While I would agree both sides have polarized with the advent of social media only the right has gone of into full cloud ####oo land at its edges, the left's extreme hasn't moved at all strangely, there is still a small portion of mostly younger extreme left wingers that think the Government should be overthrown, but in a polite nice way that's LGBT and minority inclusive, and in their mind this will happen in some magical possibly non violent way by the whole of society suddenly realizing that socialism is the only way foward, that extreme has always been out there, pretty much always had the same belief, if anything these days they are less radical and influential on left wing thought than they were in the 50's and 60's.
The right wing is the complete opposite, a right winger of the Goldwater/Nixon era wouldn't recognise the insane kooks that shill on Fox news and their followers as right wing at all, I suspect its because the right wing trends towards the more poorly educated and frankly they are less thoughtful about their ideology and so more easily conned.
I would say that there are some conspiracies considered to be more left wing.
Anti-Vaxxers, GMO, World Trade Org/Bilderberg groups quests for world domination.
I think the biggest problem is that Trump is the first person with so much influence to openly embrace and peddle conspiracy theories.
Interestingly enough, the specific examples you used for left-wing conspiracy theories have been shown to have no strong correlation to one side or the other. Anti-vaxxers, for example, are actually more likely to identify as conservative than they are as liberal.
Quote:
The central dogma of the anti-vaccine ideology is that vaccines cause autism and other bad health effects, and that governments and the pharmaceutical industry knowingly suppress this information. This tenet, we easily imagine, is tightly wedded to the political left. It’s a hippy-dippy attitude, we often think, borne out of an irrational fear of chemicals, and there are indeed prominent spokespeople for the movement who fit this sketch.
[...]
But there is a segment of the anti-vaccination movement on the far right, drawn to its libertarian streak of distrusting the government, and there exists at least one prominent bridge between leftist antivaxxers and the political right in the United States: Donald Trump.
[...]
A survey involving Americans who voted in the 2016 presidential election revealed that Trump voters expressed more vaccine concern (specifically about the MMR vaccine, wrongly linked to autism) than non-Trump voters, a result which the authors conclude was explained by their conspiracist ideation. This association between the current right-wing of American politics and questioning the value and safety of vaccines can also be seen in Gallup polls. For the years 2001, 2015 and 2019, the percentage of Democrats who say it is either extremely or very important for parents to vaccinate their children has moved from 97% to 88% to 92%. For the same time points, Republicans went from 93% to 82% to 79%.
With respect to conspiracy theories surrounding groups like the World Trade Organization, that's been embraced by the fringe right in recent years far more than it ever was by the extreme left. Perhaps you've been lucky enough to avoid everything the conspiracy theorists have been posting about (((Globalists))) and George Soros and Bill Gates and 5G and microchips that track your every move? By and large, it's not liberals who are peddling that nonsense.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
I didn’t say there were no material differences. I'm saying the bigger problem is that social media platforms incentivize hostility and tribalism no matter who the participants are or what the subject is. The tools exploit our cognitive weaknesses the same way VLTs do.
Gather together 1,000 people of whatever political persuasion you choose, isolate them somewhere to form a utopian community, and give them twitter, facebook, and reddit as the only tools to communicate with one another, and in no time at all the community will be split into hostile camps.
So you’re saying it’s exactly like a big thanksgiving/Christmas family dinner?
Gather together 1,000 people of whatever political persuasion you choose, isolate them somewhere to form a utopian community, and give them twitter, facebook, and reddit as the only tools to communicate with one another, and in no time at all the community will be split into hostile camps.
Uh huh... isn’t this the one point in this that most people are agreeing on? I don’t understand the point trying to be made with this goofy scenario.
For those placing most of the blame on social media, remember that social media is not the primary source for most information. The primary sources are usually still the traditional media. Social media acts as a very effective amplifier and repetition channel for the BS that comes out of some of the media sources, but they aren't the one that provides the flow of information people immediately consider "credible."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I meant it’s delusional to think you aren’t subject to the toxic incentives of social media. CP itself would be more civil if it didn’t have like buttons. It would also have less engagement. That’s the crux of the problem.
The fact a bunch of people are coming at me over this and not Flame On proves the point further. He’s on your team, I’m not. Deploy the criticism and thanks acordingly.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 01-08-2021 at 10:09 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
This is the mainstream left. Yes. It's not Qanon, but the idea that these are "reasonable" views accepted most people is simply not true. It's a view held by loud people on twitter which is not indicative of real life
__________________
Last edited by corporatejay; 01-08-2021 at 10:15 AM.
