10 ms·

I greatly enjoy talking with people in person (outdoors of course) these days about interesting things because it's such a rare occurrence... One of the most tr

I greatly enjoy talking with people in person (outdoors of course) these days about interesting things because it's such a rare occurrence... One of the most troubling things though is how many people get easily wound up (and aren't forgiving) about misunderstandings in conversations. People seem to be increasingly concrete in their judgements about social, economic, and political issues that have nothing to do with them as individuals, and often it results in fighting words, and that's crazy to me. A deep polarization is coming from many fronts, and it also over-emphasizes issues, making people far more offensive and defensive than before -- possibly heightened because of pandemic-related isolation and economic stress. I think a lot of people judge the world based on tropes... The small-minded view based only on the people they've observed, rather than being able to place themselves in the shoes of others they don't know, and it's a growing problem when narrowly focused people like this lead and make decisions for us all. I think we really need to reject the use of tropes in discussions as fact because it's toxic, but at the same time, I work hard to not be triggered by anything that's well intended. We all make mistakes, and as long as you can choose to walk away, being misunderstood is a small price to pay for regular human communication.

silisili 4y ago
This is likely the result of the recent braindead 'your intentions don't matter, only impact' mantra that has taken hold. Gone are the days of just trying to assume people mean the best, it's just about how things make us feel. It's hard for me to understand how we can progress as a country, or society perhaps, where collective reasoning and assuming the best in people has been replaced with focus on each person as an individual on an emotional level. Just seems like a recipe for...well, the way things are today.
- xmprt 4y ago
  > Gone are the days of just trying to assume people mean the best I think people have been bitten in the back enough time by assuming the best that people have switched to thinking this way. When you try to be nice and keep getting taken advantage of then it's hard to stay nice.
  - winternett 4y ago
    People meaning the best isn't good enough in a world where people are dying from polluted water in Flint... It doesn't mean much when racial hate groups are growing in membership as much as inflation... People meaning the best also doesn't mean much when government grants PPP loans to companies that abuse it. We're living in a scam economy... My best policy is to not really extend trust as much as extending "tiered courtesy" and carefully observing the results to determine how much more to give... I primarily work hardest on my own trustworthiness, because I know very well how easily any of us can become corrupted by bad times. Even some of the strongest marriages and families are being torn apart right now because of broken trust.. In my experience, trust is never a permanent state, although I wish it could be. One thing's for certain, there's not a single corporation I trust right now at all, they've been pretty merciless towards everyone except for their Investors and vested leadership.
    - alexalx666 4y ago
      Isn’t assuming no faul play a more peaceful personal Position? Why worry all the time if you can just worry when something actually happens
      - ok_dad 4y ago
        > Why worry all the time if you can just worry when something actually happens At least in the USA, one small mistake in trust or lack of safety in certain things ("something happening") could cause you to be on the street within months, even for people like those here on HN who generally have good jobs and such. I think it's getting a bit primal due to that here. We're acting like animals because we've been treated as such for decades and generations and we're finally sick of it. That's my opinion, not really backed up by anything.
- watwut 4y ago
  That is because the benefit of doubt was applied asymmetrically (some people got infinite amount of it, others almost none) and was abused by bad actors quite a lot. Also, ignoring impact meant that you could actively damage people you did not cared about while pretending ignorance again and again.
  - silisili 4y ago
    > Also, ignoring impact meant that you could actively damage people you did not cared about while pretending ignorance again and again. I definitely agree with that. I don't think either should be ignored, but weighed against each other. That's pretty close to how our legal system works for a lot of crimes. I'd also argue a person pretending innocence does -not- have good intentions, regardless of what they say.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      We've had an expression for it since before social media: "just asking questions".
- winternett 4y ago
