7 ms·

Titles like this irk me. It clearly isn’t It should be something more like: “how has general discourse become so polluted and toxified in its perceptions for

Titles like this irk me. It clearly isn’t It should be something more like: “how has general discourse become so polluted and toxified in its perceptions for it to appear that the following statement yields any factuality” … I guess that doesn’t quite have the same ring to it though.

guerrilla 4y ago
Become? I think one could argue it's less so than ever. Remember blasphemy and the inquisition? Do you think people were more tolerant prior to the 20th century, what about in the 1950s? I think until recently responses were pretty violent in some cases and could lead to quite some consequences. I don't really know, but I think it's worth considering.
- h2odragon 4y ago
  Blasphemy is alive and well! Try saying you doubt the safety and effectiveness of COVID vaccines. The reaction is the same.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    No doubt, but the consequences (most places) aren't death by stoning or whatever.
    - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
      Instead they are death by starvation. Many that want to close all discussion of COVID also wanted people to lose jobs. No job, no food.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Should read up a bit more on what the "reaction" to blasphemy was back in the day (at least some of the days, some of the places anyway). Tell you what, it wasn't people calling you an idiot on the internet.
    - daenz 4y ago
      I believe the charitable interpretation of "the reaction is the same" is "the reaction is the same for the time period." Comparing reactions modern reactions to blasphemy to "back in the day" reactions is an uncharitable interpretation.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        > Comparing reactions modern reactions to blasphemy to "back in the day" reactions is an uncharitable interpretation. Hardly, since it was my point. Doing anything other than that would in fact be off topic in this branch of the thread.
robonerd 4y ago
Titles like this drive me nuts. Trying to start a conversation with a question that assumes a false premise reminds me of the way threads on 4chan are started. I get that headlines are supposed to be attention grabby, but using annoyance to attract attention is insufferably obnoxious. see also: 'When are you going to stop beating your wife?'
sieabahlpark 4y ago
It's almost as if an entire platform is built on making sure the arguments are misconstrued and using buzz phrases like "science believer" and "anti-vaxer". It completely destroys what actual argument exists because it's using targeted language. It's subversive and a direct influence on how politics are taken. You can be against unnecessary medication and be called an anti-vaxer. You can doubt a scientific conclusion without being anti-science. You just cannot defend yourself against these accusations because they're triggers which purposely end discussions. These phrases are directly linked to terms which are generally universally agreed upon to be good natured. "Safe", "experts", "effective", "empathetic". It's an attack on the language so that discourse is controlled and effectively one sided.
- Clubber 4y ago
  It's beneficial to the political class that wedge issues not get resolved. It keeps the populace arguing with each other rather than arguing with the state. It's also beneficial to news organizations. How much total ad revenue do you think has been earned across all political outlets since Roe v Wade was decided? I couldn't even guess, but I assume the issue has earned in the 10s if not 100s of millions in ad revenue over the last 49 or so years.
lazide 4y ago
It has often come across that way online (Twitter or forum threads). Anyone explaining (even if they say it is to help explain, not to agree with) or trying to understand the opposing sides perspective is almost the same as espousing it, and espousing it is worth brigading someone or attacking them. It’s a ‘group purity’/‘rank discipline’ thing humans do when they feel threatened. You’ll see plenty of folks now going after anyone claiming they are ‘apolitical’ or moderate/not on a side. It results in folks having to pick sides publicly, but often the folks who agree with the opposition being silenced and often just voting the way they feel in quieter ways, while pretending to go along. de-facto boycotts (with no explanations), voting certain ways (Trump, whatever) without telling anyone they did it, etc. the only people willing to stand up and espouse it publicly are those that feel they can profit off those unwilling to say it themselves or for whom due to mental defect or wealth or whatever they feel invulnerable to backlash. I’ve personally seen groups in person do the same, but it takes somewhat extreme circumstances or toxic cultures. I think it’s a reflex that comes out of the us vs them and ideological splintering inherent from a culture war. Which is what is happening in the US. Broadly, it’s rural vs urban values colliding, and rural communities feeling the effects of severe brain drain and decreasing populations and wealth. With the large shift of folks from the cities to more remote areas from Covid + Remote work, I expect it won’t go as well longer term either as a lot of the echo chamber online seems to think. There will be mixing, but people tend to get more conservative after awhile in those areas too. Just like the 70’s with free love and hippies transitioned into the 80’s being about money money and more conservative politics, times are a changing.
havblue 4y ago
You understood the point though. Abortion is a third rail political topic so for most unenlightened people on either side of the issue, there is no middle ground.
- MockObject 4y ago
  The extreme positions are "a four-cell zygote should be protected from abortion", and "a baby being born may be aborted". Most citizens are in the middle ground.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    Suppose that an omniscient moral Oracle decided to reveal that the correct point before which abortions should be allowed was indeed somewhere strictly between the two bookends you mention. (Let's say that a super-majority of the public are indeed somewhere in this "middle ground", and, in a secular democracy, that's as close to an omniscient moral Oracle as you might be able to find). Now suppose that you are asked to decide where exactly that line is, taking into account this knowledge from the Oracle. But, imagine that at some point in the future, the Oracle might reveal where the line should have been drawn, and if your guess is a higher number than the Oracle's, then you are retrospectively guilty of manslaughter of all the zygotes/babies that were aborted at an age between your number and the Oracle's. I suspect that in this hypothetical scenario, you would pick "a five-cell zygote should be protected from abortion" as the line.
    - MockObject 4y ago
      Would that possibly be balanced by the chance that the Oracle could find in the opposite direction later, making us retrospectively guilty as well?
      - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
        What’s the guilt in that scenario. “Oops, you allowed a thing to become a person. “

guerrilla 4y ago

Become? I think one could argue it's less so than ever. Remember blasphemy and the inquisition? Do you think people were more tolerant prior to the 20th century, what about in the 1950s? I think until recently responses were pretty violent in some cases and could lead to quite some consequences. I don't really know, but I think it's worth considering.

