both protests, and disruptive violence.
We are lucky when the result is just moral arousal and protest. Because moral outrage is only the next step. After moral outrage comes the violence and suppression, authoritarianism, and reactionary movements to try to force the world back into a semblance of what some consider a righteous and understandable order.
When we are more and more interconnected, armed with technology, displaced by nature, war, and economic disruption, and we are fundamentally at odds with how we define our world and our reality, we can expect both protests, and disruptive violence.
We are lucky when the result is just moral arousal and protest. Because moral outrage is only the next step. After moral outrage comes the violence and suppression, authoritarianism, and reactionary movements to try to force the world back into a semblance of what some consider a righteous and understandable order.
9
When sedentary pundits write about peripatetic protesters, their lack of contact is painfully evident. With no living images, visual, tactile, olfactory, or auditory impressed on their brains, they read to us from books, articles, and emails. Pieces like this one should start, "Once upon a time..."
Look at Tom's lethargic account of people crowding, marching, yelling, and challenging in the streets and making it sound like it's all happening inside your iPhone; now compare that with Nick Kristoff's frequent columns on the human misery he has experienced first hand. The articles truly seem to smell different.
The moral is, if you're going to write about what happening on the street, go out into the street, for pete's sake!
Look at Tom's lethargic account of people crowding, marching, yelling, and challenging in the streets and making it sound like it's all happening inside your iPhone; now compare that with Nick Kristoff's frequent columns on the human misery he has experienced first hand. The articles truly seem to smell different.
The moral is, if you're going to write about what happening on the street, go out into the street, for pete's sake!
31
You unjustifiably conflate protest wth moral indignation. While protest as a political style may have historically originated as moral indignation, especially in the '60s civil rights movements, protest itself has become institutionalized. It is what those promoting any cause use to gain media attention. It becomes a means for endowing a political cause with moral indignation, rather than the other way around. You think land use policies should be changed, to allow greater exploitation of natural resources? You protest. You occupy a federal building. Organizing is too messy and involves hard work--it also requires thinking and also about knowing how to change policy--more hard work. Our political life is not just corrupt, it's incredibly lazy and protest is a symptom of that laziness. You want the governmental apparatus to sit up and notice? Set up an organization. That's when you'll get some serious attention.
13
Are the incredibly thoughtless political suggestions coming from Trump and Cruz, “sign(s) of a society's health 'and re-engagement.'"? Too many if not most of us, they are cause for moral outrage.
At this point in the Republican pre-election cycle, there is no "pause and reflect." There is, on the other hand, plenty of reason for fear, concern, and most prominently, disgust.
This division between the two parties is frightening. It leaves no room for bargaining and cooperation. It has shut the door on something as rewarding as agreement and friendship.
Worse yet, so many of us may wish to protest, but to whom should we turn. Certainly not our Congressional leaders.
At this point in the Republican pre-election cycle, there is no "pause and reflect." There is, on the other hand, plenty of reason for fear, concern, and most prominently, disgust.
This division between the two parties is frightening. It leaves no room for bargaining and cooperation. It has shut the door on something as rewarding as agreement and friendship.
Worse yet, so many of us may wish to protest, but to whom should we turn. Certainly not our Congressional leaders.
5
The description of outrage occurrences following the lion-shooting incident illustrates the darker side, however, namely, vandalism and potentially worse acts committed by persons using 'moral outrage' as their justification. Or in other words, vigilantism.
5
too bad Pres Obama, Mr. Cool, did not show more outrage and moral indignation with a more emotional angry responses to situations in his terms.
He did not mirror the public mood at all.
I wish he had shown that human side more often.
Now the republican challengers have taken that route to great advantage.
He did not mirror the public mood at all.
I wish he had shown that human side more often.
Now the republican challengers have taken that route to great advantage.
1
Until crooks like the banksters start going to jail there will be no calm. This is only the beginning. The public has had enough placating with "We will form a bi-partisan commission to STUDY this situation".
People are not willing to fall for that con anymore. The game is over. I think we have not seen anything yet.
People are not willing to fall for that con anymore. The game is over. I think we have not seen anything yet.
27
Really, have you listened & read what our elected Congress is & is not doing!. The game is NOT over. Big money changes hands in Washington & state capitals almost daily; semi show jobs for elected officials relatives (see Rubio's wife for example). These Politicians pay little attention to protests; they pay attention to votes & money.