  Agreed, even posting online is extremely frustrating now as there is no real connection/association with real faces and posts. I understand the isolation and stress that people feel, as I feel it too, however it doesn't license people to take their frustration and anger out on others. We need to start dealing with online aggression, and the other negative behaviors exhibited with more seriousness than simply banning or ratioing users... We also need to hold sites and communities accountable for equal access and presentation of users. People should be permitted to be wrong without getting banned or ratioed... That's what is not being allowed to play out properly... That experience only grows people who become moderators, and even politicians, that inflict the same hostile disregard and aggression towards others... "Hurt people hurt people". We always should thoroughly address and protect each other online from conversational misconduct and of course verbal or physical abuse, but it seems that Twitter alone encourages it as a means of gaining popularity on the platform... They should be called out for that.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  judging people by the consequences their actions have in the world is fine. Supervillains tend to be in short supply so generally even most heinous acts committed usually are done with, in the mind of the perpetrator, good intent. If someone affects you negatively you'd be smart to care about your own skin before you care about their intentions, that's not a recent invention and not an unreasonable way to navigate the world, it also has very little to do with emotions. On the contrary, trying to assume someone else's intent seems like a pretty emotional way to operate if anything.
  - winternett 4y ago
    > If someone affects you negatively you'd be smart to care about your own skin before you care about their intentions, THAT IS TRUTH... You cannot save a drowning person if you first can't swim.... You're both likely to drown... Try to maybe throw them a life vest or rope if you're on the boat, but only sacrifice yourself if you can't live without them. Trustworthiness is of infinite value, but most never learn where that gold is buried.
  - borroka 4y ago
    > judging people by the consequences their actions have in the world is fine. It depends very much on the consequences and their evaluation. If, exaggerating a bit for illustrative purposes, I say "Hello" to a colleague and that colleague is angry, disappointed, upset that I did not use a more formal "Good morning," which in their mind is reserved for more distinguished colleagues, it becomes a "monkey in the circus" problem. That is, I have to change my behavior because I am being manipulated as the more astute and cynical colleague wants: my intentions might be good, but the result is that they are angry and ready to talk to HR. One might read this and think, "This is an absurd case," it will never happen, of course HR, colleagues and all the people in the world will see clearly what is happening. But it does happen, and something similar has happened to me, when we believe that whatever way people react in their minds should be "honored."
  - jerojero 4y ago
    It's interesting what you say about supervillains being in short supply. I generally don't think of people as evil, as others have pointed out, it seems more of a societal/group miasma that envelops us. Lots of people are misinformed, and this misinformation hurts. Lots of people are trying to protect their own interests because they have their own believes on how the world should be and they generate and spread misinformation. Is that evil? I would say it's rather irresponsible. We can't ignore that actually there are people out there purposefully creating and spreading misinformation, none of them are supervillains. But together? This sort of bad-faith acting compounds quickly and harms society a great deal. And then as you go up the chain of power, what starts happening when powerful people put their interests and world view above everything? Would you say when Bill Gates actively campaigned against laws in Africa to lower AIDS medicines prices (through the abolition of intellectual property for these) that he was being "evil". What kind of world view will put the lives of thousands below intellectual property rights protections? This behaviour was repeated with the COVID vaccine. What about politicians that spread misinformation through social media or tv-shows such as Fox News? Would we consider these people to be "supervillains"? Maybe not... but again... together? I think the world is full of bad-faith and it's eating itself. But to me the real evil comes from individuals acting in their own self-interest without respecting others. Everyone is contributing a little bit, some contribute a lot more. But this situation is much more dangerous, in my opinion, than having a super-villain because evil seems to be hiding in everyone's best intentions.
- borroka 4y ago
  It reminds me of the time when my Director asked me what the main strengths of my colleagues were. The Director was not, I write this euphemistically, a genius. When asked about one of my peers, I said, "They are extraordinary at [this]"? The Director followed up with, "So you wanna say they are not good at [that]"? When bad intentions are assumed, there is always a firm grip on the climb to total idiocy. And that Director was in clear view of the summit.
- pjc50 4y ago
  There's a prisoner's dilemma thing going on: if you meet someone who assumes good intentions, you can scam them at least once for free. Normally the incidence of this is low, but it has been rising. Politics has always had a flexible relationship with the truth, but now the dishonesty and bait-and-switch is getting to a point where people feel they have been scammed. Conversely if you do have good intentions and you meet a person who has just been ripped off, do not expect them to take your "trust me bro" at face value. There is however an odd effect where people take a breach of trust as a reason to give themselves over to an even less trustworthy institution. 2008 financial crisis means you can't trust banks? Why not invest in a Singapore-based defi organisation promising much higher interest rates? MSM trust lost after Iraq war? Why not get your news from the Russian state propaganda channel instead?
