6 ms·

IMO, A large part of the problem is people of different political views don't talk, face to face, enough. Like in war, it's easier to kill a "gook" or "haji" th

IMO, A large part of the problem is people of different political views don't talk, face to face, enough. Like in war, it's easier to kill a "gook" or "haji" than a person. The Internet makes it easy to dehumanize the other side; they're just avatars and words on your screen. It's a lot harder to hate an actual person, especially just for having a different opinion than you. [Edited]

wolfgke 11y ago
Couldn't it be that it is much better that persons of very different political views don't talk so much, face to face? I can imagine quite well that this would easily in yelling at each other etc. Also at least me I even get more hate to views someone says if I talk to him/her personally than when I only have to see his/her arguments in the internet. In other words: That people of very different views don't talk much to each other is in my opinion both a "self-protection" and quite plausibly rather prevents spreading even more hate.
- tat45 11y ago
  Speaking from personal experience only, I work with people who are on the other side of the fence from me politically. We manage to have conversations on political matters without it boiling over into contempt and dislike. Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it. I find it far easier to depersonalize someone who I don't see in the flesh on a daily basis.
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    Are you sure about the contempt and dislike? When I hear somebody say something stupid at work I won't necessarily say anything, or say what I think, but I will change my like/dislike of that person.
    - clock_tower 11y ago
      I think he's explicitly saying _expressed_ contempt and dislike: "Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it."
    - kbutler 11y ago
      Like, for instance, if they make a comment that sounds like anyone who disagrees with them politically is stupid? If your only interaction with them is the disagreement, it's far easier to assume they "are stupid" rather than just "have a different opinion."
- alistproducer2 11y ago
  I disagree. People generally have to work themselves up to a place of such strong opinions. This usually happens when people cocoon themselves in echo chambers. If you spend 4 hours a day on zerohedge or infowars, you will reach a point where differing opinions piss you off to the point of yelling. If, however, you were getting different perspectives from other human beings on a regular basis, you would likely be less fervent in your views. It's a lot harder to dismiss actual human beings as "libtards" or "rethugs" or whatever pejorative. You might still disagree, but you usually won't outright dismiss them like you would an article with a "heretical" viewpoint relative to your personal echo chamber.
  - clock_tower 11y ago
    I think that when the stakes are high enough, you have to work to wind yourself down -- not to wind yourself up. And at this point, between Roe v. Wade and Guantanamo Bay (I oppose both, if you're curious), the stakes are definitely high enough.
- a_c_s 11y ago
  Looking at how quickly (in societal terms) the gay rights movement in the USA has progressed: the number one thing that changed people's minds was individuals coming out to their friends & family. It is easy to demonize people you've ever met as perverse deviants: very different to hold on to those demonizations when you learn that somebody you've been close to your whole life is a member of this group. On the other hand, racial minorities can't really do this: prejudices that exist prior to getting to know somebody have a much easier time both preventing people from interacting as well as having a greater likelihood of persisting during interpersonal interactions. This is a large portion why the gay rights movement has been progressing at a faster rate than either women's rights or civil rights have in this country.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kordless 11y ago
As crazy as it sounds (by definition), there's a hypothesis that we get infected with viruses of the mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind There's also a video explaining it in terms of funny cat video production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
- yoha 11y ago
  Note: this is a CGP Grey video, and a good one! Another take on this, from Scott Alexander: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ .
- oh_sigh 11y ago
  See also: Snowcrash
sanderjd 11y ago
I agree, but anecdotally, as someone who spends a lot of face-to-face time around people on both sides of the typical left-right division, neither of which represent my views, it is very frustrating for me, and I suspect rather pointless for them. I've never left a political conversation like this feeling like I made a dent in anyone's ideology; they just leave thinking I'm a weirdo.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  I think the same, and I'd go a step further. I don't particularly _want_ to get along with people who have no problem with abortion, nor with people who have no problem with torture. Why should I see being de-polarizing as something desirable? (And where can I move to?)
  - sanderjd 11y ago
    I think the article makes lots of good arguments for why being de-polarizing is a desirable thing, so I'm not going to attempt to make better ones. But I think your comment is a really good example in and of itself. You've done the binary thinking thing that the article discussed in detail! I've never met anyone who has no problem with abortion, or anyone who has no problem with torture, but I've met people who think the trade-offs justify limited use of one or the other, which I agree or disagree with to varying degrees. It seems likely to me that you're either not talking to people that think these things, and instead building straw-men to knock down, or you're not really hearing the people you're talking to. (Or, I'll admit, it's possible you know a lot more extreme people than I do.)
    - whitegrape 11y ago
      I find if you can get anyone to consider the tradeoffs of things they believe, that alone makes it possible and worthwhile to have a conversation. But those people are rare. (I think Rich Hickey noted this is even a problem in programming language flamewars...)
      - 11y ago
maxxxxx 11y ago
The problem is that they didn't develop their views by really thinking about the issues. They got some focus-group tested soundbite that sounds good to them but they don't really understand it. It's hard to discuss then.
the_cat_kittles 11y ago
the polarization of the american congress (in the 90's) happened in large part because the amount of time congress members spent in each other's company went way down. this is at least the explanation i've gotten from people who worked in the congress. so, it seems like that is at least one data point that supports your argument.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

wolfgke 11y ago

Couldn't it be that it is much better that persons of very different political views don't talk so much, face to face? I can imagine quite well that this would easily in yelling at each other etc. Also at least me I even get more hate to views someone says if I talk to him/her personally than when I only have to see his/her arguments in the internet. In other words: That people of very different views don't talk much to each other is in my opinion both a "self-protection" and quite plausibly rather prevents spreading even more hate.

