5 ms·

> Which is a good thing. It's how it always was. You surrounded yourself with lots of different people with varying opinions. It's how you learned things. It wa

> Which is a good thing. It's how it always was. You surrounded yourself with lots of different people with varying opinions. It's how you learned things. It was called being an adult. This is a load of gilded age nonsense. There's never been any point in history where people deliberately exposed themselves to uncomfortable truths about people they considered other as part of "growing up". I'd really challenge you to think about when you think this was. Was it in the 80s while gay people were dying of aids while straight people ignored their plight? The 70s when mainstream american society treated anti-war activists as terrorists? The 50s and 60s when white people literally moved out of cities and into suburbs to get away from black people? What you're experiencing isn't "people failing to communicate with people with diverse views," but the internet finally forcing people to coexist with social groups they could just ignore until now. You have to exist on the same site as people who have been deeply harmed by the systems that benefit you and you're scared of that anger and those people's unwillingness to accept your desire to stick your head in the sand like your parents could.

bobwall 6y ago
Hmm, didn't they treat the soldiers coming back from the war as terrorists. I'd say there are two sides to all those coins you are throwing around.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  No, they didn't. Definitively. Such assertions, researched, turned out to be wholly fabricated precisely for rhetorical disinformation.
  - bobwall 6y ago
    I would say you are wrong, definitively, https://www.history.com/news/vietnam-war-veterans-treatment https://www.history.com/news/vietnam-war-veterans-treatment . How is it fabricated how soldiers were treated by all the "peace lovers" when they returned from doing their duty.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      History.com? Really?
Vrondi 6y ago
It was true for me, individually, my entire life. Yes, a large segment of society have always been closed-minded. That doesn't make being open to new ideas and diverse friendships a bad thing. At the same time that we are scoffing at the closed-mindedness of the past, in realms like politics, people were _better_ at working together across the aisle at some periods in History. Obviously, not the Civil War era, but for much of the early 20th century, as an example. Just because a lot of people are bad at something does not mean it isn't a laudable goal or practice.
manigandham 6y ago
I believe the parent comment is describing how most people had friends of various backgrounds that they saw physically and communicated with freely - instead of having a social filter over digital connections that blocked them immediately before they ever really knew them. > "internet finally forcing people to coexist with social groups they could just ignore until now" How so? The internet has made it much easier to isolate and block than ever before. That's exactly why there's so much division today. > "you're scared of that anger and those people's unwillingness" What are you talking about here?
- stormbrew 6y ago
  > I believe the parent comment is describing how most people had friends of various backgrounds that they saw physically and communicated with freely - instead of having a social filter over digital connections that blocked them immediately before they ever really knew them. In person or not, everyone has a social filter on who they interact with. Your wealth, race, gender, orientation, interests, and location all act as filters against who you'll interact with, let alone be friends with. If you go to Harvard, how much relative opportunity do you think that gives you to befriend someone who isn't a rich white person? Especially, ya know, when only white people (white men, even) could even go to Harvard. These filters are more or less permeable by the culture and scope of your life, but if you think there's some magical moment in the past when white people by an large all had black friends or rich people all had poor friends, you're dreaming. It's easier now to experience perspectives alien to you by a country mile. It's also easier for them to intrude into your life. Somehow, it's the most privileged people are the most likely to call this intrusion an attack. To call people wanting to re-establish boundaries with them a violation of their 'right to free speech'. Funny that.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    Let's slow down on calling anyone else privileged when most of us are in arguably the most privileged profession to ever exist. A few things are true about wealth distribution, it's empirically become more concentrated and also more localized to elite urban areas. When people from this urban elite start calling everyone else privileged and intolerant to the point that they don't deserve a voice.. it's not a great look.
foobared 6y ago
>What you're experiencing isn't "people failing to communicate with people with diverse views," but the internet finally forcing people to coexist with social groups they could just ignore until now. How is that working for you?. This kind of forced one dimensional thinking is the issue rather than having discussions and building consensus around these very complex and sensitive topics.
stronglikedan 6y ago
> as people who have been deeply harmed by the systems Most of the people attacking other people online haven't been deeply harmed by anything at all. They're just parroting what they hear in their online echo chambers. The signal to noise ratio in the discussion of issues that really do affect people is moving to mostly noise. Most of the time it's mountains from molehills, just to virtue signal for attention. Nothing constructive is coming from it. In fact, I'd say it's dividing people more than ever.
- throwmeaway_pls 6y ago
  Yup, this stuff keeps rising up out of nowhere, and the messages are unnatural to the point that they’re likely engineered.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ZainRiz 6y ago
Farnam Street has a great blog post supporting what you just said: That most people only express things to people that they thing would be accepting of what they said. Even if they might not agree with it, they'll at least accept that it's okay to hold those opinions. Once you cross the line into "Expressing this opinion will cause negative social consequences to me" then people start self-censoring. https://fs.blog/2020/09/spiral-of-silence/ https://fs.blog/2020/09/spiral-of-silence/
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Interesting how it ends with : > In anonymous environments, the spiral of silence can end up reversing itself, making the most fringe views the loudest.
qazpot 6y ago
> Was it in the 80s while gay people were dying of aids while straight people ignored their plight? Now in 2020s Gay people are accepted in the mainstream society. > The 70s when mainstream american society treated anti-war activists as terrorists? Anti-war activists are no longer treated as terrorists. > The 50s and 60s when white people literally moved out of cities and into suburbs to get away from black people? Segregation has ended. All of these positive changes have come by "You surrounded yourself with lots of different people with varying opinions." If the people were so rigid with their views as assume them to be then these positive changes would have never happened.
- stormbrew 6y ago
  They actually largely came about because people protested and demanded to be heard. Ignoring that your statements are optimistic at best. Some gay people are accepted into mainstream society. Anti-war activists absolutely have recently still been considered terrorists. Hell, anti-RACISM activists are actively being called terrorists by the government right now which goes to the next thing, which is that segregation as a legal concept has ended but turning neighbourhoods white is still absolutely a thing.
  - throw9872349872 6y ago
    You are conflating anti-war protesters in a prior post who protested drafts that affected all young adults through peaceful civil disobedience to anti-racism protesters who by and large protest through destructive violent and disruptive tactics against police brutality which hasn’t been proven to be overtly racist as a whole group. Overall, it sounds like you are fairly angry at the current situation and I recommend stepping back and perhaps listening to various viewpoints on the matters you feel strongly about.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      > anti-racism protesters who ... protest through destructive violent and disruptive tactics You have revealed yourself too early. Disinformation requires more finesse.

