4 ms·

I don't think it was the standard, we merely convinced ourselves that it was the case because it was easier to remain isolated in our respective bubbles, shelte

I don't think it was the standard, we merely convinced ourselves that it was the case because it was easier to remain isolated in our respective bubbles, sheltered from the opposition. When we were exposed to opposing ideas, there's a better chance than not that it was in a defanged and castrated form published with the ascent of corporate gatekeepers. It's easy for a liberal to have a debate with a conservative when they values have a 98% overlap, and their disputes are largely inconsequential questions of cultural aesthetic which demand only minute changes.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Historically, political debates have had the potential to be very hot and include duels and beat downs. We're talking explosive stuff like franchise, rights, structuring economies. I don't buy your argument that it was defanged by gatekeepers. I do think one difference is the chance of repeat engagements. If you and I are neighbors and debate over dinner, well, I'm going to see you frequently. We both need to be kind enough to continue that relationship. Online, we may debate and never bump into each other again. We can block and ignore. It's to my interest to behave greedily and "dunk" on you, insult you, etc to try and score fake internet points since it's a single engagement with spectators.
- crocodiletears 5y ago
  I think you're absolutely right in that things used to be more volatile. The mid-19th to early 20th century US are great exemplars of this. But even though in the modern era (I'd say mid-'30s on to the early 10's) after the advent and refinement of mass media felt like an era of more reasoned dialogues on the balance, I really think it was a mirage that's only reinforced by our ability to look back at niche circles where it was actually the case in hindsight. Mass media and educational institutions bounded our collective capacity for political thought through their selective exposition of certain ideas, meaning people in the era were less likely to have mutually unintelligible or incompatible beliefs about the ordering of society, and that they were similarly incapable of conceiving of such a political enemy (communists notwithstanding) As a result, we never collectively developed the rhetorical tools or emotional capacity to consume or have reasoned discussions that tackled the fundamental aspects of our culture or its organization that conflicted with our preconceived notions, because we never truly had to. Social media has given air to ideas that would have historically been suffocated in the cradle or domesticated long before we were ever exposed to them, and as a result I don't think it'd so much degraded our capacity for political dialogue inasmuch as it has how sheltered we've collectively been, and how much less refined and rational we actually were.

vorpalhex 5y ago

Historically, political debates have had the potential to be very hot and include duels and beat downs. We're talking explosive stuff like franchise, rights, structuring economies. I don't buy your argument that it was defanged by gatekeepers. I do think one difference is the chance of repeat engagements. If you and I are neighbors and debate over dinner, well, I'm going to see you frequently. We both need to be kind enough to continue that relationship. Online, we may debate and never bump into each other again. We can block and ignore. It's to my interest to behave greedily and "dunk" on you, insult you, etc to try and score fake internet points since it's a single engagement with spectators.

crocodiletears 5y ago
I think you're absolutely right in that things used to be more volatile. The mid-19th to early 20th century US are great exemplars of this. But even though in the modern era (I'd say mid-'30s on to the early 10's) after the advent and refinement of mass media felt like an era of more reasoned dialogues on the balance, I really think it was a mirage that's only reinforced by our ability to look back at niche circles where it was actually the case in hindsight. Mass media and educational institutions bounded our collective capacity for political thought through their selective exposition of certain ideas, meaning people in the era were less likely to have mutually unintelligible or incompatible beliefs about the ordering of society, and that they were similarly incapable of conceiving of such a political enemy (communists notwithstanding) As a result, we never collectively developed the rhetorical tools or emotional capacity to consume or have reasoned discussions that tackled the fundamental aspects of our culture or its organization that conflicted with our preconceived notions, because we never truly had to. Social media has given air to ideas that would have historically been suffocated in the cradle or domesticated long before we were ever exposed to them, and as a result I don't think it'd so much degraded our capacity for political dialogue inasmuch as it has how sheltered we've collectively been, and how much less refined and rational we actually were.