Are Christine & people like her voting and getting others--more than 50%- to register & vote-especially the 1/2+ who don't vote in off year elections or have never registered to vote? We can't condemn our Politicians until we the citizens do our part by being aware & voting. That is Democracy in action.
Are Christine & people like her voting and getting others--more than 50%- to register & vote-especially the 1/2+ who don't vote in off year elections or have never registered to vote? We can't condemn our Politicians until we the citizens do our part by being aware & voting. That is Democracy in action.
Compared to other eras of protests, such as 1968 in Paris or just about the entire 1960's in the United States over racism and the Vietnam war, the 'protests' of today are a mile wide and an inch deep.
A bunch of 140 character tweets on 24/7 cable news is forgotten during the next news cycle. The 1963 March on Washington or the streets near the Sarbonne are remembered as intrinsic to French and American history.
A bunch of 140 character tweets on 24/7 cable news is forgotten during the next news cycle. The 1963 March on Washington or the streets near the Sarbonne are remembered as intrinsic to French and American history.
31
The later 1960s in the US were adolescent theatre that accomplished exactly squat. The Vietnam War protests didn't shorten the war by even one second; the war expanded into Laos and Cambodia before its ignominious end, when we left the Vietnamese who'd been dumb enough to ally with us to the usual fate of collaborators. The 1968 protests at the Democratic convention in Chicago kneecapped Humphrey and gave us Nixon. (Nixon should have lost, given that Wallace was on the ballot to split the right-wing vote. Thanks, Abbie and Jerry!) I could go on. But if you're looking for the roots of self-indulgent public-action-as-temper-tantrum, look no further than the flower children.
2
Yeah, all those civil rights protesters who risked their lives for justice were just teens acting out, right, ACW? And when the likes of McNamara admitted Vietnam was a waste, how does that make the "flower children" wrong?
2
Aristotle taught us that morality requires objectivity and objectivity requires reason. Too many people have a false sense of morality. The minimum wage provides a great example. Progressive liberals (Democrats) think that it to be a moral imperative to have and to raise the minimum wage. They think this helps the poor. While those argue for it and vote for people who stump on it, the reality is that they are just voting to use the force of government to have other pay more for something than they otherwise would. Force is not moral. Electing to use force doesn't make the force moral.
Objectivity and reason show that raising the minimum wage simply makes it illegal for businesses to hire labor at the rate of its value, thus reducing job availability. It is not surprising that unemployment of the young, poorly educated and low skilled is at record highs.
Folks need to learn about morality. The morality of free market capitalism. Limited government. Liberty. Locke, Smith and the founders understood morality. Modern day Democrats are nothing more than Marxists. A rose by another name. Changing the name does not make it moral.
Objectivity and reason show that raising the minimum wage simply makes it illegal for businesses to hire labor at the rate of its value, thus reducing job availability. It is not surprising that unemployment of the young, poorly educated and low skilled is at record highs.
Folks need to learn about morality. The morality of free market capitalism. Limited government. Liberty. Locke, Smith and the founders understood morality. Modern day Democrats are nothing more than Marxists. A rose by another name. Changing the name does not make it moral.
1
Hurray for you, Bruce! We certainly have good reason to want to return to those wonderful days of "free market capitalism and limited government." I'm sure you would agree that we need child labor again, plus 15 hour workdays and firetrap factories. Keep up the good work.
1
Who decides that a software designer is more valuable than the sanitation worker who picks up the designer's leftover scraps of pizza so vermin don't start swarming around his/her office building and getting into the electronic devices? There's no law of nature that decides. Certain people decide, and the people who decide are those who already possess power and money or the wherewithal to get it. Their values are based on the ability to generate money, as if the highest purpose in life were to make money. For those religious people who support the system by which people are rewarded most by causing paper profits to be made, rather than, say by the amount of garbage they remove or never create in the first place, what religion is it that preaches that the creation of wealth is the most important thing in life? Or do they just conveniently ignore their religion and the morality it teaches when it suits them, money being the supreme good? And yes, I think it comes down to that. If every time an abortion were performed, every abortion opponent were given $1 to keep his/her mouth shut, I think most would take the deal, reaping a million dollars a year to keep their moral outrage to themselves. I wish we could actually test that theory.
2
Calling Democrats Marxists is not reason. It's not objective. It's mindless name-calling that impedes rational discussion.
