Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I try not to get bothered by stuff that doesn't affect me and I can't do anything about anyway.

Apathy is the path to a longer life.

That's exactly my point.  The members of the losing team rant and rave and ball their hands into fists and pound the table and point out the horrible "optics" of whatever the winning administration does. 

The "winners" aren't worried about optics at all.  They're getting their way.

"Optics" are nothing more than people who aren't getting their way, complaining about it. 

For me, "optics" means doing a thing that has little or no actual value but sounds and looks good.

Yeah, I think the debate is the difference between how CD and I are using the term relative to 94...

I view "optics" as style over substance. You do something that gets headlines but makes no meaningful difference to solve a problem, claim victory, and then move on because you've placated your base without upsetting the ACTUAL apple cart--the economy.

My view is that the losing party actually stating that the winner's "optics" will actually result in all the meaningful differences that the winners never even intended, with disastrous results. Thus they're saying that the policy isn't optics, i.e. style; rather it's substance. 

Yeah, I think the debate is the difference between how CD and I are using the term relative to 94...

I view "optics" as style over substance. You do something that gets headlines but makes no meaningful difference to solve a problem, claim victory, and then move on because you've placated your base without upsetting the ACTUAL apple cart--the economy.

My view is that the losing party actually stating that the winner's "optics" will actually result in all the meaningful differences that the winners never even intended, with disastrous results. Thus they're saying that the policy isn't optics, i.e. style; rather it's substance.

Optics are solely about perception-- indeed that's the very origin of the term if you think about it.

Losing team is always going to claim the "optics" of the winner's actions are bad.  That's how I constantly see it being used in the media, social media, etc.

An even more recent but related phrase I hear these days is "That's a bad look."  Which only means "Regardless of the outcome of the action, positive or negative, my perception is that you look bad doing it, for no reason other than I disagree with you or I don't like you."

Anyway, optics is a relatively new term, only introduced in the past couple decades as a way of emphasizing perception over reality.

Anyway, optics is a relatively new term, only introduced in the past couple decades as a way of emphasizing perception over reality.

It's an old term,  they just spelled it differently.

You guys probably haven't been clued into this, but my wife's social circle is arguing over the outrage about the Meghan Markle interview that aired Sunday...

My take on that is that we won a war that ending in 1787 that basically says we don't have to care about the British royal family. I don't understand the fascination, in the first case, but then I don't understand wasting energy on outrage over it either.

that subject gets a big ol yawn from me

I dont understand why Americans give a hoot about this

so a newly married couple dosent get along with the husbands in laws so what

Politicians like optics because it's usually a lot easier than solving problems.

Take Social Security for example.  Solutions are fairly easy, they would have been easier 20 years ago than now.  But, no one wants to touch it now because of optics, save a few who want to lift the cap (which has other implications obviously).

Or take climate change.  We are back in the Paris Agreement, as if that DOES anything, beyond some paperwork.  Optics.  Trump pulled out.  Optics.  Doing something REAL would be nearly impossible, so we have agreements.

Immigration reform, each side depicts the other in extreme terms to create the optical illusion they are bad.

Just about everything, to me, is optics.  Gun control, voting "reforms" in Georgia, energy policy, .... Exxon ads about getting fuel from algae.  Their tech guys know why this is a bad idea.  Carbon capture.  The best carbon capture things are plants.  But when they die you need to bury them so they don't degrade.  I lived through the era of landfills reaching capacity.  It was malarkey.  It was known malarkey.  But optics played.  I bet one could review the MAJOR issues of the day back in the past and realize much of it was fabricated optics and meant little.

Blend all that with news coverage of "stars" of one sort or another saying this or that.

Politicians like optics because it's usually a lot easier than solving problems.

Take Social Security for example.  Solutions are fairly easy, they would have been easier 20 years ago than now.  But, no one wants to touch it now because of optics, save a few who want to lift the cap (which has other implications obviously).

The issue is that the "solutions" are raising taxes or cutting benefits. There's no other. The population is aging and living longer, so you either need more money or to ration the money you're bringing in. 

For a politician, how are raising taxes or cutting benefits "easy" lol?