4 ms·

> The point is surely that many people without much power take issue with the discourse that the internet has enabled Well sure, but that's always been the cas

by rsj_hn 5y ago

> The point is surely that many people without much power take issue with the discourse that the internet has enabled Well sure, but that's always been the case. E.g. in the past, people who were outside the overton window had no choice but to get mad at views they disagreed with as they had great difficulty in getting their own voices heard. Now they can have their own voices heard. They can make their own overton window and completely ignore someone else's. Point being, there is a democratization at work, but whereas those on the outside always had to put up with disagreeable voices, now elites must also put up with it, which is something they are not used to, indeed they are offended by needing to - it's a real shock to them - and this is where the calls for censorship of social media are coming from.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
The Overton window isn't individually defined. It might not be false to say that there's more than one, but there isn't one per person. Most of the outrage isn't about democratization. It's about the gutter-level quality of the voices. I don't think many people at the time had much of a problem with someone like William Buckley being the mouthpiece for the views he expressed on national media, even if they strongly disagreed with those views. He may have been a racist bigot, but he was a thoughtful, literate, articulate racist bigot. Likewise, even the far right tends to have a little grudging respect for the ability of someone like Noam Chomsky to articulate a view of the world with which they fundamentally disagree. But democratization hasn't resulted in lots more voices cleverly or playfully or insightfully or creatively expressing new (or existing) points of view. It has resulted in a culture filled with endlessly repeating garbage, where the dumbest, most simplistic, least nuanced crap dominates by volume. Oh, and of course, endless snark, because people don't actually have the courage to say what they really mean, but instead just use snark to try to make other people seem less funny, less clued in and therefore "obviously" wrong. You seem to be claiming an awfully deep level of insight into the psychology of "elites" > "which is something they are not used to, indeed they are offended by needing to - it's a real shock to them" are you a part of this elite, or perhaps study them? They don't seem to actually write a lot - that would be mostly middle class pundits - or appear on TV or other visual media - that would be said pundits and/or party officials or elected representatives. I'm not sure where this level of insight can come from?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The Overton window isn't individually defined. Sure, it is. > It might not be false to say that there's more than one, There is one for any group of people definable as a meaningful political context, down to and including individuals. > but there isn't one per person. Because each person is a coherent political unit and there are also coherent political units with more than one person, there is strictly greater than one Overton window per person.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I know, wikipedia's not the final arbiter, but: > The Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse. > The term is named after American policy analyst Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians' individual preferences. According to Overton, the window frames the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office given the climate of public opinion at that time. This definition does not really allow for the notion of an individual's "own" Overton Window, which would be something without any statistical properties, given it corresponds precisely with "what one person currently believes".
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > This definition does not really allow for the notion an individual's "own" Overton Window, which would something without any statistical properties, given it corresponds precisely with "what one person currently believes". Sure, an individuals Overton window is “the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme” to a voter; in any context the Overton window is per dimension; an idea within the window on an individual sense is one which does not, on its own, rule the candidate out of consideration by that voter, its not the same as the single point the individal voter prefers; this is just exactly the usual sense of an Overton window where the polity has one viewpoint, not just of preferred policies but of which non-preferred ones are and are not deal breakers.

by rsj_hn 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

The Overton window isn't individually defined. It might not be false to say that there's more than one, but there isn't one per person. Most of the outrage isn't about democratization. It's about the gutter-level quality of the voices. I don't think many people at the time had much of a problem with someone like William Buckley being the mouthpiece for the views he expressed on national media, even if they strongly disagreed with those views. He may have been a racist bigot, but he was a thoughtful, literate, articulate racist bigot. Likewise, even the far right tends to have a little grudging respect for the ability of someone like Noam Chomsky to articulate a view of the world with which they fundamentally disagree. But democratization hasn't resulted in lots more voices cleverly or playfully or insightfully or creatively expressing new (or existing) points of view. It has resulted in a culture filled with endlessly repeating garbage, where the dumbest, most simplistic, least nuanced crap dominates by volume. Oh, and of course, endless snark, because people don't actually have the courage to say what they really mean, but instead just use snark to try to make other people seem less funny, less clued in and therefore "obviously" wrong. You seem to be claiming an awfully deep level of insight into the psychology of "elites" > "which is something they are not used to, indeed they are offended by needing to - it's a real shock to them" are you a part of this elite, or perhaps study them? They don't seem to actually write a lot - that would be mostly middle class pundits - or appear on TV or other visual media - that would be said pundits and/or party officials or elected representatives. I'm not sure where this level of insight can come from?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The Overton window isn't individually defined. Sure, it is. > It might not be false to say that there's more than one, There is one for any group of people definable as a meaningful political context, down to and including individuals. > but there isn't one per person. Because each person is a coherent political unit and there are also coherent political units with more than one person, there is strictly greater than one Overton window per person.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I know, wikipedia's not the final arbiter, but: > The Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse. > The term is named after American policy analyst Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians' individual preferences. According to Overton, the window frames the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office given the climate of public opinion at that time. This definition does not really allow for the notion of an individual's "own" Overton Window, which would be something without any statistical properties, given it corresponds precisely with "what one person currently believes".
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > This definition does not really allow for the notion an individual's "own" Overton Window, which would something without any statistical properties, given it corresponds precisely with "what one person currently believes". Sure, an individuals Overton window is “the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme” to a voter; in any context the Overton window is per dimension; an idea within the window on an individual sense is one which does not, on its own, rule the candidate out of consideration by that voter, its not the same as the single point the individal voter prefers; this is just exactly the usual sense of an Overton window where the polity has one viewpoint, not just of preferred policies but of which non-preferred ones are and are not deal breakers.