CPLX 4y ago
Just a guess but it sounds like it’s the style of discussion common online bleeding into real life.
kmtrowbr 4y ago
It's even worse: the views that folks are getting all worked up about, aren't their own personally formed opinions -- they are being programmed with these opinions via media, advertising, etc. Then we hold these opinions so strongly that if we disagree about anything at all -- any nuance, out of the infinite menu of "correct" opinions -- we argue bitterly ... driving apart friends, families, etc. We must learn to hold opinions more lightly and to value direct experiences & physical relationships with real people, more than virtual experience. It's sad because at the end of the day we all have so much in common, but we are becoming convinced that we're so different and what's more, that others are in fact evil people. Great pain and trouble might come from this trend.
- dexwiz 4y ago
  This. Talking to people on both sides, it's all just regurgitation of headlines and pundits. Most people know how to deal with people who are "with" them or "against" them, but don't know how to react to someone who partially agrees, or agrees on issues, but not solutions. Anything outside of mainstream rhetoric is immediately labeled conspiratorial. Which is strange to me. Most people on both sides seem to recognize the media is rigged by big money, but they don't seem equipped or encouraged to form their own opinions that incorporate this knowledge. Also I think experience has been devalued because its anecdotal. Only facts from an omniscient source are accepted, no matter their often dubious original.
  - kmtrowbr 4y ago
    It seems crazy to say but I think it may all boil down to a massive influx of inexperienced readers. That plus the fact that most content on on the internet is not to be taken quite at face value. Counterintuitively I believe there are more people reading and communicating textually than ever before. Way more! That would be good except they are doing it all via the Internet which is an absolute free for all of weaponized content, created for commercial or political purposes. Critical reading and thinking skills are needed to navigate the internet. ----- This book is kind of funny: [The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind](https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072 https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicame...) ... but it is good for hypothesizing about how consciousness has evolved. The relevant part to this discussion is when he writes about people literally being driven insane by the birth of writing. They were just unable to integrate the new influx of information quickly enough. Imagine your dog for example, learning to read. It would be quite the experience for poor Fido. The printing press, in time, caused the reformation, the enlightenment, etc. But it was a bumpy road along the way. My point is that, everyone having the internet in their pocket will have a larger impact than anyone anticipates today.
Barrin92 4y ago
I've rarely seen someone upset about social, economic or political issues that don't affect them. Given the very nature of social, economic or political issues though as matters of public concern by their definition that's also pretty rare to begin with. The article talks about false personalization, giving the example of someone being wrongly upset about a friend not inviting them to a social event, misinterpreting something that didn't involve them. Views on social issues inherently involve most people. If you hold, and exercise politically an opinion that as a result has a real, negative effect on me being defensive is reasonable.
- simonh 4y ago
  >I've rarely seen someone upset about social, economic or political issues that don't affect them. I’ve seen it a lot, some of the most vehemently lefty Marxists I’ve known or met came from very well off backgrounds. Class guilt is very much a thing. I’m fact the dissociation between middle class socialists and actual working class people has become a significant factor in UK politics recently.
  - t-3 4y ago
    Political and economic opinions do not have to be purely self-serving or beneficial to their holder. Do you think whites in the US who agitated for civil rights were uneffected by segregation? How about Germans who helped Jews hide or escape during the Nazi period? Society is more than just each individual, it is a whole which cannot be reasonably considered in the small.
    - simonh 4y ago
      >Political and economic opinions do not have to be purely self-serving or beneficial to their holder. Yes, that's exactly the point I'm making.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    Don't those issues affect all of us? I'm not poor, but having a lot of people without opportunities around me leads to rising crime, homeless camp and it's genuinely disheartening. I'm vehemently in favor of UBI even though I'd be likely a net payer. I don't want misery around me.
t0bia_s 4y ago
Why outdoors?
- winternett 4y ago
  Safer during the on-going coronavirus epidemic than indoor conversations (with strangers).
  - liquidise 4y ago
    This strikes me as an ironic microcosm of your original comment.
