It's not cynical, and even if it doesn't apply here, the truth is it's frequently the case. I agree it's wrong to generalize and to oversimplify but it's also wrong to ignore the role that wealth and proximity to information play in a person's life. (Again, not saying that's the case here. The title is asking for this discussion. And frankly why can't people express this view?)
Proximity to some of the country's best high schools, universities, and the people who work there, as well as some of the most unique industries in the country, could have played a role. In other places, if not most, people don't even know these things exist. Everyone has the internet, sure, and anyone from anywhere can learn about anything, but it's hard to compete with people who encountered useful/the right information early in life.
America's diversity has not changed commensurately with the drop in trust, but economic factors have, and the charts I linked to back that correlation in other countries.
Manipulate isn't the right word in regards to Twitter. So they wanted a social media with less bias. Why is that so wrong? Not saying Twitter now lacks bias. I am saying it's not manipulation to want sites that don't enforce groupthink.
Strictly speaking, Finland is nordic, not scandinavian. And their language is entirely different. I was under the impression Fins and Estonians are happy when people try to learn. Am I wrong?
reply