2
Tom's three forces of acceleration enhance, and are enhanced, by communication.The ultimate effect of any advance in communication historically from the printing press to social media has been to reduce the power and control of the whatever institution was dominant. The printing press and its Democratic distribution of knowledge produced the Reformation and the Enlightenment. The Reformation weakened the power of the
Church.The Enlightenment weakened the power of Monarchy.Social media reduces the power and control of national governments and helps give rise to groups like ISIS, whose power and influenced is greatly enhanced by the communication of the Internet.
Church.The Enlightenment weakened the power of Monarchy.Social media reduces the power and control of national governments and helps give rise to groups like ISIS, whose power and influenced is greatly enhanced by the communication of the Internet.
1
I protest Tom getting another chance to write something interesting or salient and completely blowing it for about the zillionth time. I understand trapsing around the globe meeting people for lunch can get dull after a decade or so, but PLEASE get out and maybe try to connect with actual normal everyday people and you might be inspired by something truly great to write about.
8
Perhaps you could email Tom a list of topics? I'm sure he'd not want to lose "ER Mitchell from Utah" as a reader.
The horrible increase in violent, bestial crime has been analyzed and the causes postulated. None of the proposed reasons are convincing. The frequency and scale of terror seems to defy the logic of human behavior. While the factors which trigger these acts are well known- anomie, frustration, poverty, feelings of powerlessness. Homo sapiens evolved in the Great Rift of Africa. He was a hunter/gatherer; his prey, any animal he could kill. He made no distinction between rival packs of apes and other large species. The ability to kill was his most valuable survival tool. Aggressive, bestial behavior was burned into his DNA. Over time, man’s mental superiority proved to be decisive in establishing his dominance. But the first ape-men were born into well defined social groups that developed in response to the imperatives of survival. It required the reigning in of his aggressive instincts within the group. This dynamic is still operative today. However, when social control has broken down, there is nothing to restrict the expression of his bestial nature.
And this characterizes the present era. A generation has matured which no longer believes in the traditional values of the society they inhabit. Violent protest has replaced the political process as a legitimate method of change.
And this characterizes the present era. A generation has matured which no longer believes in the traditional values of the society they inhabit. Violent protest has replaced the political process as a legitimate method of change.
1
Tom's column further validates Canadian media theorist Marshall Mcluhan, whose prescient ideas concerning electronic media have born out.He believed that the medium of information not the content was the real message."The Medium is the Message".One only has to look at the effect of social media on society for validation.He believe that every advance in communication made the world smaller."The Global Village". Tom's column reflects this.Mcluhan added that the global village would be replaced by global theatre.Tom's "age of protest" is theatre.The brutal beheadings by ISIS of captives and the instantaneous transmission, world wide, of terrorist incidents are indeed theatre. Mcluhan's preternatural ability no analyze the future effects of mass communication deserve another look.
3
Something happens. People immediately leap to conclusions and then jump to their "corner," whatever position their particular "tribe" ordains. Meanwhile, it takes days, weeks, even months for all the details to come out. But never mind.
Conversations and reflection take time and nobody has the patience for that any more.
Conversations and reflection take time and nobody has the patience for that any more.
8
Tom, as usual, you are confused about what 'values' and 'morals' are. One is being aroused, the other not. When you drill down in all this what do you find? Anger. At what? A government that is out of control and accountable to no one. What's that expression, 'give an inch, take a yard'. Tells you where we are today, essentially entitlement over reach.
3
Yes, Coolhunter, totally entitlement overreach - by the likes of the Koch Bros. and banks too big to fail and big ag, big pharma and big oil and gas!
2
In a perfect world the NY Times Comments Section should be the ideal forum for readers to vent their grievances much like the Protest column in the Guardian. Unfortunately, to paraphrase President Kennedy, life is not fair. The Times recently went so far as to profile their favorite commenters because they're the ones who march in lockstep with the Times agenda. No matter how over the top some comments are they always get published and even get the coveted yellow Times pick. I'll gladly highlight the biggest Commenter gripe of all: Israel
The Middle East is always a hotbed of protest in the Times Comments Section, especially when it comes to the Commenters Number One target, Israel. Israel can do absolutely nothing right. Israel has no right to exist. Israel is nothing but a pathetic welfare client that is bankrupting America to the tune of $3 billion a year. Israel shamelessly practices apartheid. I've even seen outright anti-Semitic comments about Israel not only get published but get the yellow Times picks!!! Sadly in the Times commenter alternative universe everything would automatically fall into place if Israel ceased to exist. No Israel, no problem. By contrast anything Iran does always gets a pass. The fact that Israel has nukes always sparks an automatic protest. But most of the Commenters have no problem giving a dangerous theocracy like Iran all the nukes it wants.
