4 ms·

The topic is about how people within these subsets of society begin to believe the norms of their subset are shared by society at large, or in other words - by

The topic is about how people within these subsets of society begin to believe the norms of their subset are shared by society at large, or in other words - by people outside their subset.

bloomingkales 2y ago
A bubble. Interestingly enough, we sit and talk in an incubator (thats what YT is). How can we really assess the situation from our own bubble? If we really want to be objective here. We're just as bat shit as society at large. Social media pretty much abused every generation. Truly a class action lawsuit is in order, if we only had the courage.
- throwaway984393 2y ago
  [dead]
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  > Social media pretty much abused every generation. That's a pretty extreme viewpoint, no?
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    There was a time when cocaine was not only legal but ubiquitous and being used in everything medical tonics, CocaCola, wines, employers were providing it to laborers, and so on endlessly. But it's not like cocaine became worse over time - it still had all the harmful and addictive characteristics that cocaine is known for. And so it was eventually banned because it was indeed 'abusing each generation.' The point I make is that something can gave beneficial and desirable characteristics, yet if the negatives are sufficiently large, then those positives are mostly irrelevant.
motorest 2y ago
> The topic is about how people within these subsets of society begin to believe the norms of their subset are shared by society at large, or in other words - by people outside their subset. Again, I think that's just a failure to frame the problem. Norms originate and develop organically within communities. If you have online communities that develop their own norms, and that community does not have a perfect 1-to-1 correspondence with other communities, such as your work or your local bar scene, then you're bound to stumble upon people who don't share them even though they are apart of other communities shared by you. The same applies if you replace "online community" with "work", "bar scene", "school board", etc. The only aspect that sounds remotely relevant is the online nature of said communities, but that's something that exist and is already known for decades.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  You're conflating global/local norms, which is the whole point. They are different. If I talk to a random American, I can safely assume they do not typically believe stoning people is a proper punishment for adultery, and even for the few Americans who do think that's reasonable, they also understand that's a fringe view. So the curiosity is when people hold fringe views that they begin to think are normal.

The topic is about how people within these subsets of society begin to believe the norms of their subset are shared by society at large, or in other words - by people outside their subset.

bloomingkales 2y ago

A bubble. Interestingly enough, we sit and talk in an incubator (thats what YT is). How can we really assess the situation from our own bubble? If we really want to be objective here. We're just as bat shit as society at large. Social media pretty much abused every generation. Truly a class action lawsuit is in order, if we only had the courage.

throwaway984393 2y ago
[dead]
CaptainFever 2y ago
> Social media pretty much abused every generation. That's a pretty extreme viewpoint, no?
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  There was a time when cocaine was not only legal but ubiquitous and being used in everything medical tonics, CocaCola, wines, employers were providing it to laborers, and so on endlessly. But it's not like cocaine became worse over time - it still had all the harmful and addictive characteristics that cocaine is known for. And so it was eventually banned because it was indeed 'abusing each generation.' The point I make is that something can gave beneficial and desirable characteristics, yet if the negatives are sufficiently large, then those positives are mostly irrelevant.

motorest 2y ago

> The topic is about how people within these subsets of society begin to believe the norms of their subset are shared by society at large, or in other words - by people outside their subset. Again, I think that's just a failure to frame the problem. Norms originate and develop organically within communities. If you have online communities that develop their own norms, and that community does not have a perfect 1-to-1 correspondence with other communities, such as your work or your local bar scene, then you're bound to stumble upon people who don't share them even though they are apart of other communities shared by you. The same applies if you replace "online community" with "work", "bar scene", "school board", etc. The only aspect that sounds remotely relevant is the online nature of said communities, but that's something that exist and is already known for decades.

ANewFormation 2y ago
You're conflating global/local norms, which is the whole point. They are different. If I talk to a random American, I can safely assume they do not typically believe stoning people is a proper punishment for adultery, and even for the few Americans who do think that's reasonable, they also understand that's a fringe view. So the curiosity is when people hold fringe views that they begin to think are normal.