It destroyed the average Joe's faith in the average Joe.
Now, people are more separated than ever, in their echo chambers, hating each other and firmly believing they are better and righter than the other.
Now, people are more separated than ever, in their echo chambers, hating each other and firmly believing they are better and righter than the other.
I don't deny that there are echo chambers and major communication breakdowns, but I think on the whole it's a positive development.
Usually it's not one specific event but a bombardment of information that over time, hopefully gives someone more perspective and their place in the world.
On the other hand, it closes some people off and causes the echo chamber. Cuts both ways.
almost certainly is
This is just more of my opinion, but generally the people I know that get caught up in bad echo chambers would have done so without the internet. The Alex Jones fans are just a new iteration of Rush Limbaugh fans, albeit more extreme. I think it's possible for otherwise reasonable people to get caught up in something like that, but they can also get out with time and more life experience.
Ultimately it depends what you want out of your personal relationships. I’ve found people who are willing to talk. But I haven’t found people who genuinely change their mind about deeply held beliefs without a lot of patient — emphasis on patient — conversations over a long period of time. And sometimes I’m the one who changes their mind.
So I don’t think you’re going to be satisfied if you feel you must be able to change your group’s minds about social issues. A group is its own form of entity. If you don’t identify with your group, find another one. They exist. But if you don’t identify with your associates, that’s a hard problem which won’t go away.
It helps to accept that you care about them more than what they believe, and leave it at that.
Are you sure?
I don’t know. It helped me to view it as “yes, this is selfish. They’re more important to me than the topic.”
The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it?
Another way to phrase it: why care so much what they think? If they don’t explain themselves, then they probably don’t care whether you agree.
To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.)
Looking at the things you wrote:
> They’re more important to me than the topic.
Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person?
> The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it?
Perhaps. But the interpretation is still not immediately "selfishness" for me. You are not there to please them and make them feel good. But how does that immediately become "selfish"?
> To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.)
Yes, that is a good introspective question, that one maybe should ask oneself.
However, if anything that could somehow be interpreted as "wanting something for oneself" is considered selfish, then we can shut down all our media right now and stop talking to everyone else. You can always claim "You did this or that conversation only to feel good about yourself! So Selfish!"
So I am asking: What is your definition of selfishness?
You care about the topic, they don't want to talk about it for whatever reason. You are trying to get them to do something they don't like, because _you_ like it.
As stubborn as you think those people are, they have a good case for arguing that you are just as stubborn if not more so.
By genuinely adopting this viewpoint, not only will you likely have a more productive discussion, but you may reconsider some of your own priors.
edit: Probably better after Covid.
Says the person with a true neutral alignment.
Doesn't sound anything like my bubble, my city or my country. (Not the USA)
I have heard that bleak description before, just never experienced it.
The real culprit I believe, has been the incredible hysteria of the legacy media as it joined the social media spaces, and started their race to the bottom for clickbait and outrage porn. Covering inane tweets, and blowing them up to pretend that crackpot points-of-view have more weight and are more common than they truly are. Gotcha gonzo-journalism, that prides "getting them" (whichever group that may be) over informing, and in the process dehumanising large swathes of people for clicks. How you "can't avoid politics, because everything is political". Ravelry, which is a crocheting website, went mad with us-vs-them discussions. Why?
The fault is mainly with legacy media, because they had the credibility and prestige of their history, plus the consistency of their output (daily, weekly, whatever), which they used to spoonfeed poison to large parts of society. How others are "unlike us", and that "they're evil", and oh by the way, "vote for our candidate" who is the some storybook hero we need.
The "two-minutes-of-hate" has come largely from legacy media, and they are responsible for the schisms present right now.
>The real culprit I believe, has been the incredible hysteria of the legacy media as it joined the social media spaces, and started their race to the bottom for clickbait and outrage porn. Covering inane tweets, and blowing them up to pretend that crackpot points-of-view have more weight and are more common than they truly are. Gotcha gonzo-journalism, that prides "getting them" (whichever group that may be) over informing, and in the process dehumanising large swathes of people for clicks.
Everything you've outlined above is entirely the result of technology and the incentive structures that have been pursued in its "advancement".