CDZ Our Society's Incivility is Due to Our Internet Anonymity

[Mac1958]

Sure is difficult to try and offer a point of view that is not a total condemnation or considered complete unless riddled with four letter words.
looking for facts, now a lost art.

Yep. No longer a priority. Too much effort, and the tribes frown on either independent thought or civility.
.

 

[Olde Europe]

The world will be better because you cant stop progress.

Look back 50 or a hundred years. Nobody would like to live in those eras.

Place yourself in 1890, and look ahead half a century. ... Yeah, I'd say, we can stop progress.

I know the world recovered, even from WWII. What's different now is a confluence of highly adverse tendencies which generate enormous strains and conflict, the beginnings of which we see right now. Among them...

- automatization and AI, making ever greater numbers of ever-higher qualified workers redundant.

- energy dearth (peak oil).

- climate change, a known conflict multiplier, making ever bigger regions on earth uninhabitable, resulting in ever bigger streams of refugees.

As I said, we're seeing the harbinger of things to come now already:

- The reduced standing of international institutions (Brexit / EU, NATO, UN), which kept things reasonably stable.

- The reduced standing of international treaties: INF, Paris Agreement, JCPOA.

- The reduction in numbers of democracies, giving way to more and more authoritarian regimes: Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, Brazil, and many more looking increasingly unstable. Pointedly stated, the U.S. is falling victim to its staggering dysfunction, while China is becoming the up-and-coming model to follow.

All the while inequality is exploding, and the global elites will struggle mightily to defend their obscene riches against increasing numbers of impoverished people.

If you take it all in, you'll realize it's kind of hard to talk of "progress" with anything like the optimism you seem to exhibit. Now, my interpretation of threads like this one, bemoaning the loss of "civility", is that the participants more or less vaguely sense the growing global incivility (as outlined above), and react to their resulting sense of unease by focusing their attention on things with which they are familiar, namely, societal strife, and the loutish goofs who cause it.

And it's not just leecross. There are several on these boards, carefully avoiding the multiple freight trains heading our way, on a mission to save us from the horrors of name-calling and political disagreements.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep. No longer a priority. Too much effort, and the tribes frown on either independent thought or civility.

Again, I grew up at a time when we were having race riots and domestic terrorism. "Someone called me bad names on the internet" really doesn't quite cut it.

I do think that there are reasons why the internet CAN seem harsh. First, calling someone a bad name in print is actually kind of worse than calling them a bad name verbally. The written word has more impact.

Conversely, when someone says something really stupid in real life, I can shut them down with a look. Here, when someone says something really stupid, I have to go into detail why what they said was stupid, and then they can pretend they still didn't get the point.

Secondly, because of the nature of this forum, we have people who've been going at it for years. You simply aren't going to see that in real life.

So I'd say it's more a situational problem than a cultural one.

 

[Olde Europe]

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC memo

Gingrich's memo, combined with the rise of right-wing outrage radio, taught that political opponents aren't fellow Americans with whom we may disagree. Rather, they are the enemy, bad people, sick, pathetic, treasonous traitors who aren't entitled to civility.

Yep. And they're still gloating about how the Grinch got it oh-so right.

And then they whine, and whine, and whine about how they are terribly, horribly oppressed following the mere announcement of possible incivility. Compartmentalized brains are a wonder to behold.

It is a bit revealing.

When acknowledging the Grinch and his devastating effects on political discourse, basically reducing debate to a brawl aiming squarely at the nether regions of the soul, we should not forget his brother in arms, Limbaugh. In terms of mean-spirited toxicity, the two certainly deserve each other, and it sure seems noteworthy that while the Grinch was made to crawl back under his rock, the lessons he imparted continued to work, as did Limbaugh.

Now, were you to find one who bemoaned the loss of civility also promulgating Rush's spew... wouldn't that be kind of ironic?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The world will be better because you cant stop progress.

Look back 50 or a hundred years. Nobody would like to live in those eras.

Place yourself in 1890, and look ahead half a century. ... Yeah, I'd say, we can stop progress.

