The Fundamental Polarization of Society

[Turtle]

If you truly seek the answer following the logic above, then perhaps, Turtle, you should also add literacy to your equation.

 

that didn't take long at all. witness! turtle's logic is sound says InfiniteNow. :) trivially obvious is that in either case literacy is presumed, i.e., save for illustrations an illiterate person is not influenced by what is written. :phones:

 

PSsidebar, your honor? is the question of whether the internet will, can , or has increased the literacy rate for any populations a subject for another thread?

[InfiniteNow]

that didn't take long at all. witness! turtle's logic is sound says InfiniteNow. :D trivially obvious is that in either case literacy is presumed, i.e., save for illustrations an illiterate person is not influenced by what is written. :)

 

:phones:

 

 

PSsidebar, your honor? is the question of whether the internet will, can , or has increased the literacy rate for any populations a subject for another thread?

Maybe. To be clear, my contention was not at all implying such, but whatever floats your boat, mate.

 

 

And, as we all know here on Hypography, that would be buoyancy. :hyper:

[Buffy]

Now, now, you're both starting to sound like coberst....

 

coffee houses of London, coffee houses of the East Village, coffee houses in Berkeley, coffee houses at Firedoglake, coffee houses at Hypography...the hits just keep on coming!

 

Subversiveness is next to Godliness,

Buffy Guevara

[Turtle]

Now, now, you're both starting to sound like coberst....

 

coffee houses of London, coffee houses of the East Village, coffee houses in Berkeley, coffee houses at Firedoglake, coffee houses at Hypography...the hits just keep on coming!

 

Subversiveness is next to Godliness,

Buffy Guevara

 

i'll figure out the obscure references ASAP, but in the mean time i humbly submit InfiniteNow is sounding like Coberst and I'm sounding like Turtle replying to Coberst.

 

i ask is this a cogent reply?

Maybe. To be clear, my contention was not at all implying such, but whatever floats your boat, mate.

is the conversation forwarded by that reply? is this an op ed or a discussion? who asked for opinions in the opening thread? who disregards those opinions without substantiation? who has provided no links or authoritive reference in support of their contention?

 

:) :D i introduced the British coffee houses as that is where the newspaper was born as i recall. my point is that any number of leaps in the speed, breadth, and disemination of information has preceded the internet, and that the net effect of these leaps was not and could not be determined predicated on their starts. because IN is contending that this most recent leap is creating more extreme positions - or, "sending the world to hell in a hand-basket" to quote Coberst-i need to show it is not unique in history in order to counter the contention.

 

moreover, IN has given no evidence here that his contention has any more substance than his belief, & all indications point to none forthcoming. i wouldn't mind hearing some observations from some of our many other dear (if not trepidatious:hyper: )readers, both on the merits of the contention as well as the prsoecution of the discussion.

 

:hyper: :phones:

[InfiniteNow]

Okay. Turtle, I was asking for the thoughts and opinions of others, but with these continued tangents and attacks of yours I am weary that you've managed to scare off others who potentially were willing to contribute to the thread.

 

I asked a question. You shared your thoughts, as have others. Are you attacking the opening question, the positions shared since, or just me? This is a Watercooler thread. Please sir, bear this in mind as you are loading your musket and continually pointing in my general direction.

 

 

I do agree with one point made above by Turtle in that it would be useful to hear the thoughts of others. Does anyone have input on the topic one way or another, or is everyone ducking for cover until the shrapnel clears? Please share. :lol:

 

"Yes, I think the same!"

"No, you're full of bull pucky!"

 

 

:umno:

[Turtle]

Okay. Turtle, I was asking for the thoughts and opinions of others, but with these continued tangents and attacks of yours I am weary that you've managed to scare off others who potentially were willing to contribute to the thread.

 

I asked a question. You shared your thoughts, as have others. Are you attacking the opening question, the positions shared since, or just me? This is a Watercooler thread. Please sir, bear this in mind as you are loading your musket and continually pointing in my general direction.

