I've taken a look at the many reports of disruption in Colleges and Universities and
I honestly believe the political 'nudging' performed by the Teachers and Professors
had a large input into the way the recent US Presidential election was conducted.
For those less-jaded by the superficial promises of politicians and the 'candy-words'
spoken from a teleprompter, some of the young men and women looked at the two
major candidates in the election and decided their choice by using naive perceptions
born from the information they already held.
The easiest way of explaining what was taught to them was for the Tutors to offer the
students the alternatives in the simple form they saw the world at that time.
Trump is a businessman, a fat-cat who's goal is money and who lives a lifestyle that
many of the average person cannot achieve. The view of him was that he saw females
as nothing more than something to warm your bed and hang off your arm.
He was presented by many parts of the mainstream media as a bully, a braggart who
ignored the nuances of diplomacy and could not comprehend the sensitivity of those
less stronger than others.
He was the guy who tinkered with motor engines and wore a cap-sleeved T-shirt
in the school workshop. His academic perception was presented as nothing more
than a rich thug who didn't need Latin and who's true enjoyment was by wrestling
power from those around him.
Clinton was a woman who -for most of her life, had been involved in politics.
Politicians are seen by some, somebody who strives to serve and with the 'assumed'
burden that she is a woman in a predominantly-male arena, she can be seen as the
under-dog.
Leaving a Law Company for politics, Hillary was seen as someone who would look
to acquire the network to attempt to keep the current situation in status-quo, the
middle-class lifestyle could continue in the manner a youngster comprehended their
own family had accepted.
In an 'reality-show' environment that portrays women desirable by their outward looks
and not their intelligence, for some young people, she was seen someone who could
break the patriarchal mould and be the idol of those without hour-glass figures.
For those of us who may have lines on our faces and have learned that what the
media and television offers us isn't necessarily the real world. This presentation of two
political figures in such a cartoon-ish fashion, would bring nothing but a shrug, but to
a person just setting out into the world, it's comforting and uncomplicated.
Remember, we basically perceive the world around us in the same manner we perceive
ourselves. If we're mainly distrustful, so is everyone else, if we believe we're basically a
good and honest person, then everyone around us must aspire to those goals.
It's a human-thing!
The idea of individualising, segregation and cajoling the young into seeing that to
belong to a particular group, may seem appealing to someone who's social confidence
isn't fully-formed yet.
Since the idea is to feel safe and embrace the solace of belonging with like-minded
people, the notion to attack another group in the name of advancing that confidence
seemed to be at the forefront of every groups agenda.
So the schoolyard name-calling began and categorising the other groups in a negative
light was deemed a good tactic that not only offered onlookers an unacceptable opinion
on an opposing group, it may assist in bringing doubt to the members of that opposite
set of beliefs.
The Press ate it up and promoted the false, dripping hate for their own agenda.
But by doing so, the news outlets also made it real. Demands from the youngsters
became more harsh and the sacred detente within debates was drowned out by who
could insult the other the loudest.
Accusations became cudgels and shaming became a shield. Name-calling was the major
weapon in the two parties arsenals because both sets of political packs knew it would be
appreciated by the students who were old enough to vote.
In all truth, nobody went high and all wallowed in the low.
I waited and waited, but I never heard the schoolyard rhyme 'Sticks and stones...'
I honestly believe the political 'nudging' performed by the Teachers and Professors
had a large input into the way the recent US Presidential election was conducted.
For those less-jaded by the superficial promises of politicians and the 'candy-words'
spoken from a teleprompter, some of the young men and women looked at the two
major candidates in the election and decided their choice by using naive perceptions
born from the information they already held.
The easiest way of explaining what was taught to them was for the Tutors to offer the
students the alternatives in the simple form they saw the world at that time.
Trump is a businessman, a fat-cat who's goal is money and who lives a lifestyle that
many of the average person cannot achieve. The view of him was that he saw females
as nothing more than something to warm your bed and hang off your arm.
He was presented by many parts of the mainstream media as a bully, a braggart who
ignored the nuances of diplomacy and could not comprehend the sensitivity of those
less stronger than others.
He was the guy who tinkered with motor engines and wore a cap-sleeved T-shirt
in the school workshop. His academic perception was presented as nothing more
than a rich thug who didn't need Latin and who's true enjoyment was by wrestling
power from those around him.
Clinton was a woman who -for most of her life, had been involved in politics.
Politicians are seen by some, somebody who strives to serve and with the 'assumed'
burden that she is a woman in a predominantly-male arena, she can be seen as the
under-dog.
Leaving a Law Company for politics, Hillary was seen as someone who would look
to acquire the network to attempt to keep the current situation in status-quo, the
middle-class lifestyle could continue in the manner a youngster comprehended their
own family had accepted.
In an 'reality-show' environment that portrays women desirable by their outward looks
and not their intelligence, for some young people, she was seen someone who could
break the patriarchal mould and be the idol of those without hour-glass figures.
For those of us who may have lines on our faces and have learned that what the
media and television offers us isn't necessarily the real world. This presentation of two
political figures in such a cartoon-ish fashion, would bring nothing but a shrug, but to
a person just setting out into the world, it's comforting and uncomplicated.
Remember, we basically perceive the world around us in the same manner we perceive
ourselves. If we're mainly distrustful, so is everyone else, if we believe we're basically a
good and honest person, then everyone around us must aspire to those goals.
It's a human-thing!
The idea of individualising, segregation and cajoling the young into seeing that to
belong to a particular group, may seem appealing to someone who's social confidence
isn't fully-formed yet.
Since the idea is to feel safe and embrace the solace of belonging with like-minded
people, the notion to attack another group in the name of advancing that confidence
seemed to be at the forefront of every groups agenda.
So the schoolyard name-calling began and categorising the other groups in a negative
light was deemed a good tactic that not only offered onlookers an unacceptable opinion
on an opposing group, it may assist in bringing doubt to the members of that opposite
set of beliefs.
The Press ate it up and promoted the false, dripping hate for their own agenda.
But by doing so, the news outlets also made it real. Demands from the youngsters
became more harsh and the sacred detente within debates was drowned out by who
could insult the other the loudest.
Accusations became cudgels and shaming became a shield. Name-calling was the major
weapon in the two parties arsenals because both sets of political packs knew it would be
appreciated by the students who were old enough to vote.
In all truth, nobody went high and all wallowed in the low.
I waited and waited, but I never heard the schoolyard rhyme 'Sticks and stones...'
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.