5 ms·

The answer to the question in the title is contained in the title. For a number of reasons, we seem to have reached the point where hyperbolic, emotional state

The answer to the question in the title is contained in the title. For a number of reasons, we seem to have reached the point where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored. A world where everyone is trying to position themselves as the persecuted, besieged voice of reason defending simple truth against irrational attractors, does not leave much room for common ground. It's interesting to note that the author does seem to have had anyone accuse him of being "traitorous" for trying to understand. He just asserts this strawman to paint those who might disagree as unreasonable and then bemoans his asserted lack of common ground. I wish I could say this is an online phenomenon, and it's obviously much worse online, but it clearly has leaked into the offline world.

daenz 4y ago
>It's interesting to note that the author does seem to have had anyone accuse him of being "traitorous" for trying to understand. He just asserts this strawman to paint those who might disagree as unreasonable and then bemoans his asserted lack of common ground. Are you saying the author lacks credibility because they themselves do not show evidence of it happening to them? I'm confused, because the first and second sentences in your reply appears to acknowledge/agree with the author's conclusion. If you believe the author's complaint is legitimate, why claim they're making a strawman?
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  I'm not the person you're replying to but i believe that their point was that it is happening and this headline is an example of such behavior. We seem to often portrait ourself to be in a completely irrational victims position (like the headline) which usually doesn't exist. this makes finding the common ground for a discussion challenging.
- timoth3y 4y ago
  My apologies. That sentence should have read "does not seem to have had anyone accuse him of being..."
RobertRoberts 4y ago
Here is Milton Friedman discussing a politically charged topic with Bernie Sanders in a very civil manner. (though Bernie doesn't speak much) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo (ignore the inflammatory title and intro screen) Civility and decorum are what is missing today. And if it was taught in our schools today, and valued in society at large, maybe it we could still have debates like this.
- daenz 4y ago
  That looks absolutely nothing like a young Bernie Sanders, but there seems to be multiple places online claiming it is him.
  - RobertRoberts 4y ago
    That is interesting, an image search for "young bernie sanders" does bring up a distinctly different looking face. (one compares him to Jemaine Clement) Thank you for point this out. But, it still is an example of civil discourse. Another is Friedman arguing (civil, but a little more tense) with a young Michael Moore. (they do talk past each other a little) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7Fi8I-qOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7Fi8I-qOk (ignore inflammatory title/intro again)
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  True - and it's complicated by the popularity of pointing to other people's rationality and claiming it as your own in an attack on or exaggeration of the opinions and behaviors of others. Look at all the people in the comments who ostensibly want this, and yet are behaving exactly like all the people supposedly being contrasted with the example in the video. It's not "rationality is missing from politics" to most people, it's "rationality is missing from my political enemies".
- drewcoo 4y ago
  > Civility and decorum are what is missing today. That's what got us Joe Biden, who mostly has the same policies as Donald Trump, is a democrat who has always been a lot like a pretty conservative republican, but says nice things and only sniffs girls' hair instead of grabbing by the _____. Downvote for that if you like but the lesser of two appalling characters is still appalling. What's missing is a deeper understanding of issues, a willingness to understand not the other side but all sides of an issue, and a recognition that meeting in the middle is deciding not to decide. We need brains, backbones, and a willingness to avoid partisanship.
