3 Teens Shot and Killed Breaking into a House - Stand Your Ground Rule? How?

[toeskr]

If you break into someone's house you shouldn't expect them to shake your hand.

, my castle.

 

[dan_c00000]

I think social media is partly to blame for the antagonism in modern politics.

I'm going to disagree with this and say that social media has given rise to a problem much more disconcerting than antagonism (just look at the early partisan papers in the U.S.)

The problem with social media is that it amplifies the voices of ignorant, stupid, racist, cowardly, fuckfaces. Don't get me wrong these people have always existed but they've been in the basement of the political discussion where they belong. Now with Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of online insanity well...you know the old saying...never had those who know so little have had so much to say.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm going to disagree with this and say that social media has given rise to a problem much more disconcerting than antagonism (just look at the early partisan papers in the U.S.)

The problem with social media is that it amplifies the voices of ignorant, stupid, racist, cowardly, fuckfaces. Don't get me wrong these people have always existed but they've been in the basement of the political discussion where they belong. Now with Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of online insanity well...you know the old saying...never had those who know so little have had so much to say.

Yes, partisan journalism has been around for centuries, but its impact was minimal compared to social media.

One of my bookdealing colleagues specialised in Protestant Polemic around the time of the English Civil War. The religious partisans published books opposing each other. It became ridiculous. A book attacking a particular sect was published. Within a week (lightning speed by 17th Century terms) a book would be publishing rubbishing the first book. A week later the author of the original book had written and published another (or a major revision of the first book) attacking the second book... and so on for months.

But the circulation of such books was in the hundreds, possibly a couple of thousand, not the millions of views on modern social media.

Those 17th Century books were only bought by people interested in the debate. Most of 17th Century society didn't know and didn't care about the issues discussed.

 

[dan_c00000]

Those 17th Century books were only bought by people interested in the debate. Most of 17th Century society didn't know and didn't care about the issues discussed.

They also were not literate and lacked universal suffrage. You're talking about the 1600s, even two hundred years later only 1 in 7 men could vote.

You're kind of proving my point: those that could vote (and read) engaged in the same type of nonsense going on now.

 

[oggbashan]

They also were not literate and lacked universal suffrage. You're talking about the 1600s, even two hundred years later only 1 in 7 men could vote.

You're kind of proving my point: those that could vote (and read) engaged in the same type of nonsense going on now.

Possibly. I tend to forget the poor standards of literacy in the past. My ancestors were printers, and scriveners before printing. They could all read, the women as well as the men. None of the family marriage certificates are marked with a X to show that the groom, bride or a witness couldn't write.

Some of them were Parish Clerks who kept the Parish Registers.