Media outlets now

@SW-User Of course, all media is biased to some extent but this has become much more apparent. While people involved in the media have always had an agenda, now that agenda has become divisive and extreme. That's mostly because it deviates from what were accepted norms and basic democratic concepts.

A lot of people are too busy to access and compare a variety of news sources. Other people just can't be bothered. My generation are more interested in accessing social media than actually following the news and reading articles.

I think I would at least try to be objective, and there should always be a compromise. Left and right mentality now is that if you support or don't support one cause, you must feel the same way about another entirely unrelated cause. It's the rampant name-calling and constant suppression of genuinely valid views. Cancel culture is a widespread problem whether people care to realize it or not.

Let me ask, do you think there is divisiveness now? If so, what do you think the primary causes of that divisiveness are?

You can differ between alarmism and real problems by researching the facts and making an evaluation of all factors pertaining to those facts. Maintaining the capacity to think critically and not be influenced by ideology is crucial to that. Perception has something to do with it, but it's having the ability to recognize your perceptions as faulty or flawed when they are.

@SW-User well i would say media breaking with norms is normal since societal norms are slowly changing as well. In what way does it deviate from democratic concepts?

We are the same generation I think (pretty sure you are older than me) so I know what you mean. I do think social media is even more complex since anyone can produce and reproduce information that is not only baised but often very difficult to fact check. Also social media creates bubbles. I am aware that i'm in my own leftist bubble.

I absolutely hate cancel culture. It is hard to prevent though since a shitstorm is created easily and only needs a slight majority of people who engaged in a subject... not a total majority of course.

There absolutely is divisivenes. There is no middle ground because positions are so far apart that there simply cannot be a consense. The poor job governments do add fire to that fuel and we have widespread loss of trust in institutions.

I did research the facts for example with covid and while some news certainly exaggerated I found that based on the knowledge of the time many policies here in Germany to be correct.
There is also the problem that scientific findings do not always align with ones worldview yeah and then it gets complicated.

@SW-User What societal norms do you think are changing? I'm curious to know. I think that some very significant norms are changing, but largely because it is being endorsed and facilitated by the media.

By democratic concepts, I mean not trying to suppress free speech and intentionally deliver misleading and divisive "information" (as in news) to people with a view of controlling or altering outcomes and implementing agendas. Another example would be inclusion and acceptance. Now, the left likes to say they are the accepting and democratic side but is that really the case? For instance, after the U.K had the Brexit vote the left were calling for a second vote because they didn't like the outcome. In Scotland, liberals still want to have a second referendum on remaining in the U.K, again because they didn't like the outcome. Many democrats in the U.S would've liked to have a revote after the 2016 Presidential Election as well. We know that Trump and a lot of his supporters had great difficulty accepting the results two years ago, but why isn't the left considered as having the same problem by the mainstream media? For some reason, they receive hardly any attention and no one in the media really holds them to account.

I'm 22 btw.

Regarding covid, the science was clear that it posed minimal risk to young and healthy people. To be "healthy" you don't have to be young - just not have comorbidities linked to severe illness from covid. Beyond what the health implications are for most people, we also have to consider other functions of society and how vital they are. Global supply chains were heavily impacted because of repeated lockdowns over the course of almost two years, and this has caused massive inflation and a cost of living crisis. This is not damage that is in any way acceptable, and it could have been avoided.

Moreover, demanding that people don't go out when they want to go out is about as anti-freedom as it gets.

Yet, it was all strongly endorsed by the media.

@SW-User norms like gender roles, what a family means, that fullfillment in a job should be more important than just working hard at the cost of ones mental health, globalism above nationalism....
If people only agree with them because they are presented in the media then people are fuckin stupid. I do believe people are capable of critical thought and many accept that society is fluid and that isn't a bad thing.

I don't necessarily see agendas (a word with a very negative connotation) rather Zeitgeist and admittedly many journalists are more progressive but what is so wrong about progressivism? You do exaggerate the power media has over people... not so much power anymore since anyone reads news that cater a little more to ones own beliefs.
You do argue from one side and I from the other. Middle ground doesn't exist.

I'm 20

That is true but young people could have passed it on and it was affecting some young people harder without being able to pinpoint why.... one of my best friends ended up in hospital with covid.
Admittedly I believe the crisis could have been handled better but it was a new situation that we had to learn to adapt to.

@SW-User Right, and what does a family mean to you? Why do these norms need to change when they, in large part, have been shown to work? Globalism on the other hand has some extremely negative connotations, and has in essence been proven to have some very negative consequences for nations and people.

I think you're really underestimating the influence that media has over people, lol.

Ask yourself this, do you think that people would have been as obliging during covid if it had not been for media influence? Policing aside, I don't think people would have been anywhere near as willing to do as told had it not been for the media telling them to do as told. Their obsession with covid led to constant reporting of it and most of it was depicted in a way that made people fear this illness for a very long time and to an almost neurotic degree, and then there was continued disparaging of people who did not follow covid rules for whatever reason.

@SW-User Family does not have to be the nuclear family there are single parents, gay parents, just couples without kids,...
Norms change according to our lived reality. Their change goes along with society changing. They should reflect on life not dictate how something should be.
I disagree working together globally and exchanging culture has enriched us.

Haha and I believe you are overestimating it. Yes I do believe most people follow the current laws therefore I believe there wouldn't have been a significant increase in civil disobedience. Some news might have portrait it in a way to fear it but it also has been worrying when thinking back about the situation in Italy or India.

