Division

[anonymous-user]

Off the back of the Charlie Kirk thread I believe there's one thing we can all agree on and that is that the use of divisive language is driving a wedge through society, and we should not be surprised by the outcomes.

It's not a left vs right thing, we're all at it. Positions are becoming more and more entrenched and the terminology used to describe those with opposing views is becoming stronger and stronger, driving further division.

I'll admit that I have been user of such language in the past. But no more. Today I stop.

I want a better discourse, a more cohesive society. So today I will stop hammering on that wedge with everyone else.

[MesoForm]

It's deliberate from the likes of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc. - they pick a topic that will cause division and create/boost as much "us vs them" rhetoric as possible. We're seeing it in real time with the Charlie Kirk killing - it's straight left vs right, Christian vs not, I think there's been gay-friendly vs no and I'm sure there will be something about Israel soon too.

Smarter Every Day did a video on it a few years back which is an interesting watch
https://youtu.be/V-1RhQ1uuQ4?si=b85hCUecxvz4D2L0
(20 minutes)

We saw a load of pro Scottish independence accounts go down when their servers in Iran were attacked
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/dozens-of-pro-indy...

[hidetheelephants]

Not really russia or china; this is social media amplifying anything that enrages people because enraging people is profitable. Are russia and china working hard to stoke the problem? Very likely but the proximate cause, unregulated social media, is 100% Made In The USA.

[swisstoni]

MesoForm said:

It's deliberate from the likes of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc. - they pick a topic that will cause division and create/boost as much "us vs them" rhetoric as possible. We're seeing it in real time with the Charlie Kirk killing - it's straight left vs right, Christian vs not, I think there's been gay-friendly vs no and I'm sure there will be something about Israel soon too.

Smarter Every Day did a video on it a few years back which is an interesting watch
https://youtu.be/V-1RhQ1uuQ4?si=b85hCUecxvz4D2L0
(20 minutes)

We saw a load of pro Scottish independence accounts go down when their servers in Iran were attacked
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/dozens-of-pro-indy...

There is a story ongoing in France where 9 pigs heads were left on the front of mosques around Paris. Authorities suspect that this was the result of foreign interference but are still investigating.

[Shooter McGavin]

hidetheelephants said:

Not really russia or china; this is social media amplifying anything that enrages people because enraging people is profitable. Are russia and china working hard to stoke the problem? Very likely but the proximate cause, unregulated social media, is 100% Made In The USA.

Agree entirely.

Much as I don't want to see the The Thought Police in charge of things, I often wonder if people would write some of the things they do on SM and forums like this if they had to operate under their own name, displaying their own home address.

It would cause a lot of people to wind their necks in considerably IMO.

[hidetheelephants]

I'm unsure what regulated SM would look like, but a good start would be to make large platforms responsible for what they publish, just like newspapers. Meta, Twitter, etc. would very rapidly discover that, after due consideration, moderation of content was possible after all and not impossible as they kept telling us, as not doing so would mean they were sued out of existence.

[bitchstewie]

Who_Goes_Blue said:

Off the back of the Charlie Kirk thread I believe there's one thing we can all agree on and that is that the use of divisive language is driving a wedge through society, and we should not be surprised by the outcomes.

It's not a left vs right thing, we're all at it. Positions are becoming more and more entrenched and the terminology used to describe those with opposing views is becoming stronger and stronger, driving further division.

I'll admit that I have been user of such language in the past. But no more. Today I stop.

I want a better discourse, a more cohesive society. So today I will stop hammering on that wedge with everyone else.

That won't be a very popular viewpoint with the "just hurty words" and "nobody has the right not to be offended" cohort.

[swisstoni]

bhstewie said:

Who_Goes_Blue said:

Off the back of the Charlie Kirk thread I believe there's one thing we can all agree on and that is that the use of divisive language is driving a wedge through society, and we should not be surprised by the outcomes.

It's not a left vs right thing, we're all at it. Positions are becoming more and more entrenched and the terminology used to describe those with opposing views is becoming stronger and stronger, driving further division.

I'll admit that I have been user of such language in the past. But no more. Today I stop.

I want a better discourse, a more cohesive society. So today I will stop hammering on that wedge with everyone else.

That won't be a very popular viewpoint with the "just hurty words" and "nobody has the right not to be offended" cohort.