bobwall 6y ago

Hmm, didn't they treat the soldiers coming back from the war as terrorists. I'd say there are two sides to all those coins you are throwing around.

ncmncm 6y ago
No, they didn't. Definitively. Such assertions, researched, turned out to be wholly fabricated precisely for rhetorical disinformation.
- bobwall 6y ago
  I would say you are wrong, definitively, https://www.history.com/news/vietnam-war-veterans-treatment https://www.history.com/news/vietnam-war-veterans-treatment . How is it fabricated how soldiers were treated by all the "peace lovers" when they returned from doing their duty.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    History.com? Really?

Vrondi 6y ago

It was true for me, individually, my entire life. Yes, a large segment of society have always been closed-minded. That doesn't make being open to new ideas and diverse friendships a bad thing. At the same time that we are scoffing at the closed-mindedness of the past, in realms like politics, people were _better_ at working together across the aisle at some periods in History. Obviously, not the Civil War era, but for much of the early 20th century, as an example. Just because a lot of people are bad at something does not mean it isn't a laudable goal or practice.

manigandham 6y ago

I believe the parent comment is describing how most people had friends of various backgrounds that they saw physically and communicated with freely - instead of having a social filter over digital connections that blocked them immediately before they ever really knew them. > "internet finally forcing people to coexist with social groups they could just ignore until now" How so? The internet has made it much easier to isolate and block than ever before. That's exactly why there's so much division today. > "you're scared of that anger and those people's unwillingness" What are you talking about here?

