5 ms·

Get offline. Meet people. Most people want the same thing. This is honestly crazy that we do this to ourselves

euroderf 1y ago
But think of all the faux engagement! Think of all the advertising revenue! Won't someone think of the poor shareholders?
cosmicgadget 1y ago
What like "prosperity for ourselves and our children"? I think the issues arise when it gets a smidge more nuanced then that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > the issues arise when it gets a smidge more nuanced then that The issues arise when folks get distracted from common prosperity. I meet so many people in the Rockies and New York who are up in arms about some imaginary problem, or a problem they have no influence over and which cannot affect them, one they solely know about due to social media.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    What's that problem? Do we achieve common prosperity through regulation or deregulation? Welfare state or trickle down? Fiscal responsibility or speculation? Strong dollar or weak dollar? Free market or protectionism? The parties (one in particular) can't even keep a consistent policy from year to year, I am not sure how we can hold hands and find the unified path to common prosperity.
    - anon291 1y ago
      While all these things matter, I'm not sure what level of business regulation v deregulation causes you to turn to violent rhetoric.
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago
        I thought the topic was "if we talked in person we would realize we have a common objective so things would be fine". Violence is definitely a kind of disagreement but my point was that irl discussions don't solve polarization, i.e. "regulation/deregulation cannot lead us to prosperity". Also plenty of politicians have said regulation is literal communism and literal communism makes a lot of people mad.
- palmfacehn 1y ago
  Specifically, it feels like the lack of discernment goes off the rails and falls into the chasm of derangement where people assume that their opponents do not have that common goal. Anti-natalists and population control advocates excluded, most of us do share that goal. The differences are in the proposed approaches. There are legitimate discussions which can be had about those approaches to achieving that common goal. The discussion is no longer in good faith where partisans deny that common goal or assume evil intent.
  - weregiraffe 1y ago
    What about the millions of, for example, Muslims, who have a very particular idea of what "prosperity" means? Especially for your female children.
    - woooooo 1y ago
      Do fundamentalist Muslims have a realistic chance of imposing those views on your nation? Because, if not, you Fell For It Again. (Aside, every western Muslim I've personally met has been chill)
      - zpeti 1y ago
        Realistic is a very broad term, but do you think they don’t have an effect? And where you are from matters a lot, you will probably answer very differently if you are from California or if you are from Birmingham UK.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - febusravenga 1y ago
        In western Germany, France, UK? Traditionally catholic countries, core of European enlightenment culture. Yes there is small, but realistic chance. That's why right shovinism is rising in eu
    - 1y ago
- anon291 1y ago
  Yeah but when you discuss nuances in person rather than online your natural social chemistry in your brain kicks in and we all behave like actual people instead of mindless savages
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    With the downside that it's harder to reference (and look up) sources, and have wide participation or an easily-accessible record. And ultimately you're not going to convince many people to stop voting based on that one book.
- anon7000 1y ago
  There are a large number of policy issues the average American should be able to agree on, but have been polarized to the point that we don’t solve them. - Get money out of politics. Everyone complains about corruption, no one tries to do a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizens United. - Strong privacy protections for your online data. Does anyone like the fact that your data gets sold and then used against you by car insurance companies? - Break up big companies that are taking their power too far. Seriously, take your Syscos, Nestles, AB InBevs of the world and break them up. No company deserves to have that much power over consumer markets, and the centralization of that power definitely makes prices higher. My conservative parents definitely don’t like how when Walmart and Rite Aid came to small-town midewest, all the local drug & grocery stores went out of