h2odragon 4y ago
Blasphemy is alive and well! Try saying you doubt the safety and effectiveness of COVID vaccines. The reaction is the same.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  No doubt, but the consequences (most places) aren't death by stoning or whatever.
  - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
    Instead they are death by starvation. Many that want to close all discussion of COVID also wanted people to lose jobs. No job, no food.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Should read up a bit more on what the "reaction" to blasphemy was back in the day (at least some of the days, some of the places anyway). Tell you what, it wasn't people calling you an idiot on the internet.
  - daenz 4y ago
    I believe the charitable interpretation of "the reaction is the same" is "the reaction is the same for the time period." Comparing reactions modern reactions to blasphemy to "back in the day" reactions is an uncharitable interpretation.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > Comparing reactions modern reactions to blasphemy to "back in the day" reactions is an uncharitable interpretation. Hardly, since it was my point. Doing anything other than that would in fact be off topic in this branch of the thread.

robonerd 4y ago

Titles like this drive me nuts. Trying to start a conversation with a question that assumes a false premise reminds me of the way threads on 4chan are started. I get that headlines are supposed to be attention grabby, but using annoyance to attract attention is insufferably obnoxious. see also: 'When are you going to stop beating your wife?'

sieabahlpark 4y ago

It's almost as if an entire platform is built on making sure the arguments are misconstrued and using buzz phrases like "science believer" and "anti-vaxer". It completely destroys what actual argument exists because it's using targeted language. It's subversive and a direct influence on how politics are taken. You can be against unnecessary medication and be called an anti-vaxer. You can doubt a scientific conclusion without being anti-science. You just cannot defend yourself against these accusations because they're triggers which purposely end discussions. These phrases are directly linked to terms which are generally universally agreed upon to be good natured. "Safe", "experts", "effective", "empathetic". It's an attack on the language so that discourse is controlled and effectively one sided.

Clubber 4y ago
It's beneficial to the political class that wedge issues not get resolved. It keeps the populace arguing with each other rather than arguing with the state. It's also beneficial to news organizations. How much total ad revenue do you think has been earned across all political outlets since Roe v Wade was decided? I couldn't even guess, but I assume the issue has earned in the 10s if not 100s of millions in ad revenue over the last 49 or so years.

lazide 4y ago

It has often come across that way online (Twitter or forum threads). Anyone explaining (even if they say it is to help explain, not to agree with) or trying to understand the opposing sides perspective is almost the same as espousing it, and espousing it is worth brigading someone or attacking them. It’s a ‘group purity’/‘rank discipline’ thing humans do when they feel threatened. You’ll see plenty of folks now going after anyone claiming they are ‘apolitical’ or moderate/not on a side. It results in folks having to pick sides publicly, but often the folks who agree with the opposition being silenced and often just voting the way they feel in quieter ways, while pretending to go along. de-facto boycotts (with no explanations), voting certain ways (Trump, whatever) without telling anyone they did it, etc. the only people willing to stand up and espouse it publicly are those that feel they can profit off those unwilling to say it themselves or for whom due to mental defect or wealth or whatever they feel invulnerable to backlash. I’ve personally seen groups in person do the same, but it takes somewhat extreme circumstances or toxic cultures. I think it’s a reflex that comes out of the us vs them and ideological splintering inherent from a culture war. Which is what is happening in the US. Broadly, it’s rural vs urban values colliding, and rural communities feeling the effects of severe brain drain and decreasing populations and wealth. With the large shift of folks from the cities to more remote areas from Covid + Remote work, I expect it won’t go as well longer term either as a lot of the echo chamber online seems to think. There will be mixing, but people tend to get more conservative after awhile in those areas too. Just like the 70’s with free love and hippies transitioned into the 80’s being about money money and more conservative politics, times are a changing.

havblue 4y ago

You understood the point though. Abortion is a third rail political topic so for most unenlightened people on either side of the issue, there is no middle ground.

MockObject 4y ago
The extreme positions are "a four-cell zygote should be protected from abortion", and "a baby being born may be aborted". Most citizens are in the middle ground.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  Suppose that an omniscient moral Oracle decided to reveal that the correct point before which abortions should be allowed was indeed somewhere strictly between the two bookends you mention. (Let's say that a super-majority of the public are indeed somewhere in this "middle ground", and, in a secular democracy, that's as close to an omniscient moral Oracle as you might be able to find). Now suppose that you are asked to decide where exactly that line is, taking into account this knowledge from the Oracle. But, imagine that at some point in the future, the Oracle might reveal where the line should have been drawn, and if your guess is a higher number than the Oracle's, then you are retrospectively guilty of manslaughter of all the zygotes/babies that were aborted at an age between your number and the Oracle's. I suspect that in this hypothetical scenario, you would pick "a five-cell zygote should be protected from abortion" as the line.
  - MockObject 4y ago
    Would that possibly be balanced by the chance that the Oracle could find in the opposite direction later, making us retrospectively guilty as well?
    - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
      What’s the guilt in that scenario. “Oops, you allowed a thing to become a person. “