I know the world recovered, even from WWII. What's different now is a confluence of highly adverse tendencies which generate enormous strains and conflict, the beginnings of which we see right now. Among them...

- automatization and AI, making ever greater numbers of ever-higher qualified workers redundant.

- energy dearth (peak oil).

- climate change, a known conflict multiplier, making ever bigger regions on earth uninhabitable, resulting in ever bigger streams of refugees.

As I said, we're seeing the harbinger of things to come now already:

- The reduced standing of international institutions (Brexit / EU, NATO, UN), which kept things reasonably stable.

- The reduced standing of international treaties: INF, Paris Agreement, JCPOA.

- The reduction in numbers of democracies, giving way to more and more authoritarian regimes: Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, Brazil, and many more looking increasingly unstable. Pointedly stated, the U.S. is falling victim to its staggering dysfunction, while China is becoming the up-and-coming model to follow.

All the while inequality is exploding, and the global elites will struggle mightily to defend their obscene riches against increasing numbers of impoverished people.

If you take it all in, you'll realize it's kind of hard to talk of "progress" with anything like the optimism you seem to exhibit. Now, my interpretation of threads like this one, bemoaning the loss of "civility", is that the participants more or less vaguely sense the growing global incivility (as outlined above), and react to their resulting sense of unease by focusing their attention on things with which they are familiar, namely, societal strife, and the loutish goofs who cause it.

And it's not just leecross. There are several on these boards, carefully avoiding the multiple freight trains heading our way, on a mission to save us from the horrors of name-calling and political disagreements.

Oh dear. It doesnt sound good does it ? But I am still optimistic. Our kids are a lot more evolved than we were and that must count for something.

 

[sartre play]

Use to hear a negative about some one in political power that did not sound right, go on the net get all the info up to and including the original documents. no more.

 

[Mac1958]

Those who downplay the decay in our civility are the most likely to engage in the behaviors in question.

You don't see drug dealers criticizing other drug dealers for dealing drugs.

They're fine with this ugliness, because it's who they are.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

Our Society's Incivility is Due to Our Internet Anonymity

We had to devolve as a culture to accommodate our lack of visual or audible cues about each other.

Those cues which would tell us how to customize our communication and interaction with each other.

To not expect a 20's person to have the knowledge or life experience of a 60's person.

And more like that.

And now we have a generation of young people who have been beaten up so much online they think it is normal to be as rude and crude and dumb as we have de-evolved to be.

If we EVER expect to right this we will have to reduce or eliminate online i teraction inlueu of actual in person and in real life regular socialization by all.

Sent from my LG-M154 using Tapatalk

That's all true.. But the worse part of being all connected is that STRANGERS are literally in your home arguing with you and calling you names.. That's just violates all the rules. USED to be, the only way to do that was to "crank call" someone. Or do a doorbell ditch.. NOW, I've got morons at my desk trying to incite me.

Marshall McLuhan wrote about this in "The Media is the Message"... He said TV content was carefully designed (back in the 60s/70s) so as not to VIOLATE your home. Producers/programmers KNEW they needed to act with respect to be on in your living room...

He also predicted that e-media was gonna lead to increased tribalism. He just had no idea how completely INVASIVE all this was gonna be...

 

[flacaltenn]

I agree that the ability to write anything without consequence and without seeing the person they are attacking contributes to the unfortunate state we are in today.

People generally seem more honest and intelligent in person --- don't they?? Guess we don't place much value on those silly old fashioned notions anymore...

 

[Picaro]

Ah well, much ado over nothing. Anybody who has studied political history knows all this was the norm in the 'good ole days', when the 'Founders' were savaging each other routinely, via both speech and pamphleteering and most major newspapers were subsidized by politicians and parties as the normal thing to do. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, all engaged in slander. The only difference now is in the methods of distribution, like these message boards, and the higher rates of semi-literacy; most reading material didn't reach the unwashed masses, except via public speeches, and rioting was the main method of getting your voice in government.