For those placing most of the blame on social media, remember that social media is not the primary source for most information. The primary sources are usually still the traditional media. Social media acts as a very effective amplifier and repetition channel for the BS that comes out of some of the media sources, but they aren't the one that provides the flow of information people immediately consider "credible."
Regular media is so underfunded these days it is often reduced to putting out stories gleaned form social media itself, and its the amplification that is doing the harm not the story's themselves, we have always had flat earthers and moon landing deniers, they were trotted out as a joke every few years on a slow news day back when I was a kid, I mean that literally, you'd get a filler humorous story on the local news magazine style TV show about these morons that meet at the library to claim the earth is flat, they were an object of ridicule, its only the complete lack of judgement facebook brings that has allowed the numpties to florish
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
This is the mainstream left. Yes. It's not Qanon, but the idea that these are "reasonable" views accepted most people is simply not true. It's a view held by loud people on twitter which is not indicative of real life
Quoting this to fix the video, because i want to know what it is.
EDIT: Ah it's Bill Maher centristing the centre and blaming leftists for making Democrats look bad, rather than, you know, Democrats.
"SJWs trying to make them apologize for ridiculous things"
*shows picture of a guy that locked women in a room and jerked off in front of them*
Bill Maher sucks.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
Last edited by PsYcNeT; 01-08-2021 at 10:18 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
This is the mainstream left. Yes. It's not Qanon, but the idea that these are "reasonable" views accepted most people is simply not true. It's a view held by loud people on twitter which is not indicative of real life
Left wing unfunny loud mouth calling out left wing politicians and voters is kind of making everyone’s point, isn’t it?
To me, the rise of citizen journalism via podcasts and video streaming (e.g. Spotify, Instagram, Tik Tok) and giving credence to popular personalities - whether right or wrong - is the problem. The proliferation of any take, rather than the right take, is where social media falls flat.
But I wouldn't fully blame the technology here - being dramatic, providing incomplete information and stretching truths or conspiracies is very much a narrative of human creation, which is still ultimately the problem. I think most of us with any social media presence have done this whether pro-actively or without awareness.
Respect for the truth, well-researched sources and an ability to understand contrarian positions is more of an education and individual willingness to participate in good journalistic ethics and practices.
I have a loose affiliation with an author who worked for a three letter agency in the US government, specializing in psyops, mostly in the Middle East. Some tidbits they recently shared with me about some of the shenanigans going on is there is a belief within the intelligence community that the individuals behind QAnon are the brains behind Cambridge Analytica. They have used the same data from the Clinton/Trump campaign to micro target individuals susceptible to manipulation to erode the trust in government. This whole thing started on 4chan because those people were gamers and open to manipulation through puzzles and use of game theory. This worked to bring down Clinton and split the nation. QAnon was the same thing except targeting evangelicals and homebound moms. Explains the cult mentality. The other day when someone said Steve Bannon must be marinating in his own sauces right now, that may not be too far from the intelligence community believes. Something else to consider in these discussions.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
The fact a bunch of people are coming at me over this and not Flame On proves the point further. He’s on your team, I’m not. Deploy the criticism and thanks acordingly.
There couldn't be another reason that you're getting heat on this? Just maybe?
I meant it’s delusional to think you aren’t subject to the toxic incentives of social media. CP itself would be more civil if it didn’t have like buttons. It would also have less engagement. That’s the crux of the problem.
The fact a bunch of people are coming at me over this and not Flame On proves the point further. He’s on your team, I’m not. Deploy the criticism and thanks acordingly.
This kind of forgoes any sense of personal responsibility on your part, doesn't it? FlameOn is ok because he's on "our team" and you're not because you're not? Doesn't this just prove a complete lack of critical thinking and ownership of ideas on your part? It couldn't possibly be that there is a difference in the way things are presented, the depths of ideas, the eloquence of the conclusions? It's just "whine! tribes!"
The fact that a bunch of people are disagreeing with you over this, and not FlameOn, despite presenting the same general line of thinking, should show that the way in which you're presenting it deserves some sort of personal reflection. This, of course, accidentally proves another problem with tribalism which you are profoundly and repeatedly guilty of: "the only reason people disagree with me is because they are not on my side."
Step back and give it some critical, intelligent thought for once. You've been posting the same things in the same way for years, presenting it as new or relevatory information every single time while it's simply surface level conclusions without any self-awareness. And yet you still do it, time and time again, and blame "tribes" when you don't get the dopamine hit?
