@no1marauder
I think the point in bold in the quote I gave is more subtle than that. It suggests that when people read the more extremist positions commonly espoused on social media, they come to believe that their political opponents are, in the aggregate, far more extreme than most of them are.
Is this not what I said, people read your more extremist positions and those of your buddies zahlooney and the self confessed communist shag doody and as you say everyone gets lumped in together. You're all living in a similar world, all speaking with the same voice, all saying the same things.
@no1marauder saidI think it is simply people expressing their views honestly. You are more likely to get it online. I discuss a lot of views on here you and others consider extreme, but I don't express many of those views with people at work.
Found this interesting article in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/03/how-politics-got-so-polarized
I was particularly struck by this observation:
"Social media, he allows, does encourage political extremists to become more extreme; the more outrageous the content they post, the more likes and new followers they attract, and the more status ...[text shortened]... nto hyperdrive,” Bail observes."
Do others find this to be true? I think it makes a lot of sense.
What you do not realize is that there are a lot of people like me out there. You might work with them or see them at the grocery store. If you think we express our so called extreme views to everyone you are mistaken. You mistakenly think we are a fringe minority.
Most people think Epstein was assassinated. That is what is called a "reasonable assumption". Some will call it a conspiracy theory to impose a negative implication, but it is still a "reasonable assumption".
11 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidNot necessarily. Deliberate misinformation is common online.
I think it is simply people expressing their views honestly.
@jimm619 saidLost it?
Lost it?
Edited?
Marauder put up an interesting
article for comment. Nothing controversial.
You came down as if he, somehow, insulted you personally.
Only one troll here.
Take your meds 😛
Edited?
Yes you lost it, you got in such a hurry to post something, anything, even if it's nothing, so desperate for the clack clack of your keyboard and then you had to go back and edit it making it totally unrecognisable and unrelatable to what you originally posted.
Marauder put up an interesting
article for comment. Nothing controversial. You came down as if he, somehow, insulted you personally.
I replied to No1's post with a considered explanation of what was missing from the opinion piece. The OP was non controversial, on this we agree, so was my reply. In no way did he mention me personally and so in no way do I feel insulted, if anything No1's post might be thought of as a confession on his part, a catharsis, an admission that he goes a bit overboard and good for No'1 to fess up and to try to be better.
Take your meds
Three time in as many posts and in this one thread you tried the 'meds' crack and I don't doubt it's the same thing you've tried a hundred times on this message board. We heard you the first time, it was unfunny and unoriginal then, why keep repeating yourself, aren't you embarrassed. You're a bore.
11 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidThank you for that explaining that distinction.
That is called disinformation. Misinformation is not deliberate.
But yes, people aren't necessarily "honest" online, as disinformation is endemic online.
11 Jan 22
@no1marauder
What I notice about Internet forums is that they are an accountability-free-fire zone. People are emboldened to post things which no printed media, with editorial accountability, would publish. This encourages extremism on both ends of the spectrum, thus exaggerating the appearance and the appeal of polarization. The actual number of extremists is probably small compared to moderates, but moderates may be driven away by the sheer vulgarity and intractability of extremists, leaving the field to be further polarized. It is a phenomenon peculiar to virtual discourse. In print media, where editors can be sued for publishing lies, slander, or defamation, the tone is much less extreme.
11 Jan 22
@vivify saidSure it is, but not everyone agrees what is true or false. Who is going to decide what is misinformation or not? If you give anyone that power they will abuse it and even if they don't abuse it someone will say they are.
Thank you for that explaining that distinction.
But yes, people aren't necessarily "honest" online, as disinformation is endemic online.
Imagine Suzianne being the censor-er in chief. She would censor anything she doesn't believe in. Now imagine me being the censor-er in chief. Would you trust me with that power? What about Average Joe?
The truth is nobody can be trusted with that power. That is why uncensored debates are so important. It is the best way to reveal the truth. People who want censorship on the debates forum are not here to debate, they are here to troll and suppress the truth by not allowing free and fair debates.
Or maybe people are just getting tired of losing debates. Censorship may be the result of sore losers who are incapable of debating fairly and win. If they censor all the smart people so all is left are morons they can actually win a debate for a change instead of trolling like sore losers always do.
11 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidNo. Because you'd get ousted from the group for being a moron.
