5 ms·

I would say that might be a side effect of a more fundamental shift – that of social networks making us more stupid (unintelligent?) and unable to coherently de

I would say that might be a side effect of a more fundamental shift – that of social networks making us more stupid (unintelligent?) and unable to coherently defend ideas in real life. On the internet, it is easy to type out long comments, cherry-pick and refute the ideas of the person on the other side, and sometimes be incredibly rude to them. But performing the jugglery of coherently defending your point while talking frankly, without being rude, in person, is a skill that seems to be conspicuous by absence in Americans today. I have noticed way too many people recently who post 200 things on Facebook/Twitter/Pinterest/Instagram, and yet are unable to keep up a decent conversation for more than five minutes without uncomfortable silences or pulling out their phones.

Retra 10y ago
How are social networks making us more stupid than generations of family-run farming communities? Anyway, I don't see any evidence that people were ever able to speak frankly without being rude, nor that silence being uncomfortable is anything but a personal problem. Maybe you think silence is uncomfortable because you aren't properly socialized?
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  In previous decades "rude" in politics would literally get people killed. Trolling on FB doesn't move the needle in comparison. As a rue of thumb, if windows, limbs, and necks aren't being broken, the discourse is still relatively civilised. I don't believe there's evidence to support the idea that there was ever a golden age of mainstream political civility. I think there may have been a golden age of literate and moderated political journalism, but that was always distinct from the kinds of things that happened - and still do happen, in some ways - to people who happen to be in the wrong out-group.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    I think its important to draw a distinction between the past and now. In the past, many oppressed people would never have a chance to participate in "the discourse" because the mere act of them speaking could be seen as inappropriate. The violence against them would be leveled at them outside of the realm of discourse. The discourse may have been civilised, but the civilisation wasn't! The idea that those people can all participate in the discussion without the fear of direct fist-to-the-face violence, is to me a positive. I'm pretty sure you already felt that way?
Unklejoe 10y ago
I hear that. It's one thing to have a debate on the internet, where all the information in the world is basically at your fingertips and you have a chance to review your comments before posting them. It's another thing to do this on the fly in real life.

Retra 10y ago

How are social networks making us more stupid than generations of family-run farming communities? Anyway, I don't see any evidence that people were ever able to speak frankly without being rude, nor that silence being uncomfortable is anything but a personal problem. Maybe you think silence is uncomfortable because you aren't properly socialized?

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
In previous decades "rude" in politics would literally get people killed. Trolling on FB doesn't move the needle in comparison. As a rue of thumb, if windows, limbs, and necks aren't being broken, the discourse is still relatively civilised. I don't believe there's evidence to support the idea that there was ever a golden age of mainstream political civility. I think there may have been a golden age of literate and moderated political journalism, but that was always distinct from the kinds of things that happened - and still do happen, in some ways - to people who happen to be in the wrong out-group.
- tomlock 10y ago
  I think its important to draw a distinction between the past and now. In the past, many oppressed people would never have a chance to participate in "the discourse" because the mere act of them speaking could be seen as inappropriate. The violence against them would be leveled at them outside of the realm of discourse. The discourse may have been civilised, but the civilisation wasn't! The idea that those people can all participate in the discussion without the fear of direct fist-to-the-face violence, is to me a positive. I'm pretty sure you already felt that way?

Unklejoe 10y ago

I hear that. It's one thing to have a debate on the internet, where all the information in the world is basically at your fingertips and you have a chance to review your comments before posting them. It's another thing to do this on the fly in real life.