4 ms·

Isn’t it kind of ridiculous when you have to make up such words ‘cause you insist describing people’s complex preference and belief system on a single damn dime

by nickpp 6y ago

Isn’t it kind of ridiculous when you have to make up such words ‘cause you insist describing people’s complex preference and belief system on a single damn dimension?! I am both left and right, depending what issue we are talking about. And sometime I am center as well. Yet when it’s time to vote... I have exactly 2 real choices.

globular-toast 6y ago
Yeah, I can't stand it. I'm conservative on some issues and progressive on others. I think some industries benefit from free markets while others are better run by the state. I think the current "left" is leaning towards totalitarianism which was just a few years ago called "right". It's ridiculous.
lettergram 6y ago
I wrote about that here: https://austingwalters.com/on-committing-suicide/ https://austingwalters.com/on-committing-suicide/ I think in part that’s why we have polarization. We have two extremes pulling each party apart, social media (as this article suggests) is pushing the left. The right is largely getting disenfranchised so they are getting more fanatical. It’s a recipe for an eventual civil war or at the very least the road to dictatorship. To be honest, both sides are leaning towards some sort of fascism. I explain in my post above, I don’t see a way out of it unless some republicans and democrats decide to team up and get this country back together.
- leereeves 6y ago
  I think that's mostly accurate, but I think it's the social media companies who are pushing the left. There are, or until recently were, plenty of moderate and right-wing people on social media, but the companies have so many ways of tilting the scale in favor of their preferred political views, they've intentionally created echo chambers where only far-left political opinions are acceptable. And that leaves people feeling disenfranchised because a few companies now own the means of communication, and there are no good alternatives for people who are silenced by these companies.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    I think what we're seeing is that political activism on social media skews to the left. Left-wing politics has always been more activism-minded and right-wing activism has always tended to the extreme, so this is not exactly news. What's news is that social media platforms like Twitter (and even Facebook, due to "real names" and a focus on close social relationships) are more favorable to mindless activism than to careful deliberation, which benefits more from traditional blogs and BBS-like forums.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      That doesn't explain events like Apple, Google, Visa, and Mastercard all banning Gab. Reportedly, Visa and Mastercard even refuse to do business with Gab's founder's family. Things like that aren't being driven by grassroots activism. These are decisions made by billionaires.
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        Gab literally went out of their way to market their service and platform towards the most disreputable. I'm not saying that what happened to them was acceptable, but there's a reason why it's hard to make people care about this stuff. And if nobody cares, it doesn't take much of a "movement" for activists to get their way.
        leereeves 6y ago
        That's far from the only example of conservatives banned by Visa and Mastercard, and there are plenty of people who care, they've just been disenfranchised. That you think nobody cares indicates the extent to which they already control the flow of information.
        _0ffh 6y ago
        >Gab literally went out of their way to market their service and platform towards the most disreputable That may have been incidental. It makes financial sense to market to those whom you expect to be most inclined to employ your services. In this case those who feel that they cannot freely express themselves on the competing products. That group is necessarily centered on those who's honest expressions receive the most attention from deplatforming activists.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  Part of the reason why we're here in the first place is because of the Republican party pushing polarization and the culture war. This started with the Tea Party as they dug in their heels to oppose anything a Democrat did (even if it was originally a Republican proposal) while taking as many actions as possible to consolidate their own power. So naturally this made people angry. People don't want to compromise with a party that gained power through not compromising because moving closer to the center means they just move further right. The disenfranchisement of the 'right' comes from people associating racists and bigots with the right. A commentator further downstream equates Gab being banned as an example of 'conservatives being banned' which is a perfect example. Because Gab as a site is full of disgusting remarks, racism, threats and bigotry which people on the right seem to believe is a core tenant of conservatism nowadays. Given that the current administration is conservative and has been active in attempting to take away my rights and the rights of my friends, I'm more concerned about that than some people on Twitter yelling about things. That's why I find the comparisons incredibly disingenuous.
unexaminedlife 6y ago
I think getting rid of 'winner takes all' elections and replacing it with an "order of preference ranking" system might help. This way people would be less concerned about picking the guy who is "least undesirable to fellow voters" and more concerned about picking their actual preference.
koheripbal 6y ago
The chaos we see today is a reaction between our First-Past-The-Post voting system and high engagement social media. It's like mixing vinegar and baking soda. The voting system encourages extremist candidates, and the social media platforms engage the least nuanced voters to primary (something that they never did before). The main stream media follows ratings and legitimizes these extremist views. The ultimate outcome is a political discourse that is gradually promoting zero-tolerance, zero-discourse, and a slow march to the normalization of political violence. I'm not sure people recognize the danger escalating polarization is causing. The mere mention of it as a systemic issue is usually met with a "both sides" dismissal, which is very discouraging. We need to reformat social media and/or change the voting system, or there will be violence. The purpose of democracy is to obviate political violence by forcing different views to the table to discuss and compromise. Social media is silences those who even suggest that path - making violence inevitable. Compromise has become the eighth deadly sin.