And, as anyone who took the second course in logic, 102, knows, many ad hom arguments are valid; many people are indeed stupid.

 

[Picaro]

Our Society's Incivility is Due to Our Internet Anonymity

We had to devolve as a culture to accommodate our lack of visual or audible cues about each other.

Those cues which would tell us how to customize our communication and interaction with each other.

To not expect a 20's person to have the knowledge or life experience of a 60's person.

And more like that.

And now we have a generation of young people who have been beaten up so much online they think it is normal to be as rude and crude and dumb as we have de-evolved to be.

If we EVER expect to right this we will have to reduce or eliminate online i teraction inlueu of actual in person and in real life regular socialization by all.

Sent from my LG-M154 using Tapatalk

That's all true.. But the worse part of being all connected is that STRANGERS are literally in your home arguing with you and calling you names.. That's just violates all the rules. USED to be, the only way to do that was to "crank call" someone. Or do a doorbell ditch.. NOW, I've got morons at my desk trying to incite me.

Marshall McLuhan wrote about this in "The Media is the Message"... He said TV content was carefully designed (back in the 60s/70s) so as not to VIOLATE your home. Producers/programmers KNEW they needed to act with respect to be on in your living room...

He also predicted that e-media was gonna lead to increased tribalism. He just had no idea how completely INVASIVE all this was gonna be...

Marshall, like Alinsky, was a student of Antonio Gramsci, the Italian communist, whether he knew it or not, as are most 'journalists' these days.

 

[JoeB131]

Those who downplay the decay in our civility are the most likely to engage in the behaviors in question.

You don't see drug dealers criticizing other drug dealers for dealing drugs.

They're fine with this ugliness, because it's who they are.

Again, when I grew up, we had assassinations, race riots and political terrorism....

"Someone was mean to me on the internet because they didn't accept my premise" hardly falls into the same category.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Some of the best times of my life were with people who met online. Man, we had so many meetups with people who gathered from all over the country to one spot. That's back when we were running Ron in '07 and '08 and '12.

I remember the '06 march in D.C is what started it all.

Some months later we ended up staging the largest single day money record in political history.

You people have more power than you know on forums lke these. But it's wasted.

I've seen Internet misfits change the course of history just by organizing and learning how to be delegates and learning how to organize in broad daylight. And common Interrnet misfits have beat the establishment at their own game to the point that the establishment changed the rules at the convention once they realized it.All in the name of portraying party 'unity', of course. And that's what it's really about. It's not about just trying to hurry up and get elected. Huh uh.

 

[WheelieAddict]

The issue with internet anonymity today is that anyone can make a couple hundred fake profiles and use them to push a product or idea on social media. Its a battleground of fakery, and your browsing habits are available to target you with propaganda or product placement. Facebook will gladly sell information about you to the highest bidder.

 

[JoeB131]

The issue with internet anonymity today is that anyone can make a couple hundred fake profiles and use them to push a product or idea on social media. Its a battleground of fakery, and your browsing habits are available to target you with propaganda or product placement. Facebook will gladly sell information about you to the highest bidder.

yes they will. So what?

 

[WheelieAddict]

The issue with internet anonymity today is that anyone can make a couple hundred fake profiles and use them to push a product or idea on social media. Its a battleground of fakery, and your browsing habits are available to target you with propaganda or product placement. Facebook will gladly sell information about you to the highest bidder.

yes they will. So what?

So what? Information can be used to promote incivility by targeting people and telling them over and over with propaganda that they should be mad about something/other people. Promoting incivility is a marketing opportunity and widely used especially with politics.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ah well, much ado over nothing. Anybody who has studied political history knows all this was the norm in the 'good ole days', when the 'Founders' were savaging each other routinely, via both speech and pamphleteering and most major newspapers were subsidized by politicians and parties as the normal thing to do. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, all engaged in slander. The only difference now is in the methods of distribution, like these message boards, and the higher rates of semi-literacy; most reading material didn't reach the unwashed masses, except via public speeches, and rioting was the main method of getting your voice in government.

