Found this interesting article in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/03/how-politics-got-so-polarized
I was particularly struck by this observation:
"Social media, he allows, does encourage political extremists to become more extreme; the more outrageous the content they post, the more likes and new followers they attract, and the more status they acquire. For this group, Bail writes, “social media enables a kind of microcelebrity.”
But the bulk of Facebook and Twitter users are more centrist. They aren’t particularly interested in the latest partisan wrangle. For these users, “posting online about politics simply carries more risk than it’s worth,” Bail argues. By absenting themselves from online political discussions, moderates allow the extremists to dominate, and this, Bail says, promotes a “profound form of distortion.” Extrapolating from the arguments they encounter, social-media users on either side conclude that those on the other are more extreme than they actually are. This phenomenon has become known as false polarization. “Social media has sent false polarization into hyperdrive,” Bail observes."
Do others find this to be true? I think it makes a lot of sense.
@no1marauder
Definitely makes a lot of sense 🤔
Of course...near the end of the article...the author makes his side known...by bashing Trump and the GOP. 🙄
The whole article is about biased opinions
and behavior and then he goes and does it. 😄
What an idiot.
@no1marauder
The ingredient missing is the troll factor, a phenomenom of the internet age. Is the motivation really reasoned debate or to get a rise out of the other fellow. Is it really the friendly banter of differing views or to make the other guy lose his shyte.
Your own posts are an example of this, and you should take this as a compliment, no-one here believes your paranoid extreme hypocondriacal fear of the wuflu, you present a face here to provoke a response. No one here imagines, as you would have us believe, that you prostrate yourself at the feet of the new god, the state, at once cowering and worshipping before it's omnipotence, it's an act No1.
No, most folk just want to get on with their own lives and leave you to get on with yours. Start a petition, "I own my own life" and ordinary people will sign it. The extreme control freakism of you, suzi, zahlooney and others on your side is just exaggeration, a cry for attention.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@no1marauder saidInteresting.
Found this interesting article in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/03/how-politics-got-so-polarized
I was particularly struck by this observation:
"Social media, he allows, does encourage political extremists to become more extreme; the more outrageous the content they post, the more likes and new followers they attract, and the more status ...[text shortened]... nto hyperdrive,” Bail observes."
Do others find this to be true? I think it makes a lot of sense.
Yes, makes sense.....Also, the internet is
almost totally anonymous and
people can post, and say, the most
outrageous things and not be held to account
as they would at say, a cocktail party or luncheon.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@wajoma saidForget to take your meds?
@no1marauder
The ingredient missing is the troll factor, a phenomenom of the internet age. Is the motivation really reasoned debate or to get a rise out of the other fellow. Is it really the friendly banter of differing views or to make the other guy lose his shyte.
Your own posts are an example of this, and you should take this as a compliment, no-one here believes y ...[text shortened]... freakism of you, suzi, zahlooney and others on your side is just exaggeration, a cry for attention.
Trolling?
Notice how ALL of his posts are sourced
while, on the other hand, NONE of yours are.
Who is trolling?
@no1marauder saidI don't find the bolded part to be true. I do agree the internet plays a heavy role in militarizing, recruiting and encouraging extremists (or potential extremists).
Extrapolating from the arguments they encounter, social-media users on either side conclude that those on the other are more extreme than they actually are. This phenomenon has become known as false polarization. “Social media has sent false polarization into hyperdrive,” Bail observes."
Do others find this to be true? I think it makes a lot of sense.
But there's no way to argue that political polarization is mere perception. Congress votes nearly 100 percent down the red/blue line nearly 100 percent of the time. Response to the global pandemic is split down the line in almost the exactly the same way: conservatives minimize it, liberals take it more seriously.
There's virtually no overlap in political opinions anymore. Politics are no longer Venn diagrams, they're pie charts.
But then again, I'm speaking from an American perspective. The divides may not be quite as stark in other nations.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
10 Jan 22
@wajoma saidLost it?
And right on cue, to prove my point jim loses his shyte in a heavily edited post. I rest my case.
Edited?
Marauder put up an interesting
article for comment. Nothing controversial.
You came down as if he, somehow, insulted you personally.
Only one troll here.
Take your meds 😛
11 Jan 22
@wajoma saidHey, everyone, look at the hypocrite.
@no1marauder
The ingredient missing is the troll factor, a phenomenom of the internet age. Is the motivation really reasoned debate or to get a rise out of the other fellow. Is it really the friendly banter of differing views or to make the other guy lose his shyte.
Your own posts are an example of this, and you should take this as a compliment, no-one here believes y ...[text shortened]... freakism of you, suzi, zahlooney and others on your side is just exaggeration, a cry for attention.
"Is it really the friendly banter of differing views or to make the other guy lose his shyte."
Guess what this is. "extreme control freakism". Yes, good guess.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
11 Jan 22
@suzianne saidAw, c'mon Suzi, don't be
Hey, everyone, look at the hypocrite.
