4 ms·

The current American socio-political environment is a vortex of escalation right now. Moreover, we seem to be moving from rabid polarization to a calculus of ha

The current American socio-political environment is a vortex of escalation right now. Moreover, we seem to be moving from rabid polarization to a calculus of hatred. I'm not sure there is a controlled transition from this state, except for a sudden (and potentially violent) 'release valve'. ---- I hope my claim is false. I have zero desire to witness/observe the types of historical events that fall under the above category.

rapsey 7y ago
People say it was worse in the past. I disagree. In the past there was Vietnam which was just a big thorn. The current situation seems to just be a descent into insanity.
- abfan1127 7y ago
  Would you agree that in the past was worse, but we handled it better? Its better now, but we handle it worse?
  - rapsey 7y ago
    I think that is a pointless way of looking at it. There was no internet then and the media landscape was a lot more different as well.
  - chmod775 7y ago
    In the past society used to challenge opinions more directly and immediately, sometimes even descending into outright "intolerant" behavior. Now the pendulum has swung and even the most eloquent, tame, and well thought-out argument is at risk of being labeled as intolerant of something. Add to that that echo-chambers have gone from what used to be small groups of people to the massive ones that exist on the internet today, and we are at a point where many people aren't used to having their opinions challenged. Reactions of people suddenly confronted with an opinion outside their comfort zone vary from responding with fallacies, seeking protection by an authority figure (HR, police, etc.) to losing their composure.
    - nerdponx 7y ago
      I wasn't alive during the 60s and 70s, but from everything I've read and watched of that era, I don't think this has ever been true.
      - chmod775 7y ago
        I'm not sure if "60s and 70s" is supposed to be some kind of strawman, because I specified no such thing (I was really thinking of a time period slightly later than that), but the Zeitgeist in that period was influenced by what happened earlier, so I'll humor you. Here's the sentence I assume you're referring to again: > In the past society used to challenge opinions more directly and immediately, sometimes even descending into outright "intolerant" behavior. The end of segregation fits well into the time period you specified, so let's use that as an example. - 1955-1968. Martin Luther King Jr becomes spokesperson and leader in the civil rights movement. - 1956. Montgomery bus boycott. - 1961. Freedom Riders. - 1965. Beatles refuse to play in front of a segregated audience. - 1965. Showdown in Selma. - 1968. De jure segregation is fully outlawed in the United States. You can imagine that all of these topics were publicly debated back then. Labeling someone a racist or intolerant would've been met with "Yes, I am. So what?" by some people, so that didn't even work as an "argument" by itself. For even more perspective, have a look at these surveys[0] conducted in the period 1960-1970, featuring such questions as: - "Do you think most Negroes believe in nonviolent action or do you think most Negroes would like to use violence in their demonstrations?". - "I'd like to ask you if you were in the same position as Negroes, if you think it would be justified or not to march and protest in demonstrations?" Imagine having that kind of discussion today. Yeah I can't either. People would be outraged and try to get someone fired. Maybe rightfully so. It took three decades for half of the opinions that were expressed back then to become "taboo", and another two decades for us to arrive where we are today, where pretty much anything that isn't a mainstream opinion on the matter is now a dangerous topic. Hence the pendulum metaphor. The predominant viewpoints have become entrenched and are being defended against any opinion that doesn't smell the same. Anything that just might threaten them, even if there is no obvious conflict, is labeled "racist", "intolerant", "left", "right", etc and shot down on sight. Debates back then weren't less heated, but there were more "real debates" and there were significantly less taboo topics and opinions. Edit: I rambled on for a long time, so to get back to the issue at hand, please imagine "Story 1" or "Story 2" from the article were set in 1960. They just wouldn't be plausible anymore. Nobody could feel "unsafe" or "shaken up" over these opinions - they are tame compared to the opinions publicly expressed back then. [0]: https://www.crmvet.org/docs/60s_crm_public-opinion.pdf https://www.crmvet.org/docs/60s_crm_public-opinion.pdf The PDF contains public opinion polls about some of the events I listed above, I recommend having a look at it.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  How familiar are you with the content of Vietnam-era protests? It seems hard to read a description of e.g. the Kent State protests, and conclude that the current situation of "people say mean things a lot" is unprecedented insanity.
Qw3r7 7y ago
Soviet Russia once predicted that the USA would Balkanize. Things could get interesting.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  Funny that this prediction came true for Soviet Russia :)

rapsey 7y ago

People say it was worse in the past. I disagree. In the past there was Vietnam which was just a big thorn. The current situation seems to just be a descent into insanity.