Now I'll just wait and see if my protest gets past the moderators.
The Middle East is always a hotbed of protest in the Times Comments Section, especially when it comes to the Commenters Number One target, Israel. Israel can do absolutely nothing right. Israel has no right to exist. Israel is nothing but a pathetic welfare client that is bankrupting America to the tune of $3 billion a year. Israel shamelessly practices apartheid. I've even seen outright anti-Semitic comments about Israel not only get published but get the yellow Times picks!!! Sadly in the Times commenter alternative universe everything would automatically fall into place if Israel ceased to exist. No Israel, no problem. By contrast anything Iran does always gets a pass. The fact that Israel has nukes always sparks an automatic protest. But most of the Commenters have no problem giving a dangerous theocracy like Iran all the nukes it wants.
Now I'll just wait and see if my protest gets past the moderators.
4
Missing a vital point. There is great moral outrage/protest but, since Sen. McConnell's declaration that the purpose of Congress is to thwart any program the President supports, there is no way to channel the protest to political action. This country is paying a great price by seeing protest as an end, rather a means to effect change. One must wonder what Obamacare would look like today if the Republicans agreed a change was necessary to cover the uninsured and responded by proposing changes in the program, rather than voting countless times to repeal it and replace it with nothing.
16
Yes we do live in an age of protest. And it's become exhausting to listen to. You can even get the sense of seething anger and emotion behind the comments of readers in this column - with comments like 'it's our right' and 'protest is a good thing'. It's not as though I'd argue otherwise - it's that NOBODY is arguing that protest is a right or a good thing.
People (and I'd argue vastly more from the liberal side) are today driven by emotion rather than logic. One only need head over to the Guardian protest link to see my point. The readership outrage is on full display when a story arguing for immigration controls are considered, but nearly fully silenced when the story broke over the NYE Cologne assaults occurred.
People (and I'd argue vastly more from the liberal side) are today driven by emotion rather than logic. One only need head over to the Guardian protest link to see my point. The readership outrage is on full display when a story arguing for immigration controls are considered, but nearly fully silenced when the story broke over the NYE Cologne assaults occurred.
3
'Yes we do live in an age of protest. And it's become exhausting to listen to.'
Exhausting to listen to, perhaps. Which is probably why it seems almost nobody listens. Protesting, on the other hand, is exhilarating. It fires up the engine and stokes it, like a good workout. That explains, I think, why Trump doesn't go away. The 'liberals' enjoy a good vent, like the party members of Oceania reveling in the 'Two Minutes' Hate' of Emmanuel Goldstein; and the 'conservatives' cackle with glee at the liberals' impotent rage.
Psychologist Carol Tavris noted in 'Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion" that venting anger, far from dissipating it as is commonly believed, actually exacerbates it. Anger feeds on itself and grows. Maybe because, although no one wants to admit it, it just feels soooo good.
Exhausting to listen to, perhaps. Which is probably why it seems almost nobody listens. Protesting, on the other hand, is exhilarating. It fires up the engine and stokes it, like a good workout. That explains, I think, why Trump doesn't go away. The 'liberals' enjoy a good vent, like the party members of Oceania reveling in the 'Two Minutes' Hate' of Emmanuel Goldstein; and the 'conservatives' cackle with glee at the liberals' impotent rage.
Psychologist Carol Tavris noted in 'Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion" that venting anger, far from dissipating it as is commonly believed, actually exacerbates it. Anger feeds on itself and grows. Maybe because, although no one wants to admit it, it just feels soooo good.
1
I wouldn't exactly call this the Age of Protest. It's more like the age of "likes, emoticons and quick clicks." The level of commitment is summed up in 140 characters or less.
Delta could have just waited for the next temporary distraction without changing any policy. How many of these dedicated protesters backed up their outrage over Cecil with volunteering at an animal shelter? Instead they did a lazy noncommittal tweet and a cowardly quick vandalism of property anonymously, of course). Easy to protest when you only have to tweet and not even own up to it.
