A new study links partisan activity on the Internet to widespread online toxicity, revealing that politically-engaged users exhibit uncivil behavior even in non-political discussions. The findings are based on an analysis of hundreds of millions of comments from over 6.3 million Reddit users.
To some people, aborting a 3 week old fetus is murder. Because their religion goes even further and says a guy jacking off is mass murder because that “seed” should only be used for heterosexual sex that would result in a child. Which makes them incredibly hypocritical, but they’re used to that
To others it’s just a clump of cells with zero brain activity growing in a women’s body and she decides if she wants to let it grow.
Both sides see the other as evil and obviously wrong.
Which is why it’s been a “wedge issue” for decades. Both parties can cater to corporations and the wealthy, and disagree on stuff like this that makes it so a large segment of the population never agrees with the other on who to vote for, and both parties can agree on stuff like how little taxes the wealthy have to pay while still presenting themselves as opposites.
I don’t bother debating abortion because I will never get my “opponent” to view it how I view it. We can both see each other as completely in the wrong yet still be civil because neither of us are meaning to be malicious.
Good, you can’t expect to have a conversation and change someone just like that. An adult that is religious and not extremely sheltered is probably a lost cause when it comes to understanding anything complex. The best you can really do is plant seeds, cause them to question, encourage the questioning and point out the clever tricks they’ve been taught to shut down questioning.
We need to learn to thrive despite the existence if stupid people, they will be born at a consistent rate for eternity. It’s our job to organize society in ways that don’t facilitate psychopaths mobilizing them into their idiot army (e.g. MAGA).
It is, however, very important to note that when one side starts treating politics like it IS blood sport (I.e. populism), it’s genuinely difficult to push things in a positive direction by taking the “high road”.
More specifically, the paradox of tolerance is very much a factor here. Regressive and reactionary groups absolutely abuse the system as it exists today with the intent of fully corrupting and controlling it in the future.
Understand what bad-faith arguments look like, and the ways that they are often presented as “reasonable discourse”. When you see someone engaging in such disingenuous tactics online, consider dropping some bait to see whether or not they show more of their bad-faith hand; if they do, go (rhetorical) weapons free.
There’s a game series I play that just had a new version come out. It’s a silly puzzle game that you can just waste time with while doing something else.
The author does a little ‘story mode’ and this time they went through how they’re getting older and are starting to think of end of life stuff. I’m in a similar headspace myself really, though they’re a decade or so ahead of me. It ends with something about maybe that person with different political opinions was just born in a different place than you and you should take the time to listen to them.
I’m like, bruh… yeah, sure, that was okay back in the 90s. Have you looked at our current political space? Seriously, read the room
I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they’re just privileged and the things going on these days don’t effect them personally so they just have no idea what the hell they’re talking about.
Game is still good and the best one they’ve made so far, but damn was the end of that piece tone deaf af.
A bit of nuance the headline misses:
You can be politically engaged without treating politics as a knock-about blood-sport.
It’s also important to look at those positions.
Like, abortion.
To some people, aborting a 3 week old fetus is murder. Because their religion goes even further and says a guy jacking off is mass murder because that “seed” should only be used for heterosexual sex that would result in a child. Which makes them incredibly hypocritical, but they’re used to that
To others it’s just a clump of cells with zero brain activity growing in a women’s body and she decides if she wants to let it grow.
Both sides see the other as evil and obviously wrong.
Which is why it’s been a “wedge issue” for decades. Both parties can cater to corporations and the wealthy, and disagree on stuff like this that makes it so a large segment of the population never agrees with the other on who to vote for, and both parties can agree on stuff like how little taxes the wealthy have to pay while still presenting themselves as opposites.
I don’t bother debating abortion because I will never get my “opponent” to view it how I view it. We can both see each other as completely in the wrong yet still be civil because neither of us are meaning to be malicious.
Good, you can’t expect to have a conversation and change someone just like that. An adult that is religious and not extremely sheltered is probably a lost cause when it comes to understanding anything complex. The best you can really do is plant seeds, cause them to question, encourage the questioning and point out the clever tricks they’ve been taught to shut down questioning.
We need to learn to thrive despite the existence if stupid people, they will be born at a consistent rate for eternity. It’s our job to organize society in ways that don’t facilitate psychopaths mobilizing them into their idiot army (e.g. MAGA).
You’re just proving my point. I’m on the pro-life side.
It is, however, very important to note that when one side starts treating politics like it IS blood sport (I.e. populism), it’s genuinely difficult to push things in a positive direction by taking the “high road”.
More specifically, the paradox of tolerance is very much a factor here. Regressive and reactionary groups absolutely abuse the system as it exists today with the intent of fully corrupting and controlling it in the future.
Understand what bad-faith arguments look like, and the ways that they are often presented as “reasonable discourse”. When you see someone engaging in such disingenuous tactics online, consider dropping some bait to see whether or not they show more of their bad-faith hand; if they do, go (rhetorical) weapons free.
There’s a game series I play that just had a new version come out. It’s a silly puzzle game that you can just waste time with while doing something else.
The author does a little ‘story mode’ and this time they went through how they’re getting older and are starting to think of end of life stuff. I’m in a similar headspace myself really, though they’re a decade or so ahead of me. It ends with something about maybe that person with different political opinions was just born in a different place than you and you should take the time to listen to them.
I’m like, bruh… yeah, sure, that was okay back in the 90s. Have you looked at our current political space? Seriously, read the room
I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they’re just privileged and the things going on these days don’t effect them personally so they just have no idea what the hell they’re talking about.
Game is still good and the best one they’ve made so far, but damn was the end of that piece tone deaf af.