happytoexplain 4y ago
Yes, exactly. The title is encouraging hating people by accusing them of encouraging hating people. It does this in the usual way - by implying that a small group is representative of a large group.
- HardlyCurious 4y ago
  I think in general, hating people comes not from thinking they are doing something wrong, but from thinking they have some sort of bad intentionality behind their 'wrong' actions. That is where words like 'traitorous' come in, it implies bad intentions. However, the opinion piece doesn't impose any bad intentions behind the behavior he is critizing. He is just making the case that it is wrong. It is a very different thing, and not at all comparable.
hintymad 4y ago
> where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored. Rational and nuanced discussion requires patience, tolerance, energy, and a big heart to sometimes acknowledge that one is wrong. It's just so much easier to be angry, to be righteous, and to destroy the "enemies".
- SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
  Rational and nuanced discussion requires all of those items from both sides. The problem is that as such it devolves to a prisoners dilemma, so it is impossible for one to be invested into the mutually beneficial tactic of rational and nuanced discussion without opening oneself to being exploited by someone using game theory.
  - Tainnor 4y ago
    That's probably why rational and open discussion works best with people you know and trust and not necessarily with random people on the internet - at least when the stakes are high.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > It's just so much easier to be angry “Anger with its poisoned root and honeyed tip.” — the Buddha Anger is enticing. Anger gives you excitement. It makes you feel powerful and righteous. It’s not just easier to be angry, it’s alluring.
ActorNightly 4y ago
The underlying issue is that online political or social discourse isn't so much as discourse as much as the virtual form of people trying to fit in socially - people use political/social issues to signal what kind of person they are (or more accurately, what kind of person they want everyone else to think they are), in order to feel like they are part of a community. Once you understand the online social media through this lens, everything is easily explained, from how people converse and decide to ostracize people who don't agree right from the get go, to how websites are designed to drive user engagement.
- ertian 4y ago
  On top of that, and related: almost no conversations are private or intimate. Conversations have a vast potential audience. So people are less concerned with communicating their point or changing the mind of the person to whom they're speaking; instead, the goal is often to impress points on the implicit audience. That leads to a sort of competition for 'audience' mindshare, where conceding a point or acknowledging complexity feels like giving ground to the other side. In other words, it's not just about tribalism and a sense of belonging, it's also about lobbying for the positions and attitudes you hold and pushing out those you disagree with. You don't actually care much about the specific person you're talking to: you're performing for an audience. In a sense, we've all become politicians.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Only among the population vying for social status.
    - ertian 4y ago
      I don't think so. I'm not particularly interested in 'status', but I do want to propagate my opinions. When I'm replying to a comment online--like this one--I'm not really thinking of changing your opinion. I'm thinking how other people are going to read our comments, and what opinions they're coming away with. I don't care what they think of me, or of you, but I care what ideas propagate. Unfortunately, that undermines our conversation.