business. - Every American knows our private health insurance system sucks. I mean every person you meet either doesn’t have good coverage, hasn’t used it much, or has had had a terrible experience with it. - We need to do away with police overstep like asset forfeiture, where the government can basically just rob you. I’m not talking defund the police, but you could sit the average American down, and probably come to agree that the police state has too much power and not enough accountability in a couple areas. There are so many stories along these lines which could get republicans and democrats on a similar page, and it comes down to the frustrations we ALL have with the systems we live in. It doesn’t matter who you voted for, when health insurance starts scamming you out of a procedure you need, it’s frustrating on a deeply personal level. And we all feel like we don’t have much control over federal policy — partly because businesses & moneyed interests can protect their interests while everyone else struggles, no matter who’s in charge. (And btw, this isn’t a elected officials on both sides are the same comment, more of a “we Americans have a lot of shared frustrations regardless of party”
  - mock-possum 1y ago
    - same sex marriage should be treated equally to heterosexual marriage - the tradition of gender being strictly tied to genitalia at birth should be abolished, with individuals able to change gender (and genitals) at their whim Oops Americans don’t agree on queer rights and equality oops - everyone should be treated equally and afford equal protection under the law, regardless of where they were born or what the colour of the skin is or what their genitals look like Oops oops
obscurette 1y ago
Unfortunately it's not that simple any more. There are already very fundamental issues on which we are already very polarized, online or not. One of these is safety for example – far too many people are ready to give up any freedoms in the name of security. Ideas for EU chatcontrol, camera networks etc don't come from some bureaucrats, there is a very broad social demand for this.
- mcny 1y ago
  > there is a very broad social demand for this I don't believe you. My guess is the demand comes from manufactured consent, not from people who deeply understand the issue.
  - ako 1y ago
    Voters in democracies are usually not people who deeply understand issues. We outsource that to politicians, but politicians have a second agenda, serving the people who paid their campaign.
  - Nasrudith 1y ago
    The very concept of manufactured consent seems very much projection on Chomsky's part. Very much, 'they don't agree with me but I know what their real interests are so I can speak for them better than they can for themselves' crap to turn the masses into sock puppets to win arguments.
    - jdub 1y ago
      It's possible you've missed the entire 20th Century and 21st Century thus far, so an exhaustive list of examples would be impractical, but perhaps take a moment to ponder just a couple: - "yellow cake uranium" - "a land without people for a people without a land"
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > The very concept of manufactured consent seems very much projection on Chomsky's part Per Chomsky, the co-authored work is more Herman's than his, and anyhow the phrase and concept is from Walter Lipmann, 66 years before Herman and Chomsky's work with the title inspired by it (and 51 years before their first book on the topic.) But, no, neither the idea that deliberate propaganda is a major source of political beliefs or the particular manner and mechanisms by which the US media is involved in delivering that propaganda is "projection". > Very much, 'they don't agree with me but I know what their real interests are so I can speak for them better than they can for themselves' crap Manufacturing Consent doesn't pretend to be an exploration of what the “real interests” of the public are; it can't be misleading "projection" at doing that, because it doesn't do it at all.
hermannj314 1y ago
If you see yourself in the hegemon, sure. This strategy has also led to horrible brutality against marginal groups.
protocolture 1y ago
Lots of people just want to use political processes to hurt their perceived enemies.
weregiraffe 1y ago
>Get offline. Meet people. Most people want the same thing. A lot of people want more freedom. It's easy to identify with this, until you get into details. For example: - Lower taxes. - Easier access to weapons. - Lower age of consent. These are all things that increase freedom, by some definition.
- rapnie 1y ago
  Go for balanced freedom. Against humanity, and place humanity first.
  - weregiraffe 1y ago
    But who gets to define humanity?