All successful protests have strong leadership and a commitment to change and working relentlessly for that change. Sit ins on Wall St and rallies in the Arab Spring fizzled due to lack of leadership and commitment. Protests require more than jumping on the moment of the latest Facebook or Twitter outrage and on to the next the next day.
Summing up anything in 140 characters does not exactly exude a high level of commitment or even understanding.
Delta could have just waited for the next temporary distraction without changing any policy. How many of these dedicated protesters backed up their outrage over Cecil with volunteering at an animal shelter? Instead they did a lazy noncommittal tweet and a cowardly quick vandalism of property anonymously, of course). Easy to protest when you only have to tweet and not even own up to it.
All successful protests have strong leadership and a commitment to change and working relentlessly for that change. Sit ins on Wall St and rallies in the Arab Spring fizzled due to lack of leadership and commitment. Protests require more than jumping on the moment of the latest Facebook or Twitter outrage and on to the next the next day.
Summing up anything in 140 characters does not exactly exude a high level of commitment or even understanding.
4
I would add another factor: we are in the age of maximum distraction. The entire basis of consumer democratic culture is triggering people's innermost fears and desires to get what you want from them, but for the hundred years that idea has existed, it mainly revolved around selling products that cost money, which people had finite amounts of.
Now just about everybody can afford a smartphone, which offers limitless distraction. I could spend the rest of my life entertaining myself on the Internet for free and I wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface of available entertainment today, let alone 50 years from now. The only cost is time and opportunity. And so as we continue to excel as ideal passive information consumers as our parents and grandparents were with physical goods, we spend less time and thought trying to better our societies, as an active citizen would expect to do.
But this limitless information has also exposed us to enormous gaps in reality, like the comfortable middle class that grew up on Law and Order depicting police professionalism to seeing smartphone videos of cops all across America beating and shooting our fellow citizens - and often getting off scott-free. That sudden jolt of information is sure to rile, and because it is so far removed from the complacent - almost numb - feeling of ubiquitous informarion, it triggers an urge to want things changed, or else it will be all one sees on their Facebook feed.
Now just about everybody can afford a smartphone, which offers limitless distraction. I could spend the rest of my life entertaining myself on the Internet for free and I wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface of available entertainment today, let alone 50 years from now. The only cost is time and opportunity. And so as we continue to excel as ideal passive information consumers as our parents and grandparents were with physical goods, we spend less time and thought trying to better our societies, as an active citizen would expect to do.
But this limitless information has also exposed us to enormous gaps in reality, like the comfortable middle class that grew up on Law and Order depicting police professionalism to seeing smartphone videos of cops all across America beating and shooting our fellow citizens - and often getting off scott-free. That sudden jolt of information is sure to rile, and because it is so far removed from the complacent - almost numb - feeling of ubiquitous informarion, it triggers an urge to want things changed, or else it will be all one sees on their Facebook feed.
2
Everyone's angry about something. that's for sure. It's hard to recognize the other guy might have a point when you don't have any coffee in your hotel room at 5 am.
The Wild One (1953):
Mildred: Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?
Johnny (Marlon Brando) : Whadda you got?
Mildred: Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?
Johnny (Marlon Brando) : Whadda you got?
5
Yes, protest is fine. The problem with the present atmosphere is that protest is done, not with the intention of getting one's views on the table, but with the intent of drawing blood. We have lost the capacity to acknowledge that any point of view on an incident or topic or policy other than our own is valid. We live in a "my way or the highway" culture where we shout past each other never listening to others, but getting more and more hardened in our own positions. Democracy is lost in the belief that "my" opinions are the only "right" ones and that those who do not agree with me "hate America and want to destroy it." I do not see how we get back the sanity, but this insanity is destroying us.
40
Anne-Marie, I think you nail it here. A (leaning) Conservative, I read the decidedly left-leaning NYT every day in hopes of coming across a perspective or two I hadn't considered on some topic. Always nice to learn, you know. But there are days I simply can't make myself click on the link. Inevitably, I'm gonna come across some comment so full of hyperbole & hate towards, well...me..that its just not worth it. I often wish I could get in touch with the authors of some of the more outlandish comments (we all know who they are) & just talk with them. They'd soon realize how much more alike we are, than different & that, ultimately, we want the same things. And that, while I typically vote Republican, I'm neither a racist nor a xenophobe.
1
The right to protest is built into our constitution. It is there for a reason. It's not entitlement, but a RIGHT.
