4 ms·

There's definitely an element of the last several years revealing how many people are just awful human beings. I'm wary of spending time getting to know someone

by mkr-hn 5y ago

There's definitely an element of the last several years revealing how many people are just awful human beings. I'm wary of spending time getting to know someone only to find out they think certain people (like me) don't deserve equal rights, or something like that. I know on some level people were always like that. Bad ideas are pervasive and always have been. But there's more echo chambers reinforcing bad ideas now. There was some hope in the past of maybe changing someone's mind. Now they get it reinforced constantly with push notifications and digests. High speed, personalized media both revealed it and made it harder to change.

the-dude 5y ago
If you see and describe 'the other side' in terms of deplorables as you do, you are as much a part of the polarisation problem as anyone else. Believing about half of your fellow countrymen are 'awful human beings' is bonkers.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  You said deplorables, not me. Clinton is as useless as the rest of them[1]. Maybe follow up and ask for an example before assuming I'm hitting on your favorite political bugaboo or part of The Other Team. Your reply is an example of the problem. >> "Believing about half of your fellow countrymen are 'awful human beings' is bonkers." You said half, not me. You have literally no insight into what I mean and you think you know everything about me because of the media you consume. This is the problem. To be clear: I don't think the noisy few are representative. I think most people don't have strong opinions on anything. That's not great, but I can work with them. But I can't tell whether they're just politically zoned out or waiting for something in a comment to latch on to for an unhinged rant until spending time getting to know them. [1] Historical context for future readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  Clinton was talking about half of Trump supporters. Even taking that statement literally, that doesn't equate to anywhere near half the country. It would only be a quarter of the country if every person in the country voted and if half went to Clinton and half to Trump. But we know that more people voted for Clinton, so just because of that the Trump-supporting half would be even less than that... and yet less than that because a lot of people don't vote. Also, let's remember that Clinton said this during the campaign, when everyone (including Clinton) thought that Clinton had way more support than Trump, so she was expecting that Trump supporters were much fewer in number than they actually were. So that makes the total numbers she was (figuratively, not literally) talking about fewer still. I grant your larger point about polarization, however. It's hard to see who in the US political arena is not contributing to ever greater polarization. Somehow we need to deescalate before more serious violence occurs.
bjornsing 5y ago
This rings very true to me. The combination of Twitter and pandemic has been very revealing to me. I used to think most people agreed on fundamental human values, and that political disagreement was about details like level of taxation, size of government, some moral judgements like abortion, that kind of stuff. Now I have the impression that we live in entirely different worlds / value systems, and that the correlation with politics is quite low. Also, not very many people support the fundamental values I took for granted, like equality before the law, the really basic stuff. PS. I’m in Sweden, so not part of the US political debate. This is probably a global phenomenon.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Don't base you view on the opinion of others on the content of Twitter or you will end up a supervillain that wants to destroy humanity. At least anyone with a heart would, ironically.
- akudha 5y ago
  I had a Swiss colleague (he grew up in France/Switzerland, settled in US in his 30s) who firmly believed that being poor is a choice. His argument is that he worked hard for what he has (which he did) but he conveniently ignored that fact that he was born in a wealthy country and was given all the opportunities. No matter how much I explained to him, giving examples (like a kid born in poor, drug ridden neighborhood and raised by single mother with father in prison etc), he simply refused to acknowledge his geographic birth lottery. He simply wasn't able to see beyond his bubble. Which made me think - do I understand, can I understand the issues faced by people who I have minimal/no contact, experience with? LGBTQ, physically challenged, mentally challenged, deeply religious etc? I don't know. I am terrified that I might say something stupid/offensive if I meet a transgender person, for example. Not because I am an arsehole, but because I simply do not comprehend what they are going through. These echo chambers are only going to get worse and worse. I wish we all talked less and listened more
BurningFrog 5y ago
We used to ostracise the obnoxious and crazy. That meant we never had to deal with them. Now everyone is on social media, and it turns out including the obnoxious and crazy turns society insane. So... - and I hate every word that follows - maybe ostracising was a necessary evil, and needs to be reinvented.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  The science I've skimmed/read summaries of shows that ostracism just makes people dig their heels in. At best, it makes them quiet outside their bubbles, but it doesn't change how they vote or who they donate to. I don't just want them to shut up. I want to shut off the pipeline into the bubbles and make sure there's a way out. You might not be surprised to learn I also favor restorative justice over retributive justice.
loudtieblahblah 5y ago
Individualism, which I'm an advocate for just not as rabid as our society has taken it, makes people awful. If you don't temper it when all the qualities you need to participate ans belong to real communities, individualism is toxic. Its like hedonism. If you don't temper non-conformiry and sensation seeking with higher goals for your mental and physical health, your social standing, the quality of your participating in your family or in your ability to rear a child, it's destructive. Hedonism, individualism, consumerism, these are all toxic without self-restraint for higher goals.