by nickpp 6y ago

globular-toast 6y ago

Yeah, I can't stand it. I'm conservative on some issues and progressive on others. I think some industries benefit from free markets while others are better run by the state. I think the current "left" is leaning towards totalitarianism which was just a few years ago called "right". It's ridiculous.

lettergram 6y ago

I wrote about that here: https://austingwalters.com/on-committing-suicide/ https://austingwalters.com/on-committing-suicide/ I think in part that’s why we have polarization. We have two extremes pulling each party apart, social media (as this article suggests) is pushing the left. The right is largely getting disenfranchised so they are getting more fanatical. It’s a recipe for an eventual civil war or at the very least the road to dictatorship. To be honest, both sides are leaning towards some sort of fascism. I explain in my post above, I don’t see a way out of it unless some republicans and democrats decide to team up and get this country back together.

leereeves 6y ago
I think that's mostly accurate, but I think it's the social media companies who are pushing the left. There are, or until recently were, plenty of moderate and right-wing people on social media, but the companies have so many ways of tilting the scale in favor of their preferred political views, they've intentionally created echo chambers where only far-left political opinions are acceptable. And that leaves people feeling disenfranchised because a few companies now own the means of communication, and there are no good alternatives for people who are silenced by these companies.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  I think what we're seeing is that political activism on social media skews to the left. Left-wing politics has always been more activism-minded and right-wing activism has always tended to the extreme, so this is not exactly news. What's news is that social media platforms like Twitter (and even Facebook, due to "real names" and a focus on close social relationships) are more favorable to mindless activism than to careful deliberation, which benefits more from traditional blogs and BBS-like forums.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    That doesn't explain events like Apple, Google, Visa, and Mastercard all banning Gab. Reportedly, Visa and Mastercard even refuse to do business with Gab's founder's family. Things like that aren't being driven by grassroots activism. These are decisions made by billionaires.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      Gab literally went out of their way to market their service and platform towards the most disreputable. I'm not saying that what happened to them was acceptable, but there's a reason why it's hard to make people care about this stuff. And if nobody cares, it doesn't take much of a "movement" for activists to get their way.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        That's far from the only example of conservatives banned by Visa and Mastercard, and there are plenty of people who care, they've just been disenfranchised. That you think nobody cares indicates the extent to which they already control the flow of information.
      - _0ffh 6y ago
        >Gab literally went out of their way to market their service and platform towards the most disreputable That may have been incidental. It makes financial sense to market to those whom you expect to be most inclined to employ your services. In this case those who feel that they cannot freely express themselves on the competing products. That group is necessarily centered on those who's honest expressions receive the most attention from deplatforming activists.
fzeroracer 6y ago
Part of the reason why we're here in the first place is because of the Republican party pushing polarization and the culture war. This started with the Tea Party as they dug in their heels to oppose anything a Democrat did (even if it was originally a Republican proposal) while taking as many actions as possible to consolidate their own power. So naturally this made people angry. People don't want to compromise with a party that gained power through not compromising because moving closer to the center means they just move further right. The disenfranchisement of the 'right' comes from people associating racists and bigots with the right. A commentator further downstream equates Gab being banned as an example of 'conservatives being banned' which is a perfect example. Because Gab as a site is full of disgusting remarks, racism, threats and bigotry which people on the right seem to believe is a core tenant of conservatism nowadays. Given that the current administration is conservative and has been active in attempting to take away my rights and the rights of my friends, I'm more concerned about that than some people on Twitter yelling about things. That's why I find the comparisons incredibly disingenuous.

unexaminedlife 6y ago

I think getting rid of 'winner takes all' elections and replacing it with an "order of preference ranking" system might help. This way people would be less concerned about picking the guy who is "least undesirable to fellow voters" and more concerned about picking their actual preference.

koheripbal 6y ago

The chaos we see today is a reaction between our First-Past-The-Post voting system and high engagement social media. It's like mixing vinegar and baking soda. The voting system encourages extremist candidates, and the social media platforms engage the least nuanced voters to primary (something that they never did before). The main stream media follows ratings and legitimizes these extremist views. The ultimate outcome is a political discourse that is gradually promoting zero-tolerance, zero-discourse, and a slow march to the normalization of political violence. I'm not sure people recognize the danger escalating polarization is causing. The mere mention of it as a systemic issue is usually met with a "both sides" dismissal, which is very discouraging. We need to reformat social media and/or change the voting system, or there will be violence. The purpose of democracy is to obviate political violence by forcing different views to the table to discuss and compromise. Social media is silences those who even suggest that path - making violence inevitable. Compromise has become the eighth deadly sin.