"Is it really the friendly banter of differing views or to make the other guy lose his shyte."
Guess what this is. "extreme control freakism". Yes, good guess.
so hard on him.
He just forgot to take his meds,
could happen to anyone.
11 Jan 22
@no1marauder saidAbsolutely.
Found this interesting article in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/03/how-politics-got-so-polarized
I was particularly struck by this observation:
"Social media, he allows, does encourage political extremists to become more extreme; the more outrageous the content they post, the more likes and new followers they attract, and the more status ...[text shortened]... nto hyperdrive,” Bail observes."
Do others find this to be true? I think it makes a lot of sense.
There are multiple studies which show how social media accelerates polarisation.
From information-bubble algorithms to escalation speeds in argumentation to the mass spreading of false information / conspiracy theories.
It’s not very good for society.
An interesting sub-point in it is that the lack of non-verbal feedback, leaves people unchecked.
So, the lack of body language (which counts for more than 70% of a message from sender to receiver) is damaging to personal relationship building.
It’s also becoming a thing with online dating and online meetings (now that during the lockdowns a great many people are working constantly from home).
Basically, it’s a negative spiral.
An example:
Person A has a political opinion. Person B disagrees with that political opnion.
Now, person A is far more than a political opinion, she has a family, a sick father to take care off, she likes curries, she dreams of owning a sports car, etc.
In inter-personal relationships, these things bubble to the top and person A and B connect on these levels.
However, online, there is no wince when feelings are hurt, so there’s no non-verbal stimulus to adjust behaviour accordingly. And Person A becomes that political opinion. And it’s very easy to escalate against a political opinion rather than a person who is far more.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
11 Jan 22
@shavixmir saidWell said
Absolutely.
There are multiple studies which show how social media accelerates polarisation.
From information-bubble algorithms to escalation speeds in argumentation to the mass spreading of false information / conspiracy theories.
It’s not very good for society.
An interesting sub-point in it is that the lack of non-verbal feedback, leaves people unchecked.
So, ...[text shortened]... on. And it’s very easy to escalate against a political opinion rather than a person who is far more.
11 Jan 22
@shavixmir saidI think the point in bold in the quote I gave is more subtle than that. It suggests that when people read the more extremist positions commonly espoused on social media, they come to believe that their political opponents are, in the aggregate, far more extreme than most of them are.
Absolutely.
There are multiple studies which show how social media accelerates polarisation.
From information-bubble algorithms to escalation speeds in argumentation to the mass spreading of false information / conspiracy theories.
It’s not very good for society.
An interesting sub-point in it is that the lack of non-verbal feedback, leaves people unchecked.
So, ...[text shortened]... on. And it’s very easy to escalate against a political opinion rather than a person who is far more.
In our own little world, there are posters who consistently voice openly racist views; does that make those of a "liberal" persuasion more likely to believe that most right wingers are openly racist? I find that likely. Is it true? I'm not sure.
Perhaps right wingers can think of an appropriate counterexample regarding common "leftist" views expressed on this Forum. That would be interesting.
I do find the continued obsession by some "liberal" posters regarding Donald Trump to be a useless distraction bordering on "whataboutism". To be honest, I don't see it replicated on social media (admittedly I only follow Twitter and occasionally Facebook).
11 Jan 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThat would depend on one’s definition of extreme.
I think the point in bold in the quote I gave is more subtle than that. It suggests that when people read the more extremist positions commonly espoused on social media, they come to believe that their political opponents are, in the aggregate, far more extreme than most of them are.
In our own little world, there are posters who consistently voice openly racis ...[text shortened]... on't see it replicated on social media (admittedly I only follow Twitter and occasionally Facebook).
Most republican politicians seem extreme to most Europeans.
As far as I can tell, the problem lies more within the breakdown of conventional checks and balances, resulting in less contact on the positive emotional level. Which makes it easier to escalate opinions, creating even less emotional contact.
The problem with trump is that he’s such an overblown example of narcissism and lying, together with his continuing hold on the republican party (senators and congressmen are scared to distance themselves from his core base), that it’s fascinating. In the same way that watching a train crash in a tunnel in slow motion is fascinating.
11 Jan 22
9 edits
@no1marauder saidAgain, the rest of the political world continually confirms polarization seen online. If those extreme views were mostly limited to the internet, most rational minds wouldn't conclude they were accurate representations of actual people
In our own little world, there are posters who consistently voice openly racist views; does that make those of a "liberal" persuasion more likely to believe that most right wingers are openly racist? I find that likely. Is it true? I'm not sure.
When a mostly conservative SCOTUS allows a ban on a constitutional right, initiated by a notoriously red state like Texas, that's not the internet; that's real life. The thousands of violent insurrectionists were not just angry Twitter rants.
While the media (and the internet) does hype up extremists, the fact remains that there's no shortage of real-life examples of extreme views seen online.