    - winternett 4y ago
      How so? By meeting outside to talk it has been widely confirmed by scientists to be better in preventing contraction of the virus... In addition to that, the one time I caught it was when I attended an indoor event for an extended period of time.... I don't however force my personal views on the matter upon others, it's just how I personally operate with people who don't live with me.
      - benjaminwootton 4y ago
        If it’s unwise to have conversations indoors for the next few decades, that’s a much more corrosive and concerning issue for society than everything else being discussed in this thread! I doubt we would have ever discovered fire or invented the wheel if we didn’t have a nice warm cave to ruminate in.
    - t0bia_s 4y ago
      Exactly.
  - t0bia_s 4y ago
    Where are you from? How is it safer? It's probably not work here... I speak with strangers indoors everyday and I'm fine.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I think this effect is actually highly dependent on who you are. In my experience people have actually become more open to discuss many subjects with me. I'm also visibly nonwhite in a white-majority country. In my youth, I was frequently bullied, harassed, and made to feel unsafe because of my nonwhite status. This has become less acceptable now that I'm older. I've also found I feel safer in cutting out racists from my social circle, whereas in the past I had to smile and accept being told immigrants like me are shitstains on the country while I am "one of the good ones".
- russelldjimmy 4y ago
  As a non-white person living outside of the US, I am curious about your experience. Would you care to elaborate?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
voxl 4y ago
The fact that you haven't included any examples makes the mind wonder
- winternett 4y ago
  I avoided instances to avoid distraction from the main topic... Nothing is worse online than expecting a specific on-topic discussion and then seeing a long trail of comments that have nothing to do with the source topic... hah. cough Reddit.
muffinman26 4y ago
>> People seem to be increasingly concrete in their judgements about social, economic, and political issues that have nothing to do with them as individuals I'm not discounting your point, I definitely know many people that get easily wound-up about issues that have nothing to do with them, but simply something to consider: If you're talking to strangers or acquaintances, are you really sure that the issues they are fighting about don't relate to them personally? There are one or two political issues that I consider literally a matter of life-or-death. As in, I know people personally who would likely have died if a situation that happened to them a few years ago in one state in the US happened a few weeks ago in a different state in the US. I agree with your general premise that people need to stop judging the world based on tropes - that's the problem that causes the political issues I'm thinking of - but it's hard not to occasionally get angry when people keep talking about life-or-death issues as if they're some sort of abstract galaxy brain.
- Aunche 4y ago
  Even if the political issue is literally life or death, chances are the actual person you're talking to has very little to do with the actual political outcomes. It still doesn't make sense to ostracize some for simply have different beliefs. For example, plenty of Muslims and Jews get along just fine in Jerusalem, even when they may have sympathies towards Hamas or Zionists respectively. It's these relationships that prevent future misunderstandings that lead to more suffering.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- projectazorian 4y ago
  Yeah, it's suspect when people complain about getting judged for their views, then fail to state what the views are. It often turns out that the views in question are something that people have good reason to disapprove of - racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.
  - jwarden 4y ago
noduerme 4y ago
>> People seem to be increasingly concrete yeah. I'm lucky enough to have several circles of cafe/bar friends who also enjoy open conversations. Even if we all frequently disagree, that's part of the fun. I've run into so many of this new younger generation who seem incapable of abstractly considering a topic without dragging their emotional baggage into it. I guess it's a result of helicopter parenting and social media reinforcement of the notion that speech you don't like is a form of violence. For better or worse, I just hold my ground and ease them into the idea that we can disagree and still not be enemies. Just the same as I used to do with right wing lunatics for most of my life.
8note 4y ago
There's pretty good reason to be quite concrete. The government is infringing on many peoples rights, aiming to force child rape victims to also become pre-teen parents, or to keep dead fetuses in the womb to promote infections for the sake of somebody else's religious purity. Becoming concrete and opinionated isn't happening in a vaccuum. The high and mighty detached conversation was for 20 years+ ago
shreyshnaccount 4y ago
its all identity politics. its driving this sort of tribal behaviour that a. only let's you think in right and wrong, leaving no room for ambiguity or nuance and b. forms an in-group and an out-group to maintain an us versus them mentality. a lot of my peers do this. i don't know why. might have something to do with me not using social apps for consuming content idk

