6 ms·

we live in a society where we can't really voice, our opinions or grievances towards specific groups or cultures or issues as it is deemed politically incorrect

we live in a society where we can't really voice, our opinions or grievances towards specific groups or cultures or issues as it is deemed politically incorrect, so a lot of that has moved online, behind anonymity. Anonymity also plays an amplifying role. Larping as the target group and in many instances it becomes even easier to manipulate this much is true, but this is the price of forcing all of the healthy debates away from the off-line world because we fear offending. The contrast between the online off-line world that the author in the article alludes to is indicative of this. It's the unspoken role where we all know that speaking out has consequences often that impacts are economic well-being. There would be no way to get farm something for which there is no demand for...

doctorpangloss 1y ago
[flagged]
tokinonagare 1y ago
I agree, but even online is now heavily censored. It's harder and harder to find a place to express even slightly non-PC opinions. In my opinion this is not gonna produce good results in the long run.
- genghisjahn 1y ago
  What's a slightly non-pc opinion that's hard to find online?
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    I think there's a difference between an opinion being hard to find, and a place to express the opinion being hard to find. The more suppressed a view is, the more extreme the place where that view is allowed ends up being. Those places don't normally allow rational debate either. They're just a different kind of toxic, and have their own rules for what will get you dog piled.
    - JKCalhoun 1y ago
      That's kind of how it has always been though. Finding out that the people that share your views are people that you wouldn't want to associate with (I'm putting words in your mouth here, I'm sorry) is how I find I was able to grow up intellectually.
      - zdragnar 1y ago
        There have been places where reasonable debate was possible, but I suspect they were far more ephemeral than OP's recollection. It's kinda sad to watch places you enjoyed fall into it, though. One particular subreddit that I've never seen be overtly political before now has an effectively endorsed opinion on someone (not Trump). There's no point engaging with it, because piling on more hate is the only socially acceptable opinion there.
        JKCalhoun 1y ago
        Wild guess that that "someone" is Musk? Regardless, if you like the guy, you should defend him. If you can do it in a noncombative way you might at least get some people to back off a bit.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
JKCalhoun 1y ago
> we live in a society where we can't really voice, our opinions or grievances towards specific groups or cultures or issues as it is deemed politically incorrect I'm not sure what that means when I see people say that. Is it "People don't like it when I'm a dick so I have to hide when I do it?" Because if it's not that, just say what you think. I'd like to think I do, in public with co-workers, etc. They judge me then by that and I kind of deserve their judgement (which ever way it goes).
- mousethatroared 1y ago
  Or, it's criminal everywhere in the West except the USA. And not just dick opinions, pointing out the German politicians are not too bright has been criminalized now.
  - delusional 1y ago
    >German politicians are not too bright has been criminalized now. Haven't insults like that been illegal in Germany since the 1800s? This hardly seems new. It's just how the Germans like to run their laws.
    - mousethatroared 1y ago
      Most European countries criminalize insults, and there might be some merit to this among private individuals. But the EU, and Germany in particular, has upped the ante criminalizing obvious satire against politicians in a manner obviously meant to shield a very unpopular political class.
      - delusional 1y ago
        Ok? That just seems like a democratic law. I'd have to see an actual case of misuse to feel any alarm. What's the point of insulting/degrading politicians anyway?
        giingyui 1y ago
cjs_ac 1y ago
I think a big part of why influencers like Andrew Tate can speak unchallenged on social media is that anyone with the life experience, wisdom and social-media-savvy needed to be a better online role model for young men knows perfectly well that, due to the dynamics of such discourses, becoming that online role model will utterly destroy their life.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  Too bad then that anyone should look to an online influencer as a role model.
  - 9x39 1y ago
    We should not be surprised to see what pops up to fill a vacuum of positive in-person influence. Having their own firmer identity, adults may tut-tut at a new personality emerging they disagree with, but few of us ask why such personalities are finding root at all.
    - JKCalhoun 1y ago
      To be sure. I grew up with an absent father, so I get that. Perhaps dad spends too much time online too now? (Whoops.)
- PaulHoule 1y ago
  What about this guy? https://www.youtube.com/@HealthyGamerGG https://www.youtube.com/@HealthyGamerGG
- sieabahlpark 1y ago
  [dead]
delusional 1y ago
You're way underplaying the aplifying role of anonymity and connectedness. I have not observed a decrease in peoples willingness to discuss "politically incorrect" topics in real life out of fear. I have however observed an increasing intolerance for diverging opinions, especially coming from the "politically incorrect" group. They are not afraid of being called out, they have become intolerant of being called out.
- try_the_bass 1y ago
  I don't know that I agree with this. I think my information bubble is largely liberal-flavored, and my experience doesn't align with this. I've instead found that those who otherwise embody the most "political correctness" are often the least tolerant of having their views challenged. In fact, my experience has been that the more vocally "progressive" a user is, the more likely they are to resort to cheap zingers and gotchas (politically-correct ones, of course) when their views are challenged (even politely!), instead of engaging in a cooperative way. I saw this the most in the pre-Musk Twittersphere, but it has metastisized since then. Of course, it's unclear if these types are genuine, trolls, or simply a product of the medium itself, so take it with a grain of salt. > You're way underplaying the aplifying role of anonymity and connectedness Fully agree with this, though. I suspect this draws out the worst behavior regardless of professed political/moral affiliation
  - int_19h 1y ago
    Left-wing fediverse is a good illustration, too. The way things work on Mastodon, if you try to spin up a node, you quickly find out that many such nodes will ban you e.g. simply because you run Pleroma (because it's "made by fascists for fascists"), or even just because your block list doesn't have a sufficient similarity to theirs.
    - delusional 1y ago
      This isn't really anything new though. The same thing used to happen on IRC where the network would semi-frequently split because some relay was k-lined due to some internal politics. This seems to be an inherent feature of any federated, but otherwise rule-less system.

