This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DrWatson · 70-79, M
Most people use FB for staying in touch with family and friends who they know from offline. I find FB "ok, but not terribly exciting" for that. I am by no means addicted to it.
On the other hand, I have joined a few private groups on FB. Two are related to my profession, and one is for discussing Jane Austen. I have found the discussions in those groups to be quite interesting and enriching.
On the other hand, I have joined a few private groups on FB. Two are related to my profession, and one is for discussing Jane Austen. I have found the discussions in those groups to be quite interesting and enriching.
FlowersNButterflies · 61-69, F
@DrWatson I often find FB appalling, but like you I have found groups I adore (nature and gardening and houseplants) which feed my heart, while the ugliness of politics is, to me, just part of a yin-yang pull. I also participate in several support groups.
The world seems far more divided and harsh than even 30 years ago, but perhaps I have changed.
The world seems far more divided and harsh than even 30 years ago, but perhaps I have changed.
DrWatson · 70-79, M
@FlowersNButterflies I think it is more divided. At least the US is.
In the past, political opponents in Congress and the White house could be friends, even if they disagreed vigorously. Barry Goldwater and George McGovern were good friends. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil were good friends. Today, members of each party demonize the other.
Bipartisan bills, drafted by joint committees, made their way through congress with both sides compromising, each side realizing they could live to fight another day for the things they ceded. Today, we have competing bills drafted by each party that are more about scoring points during re-election season than they are about governing.
TV stations like Fox and CNN would have been illegal, as laws prohibited news stations from taking sides, unless they gave "equal time" to an opposing viewpoint. Those laws were seen as obsolete when the number of stations exploded with the birth of cable TV.
Yes, people have been angrier than they used to be, for quite some time. I don't think it is just you who have changed :)
In the past, political opponents in Congress and the White house could be friends, even if they disagreed vigorously. Barry Goldwater and George McGovern were good friends. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil were good friends. Today, members of each party demonize the other.
Bipartisan bills, drafted by joint committees, made their way through congress with both sides compromising, each side realizing they could live to fight another day for the things they ceded. Today, we have competing bills drafted by each party that are more about scoring points during re-election season than they are about governing.
TV stations like Fox and CNN would have been illegal, as laws prohibited news stations from taking sides, unless they gave "equal time" to an opposing viewpoint. Those laws were seen as obsolete when the number of stations exploded with the birth of cable TV.
Yes, people have been angrier than they used to be, for quite some time. I don't think it is just you who have changed :)
FlowersNButterflies · 61-69, F
@DrWatson Did you ever see the Owen Wilson movie, "Idiocracy"?
DrWatson · 70-79, M
@FlowersNButterflies No, I have not heard of it.