abfan1127 7y ago
Would you agree that in the past was worse, but we handled it better? Its better now, but we handle it worse?
- rapsey 7y ago
  I think that is a pointless way of looking at it. There was no internet then and the media landscape was a lot more different as well.
- chmod775 7y ago
  In the past society used to challenge opinions more directly and immediately, sometimes even descending into outright "intolerant" behavior. Now the pendulum has swung and even the most eloquent, tame, and well thought-out argument is at risk of being labeled as intolerant of something. Add to that that echo-chambers have gone from what used to be small groups of people to the massive ones that exist on the internet today, and we are at a point where many people aren't used to having their opinions challenged. Reactions of people suddenly confronted with an opinion outside their comfort zone vary from responding with fallacies, seeking protection by an authority figure (HR, police, etc.) to losing their composure.
  - nerdponx 7y ago
    I wasn't alive during the 60s and 70s, but from everything I've read and watched of that era, I don't think this has ever been true.
    - chmod775 7y ago
      I'm not sure if "60s and 70s" is supposed to be some kind of strawman, because I specified no such thing (I was really thinking of a time period slightly later than that), but the Zeitgeist in that period was influenced by what happened earlier, so I'll humor you. Here's the sentence I assume you're referring to again: > In the past society used to challenge opinions more directly and immediately, sometimes even descending into outright "intolerant" behavior. The end of segregation fits well into the time period you specified, so let's use that as an example. - 1955-1968. Martin Luther King Jr becomes spokesperson and leader in the civil rights movement. - 1956. Montgomery bus boycott. - 1961. Freedom Riders. - 1965. Beatles refuse to play in front of a segregated audience. - 1965. Showdown in Selma. - 1968. De jure segregation is fully outlawed in the United States. You can imagine that all of these topics were publicly debated back then. Labeling someone a racist or intolerant would've been met with "Yes, I am. So what?" by some people, so that didn't even work as an "argument" by itself. For even more perspective, have a look at these surveys[0] conducted in the period 1960-1970, featuring such questions as: - "Do you think most Negroes believe in nonviolent action or do you think most Negroes would like to use violence in their demonstrations?". - "I'd like to ask you if you were in the same position as Negroes, if you think it would be justified or not to march and protest in demonstrations?" Imagine having that kind of discussion today. Yeah I can't either. People would be outraged and try to get someone fired. Maybe rightfully so. It took three decades for half of the opinions that were expressed back then to become "taboo", and another two decades for us to arrive where we are today, where pretty much anything that isn't a mainstream opinion on the matter is now a dangerous topic. Hence the pendulum metaphor. The predominant viewpoints have become entrenched and are being defended against any opinion that doesn't smell the same. Anything that just might threaten them, even if there is no obvious conflict, is labeled "racist", "intolerant", "left", "right", etc and shot down on sight. Debates back then weren't less heated, but there were more "real debates" and there were significantly less taboo topics and opinions. Edit: I rambled on for a long time, so to get back to the issue at hand, please imagine "Story 1" or "Story 2" from the article were set in 1960. They just wouldn't be plausible anymore. Nobody could feel "unsafe" or "shaken up" over these opinions - they are tame compared to the opinions publicly expressed back then. [0]: https://www.crmvet.org/docs/60s_crm_public-opinion.pdf https://www.crmvet.org/docs/60s_crm_public-opinion.pdf The PDF contains public opinion polls about some of the events I listed above, I recommend having a look at it.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
How familiar are you with the content of Vietnam-era protests? It seems hard to read a description of e.g. the Kent State protests, and conclude that the current situation of "people say mean things a lot" is unprecedented insanity.

Qw3r7 7y ago

Soviet Russia once predicted that the USA would Balkanize. Things could get interesting.

maxxxxx 7y ago
Funny that this prediction came true for Soviet Russia :)