stormbrew 6y ago
> I believe the parent comment is describing how most people had friends of various backgrounds that they saw physically and communicated with freely - instead of having a social filter over digital connections that blocked them immediately before they ever really knew them. In person or not, everyone has a social filter on who they interact with. Your wealth, race, gender, orientation, interests, and location all act as filters against who you'll interact with, let alone be friends with. If you go to Harvard, how much relative opportunity do you think that gives you to befriend someone who isn't a rich white person? Especially, ya know, when only white people (white men, even) could even go to Harvard. These filters are more or less permeable by the culture and scope of your life, but if you think there's some magical moment in the past when white people by an large all had black friends or rich people all had poor friends, you're dreaming. It's easier now to experience perspectives alien to you by a country mile. It's also easier for them to intrude into your life. Somehow, it's the most privileged people are the most likely to call this intrusion an attack. To call people wanting to re-establish boundaries with them a violation of their 'right to free speech'. Funny that.
- free_rms 6y ago
  Let's slow down on calling anyone else privileged when most of us are in arguably the most privileged profession to ever exist. A few things are true about wealth distribution, it's empirically become more concentrated and also more localized to elite urban areas. When people from this urban elite start calling everyone else privileged and intolerant to the point that they don't deserve a voice.. it's not a great look.

foobared 6y ago

>What you're experiencing isn't "people failing to communicate with people with diverse views," but the internet finally forcing people to coexist with social groups they could just ignore until now. How is that working for you?. This kind of forced one dimensional thinking is the issue rather than having discussions and building consensus around these very complex and sensitive topics.

stronglikedan 6y ago

> as people who have been deeply harmed by the systems Most of the people attacking other people online haven't been deeply harmed by anything at all. They're just parroting what they hear in their online echo chambers. The signal to noise ratio in the discussion of issues that really do affect people is moving to mostly noise. Most of the time it's mountains from molehills, just to virtue signal for attention. Nothing constructive is coming from it. In fact, I'd say it's dividing people more than ever.

throwmeaway_pls 6y ago
Yup, this stuff keeps rising up out of nowhere, and the messages are unnatural to the point that they’re likely engineered.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ZainRiz 6y ago

Farnam Street has a great blog post supporting what you just said: That most people only express things to people that they thing would be accepting of what they said. Even if they might not agree with it, they'll at least accept that it's okay to hold those opinions. Once you cross the line into "Expressing this opinion will cause negative social consequences to me" then people start self-censoring. https://fs.blog/2020/09/spiral-of-silence/ https://fs.blog/2020/09/spiral-of-silence/

BlueTemplar 6y ago
Interesting how it ends with : > In anonymous environments, the spiral of silence can end up reversing itself, making the most fringe views the loudest.

qazpot 6y ago

> Was it in the 80s while gay people were dying of aids while straight people ignored their plight? Now in 2020s Gay people are accepted in the mainstream society. > The 70s when mainstream american society treated anti-war activists as terrorists? Anti-war activists are no longer treated as terrorists. > The 50s and 60s when white people literally moved out of cities and into suburbs to get away from black people? Segregation has ended. All of these positive changes have come by "You surrounded yourself with lots of different people with varying opinions." If the people were so rigid with their views as assume them to be then these positive changes would have never happened.

stormbrew 6y ago
They actually largely came about because people protested and demanded to be heard. Ignoring that your statements are optimistic at best. Some gay people are accepted into mainstream society. Anti-war activists absolutely have recently still been considered terrorists. Hell, anti-RACISM activists are actively being called terrorists by the government right now which goes to the next thing, which is that segregation as a legal concept has ended but turning neighbourhoods white is still absolutely a thing.
- throw9872349872 6y ago
  You are conflating anti-war protesters in a prior post who protested drafts that affected all young adults through peaceful civil disobedience to anti-racism protesters who by and large protest through destructive violent and disruptive tactics against police brutality which hasn’t been proven to be overtly racist as a whole group. Overall, it sounds like you are fairly angry at the current situation and I recommend stepping back and perhaps listening to various viewpoints on the matters you feel strongly about.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    > anti-racism protesters who ... protest through destructive violent and disruptive tactics You have revealed yourself too early. Disinformation requires more finesse.