doctorpangloss 1y ago

[flagged]

tokinonagare 1y ago

I agree, but even online is now heavily censored. It's harder and harder to find a place to express even slightly non-PC opinions. In my opinion this is not gonna produce good results in the long run.

genghisjahn 1y ago
What's a slightly non-pc opinion that's hard to find online?
- zdragnar 1y ago
  I think there's a difference between an opinion being hard to find, and a place to express the opinion being hard to find. The more suppressed a view is, the more extreme the place where that view is allowed ends up being. Those places don't normally allow rational debate either. They're just a different kind of toxic, and have their own rules for what will get you dog piled.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    That's kind of how it has always been though. Finding out that the people that share your views are people that you wouldn't want to associate with (I'm putting words in your mouth here, I'm sorry) is how I find I was able to grow up intellectually.
    - zdragnar 1y ago
      There have been places where reasonable debate was possible, but I suspect they were far more ephemeral than OP's recollection. It's kinda sad to watch places you enjoyed fall into it, though. One particular subreddit that I've never seen be overtly political before now has an effectively endorsed opinion on someone (not Trump). There's no point engaging with it, because piling on more hate is the only socially acceptable opinion there.
      - JKCalhoun 1y ago
        Wild guess that that "someone" is Musk? Regardless, if you like the guy, you should defend him. If you can do it in a noncombative way you might at least get some people to back off a bit.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

JKCalhoun 1y ago

> we live in a society where we can't really voice, our opinions or grievances towards specific groups or cultures or issues as it is deemed politically incorrect I'm not sure what that means when I see people say that. Is it "People don't like it when I'm a dick so I have to hide when I do it?" Because if it's not that, just say what you think. I'd like to think I do, in public with co-workers, etc. They judge me then by that and I kind of deserve their judgement (which ever way it goes).

mousethatroared 1y ago
Or, it's criminal everywhere in the West except the USA. And not just dick opinions, pointing out the German politicians are not too bright has been criminalized now.
- delusional 1y ago
  >German politicians are not too bright has been criminalized now. Haven't insults like that been illegal in Germany since the 1800s? This hardly seems new. It's just how the Germans like to run their laws.
  - mousethatroared 1y ago
    Most European countries criminalize insults, and there might be some merit to this among private individuals. But the EU, and Germany in particular, has upped the ante criminalizing obvious satire against politicians in a manner obviously meant to shield a very unpopular political class.
    - delusional 1y ago
      Ok? That just seems like a democratic law. I'd have to see an actual case of misuse to feel any alarm. What's the point of insulting/degrading politicians anyway?
      - giingyui 1y ago

cjs_ac 1y ago

I think a big part of why influencers like Andrew Tate can speak unchallenged on social media is that anyone with the life experience, wisdom and social-media-savvy needed to be a better online role model for young men knows perfectly well that, due to the dynamics of such discourses, becoming that online role model will utterly destroy their life.

JKCalhoun 1y ago
Too bad then that anyone should look to an online influencer as a role model.
- 9x39 1y ago
  We should not be surprised to see what pops up to fill a vacuum of positive in-person influence. Having their own firmer identity, adults may tut-tut at a new personality emerging they disagree with, but few of us ask why such personalities are finding root at all.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    To be sure. I grew up with an absent father, so I get that. Perhaps dad spends too much time online too now? (Whoops.)
PaulHoule 1y ago
What about this guy? https://www.youtube.com/@HealthyGamerGG https://www.youtube.com/@HealthyGamerGG
sieabahlpark 1y ago
[dead]

delusional 1y ago

You're way underplaying the aplifying role of anonymity and connectedness. I have not observed a decrease in peoples willingness to discuss "politically incorrect" topics in real life out of fear. I have however observed an increasing intolerance for diverging opinions, especially coming from the "politically incorrect" group. They are not afraid of being called out, they have become intolerant of being called out.

try_the_bass 1y ago
I don't know that I agree with this. I think my information bubble is largely liberal-flavored, and my experience doesn't align with this. I've instead found that those who otherwise embody the most "political correctness" are often the least tolerant of having their views challenged. In fact, my experience has been that the more vocally "progressive" a user is, the more likely they are to resort to cheap zingers and gotchas (politically-correct ones, of course) when their views are challenged (even politely!), instead of engaging in a cooperative way. I saw this the most in the pre-Musk Twittersphere, but it has metastisized since then. Of course, it's unclear if these types are genuine, trolls, or simply a product of the medium itself, so take it with a grain of salt. > You're way underplaying the aplifying role of anonymity and connectedness Fully agree with this, though. I suspect this draws out the worst behavior regardless of professed political/moral affiliation
- int_19h 1y ago
  Left-wing fediverse is a good illustration, too. The way things work on Mastodon, if you try to spin up a node, you quickly find out that many such nodes will ban you e.g. simply because you run Pleroma (because it's "made by fascists for fascists"), or even just because your block list doesn't have a sufficient similarity to theirs.
  - delusional 1y ago
    This isn't really anything new though. The same thing used to happen on IRC where the network would semi-frequently split because some relay was k-lined due to some internal politics. This seems to be an inherent feature of any federated, but otherwise rule-less system.