One of the strange consequences of reading so much history is that you start to be able to imagine what a historian would write about your own time. It's alarmingly easy to imagine a future historian writing "As China's power grew, America was paralyzed by internal dissension."
-
there is internal dissent in China. It's just imprisoned or stripped of wealth under the guise of anti-corruption. Giving up on debate or dissent would be to give up on Western values. The question is how do we adapt or adapt to new media technologies to get to consensus.
-
-
What is the source of this graph? Want to see it in more detail.
-
The Economist.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe. FCC revoked the fairness doctrine in 1987, which paved the way for partisan cable news, which is close in time to the beginning of that graph.
-
1987 was an important milestone.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Looks like a cell dividing
-
And it might just fully divide.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And that is how you get a secession
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Welp. Looks like cell division...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Much deeper problem - but new media has been an enabler. In any well-balanced policy discussion - three things are important: words, action, sacrifice of personal interest. Thanks to the new media - there is an imbalance, and words have acquired close to 100% of the weightage.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Needs more colors.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.