Yes. Next question, you SOB!
No fucking shit we are. How did you crack that nut, Einstein?
I think there are two sides to this. Yes, online aggression has probably peaked in recent years with the rise of worldwide pro far-right misinformation campaigns, no argument there. They were specifically targeted at the people more vulnerable to buy into hate speech propaganda.
On the other hand, I have personally noticed more constructive discussions, even after I deleted most of my anti-social media accounts and substantialy decreased my usage of Internet forums in general. It seems there’s some positive trend in the middle of all that.
Not my experience. Just try to post some slightly unpopular opinion and good luck with the virtue signaling, whatever the topic is, and which is mostly done for fake internet points, I bet.
“Virtue signaling”
Hmmm that’s telling language.
What does “telling language” means, in this context? I’ve never heard that. Not a native speaker.
If you are implying that I’m defending “unpopular” stuff such as racism, sexism, or any kind of right-wing “free speech”, you’re plainly wrong. I’m talking about much less sensitive topics (technology, for instance). As an example, I’ve been attacked for saying that I profoundly dislike Mozilla and that I don’t care if the disappeared (they should, actually).
Give your imagination a rest.
Now you got me curious. What’s the argument against Mozilla?
I’m not going to discuss that again, I’ve already wasted too much time explaining why I despise them, nor I’m going to apologize for celebrating their demise, when it comes. If you disagree, just start donating to them.
People really don’t like Mozilla parasites being called for their grift.
I think is one of the main reasons for why there is such a lot of hostile discussion online, people read something which they infer as a hint of something they dont like and from there extrapolate into the worst person they imagine who could be saying that and proceed to righteously strike them down (with words).
I’ve always been a terse asshole.
Your mother is a hamster. >:(
No you
gasp
🍿&🫖
At least my father doesn’t smell like elderberries
But will you join us on our quest for the Holy Grail?!
“Why are online discussions about politics more hostile than offline discussions?
A popular answer argues that human psychology is tailored for face-to-face interaction and people’s behavior therefore changes for the worse in impersonal online discussions…
Across eight studies, leveraging cross-national surveys and behavioral experiments (total N = 8,434), we test the mismatch hypothesis but only find evidence for limited selection effects.
Instead, hostile political discussions are the result of status-driven individuals who are drawn to politics and are equally hostile both online and offline.
Finally, we offer initial evidence that online discussions feel more hostile, in part, because the behavior of such individuals is more visible online than offline.”This fits with our understanding of personality disorders, which is that they are a small percentage of our society—around 10.5 percent, according to the recent DSM-5-TR.3
I try to avoid all politics online because it’s all raging and it’s honestly depressing that 10.5% can dominate a space like that.
yes and i don’t think it’s limited to politics either.
What a terrible headline. All of us? No. Next.
Here’s the thing.
The last 10 years have proven that organized online hostility is VERY EFFECTIVE at dictating public opinion.
That’s how we got the new fascist movements. Trump and the like. Because right wing hostility and bigotry went not only unchecked institutionally but unchallenged socially.
No solution has emerged for that from an institutional level.
So yeah, my socialist ass is fighting back. I’ll be damned if I’m going to spend the rest of my life under these fucking wastes of flesh and their bullshit antiquated opinions. I’m done taking it and I’m done tolerating it. Fuck every last republican and homophobe and transphobe and complicit liberal. All of them. And wouldn’t you know it, little by little they’re backing down when we stand up to them like the cowards they are.
Yes, I am deliberately far more hostile online, because it WORKS. And clearly nobody with institutional control cares enough to try anything else.
There’s a war going on.
A war of ideas.
The only problem is that you guys call everyone a transphone or homophobe or liberal or whatever, all the time. Its actually a bit funny because you dont see the forest for the trees. Everyone has to think exactly the same or they are THE ENEMY and need to be keyboard warriored into compliance with right-think :)
With age comes a bit more wisdom (ok maybe not for Trump). If you have calm discussions and listen, you will absolutely 100% see that most people are actually quite alright. Even if they dont like trans people, they will eventuelly get there, by having discussions and chats and seeing them in the real world.
I remember how this worked in Sweden where I live. At first, everyone was super racist. We had like 3 black people in school and they were of course bullied and thought of as very strange. This was in 1985 or something.
Now, decades later, its seen as strange if you dont have black people at a job, or see them everywhere. Because its normal.
The same thing will happen with trans people but you dont have to sit and hate people online to get there. It will happen as more trans people come out and join everyone else at work and in the cities, just normally.
I have seen it. So just relax guys. Dont hate.
I remember how this worked in Sweden where I live
Yeah, things don’t work that way everywhere.
We tried being nice in America. It got us here.
You just go back to enjoying your ivory tower. We have actual problems here and your high road is not the solution.
How did you try being nice? You have a war on everything… Drugs, freedom, privacy… Im honestly not sure how you see yourself as being nice…
High road? Im also not sure how you took the high road. Im genuinely interested, maybe my perspective here is completely wrong.
Some of those were well intended over reactions.