by mkr-hn 5y ago

the-dude 5y ago

If you see and describe 'the other side' in terms of deplorables as you do, you are as much a part of the polarisation problem as anyone else. Believing about half of your fellow countrymen are 'awful human beings' is bonkers.

mkr-hn 5y ago
You said deplorables, not me. Clinton is as useless as the rest of them[1]. Maybe follow up and ask for an example before assuming I'm hitting on your favorite political bugaboo or part of The Other Team. Your reply is an example of the problem. >> "Believing about half of your fellow countrymen are 'awful human beings' is bonkers." You said half, not me. You have literally no insight into what I mean and you think you know everything about me because of the media you consume. This is the problem. To be clear: I don't think the noisy few are representative. I think most people don't have strong opinions on anything. That's not great, but I can work with them. But I can't tell whether they're just politically zoned out or waiting for something in a comment to latch on to for an unhinged rant until spending time getting to know them. [1] Historical context for future readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pmoriarty 5y ago
Clinton was talking about half of Trump supporters. Even taking that statement literally, that doesn't equate to anywhere near half the country. It would only be a quarter of the country if every person in the country voted and if half went to Clinton and half to Trump. But we know that more people voted for Clinton, so just because of that the Trump-supporting half would be even less than that... and yet less than that because a lot of people don't vote. Also, let's remember that Clinton said this during the campaign, when everyone (including Clinton) thought that Clinton had way more support than Trump, so she was expecting that Trump supporters were much fewer in number than they actually were. So that makes the total numbers she was (figuratively, not literally) talking about fewer still. I grant your larger point about polarization, however. It's hard to see who in the US political arena is not contributing to ever greater polarization. Somehow we need to deescalate before more serious violence occurs.

bjornsing 5y ago

This rings very true to me. The combination of Twitter and pandemic has been very revealing to me. I used to think most people agreed on fundamental human values, and that political disagreement was about details like level of taxation, size of government, some moral judgements like abortion, that kind of stuff. Now I have the impression that we live in entirely different worlds / value systems, and that the correlation with politics is quite low. Also, not very many people support the fundamental values I took for granted, like equality before the law, the really basic stuff. PS. I’m in Sweden, so not part of the US political debate. This is probably a global phenomenon.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Don't base you view on the opinion of others on the content of Twitter or you will end up a supervillain that wants to destroy humanity. At least anyone with a heart would, ironically.
akudha 5y ago
I had a Swiss colleague (he grew up in France/Switzerland, settled in US in his 30s) who firmly believed that being poor is a choice. His argument is that he worked hard for what he has (which he did) but he conveniently ignored that fact that he was born in a wealthy country and was given all the opportunities. No matter how much I explained to him, giving examples (like a kid born in poor, drug ridden neighborhood and raised by single mother with father in prison etc), he simply refused to acknowledge his geographic birth lottery. He simply wasn't able to see beyond his bubble. Which made me think - do I understand, can I understand the issues faced by people who I have minimal/no contact, experience with? LGBTQ, physically challenged, mentally challenged, deeply religious etc? I don't know. I am terrified that I might say something stupid/offensive if I meet a transgender person, for example. Not because I am an arsehole, but because I simply do not comprehend what they are going through. These echo chambers are only going to get worse and worse. I wish we all talked less and listened more

BurningFrog 5y ago

We used to ostracise the obnoxious and crazy. That meant we never had to deal with them. Now everyone is on social media, and it turns out including the obnoxious and crazy turns society insane. So... - and I hate every word that follows - maybe ostracising was a necessary evil, and needs to be reinvented.

mkr-hn 5y ago
The science I've skimmed/read summaries of shows that ostracism just makes people dig their heels in. At best, it makes them quiet outside their bubbles, but it doesn't change how they vote or who they donate to. I don't just want them to shut up. I want to shut off the pipeline into the bubbles and make sure there's a way out. You might not be surprised to learn I also favor restorative justice over retributive justice.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago

Individualism, which I'm an advocate for just not as rabid as our society has taken it, makes people awful. If you don't temper it when all the qualities you need to participate ans belong to real communities, individualism is toxic. Its like hedonism. If you don't temper non-conformiry and sensation seeking with higher goals for your mental and physical health, your social standing, the quality of your participating in your family or in your ability to rear a child, it's destructive. Hedonism, individualism, consumerism, these are all toxic without self-restraint for higher goals.