4 ms·

Social media has the exact same problem magnified 100 fold, because there is so much more content to cherrypick from. People only see the actions of extremists

by creato 6y ago

Social media has the exact same problem magnified 100 fold, because there is so much more content to cherrypick from. People only see the actions of extremists and attribute that behavior to everyone that doesn't agree with them. Traditional media definitely has flaws, but rejecting them in favor of social media because of it is an absurd and incredibly destructive reaction.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
This is not (as) true of most other traditional media, e.g. local newspapers to the extent that they still exist. But cable news really is propaganda. Fox used to be the worst offender, but now they're all that bad, though playing for different teams of course. There seems to be some kind of law that the larger a media outlet is, the more partisan it gets. Which is why social media is like the Exxon Valdez crashed into Deepwater Horizon and caught on fire.
runawaybottle 6y ago
It’s because the masses are trying to partake in serious discourse in a non-serious way. On any given day, two different perspectives agreeing to intellectually consider why the other side is objectively incorrect (as in, not just agreeing they are simply different) is a serious undertaking. If you casually take any topic, every single day, and allow people to do the thought experiment that one argument is more valid in a casual manner, you will 100% have to cut corners because you did not seriously approach the task. The most obvious way is you paint an enemy, or the notion of the other, an idea of a threat. The average person in NYC really has no business having a dinner time objective discussion with someone from Missouri about gun ownership. Really the discussion should come down to ‘we have a lot space and gun culture in Missouri and it’s something we enjoy’, followed by ‘Interesting, it’s not the biggest thing here in NYC actually’. That’s about it. But if there is an institution, I don’t know, let’s call it a fight club (the media), that says ‘you two at dinner, get ready to fight’, the two contestants will fight in an inexperienced way. Hair pulling, throwing rocks, no real jabs, conditioning, submissions, no fight experience. It is not a casual ordeal to debate, and this is what the media is making people do. We are not ready amongst ourselves to debate constitutional law and the rights of man, and the compromises needed to maintain society. It’s a serious thing to enter into that discussion. The only take away I see in all of this is that there is a market for the un-serious, and there are some serious people (media) interested in that market.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Well put. This political battle is being fought at the lowest levels of discourse that's barely above animalistic screeching while trying to tangle some of the most complex and nuanced topics; and the results are predictably ridiculous.

by creato 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

This is not (as) true of most other traditional media, e.g. local newspapers to the extent that they still exist. But cable news really is propaganda. Fox used to be the worst offender, but now they're all that bad, though playing for different teams of course. There seems to be some kind of law that the larger a media outlet is, the more partisan it gets. Which is why social media is like the Exxon Valdez crashed into Deepwater Horizon and caught on fire.

runawaybottle 6y ago

It’s because the masses are trying to partake in serious discourse in a non-serious way. On any given day, two different perspectives agreeing to intellectually consider why the other side is objectively incorrect (as in, not just agreeing they are simply different) is a serious undertaking. If you casually take any topic, every single day, and allow people to do the thought experiment that one argument is more valid in a casual manner, you will 100% have to cut corners because you did not seriously approach the task. The most obvious way is you paint an enemy, or the notion of the other, an idea of a threat. The average person in NYC really has no business having a dinner time objective discussion with someone from Missouri about gun ownership. Really the discussion should come down to ‘we have a lot space and gun culture in Missouri and it’s something we enjoy’, followed by ‘Interesting, it’s not the biggest thing here in NYC actually’. That’s about it. But if there is an institution, I don’t know, let’s call it a fight club (the media), that says ‘you two at dinner, get ready to fight’, the two contestants will fight in an inexperienced way. Hair pulling, throwing rocks, no real jabs, conditioning, submissions, no fight experience. It is not a casual ordeal to debate, and this is what the media is making people do. We are not ready amongst ourselves to debate constitutional law and the rights of man, and the compromises needed to maintain society. It’s a serious thing to enter into that discussion. The only take away I see in all of this is that there is a market for the un-serious, and there are some serious people (media) interested in that market.

manigandham 6y ago
Well put. This political battle is being fought at the lowest levels of discourse that's barely above animalistic screeching while trying to tangle some of the most complex and nuanced topics; and the results are predictably ridiculous.