90
I can't seem to think of anything wrong with the idea, as long as a protest doesn't disrupt the lives of innocent bystanders. Protesting brings to light, so that we can all see, a possible need for change. Why the increase? I'm not sure it has increased, I think technology has allowed us to organize and be heard. If there was anything fueling a rise, I would guess the fact that people are fed-up with untruth and curious to know what isn't being said -- we can see it, but we can't hear it. It's kind of like the song, "you're the fastest runner, but you're not allowed to win." Why?
41
Protest is good if acted on. We teach our kids to ask questions, but as they grow, we encourage them to help find answers. This second phase is greatly neglected now. It seems that many consider their status to depend on the degree of rejection they can muster, while others play the game as cynics. The GOP has fattened on the negatives of this process. America is in an infantile phase.
17
A CEO is going to give you a lot of information about protesters. Why not actually talk to someone. Get out of your bubble and spend some time with working class people. Sure it will be awkward, as you have nothing in common with them, but perhaps you might learn something.
Plus you would have new material for your tired old column..
Plus you would have new material for your tired old column..
141
Friedman's incessant sucking up to the corporate class always distorts his columns--and keeps him out-of-touch. He's never to be trusted when it comes to the economy, law, politics, or real life because of this POV. What, were there no Black Lives Matter leaders he could interview?
4
Listen to the tone of this answer. Civility out the door again.
3
Funny how with some people, civility always translates into "Bow and scrape to your betters instead of telling the truth"
2
Yes, I am in an acute stage of protest, trying to resist writing comments since I know that my protest comments are exercises in futility. Yet I cannot do otherwise.
I offer only one example. The Times has had article-OpEd-Editorial one after another where the subject is an individual muslim or subset of the world's muslims. Each such article is likely to have 1000 or more comments. The common denominators in those comments are: 1) Extreme generalization about muslims, always negative, 2) An apparent lack of experience with real live muslims, 3) A remarkable ability to forget the bad behavior of one's fellow Americans/Germans/Swedes.
These comments are rewarded, a few recently with more than 1500 Readers' recommends and with Times Picks.
So I protest as do a seemingly small number of others on any given day. In vain, yes, but not because there are no reader recommends but rather so few will discuss. Often this happens because these comments and replies are held until comments are closed.
So I protest that the Times does not at least commission an analysis of the apparent country-wide hatred of the people nobody seems to know, the counterparts of the refugees who are all around me here in Linköping, Sweden.
Write!
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
I offer only one example. The Times has had article-OpEd-Editorial one after another where the subject is an individual muslim or subset of the world's muslims. Each such article is likely to have 1000 or more comments. The common denominators in those comments are: 1) Extreme generalization about muslims, always negative, 2) An apparent lack of experience with real live muslims, 3) A remarkable ability to forget the bad behavior of one's fellow Americans/Germans/Swedes.
These comments are rewarded, a few recently with more than 1500 Readers' recommends and with Times Picks.
So I protest as do a seemingly small number of others on any given day. In vain, yes, but not because there are no reader recommends but rather so few will discuss. Often this happens because these comments and replies are held until comments are closed.
So I protest that the Times does not at least commission an analysis of the apparent country-wide hatred of the people nobody seems to know, the counterparts of the refugees who are all around me here in Linköping, Sweden.
Write!
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
37
I remember Molly Norris, the cartoonist who had to go into witness protection, merely because she proposed a "Let's Draw the Prophet" day. And I protest.
23
@ myself-where I wrote These comments are rewarded I meant of course the anti muslim comments - just want to make sure no misunderstanding. Larry, the one in Sweden!
Hi Larry--I regularly protest the anti-Israel double standard on the Times comments section even though I know it isn't terribly popular.
4
It’s really The Age of Entitlement. If we tolerate the notion that we’re entitled to great wealth by simple virtue of inheriting it and not by earning it...
There I fixed that for you.
There I fixed that for you.
64
Welcome back, Mr Friedman - a truly insightful piece about the tone and approach dominating political discourse across most of the world. Whether liberal or conservative, religious or secular, we all seem to be living through a perpetual state of social media-induced ire. You are far more optimistic about its benefits than I am. I think it lends itself to a knee-jerk, tweet-driven response to problems. Perhaps the Chinese have it right. Elevate a few technocrats to make decisions for us and just suppress/ignore the constant rumblings in the background.