tat45 11y ago
Speaking from personal experience only, I work with people who are on the other side of the fence from me politically. We manage to have conversations on political matters without it boiling over into contempt and dislike. Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it. I find it far easier to depersonalize someone who I don't see in the flesh on a daily basis.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Are you sure about the contempt and dislike? When I hear somebody say something stupid at work I won't necessarily say anything, or say what I think, but I will change my like/dislike of that person.
  - clock_tower 11y ago
    I think he's explicitly saying _expressed_ contempt and dislike: "Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it."
  - kbutler 11y ago
    Like, for instance, if they make a comment that sounds like anyone who disagrees with them politically is stupid? If your only interaction with them is the disagreement, it's far easier to assume they "are stupid" rather than just "have a different opinion."
alistproducer2 11y ago
I disagree. People generally have to work themselves up to a place of such strong opinions. This usually happens when people cocoon themselves in echo chambers. If you spend 4 hours a day on zerohedge or infowars, you will reach a point where differing opinions piss you off to the point of yelling. If, however, you were getting different perspectives from other human beings on a regular basis, you would likely be less fervent in your views. It's a lot harder to dismiss actual human beings as "libtards" or "rethugs" or whatever pejorative. You might still disagree, but you usually won't outright dismiss them like you would an article with a "heretical" viewpoint relative to your personal echo chamber.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  I think that when the stakes are high enough, you have to work to wind yourself down -- not to wind yourself up. And at this point, between Roe v. Wade and Guantanamo Bay (I oppose both, if you're curious), the stakes are definitely high enough.
a_c_s 11y ago
Looking at how quickly (in societal terms) the gay rights movement in the USA has progressed: the number one thing that changed people's minds was individuals coming out to their friends & family. It is easy to demonize people you've ever met as perverse deviants: very different to hold on to those demonizations when you learn that somebody you've been close to your whole life is a member of this group. On the other hand, racial minorities can't really do this: prejudices that exist prior to getting to know somebody have a much easier time both preventing people from interacting as well as having a greater likelihood of persisting during interpersonal interactions. This is a large portion why the gay rights movement has been progressing at a faster rate than either women's rights or civil rights have in this country.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kordless 11y ago

As crazy as it sounds (by definition), there's a hypothesis that we get infected with viruses of the mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind There's also a video explaining it in terms of funny cat video production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

yoha 11y ago
Note: this is a CGP Grey video, and a good one! Another take on this, from Scott Alexander: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ .
oh_sigh 11y ago
See also: Snowcrash

sanderjd 11y ago

I agree, but anecdotally, as someone who spends a lot of face-to-face time around people on both sides of the typical left-right division, neither of which represent my views, it is very frustrating for me, and I suspect rather pointless for them. I've never left a political conversation like this feeling like I made a dent in anyone's ideology; they just leave thinking I'm a weirdo.

clock_tower 11y ago
I think the same, and I'd go a step further. I don't particularly _want_ to get along with people who have no problem with abortion, nor with people who have no problem with torture. Why should I see being de-polarizing as something desirable? (And where can I move to?)
- sanderjd 11y ago
  I think the article makes lots of good arguments for why being de-polarizing is a desirable thing, so I'm not going to attempt to make better ones. But I think your comment is a really good example in and of itself. You've done the binary thinking thing that the article discussed in detail! I've never met anyone who has no problem with abortion, or anyone who has no problem with torture, but I've met people who think the trade-offs justify limited use of one or the other, which I agree or disagree with to varying degrees. It seems likely to me that you're either not talking to people that think these things, and instead building straw-men to knock down, or you're not really hearing the people you're talking to. (Or, I'll admit, it's possible you know a lot more extreme people than I do.)
  - whitegrape 11y ago
    I find if you can get anyone to consider the tradeoffs of things they believe, that alone makes it possible and worthwhile to have a conversation. But those people are rare. (I think Rich Hickey noted this is even a problem in programming language flamewars...)
    - 11y ago

maxxxxx 11y ago

The problem is that they didn't develop their views by really thinking about the issues. They got some focus-group tested soundbite that sounds good to them but they don't really understand it. It's hard to discuss then.

the_cat_kittles 11y ago

the polarization of the american congress (in the 90's) happened in large part because the amount of time congress members spent in each other's company went way down. this is at least the explanation i've gotten from people who worked in the congress. so, it seems like that is at least one data point that supports your argument.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]