Irony.

[Leon R]

bhstewie said:

Who_Goes_Blue said:

Off the back of the Charlie Kirk thread I believe there's one thing we can all agree on and that is that the use of divisive language is driving a wedge through society, and we should not be surprised by the outcomes.

It's not a left vs right thing, we're all at it. Positions are becoming more and more entrenched and the terminology used to describe those with opposing views is becoming stronger and stronger, driving further division.

I'll admit that I have been user of such language in the past. But no more. Today I stop.

I want a better discourse, a more cohesive society. So today I will stop hammering on that wedge with everyone else.

That won't be a very popular viewpoint with the "just hurty words" and "nobody has the right not to be offended" cohort.

Read the post that you quoted and then what you have written.

Have a think about it.

[Jinx]

bhstewie said:

That won't be a very popular viewpoint with the "just hurty words" and "nobody has the right not to be offended" cohort.

Let the cohort answer for themselves.
I would allow fully free speach but only on a platform where you had to use your real name (no anonymous posting) - sunlight is a great disinfectant.

[carl_w]

I think it started with Brexit. You were either a Leaver or a Remoaner. No subtlety or nuance. Any debate about flag waving, you're either a true patriot or a leftie. Do you agree with Israel bombing Qatar? No? Then you must support terrorists.

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

That won't be a very popular viewpoint with the "just hurty words" and "nobody has the right not to be offended" cohort.

There will always be people that use their words to offend, rile, ridicule others.
But it's becoming more and more normalised to do so.
I don't want to see the result of that normalisation.

[Jasandjules]

Have you not read 1984?

[bitchstewie]

Who_Goes_Blue said:

There will always be people that use their words to offend, rile, ridicule others.
But it's becoming more and more normalised to do so.
I don't want to see the result of that normalisation.

Sure and I do so myself sometimes because some people and opinions deserve ridicule.

I'm thinking more the line where it crosses into incitement or encouraging and normalising violence.

Too many people don't have that built-in filter to stop with that stuff.

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

Who_Goes_Blue said:

There will always be people that use their words to offend, rile, ridicule others.
But it's becoming more and more normalised to do so.
I don't want to see the result of that normalisation.

Sure and I do so myself sometimes because some people and opinions deserve ridicule.

I'm thinking more the line where it crosses into incitement or encouraging and normalising violence.

Too many people don't have that built-in filter to stop with that stuff.

What are you seeking to achieve by ridiculing an individual?

[KarlMac]

You can blame it on the death of third spaces and their replacement by social media.

Whether it political, societal, sports, cars, whatever… if you had a pretty ‘out there’ opinion and voiced it to your peers you’d be laughed at, educated or in some extreme cases, given a slap. The lack of this interaction and it being replaced by the algorithm feeding you reinforcing opinions now means people are completely entrenched in their opinions despite the evidence of their eyes.

Now it’s about picking a side and finding a community you can join.

One of my personal conspiracy theories is that we’re living through the collapse of the post war American empire which will hopefully cause the collapse of US tech companies and everyone can go back to forums and meeting people in person.

[hidetheelephants]

carl_w said:

I think it started with Brexit. You were either a Leaver or a Remoaner. No subtlety or nuance. Any debate about flag waving, you're either a true patriot or a leftie. Do you agree with Israel bombing Qatar? No? Then you must support terrorists.

The scottish independence referendum was rife with reductive othering, social media was even more of a cesspit than it usually is.

[bitchstewie]

Who_Goes_Blue said:

What are you seeking to achieve by ridiculing an individual?

How many times do you have a conversation and laugh or mock an opinion someone you know comes out with because it's absolutely batst?

I don't see online as all that different.

[Jinx]

bhstewie said:

How many times do you have a conversation and laugh or mock an opinion someone you know comes out with because it's absolutely batst?

I don't see online as all that different.

Rarely. A little chuckle and a polite correction yes - no mocking. Mocking only serves to build resentment.

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

Who_Goes_Blue said:

What are you seeking to achieve by ridiculing an individual?

How many times do you have a conversation and laugh or mock an opinion someone you know comes out with because it's absolutely batst?

I don't see online as all that different.

Some one know is they key point there, they know you, you know them. Their reaction is predictable. Your intent is clear to them.
Online is so very different
What do you hope to achieve by doing it to someone online