I think it is simply people expressing their views honestly. You are more likely to get it online. I discuss a lot of views on here you and others consider extreme, but I don't express many of those views with people at work.
11 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidWell said 👍
Sure it is, but not everyone agrees what is true or false. Who is going to decide what is misinformation or not? If you give anyone that power they will abuse it and even if they don't abuse it someone will say they are.
Imagine Suzianne being the censor-er in chief. She would censor anything she doesn't believe in. Now imagine me being the censor-er in chief. Would yo ...[text shortened]... e morons they can actually win a debate for a change instead of trolling like sore losers always do.
11 Jan 22
@vivify saidIf you think the people who attacked police and entered the Capitol with the intent of disrupting the Electoral College count by violent means are typical of conservatives then you are (inadvertently?) making the exact point the article stated.
Again, the rest of the political world continually confirms polarization seen online. If those extreme views were mostly limited to the internet, most rational minds wouldn't conclude they were accurate representations of actual people
When a mostly conservative SCOTUS allows a ban on a constitutional right, initiated by a notoriously red state like Texas, that's not the i ...[text shortened]... mists, the fact remains that there's no shortage of real-life examples of extreme views seen online.
11 Jan 22
7 edits
@no1marauder saidYour OP:
If you think the people who attacked police and entered the Capitol with the intent of disrupting the Electoral College count by violent means are typical of conservatives then you are (inadvertently?) making the exact point the article stated.
"those on the other [side] are more extreme than they actually are".
Your OP was about concluding that the "other side" is more extreme, not how many people on that side fit this description or not. Given examples like the Capitol riots or the openly fascist president they supported who incited that riot, there are valid reasons to conclude that side is more extreme.
11 Jan 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidAgree 100%.
Found this interesting article in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/03/how-politics-got-so-polarized
I was particularly struck by this observation:
"Social media, he allows, does encourage political extremists to become more extreme; the more outrageous the content they post, the more likes and new followers they attract, and the more status ...[text shortened]... nto hyperdrive,” Bail observes."
Do others find this to be true? I think it makes a lot of sense.
Because these debates align into "teams" and of the constant urge to score points, I find myself, despite myself, locking into positions that are harder than I would take in real life.
My experience here is that when I post nuanced, middle-of-the-road thoughtful compromise posts, they're either thread-enders or nobody responds and they skip back to the previous post that said "Trump is a doodyhead" or "Biden is comatose" (in the middle of the COVID thread) to respond with something equally inane. Sometimes it seems as though you have to be extreme or nasty of be responded to.
I really don't mean to make this personal and possibly I should just not take the bait, but you've driven almost all of my posts on vax mandates. Though Omicron has rendered them useless and irrelevant (I mean in terms of slowing the spread), I was quite ambivalent about vax mandates under Delta. As far as I can recall, I don't think I've ever raise the issue sua sponte. It's just that whenever I'd attack child mask mandates or lockdowns, you'd throw DeSantis' opposition to vax mandates at me as part of the greater regime that I was defending, and defending DeSantis on mask-free schools while remaining open to opposing him on vax-mandate opposition is a level of subtlely that's almost beyond this type of forum.
I'm not blaming you; but it's an example of this phenomenon.
11 Jan 22
@vivify said===When a mostly conservative SCOTUS allows a ban on a constitutional right, initiated by a notoriously red state like Texas, that's not the internet; that's real life.===
Again, the rest of the political world continually confirms polarization seen online. If those extreme views were mostly limited to the internet, most rational minds wouldn't conclude they were accurate representations of actual people
When a mostly conservative SCOTUS allows a ban on a constitutional right, initiated by a notoriously red state like Texas, that's not the i ...[text shortened]... mists, the fact remains that there's no shortage of real-life examples of extreme views seen online.
Do you see how this statement assumes the conclusion it sets out to prove?
11 Jan 22
2 edits
@sh76 saidExplain how. The OP specifically discusses whether extremism on the internet matches reality. I gave examples that it does.
===When a mostly conservative SCOTUS allows a ban on a constitutional right, initiated by a notoriously red state like Texas, that's not the internet; that's real life.===
Do you see how this statement assumes the conclusion it sets out to prove?
One could come to the same exact conclusion of far-right extremism by exclusively watching news broadcasts as they would by seeing extremism on the internet.