3 ms·

I don't think this is true. I think a lot of people were insulated from information that created a perception for them that those disagreements didn't exist. A

I don't think this is true. I think a lot of people were insulated from information that created a perception for them that those disagreements didn't exist. A lot of people are surprised to find out that people who don't live near them don't share their values.

brightball 4y ago
Oh, that was always true. It just wasn’t possible for those people to spend all day yelling at each other for it. The context of the disagreements was largely limited to newspapers and politicians. Some assumption of professionalism, editing and journalistic integrity was included with nationwide dialogues. The internet, Twitter, political amplification, bot amplification, media consolidation, etc have made it 1000x worse. Before, you could disagree on a topic and go about your day. Now you are beaten over the head with every topic constantly to remind you how much you disagree with it.
- forbiddenvoid 4y ago
  Some people could disagree on a topic and go about their day. That isn't true for everyone. One person's disagreement is another person's human rights. A lot of people prefer the comfort of ignorance to the discomfort of that knowledge.
  - brightball 4y ago
    And other people prefer to incite people to better control them via polarization.
  - throwawayacc2 4y ago
    And other people just pretend and seek attention, taking the tiniest discomfort and screeching “human rights! human rights!” left right and centre. All while every government institution and corporation bends over backwards to please them. A lot of people prefer the comfort of ignorance to the discomfort of that knowledge and even more prefer the comfort of their self made moral high horse from which they chastise everyone they deem unfit.
kansface 4y ago
> I don't think this is true. I think a lot of people were insulated from information that created a perception for them that those disagreements didn't exist. This is correct. The take away is something more along the lines of: when people don't know they disagree and therefore don't define themselves in terms of disagreement and further structure their lives around disagreement, they more readily work together; disagreements aren't attacks on personal branding/identity.
giantg2 4y ago
"A lot of people are surprised to find out that people who don't live near them don't share their values." Maybe. I feel like those people might be living under a rock. With all the media today it seems unlikely that an individual isn't attacked on at least one belief. I know I see constant attacks on my beliefs. The problem is that with fast transport, we are extending many laws to the larger geographic area (state or national level), which means increasing the size of the negatively affected groups since we are not homogeneous. Edit: why disagree?

brightball 4y ago

Oh, that was always true. It just wasn’t possible for those people to spend all day yelling at each other for it. The context of the disagreements was largely limited to newspapers and politicians. Some assumption of professionalism, editing and journalistic integrity was included with nationwide dialogues. The internet, Twitter, political amplification, bot amplification, media consolidation, etc have made it 1000x worse. Before, you could disagree on a topic and go about your day. Now you are beaten over the head with every topic constantly to remind you how much you disagree with it.

forbiddenvoid 4y ago
Some people could disagree on a topic and go about their day. That isn't true for everyone. One person's disagreement is another person's human rights. A lot of people prefer the comfort of ignorance to the discomfort of that knowledge.
- brightball 4y ago
  And other people prefer to incite people to better control them via polarization.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  And other people just pretend and seek attention, taking the tiniest discomfort and screeching “human rights! human rights!” left right and centre. All while every government institution and corporation bends over backwards to please them. A lot of people prefer the comfort of ignorance to the discomfort of that knowledge and even more prefer the comfort of their self made moral high horse from which they chastise everyone they deem unfit.

kansface 4y ago

> I don't think this is true. I think a lot of people were insulated from information that created a perception for them that those disagreements didn't exist. This is correct. The take away is something more along the lines of: when people don't know they disagree and therefore don't define themselves in terms of disagreement and further structure their lives around disagreement, they more readily work together; disagreements aren't attacks on personal branding/identity.

giantg2 4y ago

"A lot of people are surprised to find out that people who don't live near them don't share their values." Maybe. I feel like those people might be living under a rock. With all the media today it seems unlikely that an individual isn't attacked on at least one belief. I know I see constant attacks on my beliefs. The problem is that with fast transport, we are extending many laws to the larger geographic area (state or national level), which means increasing the size of the negatively affected groups since we are not homogeneous. Edit: why disagree?