daenz 4y ago

>It's interesting to note that the author does seem to have had anyone accuse him of being "traitorous" for trying to understand. He just asserts this strawman to paint those who might disagree as unreasonable and then bemoans his asserted lack of common ground. Are you saying the author lacks credibility because they themselves do not show evidence of it happening to them? I'm confused, because the first and second sentences in your reply appears to acknowledge/agree with the author's conclusion. If you believe the author's complaint is legitimate, why claim they're making a strawman?

411111111111111 4y ago
I'm not the person you're replying to but i believe that their point was that it is happening and this headline is an example of such behavior. We seem to often portrait ourself to be in a completely irrational victims position (like the headline) which usually doesn't exist. this makes finding the common ground for a discussion challenging.
timoth3y 4y ago
My apologies. That sentence should have read "does not seem to have had anyone accuse him of being..."

RobertRoberts 4y ago

Here is Milton Friedman discussing a politically charged topic with Bernie Sanders in a very civil manner. (though Bernie doesn't speak much) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo (ignore the inflammatory title and intro screen) Civility and decorum are what is missing today. And if it was taught in our schools today, and valued in society at large, maybe it we could still have debates like this.

daenz 4y ago
That looks absolutely nothing like a young Bernie Sanders, but there seems to be multiple places online claiming it is him.
- RobertRoberts 4y ago
  That is interesting, an image search for "young bernie sanders" does bring up a distinctly different looking face. (one compares him to Jemaine Clement) Thank you for point this out. But, it still is an example of civil discourse. Another is Friedman arguing (civil, but a little more tense) with a young Michael Moore. (they do talk past each other a little) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7Fi8I-qOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7Fi8I-qOk (ignore inflammatory title/intro again)
happytoexplain 4y ago
True - and it's complicated by the popularity of pointing to other people's rationality and claiming it as your own in an attack on or exaggeration of the opinions and behaviors of others. Look at all the people in the comments who ostensibly want this, and yet are behaving exactly like all the people supposedly being contrasted with the example in the video. It's not "rationality is missing from politics" to most people, it's "rationality is missing from my political enemies".
drewcoo 4y ago
> Civility and decorum are what is missing today. That's what got us Joe Biden, who mostly has the same policies as Donald Trump, is a democrat who has always been a lot like a pretty conservative republican, but says nice things and only sniffs girls' hair instead of grabbing by the _____. Downvote for that if you like but the lesser of two appalling characters is still appalling. What's missing is a deeper understanding of issues, a willingness to understand not the other side but all sides of an issue, and a recognition that meeting in the middle is deciding not to decide. We need brains, backbones, and a willingness to avoid partisanship.

happytoexplain 4y ago

Yes, exactly. The title is encouraging hating people by accusing them of encouraging hating people. It does this in the usual way - by implying that a small group is representative of a large group.

HardlyCurious 4y ago
I think in general, hating people comes not from thinking they are doing something wrong, but from thinking they have some sort of bad intentionality behind their 'wrong' actions. That is where words like 'traitorous' come in, it implies bad intentions. However, the opinion piece doesn't impose any bad intentions behind the behavior he is critizing. He is just making the case that it is wrong. It is a very different thing, and not at all comparable.

hintymad 4y ago

> where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored. Rational and nuanced discussion requires patience, tolerance, energy, and a big heart to sometimes acknowledge that one is wrong. It's just so much easier to be angry, to be righteous, and to destroy the "enemies".

SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
Rational and nuanced discussion requires all of those items from both sides. The problem is that as such it devolves to a prisoners dilemma, so it is impossible for one to be invested into the mutually beneficial tactic of rational and nuanced discussion without opening oneself to being exploited by someone using game theory.
- Tainnor 4y ago
  That's probably why rational and open discussion works best with people you know and trust and not necessarily with random people on the internet - at least when the stakes are high.
TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
> It's just so much easier to be angry “Anger with its poisoned root and honeyed tip.” — the Buddha Anger is enticing. Anger gives you excitement. It makes you feel powerful and righteous. It’s not just easier to be angry, it’s alluring.

ActorNightly 4y ago

The underlying issue is that online political or social discourse isn't so much as discourse as much as the virtual form of people trying to fit in socially - people use political/social issues to signal what kind of person they are (or more accurately, what kind of person they want everyone else to think they are), in order to feel like they are part of a community. Once you understand the online social media through this lens, everything is easily explained, from how people converse and decide to ostracize people who don't agree right from the get go, to how websites are designed to drive user engagement.

ertian 4y ago
On top of that, and related: almost no conversations are private or intimate. Conversations have a vast potential audience. So people are less concerned with communicating their point or changing the mind of the person to whom they're speaking; instead, the goal is often to impress points on the implicit audience. That leads to a sort of competition for 'audience' mindshare, where conceding a point or acknowledging complexity feels like giving ground to the other side. In other words, it's not just about tribalism and a sense of belonging, it's also about lobbying for the positions and attitudes you hold and pushing out those you disagree with. You don't actually care much about the specific person you're talking to: you're performing for an audience. In a sense, we've all become politicians.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Only among the population vying for social status.
  - ertian 4y ago
    I don't think so. I'm not particularly interested in 'status', but I do want to propagate my opinions. When I'm replying to a comment online--like this one--I'm not really thinking of changing your opinion. I'm thinking how other people are going to read our comments, and what opinions they're coming away with. I don't care what they think of me, or of you, but I care what ideas propagate. Unfortunately, that undermines our conversation.