"Hey Chet, can I interrupt your music browsing and listening for a moment?"
"Sure, Hy. What's up?"
"I've been trying to figure out how to explain why this blog always looks like it's written by someone from something like a Hitler Youth of America perspective, when its authors have no interest in demonizing any one particular school of thought, religion, social caste, or recreational pursuit."
"That may not be the best way to look at it, Hy. I think there are some schools of thought that this blog's writers may not accept. For example, the Ornate Writing ecole, I don't think anyone here endorses that, though the briefly tenured Mr Greenglen seemed strongly drawn in that manner."
"Okay, I see your point. I guess also if we look at Chuck's roster entry on the right margin, he does list a whole lot of schools of thought, social castes and recreational pursuits that he has, does or will subject to parody, satire, ridicule, mockery, or teasing."
"So what would you suggest?"
"I think of it more as a values blog, as I said in the mega-thread. And also, I think in order to begin trying to find the values requires reading most of the blog's entries, and seeing where the blog consistently picks on things, people, ideas or arguments. Maybe from that, a view might begin to take shape."
"Most readers probably don't want to take the time."
"I agree. What can you expect in the era of twitter's 140 character limitation and the manner in which people comment in that medium. It's overwhelmingly passive-aggressive snark, which suggests that a given Tweeter's position is 'proved' or 'supported' only to the extent its snark registers as a WIN in the eyes and mind of the reader. It's an echo chamber. So imagine, a person whose sense of human social problems (NB: what "politics" supposedly aims to fix) is outlined and defined within or by 140 characters of WINNING snark. Perhaps this is laudable in grades 5-7 and maybe for the immature, grades 5 through award of Bachelor's Degree, but no self-respecting adult should be playing on twitter."
"But how else are people going to connect for the purpose of identifying who agrees with them, politically speaking?"
"By meeting 'strangers' and talking to them, perhaps?"
"That requires me to consider strangers as people who don't intend to hurt me if I disagree with their politics, though."
"Why would you even consider that as a possibility?"
"News media. They tell me that everyone's divided to the point of violence, and supposedly there are hundreds of angry anti-Semites and rednecks who want to not only kill Bernie Sanders but also kill his supporters."
"Where'd you hear or read that, Hy?"
"Like I said, on the news."
"Which news source?"
"The news, man. You know. The news."
"Hy. Wait a minute. Are you telling me that if you hear or read a news story, you automatically spin it up in your mind, creating a Worst Case Scenario as if the news story is true and indicates a fast-growing trend?"
"That's not what I said. I saw it on the news somewhere."
"This is why you should pay attention to sources, Hy. And also why you should realize that news sources are directed by editors who choose what story to run out of the thousands that could be run at that time. Thousands is an understatement, too. How does a news entity choose which stories it runs, and why does it choose them, Hy? What do you think?"