silisili 4y ago

This is likely the result of the recent braindead 'your intentions don't matter, only impact' mantra that has taken hold. Gone are the days of just trying to assume people mean the best, it's just about how things make us feel. It's hard for me to understand how we can progress as a country, or society perhaps, where collective reasoning and assuming the best in people has been replaced with focus on each person as an individual on an emotional level. Just seems like a recipe for...well, the way things are today.

xmprt 4y ago
> Gone are the days of just trying to assume people mean the best I think people have been bitten in the back enough time by assuming the best that people have switched to thinking this way. When you try to be nice and keep getting taken advantage of then it's hard to stay nice.
- winternett 4y ago
  People meaning the best isn't good enough in a world where people are dying from polluted water in Flint... It doesn't mean much when racial hate groups are growing in membership as much as inflation... People meaning the best also doesn't mean much when government grants PPP loans to companies that abuse it. We're living in a scam economy... My best policy is to not really extend trust as much as extending "tiered courtesy" and carefully observing the results to determine how much more to give... I primarily work hardest on my own trustworthiness, because I know very well how easily any of us can become corrupted by bad times. Even some of the strongest marriages and families are being torn apart right now because of broken trust.. In my experience, trust is never a permanent state, although I wish it could be. One thing's for certain, there's not a single corporation I trust right now at all, they've been pretty merciless towards everyone except for their Investors and vested leadership.
  - alexalx666 4y ago
    Isn’t assuming no faul play a more peaceful personal Position? Why worry all the time if you can just worry when something actually happens
    - ok_dad 4y ago
      > Why worry all the time if you can just worry when something actually happens At least in the USA, one small mistake in trust or lack of safety in certain things ("something happening") could cause you to be on the street within months, even for people like those here on HN who generally have good jobs and such. I think it's getting a bit primal due to that here. We're acting like animals because we've been treated as such for decades and generations and we're finally sick of it. That's my opinion, not really backed up by anything.
watwut 4y ago
That is because the benefit of doubt was applied asymmetrically (some people got infinite amount of it, others almost none) and was abused by bad actors quite a lot. Also, ignoring impact meant that you could actively damage people you did not cared about while pretending ignorance again and again.
- silisili 4y ago
  > Also, ignoring impact meant that you could actively damage people you did not cared about while pretending ignorance again and again. I definitely agree with that. I don't think either should be ignored, but weighed against each other. That's pretty close to how our legal system works for a lot of crimes. I'd also argue a person pretending innocence does -not- have good intentions, regardless of what they say.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    We've had an expression for it since before social media: "just asking questions".
winternett 4y ago
Agreed, even posting online is extremely frustrating now as there is no real connection/association with real faces and posts. I understand the isolation and stress that people feel, as I feel it too, however it doesn't license people to take their frustration and anger out on others. We need to start dealing with online aggression, and the other negative behaviors exhibited with more seriousness than simply banning or ratioing users... We also need to hold sites and communities accountable for equal access and presentation of users. People should be permitted to be wrong without getting banned or ratioed... That's what is not being allowed to play out properly... That experience only grows people who become moderators, and even politicians, that inflict the same hostile disregard and aggression towards others... "Hurt people hurt people". We always should thoroughly address and protect each other online from conversational misconduct and of course verbal or physical abuse, but it seems that Twitter alone encourages it as a means of gaining popularity on the platform... They should be called out for that.
Barrin92 4y ago
judging people by the consequences their actions have in the world is fine. Supervillains tend to be in short supply so generally even most heinous acts committed usually are done with, in the mind of the perpetrator, good intent. If someone affects you negatively you'd be smart to care about your own skin before you care about their intentions, that's not a recent invention and not an unreasonable way to navigate the world, it also has very little to do with emotions. On the contrary, trying to assume someone else's intent seems like a pretty emotional way to operate if anything.