2
>
"People have always been very discontented with governments, laws and public institutions; for the most part, however, this has been only because they have been ready to blame them for the wretchedness which pertains to human existence as such."
Schopenhauer
"People have always been very discontented with governments, laws and public institutions; for the most part, however, this has been only because they have been ready to blame them for the wretchedness which pertains to human existence as such."
Schopenhauer
10
Another form of moral outrage that decreasing distance has enabled is the "comment" or "talk back".
If one does not like what he or she is reading then they can ponder the matter for a second and half and begin to type (I do not exclude myself from this category; a "comment", even in the NYT which is moderated, except for the chosen few who get to express moral outrage ad infinitum, is not academic discourse). But moral outrage in newspaper comments rarely has repercussions and their influence is on par with the influence of an op-ed on government policy: any op-ed, any policy and any government.
It is not enough for leaders with courage and empathy "to inspire people to pause to reflect etc", but rather these leaders should serve as role models and cancel their tweeter accounts and shut down their Facebook pages. Let's see leaders with courage stop with the hype and engage in "deep and honest conversations".
Of course they may not get re-elected, but why should I have to work more on "more perspective, fuller context and the ability to make meaningful distinctions"? Let's see our leaders show us that they can do this.
If one does not like what he or she is reading then they can ponder the matter for a second and half and begin to type (I do not exclude myself from this category; a "comment", even in the NYT which is moderated, except for the chosen few who get to express moral outrage ad infinitum, is not academic discourse). But moral outrage in newspaper comments rarely has repercussions and their influence is on par with the influence of an op-ed on government policy: any op-ed, any policy and any government.
It is not enough for leaders with courage and empathy "to inspire people to pause to reflect etc", but rather these leaders should serve as role models and cancel their tweeter accounts and shut down their Facebook pages. Let's see leaders with courage stop with the hype and engage in "deep and honest conversations".
Of course they may not get re-elected, but why should I have to work more on "more perspective, fuller context and the ability to make meaningful distinctions"? Let's see our leaders show us that they can do this.
8
Of course, Joshua, you are 100% on target.
But the obvious fallacy in your hypothesis actually having any hope in today's American society wears an absurd mop and is the leading republican candidate for POTUS
But the obvious fallacy in your hypothesis actually having any hope in today's American society wears an absurd mop and is the leading republican candidate for POTUS
1
Protest is an outcome of something else. It’s really The Age of Entitlement. If we tolerate the notion that we’re entitled to social benefits by simple virtue of breathing in and out and not by earning those benefits, then any failure by society to fully satisfy them is cause for protest. As everything has limits, we protest a lot.
The Guardian’s “Protest” section reminds me of the character Gore Vidal created in his novel “Burr”, of a young protagonist who adopted the persona of a 1830s NYC grumpster called “Old Poltroon”. This character would gripe in a regular newspaper column about all the disagreeable changes the city had tolerated since the late 18th century. Unfortunately, “Old Poltroon” wrote tongue-in-cheek satire that everyone savored as such while today’s protesters, who are legion, are deadly serious.
I agree with Seidman only to a limited extent. The problem with no distance is that different value systems clash on a regular basis when distance once allowed them to remain distinct, and we each vie to impose parochial values on everyone else – instead of focusing on curing disease and eliminating world hunger. Distance once allowed us perspective on different values, where with today’s close juxtapositioning, it’s either impose or be imposed upon, from guns to abortion to killing an old lion. We protesteth altogether too much, and “moral outrage”, except as regards very few, very basic universals, are merely differing interpretations by many “Old Poltroons”.
The Guardian’s “Protest” section reminds me of the character Gore Vidal created in his novel “Burr”, of a young protagonist who adopted the persona of a 1830s NYC grumpster called “Old Poltroon”. This character would gripe in a regular newspaper column about all the disagreeable changes the city had tolerated since the late 18th century. Unfortunately, “Old Poltroon” wrote tongue-in-cheek satire that everyone savored as such while today’s protesters, who are legion, are deadly serious.
I agree with Seidman only to a limited extent. The problem with no distance is that different value systems clash on a regular basis when distance once allowed them to remain distinct, and we each vie to impose parochial values on everyone else – instead of focusing on curing disease and eliminating world hunger. Distance once allowed us perspective on different values, where with today’s close juxtapositioning, it’s either impose or be imposed upon, from guns to abortion to killing an old lion. We protesteth altogether too much, and “moral outrage”, except as regards very few, very basic universals, are merely differing interpretations by many “Old Poltroons”.