Which speaks to the problem with your other conclusion: "CP would be more civil and have less engagement without the thanks button." The problem with the "like" function is not simply a dopamine hit that leads to bitchy weirdos. The problem is that it reduces meaningful engagement (posts, conversations) while increasing passive engagement (likes, shares) which has a detrimental impact on mental health. Literally the opposite problem that you've posed, which makes me question after how many years, how deep you've really looked into the issue. CP doesn't not measure engagement by thanks or quotes. People here especially are here for conversation, debate, "woooos" after a goal, whatever. Without that, there's really nothing. There's no profit margin for a poster getting a lot of thanks and there's such a large degree of free and open disagreement that any dopamine hit from getting thanks becomes irrelevant. Posters who rely on it cease to exist, because there's any number of people ready and willing at all times to engage in the conversation, disagree, add context, ask for data, etc. What the "like" button actually does is reduce this type of engagement by allowing people to thank a post instead of responding with "I agree" or "here's additional information to this." It would have the exact opposite effect, because it's reducing the type of engagement a message board like this exists on, and removing it would actually increase that. If anyone can believe it, I'd probably post more without the thanks button (god help us) because the thanks button gives me an easy way to say "I like this" or "I appreciate this" or "I also think similar to this" without typing a word. The greatest example you could possibly use to make your point has nothing to do with civility at all, in fact: after every win, the same people post the same gifs, and the thanks file on in. It's the least sinister thing you could possibly imagine, just people knowing that people life a certain gif after a win, so instead of going through the thousands or millions of gifs in on the internet, they go back to old faithful. Dangerous stuff, that.
Just ask yourself how many thanks your posts get with any regularity. You complain a lot about people disagreeing with you or the other "tribe" being out to get you or whatever, so I assume you keep track and it's not many? So why are you still here? If you're not here because of that sweet dopamine hit from thankable posts, why?
Now use some common sense and assume the majority of people function and interact with this place more like you than you give them credit for. Or keep pretending your thought patterns are special and everyone else is the tribe. Your call.
Last edited by PepsiFree; 01-08-2021 at 10:41 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Well you did say, "Saying no, my social media sources and my tribe are different, is just a delusion."
I think the left is different. I think the right has been poisoned. There was a time in my memory where right and left were both moored to reality. Now, the mainstream right is disengaged from reality and therefore borderline impossible to reason with.
The left tribe is different right now. That's just the truth.
Go back to Cliff's original point and you will see why they are impossible to reason with. You guys are arguing with him but you don't understand what he's saying.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Go back to Cliff's original point and you will see why they are impossible to reason with. You guys are arguing with him but you don't understand what he's saying.
Guess we'll read a few books and attempt to get to your mighty level of understanding
Here’s a twist. In the latest $600 checks bill, it was held up by Trump. In part because he wanted $2000/person, the other because he explicitly wanted to remove protections from the social media companies that protected them from people spouting false stuff like Qanon. That was also included in the bill.
The Democrats are big supporters of that bill, and it passed with their full support.
Again I am not a Trump supporter at all, but it goes to show how murky politics is down there. Its not a pure good and evil story by any stretch.
You’re completely misrepresenting the story.
Democrats wanted the payments upped to $2000 but without the extra social media stuff that Trump wanted.
Mitch and the Republicans introduced a Bill that tied the $2000 and the other Trump demands together. The Democrats objected and this is why the payments aren’t $2000.
KEY POINTS
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked an attempt by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to unanimously approve a House-passed bill to increase direct payments in the coronavirus relief package to $2,000 from $600.
...
The Kentucky Republican later Tuesday introduced a bill that would boost the size of the checks to $2,000 from $600, repeal Section 230 legal liability protections for internet platforms and create a commission to study election issues. The bill would meet all of President Donald Trump's recent demands, which are unrelated, but would not get Democratic support and become law
...
In a statement Tuesday, Schumer said if McConnell "tries loading up" the bill "with unrelated, partisan provisions that will do absolutely nothing to help struggling families across the country," larger direct payments would not become law.
"Any move like this by Sen. McConnell would be a blatant attempt to deprive Americans of a $2,000 survival check," he said
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to calculoso For This Useful Post:
Left wing unfunny loud mouth calling out left wing politicians and voters is kind of making everyone’s point, isn’t it?
The funny thing is that Maher pisses of lefties pretty often as well. He's a centrist, but some of his opinions extend to different parts of the spectrum.
Plus, he isn't media. He is a comedian and people watch him for entertainment. It's not even remotely comparable to QAnon
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
