No Wonder So Many People are Depressed

[Mugwump]

[K]

[HAL]

The least it seems some good writers work for newspapers until they're successful enough to ditch that and live off their novels or poetry or whatever is where it's at.

[Mugwump]

[K]

I did a very brief search regarding the question of serialized literature (in newspapers) nowadays, and the suggestion is:
Michael Chabon, Gentlemen of the Road (2007), published in New York Times Magazine.

For journalist-writers, the suggestions include:
Will Self, Tom Wolfe.


Oh, and according to the American Press Institute,

"News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed.

The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments."

https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/ ... ournalism/

[Mugwump]

[K]

There's a tool for book analysis corresponding to the "trends" tool looked at previously...
What conclusions, if any, would you draw from the pic below?

SAP's BA, Fig. 7-1: [log in to view]

[Mugwump]

^ that the idea of "rights" is both infinitely elastic and expandable and endlessly divisive, being exploited for, and by, sectional groups.

Liberty under the law, guaranteed by parliament and the constitution and defended by a patriotic people, is a far more powerful and noble set of ideas, being accorded to all citizens, not some.

[stui magpie]

Interesting interview with Sam Dastyari.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/ ... 9db82269a5

[K]

There's a tool for book analysis corresponding to the "trends" tool ...
SAP's BA, Fig. 7-1: ...

Here's what you get when you go to the website and try it for yourself (presumably reproducing SAP's figure above). [Log in to view.]
Because "civil rights" dominates, I repeated the example without this term, so you can see the lines for the other terms in clearer detail. I suppose, whatever conclusions you draw from SAP's pic should be the same conclusions you draw from these pics --- but behavioural economics suggests that may well not be the case.

What do you think?

[K]

SAP starts by saying this: [Log in to view.]

[K]

I was probably going to make a general statement like this: If you claim less, there might be more chance of your statement being reasonable and maybe even true, but then it might also be not particularly noteworthy. People might ask: "So what?"

I have some reservations, though, even about SAP's first three sentences (shown above). Can what you see in the figures above really be described as a "cascade", or a "contagion of rights"? Maybe this is "just semantics", but semantics matters. What is your idea of a cascade? I suppose you can have a cascade in which the later things just peter out... If a health-threatening contagion just dies out like that, though, presumably it's not one that threatens to end civilization.

[pietillidie]

^ that the idea of "rights" is both infinitely elastic and expandable and endlessly divisive, being exploited for, and by, sectional groups.

Liberty under the law, guaranteed by parliament and the constitution and defended by a patriotic people, is a far more powerful and noble set of ideas, being accorded to all citizens, not some.

And that law is built on rights and bills of rights because the language of serious negotiation and lasting peace can only ever be one of robust principles.

[K]

[ctd. from above ( http://magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.ph ... 99#1857799 )]

SAP's claims then get bigger and wilder: [Log in to view.]

[Mugwump]

^ that the idea of "rights" is both infinitely elastic and expandable and endlessly divisive, being exploited for, and by, sectional groups.

Liberty under the law, guaranteed by parliament and the constitution and defended by a patriotic people, is a far more powerful and noble set of ideas, being accorded to all citizens, not some.

And that law is built on rights and bills of rights because the language of serious negotiation and lasting peace can only ever be one of robust principles.

Sure, but whose principles, based on what type of moral understanding, and how universal in its application ? Is a law against blasphemy in a modern Muslim nation contrary to human rights ? Is the right to life inviolable ? Between abortion, warfare and capital punishment, many people in our society apparently think not. So how universal are these principles across cultures ?

There are deep abiding human principles about justice and laws that seem deeply encoded in the human soul - that it be proportionate, non-arbitrary, equitably judged, that crime be avoidable etc. That seems to function across cultures, in a way that is less obvious for "human rights".