10
So kill the lion because he was old?
I protest.
I protest.
11
Spoken as a true conservative. Protests are indeed the outgrowth of the notion of entitlement, but not at all in the sense you mean it. We do feel entitled to be treated with respect by the police, and breathe clean air, not have kids dying from diseases and malnutrition. We feel entitled to express our views without being put in jail or shot at. You may believe that those few who deserve it, already have it – the police will treat a well-dressed middle age white male with respect; and well-to-do people can move away from a polluting power plant to a suburb. We shouldn’t protest against the Wall Street bankers who crashed the financial world and walked away with their bonuses when millions lost their life savings, because they earned them, and we didn’t?
And young people in Cairo should not demand democracy because they are not ready for it. We shouldn’t protest the war in Iraq because …. I am not even sure what you argument against the anti-war protests – because millions in othewr countries don’t deserve living in peace? And – yes, we feel that these values are universal.
And young people in Cairo should not demand democracy because they are not ready for it. We shouldn’t protest the war in Iraq because …. I am not even sure what you argument against the anti-war protests – because millions in othewr countries don’t deserve living in peace? And – yes, we feel that these values are universal.
122
If you’re an American who has inherited a great deal of money, you’re in the catbird seat. You must be entitled to the status and power this money confers, simply by virtue of breathing in and out, and you get to call the shots by supplanting existing governmental structure with think tanks and other tax-deductible endeavors whose policies you get to dictate.
If you’re an American who earns less than a living wage and who lives in the vicinity of a methane storage facility in Southern California that is releasing 1200 tons of methane into the atmosphere every day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak) – well, you can’t breathe. The corporation that owns the facility was not required by law to replace a faulty safety valve.
If you live in Flint, Michigan, you can’t drink because the right-wing think-tankers managed to install a governor who could to replace the elected mayor with a financial manager who decided to draw the city’s drinking water from the polluted Flint River to save a couple of dollars that the wealthy don’t want to pay in taxes. You may no longer be able to think clearly, let alone breathe, if you’ve drunk the water, because of lead poisoning.
It’s easy to sit and proclaim that it’s an entitlement to believe that by virtue of being a living, breathing citizen of a nation you’re not entitled to reap the benefits of the commonweal. But that’s what the Constitution seems to say or imply. “We the People” either means something or it doesn’t.
If you’re an American who earns less than a living wage and who lives in the vicinity of a methane storage facility in Southern California that is releasing 1200 tons of methane into the atmosphere every day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak) – well, you can’t breathe. The corporation that owns the facility was not required by law to replace a faulty safety valve.
If you live in Flint, Michigan, you can’t drink because the right-wing think-tankers managed to install a governor who could to replace the elected mayor with a financial manager who decided to draw the city’s drinking water from the polluted Flint River to save a couple of dollars that the wealthy don’t want to pay in taxes. You may no longer be able to think clearly, let alone breathe, if you’ve drunk the water, because of lead poisoning.
It’s easy to sit and proclaim that it’s an entitlement to believe that by virtue of being a living, breathing citizen of a nation you’re not entitled to reap the benefits of the commonweal. But that’s what the Constitution seems to say or imply. “We the People” either means something or it doesn’t.
Hume's point was much clearer. Feelings of sympathy (like sympathetic resonance) are biased toward proximity in space and time--the farther away, the less the resonance. But Reason--principle--corrects the bias. Harm to your family feels worse than harm to other families--but on principle, one is no worse than the other. Principles vs feelings can be impartial, unbiased and reasonable. Reasonable people know the world is bigger than their circle.
But the emotional bias also has it point--the closer the wrong, the more we can do about it; the farther away--in space and time--the less we can do. So while they may be equally wrong, it is reasonable that motivation fits proximity.
Also--What does "moral" mean as a special sort of "arousal...imagination...outrage?" It boils down to the tolerable/permissible/right (in a system) VS intolerable/impermissible/wrong (in a system).
Distant wrongs are more tolerable (because we can do less about them--so we have to "live with them"--cope--because we have no choice. So the abstract--impartial, unbiased--judgments of right/wrong are more like counterfactual conditionals--(grammatically subjunctive--"would be")--if we could do something about them, we would and should.
The implication is also that the more powerful (like the President vs ordinary citizens) the more you should do. And if you were omnipotent--you'd never let it happen in the first place.