4 ms·
It is often assumed, including by several comments here, that membership in a group implies agreement with some or all of the content within the group. This is
by wskinner 6y ago
It is often assumed, including by several comments here, that membership in a group implies agreement with some or all of the content within the group. This is false and harmful. This faulty assumption can be used to exaggerate the popularity of niche beliefs, and ironically it may have self fulfilling effects - “can 200,000 people be wrong?”
In the physical world, where attending rallies or meetings costs time and physical effort, the assumption may be more valid. In the digital world, where group membership is almost costless, it fails.
- rriepe 6y agoWhen the argument ceases to be about the thing, and is instead about the group of people, it's lost. With Covid, people were having scientific discussions around R0, transmission of viruses, etc. Then it became about hating "anti-maskers" and all that stopped. Once it became about hating a group of people, all intelligent discussion immediately stopped. This same pattern plays out in almost every major news story in America.
- lixtra 6y agoI would be interested why this comment gets downvoted. Because of language? hating “anti-maskers”? Because it assumes that there’s still something to discuss about covid?
- Daishiman 6y agoBecause it's a distraction and just a really, really bad take on reality.
- pfraze 6y agoGP's point comes off like an argument against pro-maskers which makes the point disingenuous. Their criticism is that scientific discussion stopped when the topic became politicized, but they're taking a political shot at the same time.
- rriepe 6y agoGP doesn't subscribe to any of the recent hate-this-group media tropes: anti-maskers, Karens, incels, protesters. In case it wasn't clear from my comment, I think this stuff is at the very core of anti-intellectualism. People who rail against "pro-maskers" are just as inane as those who rail against "anti-maskers." Please don't sign me up for either side of your made-up societal divisions.
- wskinner 6y agoMaybe a bit overstated, but yes. When media outlets orient their offerings toward particular groups, it is in every outlet’s interest to publish ingroup vs. outgroup pieces and exaggerate the conflict. This collective action problem is ignored by the media outlets because it is how they make money.
- vsareto 6y agoQAnon popularity is definitely not exaggerated. It is a conspiracy theory that hit the popularity-lottery jackpot. It's a lot of potential energy that could be manipulated.
- wskinner 6y agoThis kind of claim needs a citation. The article we're discussing does not support it.