- winternett 4y ago
  > If someone affects you negatively you'd be smart to care about your own skin before you care about their intentions, THAT IS TRUTH... You cannot save a drowning person if you first can't swim.... You're both likely to drown... Try to maybe throw them a life vest or rope if you're on the boat, but only sacrifice yourself if you can't live without them. Trustworthiness is of infinite value, but most never learn where that gold is buried.
- borroka 4y ago
  > judging people by the consequences their actions have in the world is fine. It depends very much on the consequences and their evaluation. If, exaggerating a bit for illustrative purposes, I say "Hello" to a colleague and that colleague is angry, disappointed, upset that I did not use a more formal "Good morning," which in their mind is reserved for more distinguished colleagues, it becomes a "monkey in the circus" problem. That is, I have to change my behavior because I am being manipulated as the more astute and cynical colleague wants: my intentions might be good, but the result is that they are angry and ready to talk to HR. One might read this and think, "This is an absurd case," it will never happen, of course HR, colleagues and all the people in the world will see clearly what is happening. But it does happen, and something similar has happened to me, when we believe that whatever way people react in their minds should be "honored."
- jerojero 4y ago
  It's interesting what you say about supervillains being in short supply. I generally don't think of people as evil, as others have pointed out, it seems more of a societal/group miasma that envelops us. Lots of people are misinformed, and this misinformation hurts. Lots of people are trying to protect their own interests because they have their own believes on how the world should be and they generate and spread misinformation. Is that evil? I would say it's rather irresponsible. We can't ignore that actually there are people out there purposefully creating and spreading misinformation, none of them are supervillains. But together? This sort of bad-faith acting compounds quickly and harms society a great deal. And then as you go up the chain of power, what starts happening when powerful people put their interests and world view above everything? Would you say when Bill Gates actively campaigned against laws in Africa to lower AIDS medicines prices (through the abolition of intellectual property for these) that he was being "evil". What kind of world view will put the lives of thousands below intellectual property rights protections? This behaviour was repeated with the COVID vaccine. What about politicians that spread misinformation through social media or tv-shows such as Fox News? Would we consider these people to be "supervillains"? Maybe not... but again... together? I think the world is full of bad-faith and it's eating itself. But to me the real evil comes from individuals acting in their own self-interest without respecting others. Everyone is contributing a little bit, some contribute a lot more. But this situation is much more dangerous, in my opinion, than having a super-villain because evil seems to be hiding in everyone's best intentions.
borroka 4y ago
It reminds me of the time when my Director asked me what the main strengths of my colleagues were. The Director was not, I write this euphemistically, a genius. When asked about one of my peers, I said, "They are extraordinary at [this]"? The Director followed up with, "So you wanna say they are not good at [that]"? When bad intentions are assumed, there is always a firm grip on the climb to total idiocy. And that Director was in clear view of the summit.
pjc50 4y ago
There's a prisoner's dilemma thing going on: if you meet someone who assumes good intentions, you can scam them at least once for free. Normally the incidence of this is low, but it has been rising. Politics has always had a flexible relationship with the truth, but now the dishonesty and bait-and-switch is getting to a point where people feel they have been scammed. Conversely if you do have good intentions and you meet a person who has just been ripped off, do not expect them to take your "trust me bro" at face value. There is however an odd effect where people take a breach of trust as a reason to give themselves over to an even less trustworthy institution. 2008 financial crisis means you can't trust banks? Why not invest in a Singapore-based defi organisation promising much higher interest rates? MSM trust lost after Iraq war? Why not get your news from the Russian state propaganda channel instead?