There's several extremely important differences. It's not the conflict between leadership that's important here. It's the PARTICIPATION of the public that has been enabled. In the ''good old days" if you were belligerently partisan in the local pub, there'd be a short brawl.. NOW EVERYONE can troll and be an ass and a single TWEET can be a 4 day national bar fight. It's GREATLY amplified and personalized conflict..

Secondly, "in the old days", if a leader did something outrageous it would incite the public. BUT -- the difference is that Wrong was Wrong. And the people KNEW when something was Wrong. Today the partisan tribal wars have created a absolution/penitance system whereby :::

If THEIR side did it, THEY will simply point out how many times YOUR side did the same evil sin.. And if the outrage is equal -- THEIR side gets absolution from all guilt for the sin... It's that "whataboutism" term that I hate.

It's really, more of a defining morality and integrity constantly downward until you need excavator to find the limits of sensibility.. You see that in every USMB squabble. There is NEVER (i exaggerate a bit) an admission of what YOUR side did was wrong. Only a battle over "who did it first" or "who did it worse".. And there's no punishment or guilt at the end of every thread... This is a direct result of relying on a polarizing 2 party system where the SAME 2 tired, retread, retarded teams of combatants have been feuding for WAAAAY too fucking long... Need to open more franchises. Get some new match-ups without the historical baggage and compromising embarrassments.

So NOW -- there is virtually NO sin or crime that can't be absolved simply by pointing the finger back....

 

[flacaltenn]

Secondly, because of the nature of this forum, we have people who've been going at it for years. You simply aren't going to see that in real life.

Some conflicts are better left unresolved. Rather than passing the point of return on discussion.. As I said above, that MIRRORS the underlying problem of letting just 2 "brand name" parties oppose EACH OTHER for way too long.. At some point, you need new visions and opinions and negotiations from parties or people that DONT have a multi-generational trainload of mistakes and crimes and embarrassments that predictably build up by 2 of ANYTHING in perpetual warfare..

People in daily opposition on this board are just an EXTENSION of 100 year political feuds between the Hatfields and the McCoys... Or Coke and Pepsi. Or Repubs and Dems..

Greatest feuds in the world today are also the OLDEST.. And they've been allowed to slug along for too long without opening the arbitration to NEW parties and views and solutions..

 

[Olde Europe]

Secondly, "in the old days", if a leader did something outrageous it would incite the public. BUT -- the difference is that Wrong was Wrong. And the people KNEW when something was Wrong. Today the partisan tribal wars have created a absolution/penitance system whereby :::

If THEIR side did it, THEY will simply point out how many times YOUR side did the same evil sin.. And if the outrage is equal -- THEIR side gets absolution from all guilt for the sin... It's that "whataboutism" term that I hate.

Seriously, you think condemning those on the other side while absolving their own is somehow new? "Hypocrisy" would be a 21st century term, then?

I rather hold, people know what's wrong, even in this day and age. Their condemnation of the other side demonstrates it, conclusively. Just, in their quest to make those on the other side suffer, and in their delight upon succeeding, they don't give a rat's posterior about their own side's (equal) guilt. They just don't. It's just part of the entertainment industry that encompasses politics and large parts of social media, and pretty much the celebrity-obsessed nosiness. The only question worth answering would be, Who's going to bleed the most?

And yeah, it's also pretty much what turns this place into what it is.

 

[Olde Europe]

As I said above, that MIRRORS the underlying problem of letting just 2 "brand name" parties oppose EACH OTHER for way too long.. At some point, you need new visions and opinions and negotiations from parties or people that DONT have a multi-generational trainload of mistakes and crimes and embarrassments that predictably build up by 2 of ANYTHING in perpetual warfare.

That should be easy enough to resolve. Abolish FPTP voting and create something like proportional representation, which would give promising start-ups with just five or seven percent of the vote some representation and exposure, for them to grow because a vote for them wouldn't be "thrown away". That's the way to incorporate new ideas into the political mainstream, and to shove sulking, belligerent, and dysfunctional dinosaurs out of the way.