- “War on drugs” was hyperbole to stoke up enthusiasm to fight against a real problem. And somehow ended with millions of broken lives, millions behind bars for victimless crimes, worse racism. Maybe it was taken over by racists, or maybe we all got caught up in the moment, but it was mostly not being able to face when it went wrong, then eventually only the worst conservatives were in charge
- “War on organized crime” also well intended hyperbole to mobilize effort against a real problem. People forgot lessons about whether the “means justifies the end”, and now after trying to get back to a normal life we’re left with legalized rights violations. “For our own good”, a surveillance state, more racism, legalized theft, and cops above the law. As we tried to recover, only the worst authoritarians were left in charge and it got worse quickly.
All of those things you mentioned were right wing power grabs.
Taking the high road was letting that shit become mainstream.
Counterpoint: call out bigotry or fuck off
You know, those oneliners may sound cool when you are a teenager, but they are signs of a mind who thinks in absolutes, because there is no wisdom yet.
It will come through life and getting older. :)
Nah. Can almost guarantee I would have been on your side when I was your age.
Apart from anything else, spending all that energy resisting change that’s coming anyway must be exhausting. It’s no wonder they’re so cranky.
The problem is these are the people who won’t get there, plus they’re harming a lot of people in the meantime.
Codger mode ….
Back when I was a wee young’un, I lived in a small town in a rural area. Republicans ideals made sense (whose not to like fiscal prudence), we read about the crime ridden horrors of big cities, read about the inbred fear of education down south, read about drugs destroying peoples lives, read about welfare queens, read about illegal immigrants and crime. We “weren’t racist” but those dark skin people were violent criminals. Products of our environments I guess.
Like you, I grew up. As I was exposed to a larger variety of people, I discovered they were people. As I saw more people in situations outside their control, I developed more empathy. As I got to know people with different preferences than mine, I learned their preferences didn’t do me any harm. Now decades later, it’s hard to understand the fear, oppression, racism, hatred, and it’s impossible to understand the unethical inconsistent self serving authoritarians that Republicans have become. I’ve seen it too. I apologize to everyone I hurt because it took years for me to grow into a better human being.
The problem is these are the people who never grew out of it. They’re the people who saw their friends and family expand their horizons, but retreated ever deeper into their holes. Theyre the people who saw progress and desperately yearned for a mythical past that never was. They’re the people who saw everyone else growing out of their limitations, and turned to extremism. They are not joining everyone else but have turned their backs and headed the other directions. They are the diehards wallowing in their misery who don’t care about anyone else’s misery. They are the righteous who have lost their way, cloaking their hatred, spite and corruption is self-righteous desperation. They are the self-centered stealing from society and stealing from the future. They are the limited viewpoint building ever higher walls against fear of the outside. They won’t change.
Conformity of thought, belief, or action isn’t the problem. The oroblem is treating some people or groups as less than human and not deserving of equal rights and opportunities.
Sir this is a Lemmy… WTF is you talking about?
Show where people on here are treated as less than human…
Your brain really is in the bin…
Nice one ;)
Meet Anon.
Yes, and it’s a good thing. The Paradox of Tolerance. If we want a world where people are free to choose and believe and live unique and different lives, we cannot stand by and do nothing while intolerant assholes live their lives.
Some people deliberately come to social media for fighting. I probably used to. Maybe on occasion when I’m feeling cranky I will be less diplomatic than I really want to be.
But I find two things actually help:
- I’m not friends/following anyone I know in real life. That helps with anonymity in case I do run afoul of someone who bears a grudge, but also when someone posts aggravating bullshit, it’s not someone I care about. Which leads to…
- I’m merciless about blocking anyone and anything that I can’t engage with fruitfully. Attention is a limited resource and I don’t want to spend it all on negativity. I’m happy to hold genial conversations with folks I disagree with, but if interacting with them becomes tedious, stressful, or annoying I just bin them. Hell, if someone is a big enough prick to someone else I block them. If someone is in every thread harping on some agenda, gone.
Bluesky has a feature to mute keywords for a set period. If I need a break from news about Gaza, Trump, some trending drama, sports (like the World Cup), or just want to avoid spoilers, I mute the topic for a while.
Together, these tools make social media much less negative for me. It usually keeps me from doom scrolling or taking the rage bait.
And when I’m emotionally charged or unclear, I sometimes draft my comments elsewhere before posting. I let it sit for a bit, and if I can’t say what I mean with the tone and clarity I want, I just don’t post. Maybe 30% of my comments get binned—some after spending an hour or more working on them.
In short, I heavily curate my social interactions—both incoming and outgoing—to reduce stress and negativity. As a result, social media today is far more pleasant than it was ten years ago.
I have. I honestly try not to be. There’s just so many uncaring shits online. It makes me sick to think of how fucked up these trolls are to relish causing others distress. Then I become a dick
I’m trying to be better
There’s just so many uncaring shits online.
I wonder how much “hate” on the internet is this… but the reality is that is how you “see” them in your head rather than what they’re actually saying/believe. A lot of negative responses to some of the things I say is a strawman of what I actually believe/said.