But think of all the faux engagement! Think of all the advertising revenue! Won't someone think of the poor shareholders?

cosmicgadget 1y ago

What like "prosperity for ourselves and our children"? I think the issues arise when it gets a smidge more nuanced then that.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> the issues arise when it gets a smidge more nuanced then that The issues arise when folks get distracted from common prosperity. I meet so many people in the Rockies and New York who are up in arms about some imaginary problem, or a problem they have no influence over and which cannot affect them, one they solely know about due to social media.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  What's that problem? Do we achieve common prosperity through regulation or deregulation? Welfare state or trickle down? Fiscal responsibility or speculation? Strong dollar or weak dollar? Free market or protectionism? The parties (one in particular) can't even keep a consistent policy from year to year, I am not sure how we can hold hands and find the unified path to common prosperity.
  - anon291 1y ago
    While all these things matter, I'm not sure what level of business regulation v deregulation causes you to turn to violent rhetoric.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      I thought the topic was "if we talked in person we would realize we have a common objective so things would be fine". Violence is definitely a kind of disagreement but my point was that irl discussions don't solve polarization, i.e. "regulation/deregulation cannot lead us to prosperity". Also plenty of politicians have said regulation is literal communism and literal communism makes a lot of people mad.
palmfacehn 1y ago
Specifically, it feels like the lack of discernment goes off the rails and falls into the chasm of derangement where people assume that their opponents do not have that common goal. Anti-natalists and population control advocates excluded, most of us do share that goal. The differences are in the proposed approaches. There are legitimate discussions which can be had about those approaches to achieving that common goal. The discussion is no longer in good faith where partisans deny that common goal or assume evil intent.
- weregiraffe 1y ago
  What about the millions of, for example, Muslims, who have a very particular idea of what "prosperity" means? Especially for your female children.
  - woooooo 1y ago
    Do fundamentalist Muslims have a realistic chance of imposing those views on your nation? Because, if not, you Fell For It Again. (Aside, every western Muslim I've personally met has been chill)
    - zpeti 1y ago
      Realistic is a very broad term, but do you think they don’t have an effect? And where you are from matters a lot, you will probably answer very differently if you are from California or if you are from Birmingham UK.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - febusravenga 1y ago
      In western Germany, France, UK? Traditionally catholic countries, core of European enlightenment culture. Yes there is small, but realistic chance. That's why right shovinism is rising in eu
  - 1y ago
anon291 1y ago
Yeah but when you discuss nuances in person rather than online your natural social chemistry in your brain kicks in and we all behave like actual people instead of mindless savages
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  With the downside that it's harder to reference (and look up) sources, and have wide participation or an easily-accessible record. And ultimately you're not going to convince many people to stop voting based on that one book.
anon7000 1y ago
There are a large number of policy issues the average American should be able to agree on, but have been polarized to the point that we don’t solve them. - Get money out of politics. Everyone complains about corruption, no one tries to do a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizens United. - Strong privacy protections for your online data. Does anyone like the fact that your data gets sold and then used against you by car insurance companies? - Break up big companies that are taking their power too far. Seriously, take your Syscos, Nestles, AB InBevs of the world and break them up. No company deserves to have that much power over consumer markets, and the centralization of that power definitely makes prices higher. My conservative parents definitely don’t like how when Walmart and Rite Aid came to small-town midewest, all the local drug & grocery stores went out of business. - Every American knows our private health insurance system sucks. I mean every person you meet either doesn’t have good coverage, hasn’t used it much, or has had had a terrible experience with it. - We need to do away with police overstep like asset forfeiture, where the government can basically just rob you. I’m not talking defund the police, but you could sit the average American down, and probably come to agree that the police state has too much power and not enough accountability in a couple areas. There are so many stories along these lines which could get republicans and democrats on a similar page, and it comes down to the frustrations we ALL have with the systems we live in. It doesn’t matter who you voted for, when health insurance starts scamming you out of a procedure you need, it’s frustrating on a deeply personal level. And we all feel like we don’t have much control over federal policy — partly because businesses & moneyed interests can protect their interests while everyone else struggles, no matter who’s in charge. (And btw, this isn’t a elected officials on both sides are the same comment, more of a “we Americans have a lot of shared frustrations regardless of party”
- mock-possum 1y ago
  - same sex marriage should be treated equally to heterosexual marriage - the tradition of gender being strictly tied to genitalia at birth should be abolished, with individuals able to change gender (and genitals) at their whim Oops Americans don’t agree on queer rights and equality oops - everyone should be treated equally and afford equal protection under the law, regardless of where they were born or what the colour of the skin is or what their genitals look like Oops oops

obscurette 1y ago

Unfortunately it's not that simple any more. There are already very fundamental issues on which we are already very polarized, online or not. One of these is safety for example – far too many people are ready to give up any freedoms in the name of security. Ideas for EU chatcontrol, camera networks etc don't come from some bureaucrats, there is a very broad social demand for this.

mcny 1y ago
> there is a very broad social demand for this I don't believe you. My guess is the demand comes from manufactured consent, not from people who deeply understand the issue.
- ako 1y ago
  Voters in democracies are usually not people who deeply understand issues. We outsource that to politicians, but politicians have a second agenda, serving the people who paid their campaign.
- Nasrudith 1y ago
  The very concept of manufactured consent seems very much projection on Chomsky's part. Very much, 'they don't agree with me but I know what their real interests are so I can speak for them better than they can for themselves' crap to turn the masses into sock puppets to win arguments.
  - jdub 1y ago
    It's possible you've missed the entire 20th Century and 21st Century thus far, so an exhaustive list of examples would be impractical, but perhaps take a moment to ponder just a couple: - "yellow cake uranium" - "a land without people for a people without a land"
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > The very concept of manufactured consent seems very much projection on Chomsky's part Per Chomsky, the co-authored work is more Herman's than his, and anyhow the phrase and concept is from Walter Lipmann, 66 years before Herman and Chomsky's work with the title inspired by it (and 51 years before their first book on the topic.) But, no, neither the idea that deliberate propaganda is a major source of political beliefs or the particular manner and mechanisms by which the US media is involved in delivering that propaganda is "projection". > Very much, 'they don't agree with me but I know what their real interests are so I can speak for them better than they can for themselves' crap Manufacturing Consent doesn't pretend to be an exploration of what the “real interests” of the public are; it can't be misleading "projection" at doing that, because it doesn't do it at all.

hermannj314 1y ago

If you see yourself in the hegemon, sure. This strategy has also led to horrible brutality against marginal groups.

protocolture 1y ago

Lots of people just want to use political processes to hurt their perceived enemies.

weregiraffe 1y ago

>Get offline. Meet people. Most people want the same thing. A lot of people want more freedom. It's easy to identify with this, until you get into details. For example: - Lower taxes. - Easier access to weapons. - Lower age of consent. These are all things that increase freedom, by some definition.

rapnie 1y ago
Go for balanced freedom. Against humanity, and place humanity first.
- weregiraffe 1y ago
  But who gets to define humanity?