CPLX 4y ago

Just a guess but it sounds like it’s the style of discussion common online bleeding into real life.

kmtrowbr 4y ago

It's even worse: the views that folks are getting all worked up about, aren't their own personally formed opinions -- they are being programmed with these opinions via media, advertising, etc. Then we hold these opinions so strongly that if we disagree about anything at all -- any nuance, out of the infinite menu of "correct" opinions -- we argue bitterly ... driving apart friends, families, etc. We must learn to hold opinions more lightly and to value direct experiences & physical relationships with real people, more than virtual experience. It's sad because at the end of the day we all have so much in common, but we are becoming convinced that we're so different and what's more, that others are in fact evil people. Great pain and trouble might come from this trend.

dexwiz 4y ago
This. Talking to people on both sides, it's all just regurgitation of headlines and pundits. Most people know how to deal with people who are "with" them or "against" them, but don't know how to react to someone who partially agrees, or agrees on issues, but not solutions. Anything outside of mainstream rhetoric is immediately labeled conspiratorial. Which is strange to me. Most people on both sides seem to recognize the media is rigged by big money, but they don't seem equipped or encouraged to form their own opinions that incorporate this knowledge. Also I think experience has been devalued because its anecdotal. Only facts from an omniscient source are accepted, no matter their often dubious original.
- kmtrowbr 4y ago
  It seems crazy to say but I think it may all boil down to a massive influx of inexperienced readers. That plus the fact that most content on on the internet is not to be taken quite at face value. Counterintuitively I believe there are more people reading and communicating textually than ever before. Way more! That would be good except they are doing it all via the Internet which is an absolute free for all of weaponized content, created for commercial or political purposes. Critical reading and thinking skills are needed to navigate the internet. ----- This book is kind of funny: [The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind](https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072 https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicame...) ... but it is good for hypothesizing about how consciousness has evolved. The relevant part to this discussion is when he writes about people literally being driven insane by the birth of writing. They were just unable to integrate the new influx of information quickly enough. Imagine your dog for example, learning to read. It would be quite the experience for poor Fido. The printing press, in time, caused the reformation, the enlightenment, etc. But it was a bumpy road along the way. My point is that, everyone having the internet in their pocket will have a larger impact than anyone anticipates today.

Barrin92 4y ago

I've rarely seen someone upset about social, economic or political issues that don't affect them. Given the very nature of social, economic or political issues though as matters of public concern by their definition that's also pretty rare to begin with. The article talks about false personalization, giving the example of someone being wrongly upset about a friend not inviting them to a social event, misinterpreting something that didn't involve them. Views on social issues inherently involve most people. If you hold, and exercise politically an opinion that as a result has a real, negative effect on me being defensive is reasonable.

simonh 4y ago
>I've rarely seen someone upset about social, economic or political issues that don't affect them. I’ve seen it a lot, some of the most vehemently lefty Marxists I’ve known or met came from very well off backgrounds. Class guilt is very much a thing. I’m fact the dissociation between middle class socialists and actual working class people has become a significant factor in UK politics recently.
- t-3 4y ago
  Political and economic opinions do not have to be purely self-serving or beneficial to their holder. Do you think whites in the US who agitated for civil rights were uneffected by segregation? How about Germans who helped Jews hide or escape during the Nazi period? Society is more than just each individual, it is a whole which cannot be reasonably considered in the small.
  - simonh 4y ago
    >Political and economic opinions do not have to be purely self-serving or beneficial to their holder. Yes, that's exactly the point I'm making.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  Don't those issues affect all of us? I'm not poor, but having a lot of people without opportunities around me leads to rising crime, homeless camp and it's genuinely disheartening. I'm vehemently in favor of UBI even though I'd be likely a net payer. I don't want misery around me.

t0bia_s 4y ago

Why outdoors?