Yeah see, I don’t buy that. I can say things in a less than PC way, but it takes tow to argue. If I don’t make an effort to be understood, I can’t be pissed when I’m not
And since I can’t force others do that, I can only do what I can
We are all responsible for what we say , good and bad
But thank you for sharing, sincerely
but it takes tow to argue
Eh… It really doesn’t though does it? One side can be sincerely stating points of fact/logic and others often can and do often ascribe that as “you’re a terrible person for saying that!”.
We are all responsible for what we say , good and bad
Good and bad are subjective though. There is often no black and white. I often cite and source things to show that I’m not stating anything as a matter of opinion… and out of the blue some rando comes out and tries ascribing some sense of moral straw-man claiming that I must believe something or another. Here’s an example from literally last night…
I made no statement that could even be construed as putting words in other people’s mouths… yet someone straw-manned me by definition (and didn’t even know the word for it) by Smee there trying to make some grand point that nobody was even making at that point but they thought I was.
Edit: Actually you don’t even need to look at an entirely different thread… Just look at the other response to me. Someone who wasn’t even in the conversation comes out of the blue and ascribes something I never said nor could ever have been construed as and took it to some straw-man end game nonsense.
Let me show you why it takes two…
Have a good evening
Jonathan Haidt recently wrote in The Atlantic:
Ok but fr tho fuck Jonathan Haidt.
Haidt was JAQing off about trans people in the exact way that the Onion called out and satirized hours after their article was published. He’s a “centrist” who seems to exclusively punch left, and he’s just whining about getting called out with legitimate criticism.
He also got deez nuts’d iirc lol.
Edit: Shit, I had him confused with another Atlantic writer, Jonathan Chait. My bad. Haidt is also a left-punching transphobic “centrist” tho.
Agreed, haidt is a hack
Jesus christ, it’s like you read the headline and desperately wanted to provide supporting evidence.
Next time? Just for like 1 second?
Imagine that other people don’t give a shit about you blasting your toxicity at the world. Maybe the world would actually be a better place if assholes like you shut up some times.
BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights, this is just you personally acting like every other .ml out there.
Jesus christ, it’s like you read the headline and desperately wanted to provide supporting evidence.
Well, yes. First off because it’s funny. Several other people in the thread thought so and made the same joke.
But also, yes, because I despise civility fetishism, and I also despise Haidt for being a transphobic shitlib. And obviously, the two are connected, the reason Haidt is whining about civility is that he got bullied on Twitter for his transphobia and he wants to be able to shit on trans people without suffering any kind of social reprecussions.
It’s funny how you baselessly assert “this has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights” as if just saying it somehow makes it true, like some kind of magic spell. I wonder, would you say the same thing if it was a more prominent transphobe like JK Rowling calling out hostility in internet discourse? What if it was someone like, say, Charlie Kirk, or even Richard Spencer? Are you a true civility fetishist who takes issue with bullying bigots, or is it that you’re only ok with bigotry when it’s directed towards trans people? Idk, seems worth investigating.
But, you know, maybe civility fetishism isn’t so bad. Maybe it’s me who’s wrong, I’m just a crazy radical, and I need to be more like MLK.
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
Huh, kinda seems like he saw tension disrupting the peace as being necessary towards pushing towards justice in equality in an unjust status quo. But maybe MLK is too radical too. You know who I need to be more like? Jesus. That’s right, I’m turning over a new leaf and I’ve decided to be more Christlike.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.
Huh. Kinda seems like even Jesus agreed that social change necessarily involved creating conflict, or bringing conflicts to the forefront, in order to address injustice.
But ok, let’s ignore them (maybe the world would just be a better place if assholes like them would shut up some times and stop blasting their toxicity all over the world) and look at the actual, present day reality. When exactly was internet discourse supposedly more civil? Let’s compare to, say, 10 years ago, 2015. Before #MeToo so you don’t have to worry about women calling people out for sexual assault and causing division, but it’s also in the middle of Gamergate, so you know, really not a great time to be a woman on the internet, but I guess if you were a cishet white man, things were pretty peaceful and harmonious. You also didn’t have a bunch of people calling out the bombs going to the Middle East, of course, we were still bombing civilians en masse, but I guess if you were a cishet white man, things were pretty peaceful and harmonious.
You know when discourse was really at it’s peak? The 1950’s. Before all these radicals started calling for civil rights or spreading division against things like bombing Vietnam or Korea, just an all around wonderful time, a Leave it to Beaver paradise, you know, just so long as you’re a cishet white man.
At some point, obviously, you have to draw the line. And I’ve simply drawn it a little bit further than you have.
This, this is what neurodivergence looks like.
Are you saying that in an attempt to insult/discredit me in some way? Yes, I’m neurodivergent, and proud of it. I’m also correct on the points I made (save for mixing up Haidt and Chait, as I owned up to).
It’s not an insult, just an observation.
Thanks for confirming it.
the platforms see it as lucrative, therefore its hating eachother time.