@SW-User That response is just so profoundly ignorant 🤦🏻‍♀️

Sure, the family doesn't "have" to be in nuclear form but we know that life is better when it is. I am not talking about exceptions as exceptions do not make the rule (duh), but on average there are worse outcomes when children are raised without both parents, and when those parents are the same gender. Now, I think the latter is a lesser issue, but it is still desirable for children to have a mother *and* father together in their upbringing. If you think that children from single parents fare the same as children from parents who are together, you really need to inform yourself as to what all the research says. Common sense (yes, remember that?) itself would tell you that really, a child should have both a mommy and a daddy and that they *should* not be separated. If they do separate, there should be another figure to fulfill the duties that a mom or a dad usually provide.

"Working together and exchanging culture" is, in reality, a demonstrably false and stupid notion. Why do we need to exchange our culture? And isn't it just a way to conceal the true purpose of globalism? You clearly don't know this, but the true purpose is control of the populace. Globalism is a cause engineered to make everyone think, and act, the same.

@SW-User I never said that kids thrive better outside a two parents family it's just that divorces and single parenthood increase and the nuclear family shouldn't be seen as the only existing form of a family. Believe me I'd rather had two loving parents but that's just not reality for everyone.

Wow a stupid notion you say? That's ignorant as fuck. We do not live in an echo chamber we live in a diverse world full of different people.
"Globalism is engineered to make everyone think and act the same" are you for real? I doubt we can move on further from here if you are susceptible to conspiracy theories.

@SW-User You were saying that those things are becoming norms, and I'm explaining why they shouldn't be.

Omg, you really think global is about diversity? 😂

@SW-User But expanding that norm just means more acceptance for other kinds of families. There is no need to expect a certain family structure.

No it's about working together politically as well as economically and about travel agreements. Diversity is a nice byproduct.

@SW-User Don't you think that when you stop expecting or working toward a certain structure, there may be more instances of damage to that very structure? In other words, the more we normalize single parent families and deny their detriments, the more they will probably occur. Btw, a single parent family essentially means a broken home *or* that one parent was never present...remind me how that is beneficial to children?

Governments can work together without adopting a globalist agenda.

Not sure what's so inherently great about diversity. Are we supposed to embrace people just because they come from a different nation? Because they are gay or trans? Or because they are female instead of male?

It's funny how "diversity" of thought isn't really encouraged much, isn't it?

@SW-User No I do not think so because how would you make a family stay together or intervene in family affairs that are all individual. Single parents exist why not accepting them and supporting them.

In my experience diversity makes life just more interesting and people are different why seeing that as a bad thing. We should embrace everyone for who they are.

When people try to argue against freedoms, rights or the existance of others I wouldn't encourage it no.

@SW-User lol I never said we shouldn't support them. My view is that we as a society should actively discourage single parenthood. I've noticed that your argument is all "uh single parents exist, it's a new norm, we need to accept it, etc." and you haven't once considered the poor outcomes for children and why that alone should mean a very active interest in maintaining traditional family life. It's never about the individual when children are concerned, and if more people realized that there would be a lot less single parent families.

That's just called normal life to me...people are different in many ways, but why do we have to give more allowances to people or accept them because of their racial background or sex? (example: employers looking to employ more women and ethnic people, just because they are women and ethnic people).

Sorry to disappoint, but the left are trying to argue against freedoms and rights. Progressive liberals think conservatives are Nazis, and this makes them disgusting in my view.

They have no idea what true oppression is.

@SW-User Don't you see that actively discouraging single partenthood is no applicable solution. If a person is widowed, a partner is violent,.... discouraging won't help and only leads to people frowning upon single parenthood. And isn't it better for the parents to split up when all they do is argue in front of their kids. Just cause it's not the ideal and best outcome doesn't mean it's that bad for kids.

We actively give allowance because of sexist and racist structures that still underlyingly affect our society.

Yeah I am not disappointed. I say fuck conservatives tbh I do not want their worldview to succeed in any way. I wouldn't call them Nazi but I do call their worldview disgusting. Christianity, social hierarchies based on wealth, gender roles, ... can all go to hell.

@SW-User Most single parent families are not the result of death or physical violence. Usually, it's because people don't put enough effort into their relationship or family life and they just choose to pursue what they want to pursue. Arguing in front of children is bad and also damaging, but why do they have to argue to begin with?

Oh no...not sexist and racist structures! *pleads for help against these sexist and racist structures*

Those two words are just simply terrifying! How dare sexism and racism be so rampant and out of control! They're simply everywhere 😭

It seems to be that your idea of a conservative is just a moderate in reality, which is a scary thought.

@SW-User I mean I am far left so even a "moderate" is right wing to me.
Sexism and racism is not out of control but does exist and is still a problem we are facing in society.

@SW-User omg, what a shock

Just because something exists, it doesn't make it a problem.

Minorities can work, live in harmony, and have the same freedoms that white people do so I don't think that existing racism is particularly problematic. There may be individuals who don't like you because of your background, but what do they really matter?

We are living in western countries which means that most people are going to be white. It seems like now it's racist when the majority of the population happen to be white. Well, that is like saying that African or Asian countries are racist because there's not enough white people in them.

When you have a white majority country, it stands to reason that white people will be fairly well represented.