winternett 4y ago
Safer during the on-going coronavirus epidemic than indoor conversations (with strangers).
- liquidise 4y ago
  This strikes me as an ironic microcosm of your original comment.
  - winternett 4y ago
    How so? By meeting outside to talk it has been widely confirmed by scientists to be better in preventing contraction of the virus... In addition to that, the one time I caught it was when I attended an indoor event for an extended period of time.... I don't however force my personal views on the matter upon others, it's just how I personally operate with people who don't live with me.
    - benjaminwootton 4y ago
      If it’s unwise to have conversations indoors for the next few decades, that’s a much more corrosive and concerning issue for society than everything else being discussed in this thread! I doubt we would have ever discovered fire or invented the wheel if we didn’t have a nice warm cave to ruminate in.
  - t0bia_s 4y ago
    Exactly.
- t0bia_s 4y ago
  Where are you from? How is it safer? It's probably not work here... I speak with strangers indoors everyday and I'm fine.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

I think this effect is actually highly dependent on who you are. In my experience people have actually become more open to discuss many subjects with me. I'm also visibly nonwhite in a white-majority country. In my youth, I was frequently bullied, harassed, and made to feel unsafe because of my nonwhite status. This has become less acceptable now that I'm older. I've also found I feel safer in cutting out racists from my social circle, whereas in the past I had to smile and accept being told immigrants like me are shitstains on the country while I am "one of the good ones".

russelldjimmy 4y ago
As a non-white person living outside of the US, I am curious about your experience. Would you care to elaborate?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

voxl 4y ago

The fact that you haven't included any examples makes the mind wonder

winternett 4y ago
I avoided instances to avoid distraction from the main topic... Nothing is worse online than expecting a specific on-topic discussion and then seeing a long trail of comments that have nothing to do with the source topic... hah. cough Reddit.

muffinman26 4y ago

>> People seem to be increasingly concrete in their judgements about social, economic, and political issues that have nothing to do with them as individuals I'm not discounting your point, I definitely know many people that get easily wound-up about issues that have nothing to do with them, but simply something to consider: If you're talking to strangers or acquaintances, are you really sure that the issues they are fighting about don't relate to them personally? There are one or two political issues that I consider literally a matter of life-or-death. As in, I know people personally who would likely have died if a situation that happened to them a few years ago in one state in the US happened a few weeks ago in a different state in the US. I agree with your general premise that people need to stop judging the world based on tropes - that's the problem that causes the political issues I'm thinking of - but it's hard not to occasionally get angry when people keep talking about life-or-death issues as if they're some sort of abstract galaxy brain.

Aunche 4y ago
Even if the political issue is literally life or death, chances are the actual person you're talking to has very little to do with the actual political outcomes. It still doesn't make sense to ostracize some for simply have different beliefs. For example, plenty of Muslims and Jews get along just fine in Jerusalem, even when they may have sympathies towards Hamas or Zionists respectively. It's these relationships that prevent future misunderstandings that lead to more suffering.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
projectazorian 4y ago
Yeah, it's suspect when people complain about getting judged for their views, then fail to state what the views are. It often turns out that the views in question are something that people have good reason to disapprove of - racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.
- jwarden 4y ago

noduerme 4y ago

>> People seem to be increasingly concrete yeah. I'm lucky enough to have several circles of cafe/bar friends who also enjoy open conversations. Even if we all frequently disagree, that's part of the fun. I've run into so many of this new younger generation who seem incapable of abstractly considering a topic without dragging their emotional baggage into it. I guess it's a result of helicopter parenting and social media reinforcement of the notion that speech you don't like is a form of violence. For better or worse, I just hold my ground and ease them into the idea that we can disagree and still not be enemies. Just the same as I used to do with right wing lunatics for most of my life.

8note 4y ago

There's pretty good reason to be quite concrete. The government is infringing on many peoples rights, aiming to force child rape victims to also become pre-teen parents, or to keep dead fetuses in the womb to promote infections for the sake of somebody else's religious purity. Becoming concrete and opinionated isn't happening in a vaccuum. The high and mighty detached conversation was for 20 years+ ago

shreyshnaccount 4y ago

its all identity politics. its driving this sort of tribal behaviour that a. only let's you think in right and wrong, leaving no room for ambiguity or nuance and b. forms an in-group and an out-group to maintain an us versus them mentality. a lot of my peers do this. i don't know why. might have something to do with me not using social apps for consuming content idk