:shrug:

 

Listen here boy; this thread is a bait to debate from stem to stern; from the loaded words dripping in connotations in the title to the wishy washy unclarified unquantified terms in the first post, and straight down to the custom tags* you append to the end. Be careful what you ask for because you might just get it.

 

Nothing I have posted is tangent or challenging solid evidence except some of my replies to your retorts to my replies to your retorts. On the contrary; I am 'attacking' whatever I observe to be an obstacle to truth, each as they come, while contributing fresh new material & ideas.

 

The NY Times article is a strong argument that the divisiveness among people is an artifact of the hard-wiring of the brain and not dependent on the information in the brain or its method or scope of dissemination.

 

While Buffy's posts are constrained to the US, the elements she brings up are easily accomodated under the umbrella of the brain structure-influencing-behavior view and I see no reason to challenge her content. :o

 

Craig is still mulling over my objections to some of his ideas and may or may not see a need to retort.

 

You think I scare people??? Everybody who's scared of Turtle, raise your hand... NOW!

 

* bush, division, ideology, moron thread, peace, polarization,

 

unity, us immigration, war

[Cedars]

 

You think I scare people??? :) Everybody who's scared of Turtle, raise your hand... NOW! :P

 

* bush, division, ideology, moron thread, peace, polarization,

 

unity, us immigration, war

 

*snicker*

 

I am not scared of the turtle.

[InfiniteNow]

Listen here boy; this thread is a bait to debate from stem to stern; from the loaded words dripping in connotations in the title to the wishy washy unclarified unquantified terms in the first post, and straight down to the custom tags* you append to the end. Be careful what you ask for because you might just get it.

 

Had you called me "boy" in the same room, you'd now have a broken nose. You clearly do not understand our membership if you believe they'd be willing to jump into a conversation where you and I disagree.

 

Thanks for the feedback, chappy. :)

[Turtle]

Had you called me "boy" in the same room, you'd now have a broken nose. You clearly do not understand our membership if you believe they'd be willing to jump into a conversation where you and I disagree.

 

Thanks for the feedback, chappy. :P

 

And that dear boy is the real power of the internet; you can't punch me. I'm not scared of you because I know you can't punch me. Might is no longer right. Jumpers-in abound & let the truth prevail. Calling a spade a spade is in back in vogue chappy. :)

[InfiniteNow]

You've effectively proven the point of the thread, and simultaneously squelched dialog regarding it.

 

My hope at a discussion on an a topic of interest to many has turned into a petty immature war because you find the method I use to share my hope of improved global social interatctions distasteful.

 

 

:)

[Turtle]

You've effectively proven the point of the thread, and simultaneously squelched dialog regarding it.

 

My hope at a discussion on an a topic of interest to many has turned into a petty immature war because you find the method I use to share my hope of improved global social interatctions distasteful.

 

 

:)

 

:P swell. i accept your uncle and give my word not to post another reply to this thread unless or until it garners at least 20 more posts that aren't yours. that ought'a lower the fear factor eh?

 

for my rising blow, i assert i have effectively proven Buffy's point on amelioration, which is counter to the thread's polarization. :) :hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

:rolleyes: swell. i accept your uncle and give my word not to post another reply to this thread unless or until it garners at least 20 more posts that aren't yours. that ought'a lower the fear factor eh?

The description of circumstance I shared above should not be interpreted as concession. Your interpretation of it as such is mistaken, and your mocking the anxiety others may have to post here makes the issue no less relevant.

 

 

 

I will concede that there are valid points in Turtle's arguments. I have no statistics to offer. However, I suggest that the underlying tone in his comments is one of further division and no desire to explore. To state that we are today no different than generations past is an overstatement in every sense, and fails to account for the subtleties and advances that truly make today's society different than all those which came before.

 

I apologize if I misinterpret, but I sense Turtle's contention is that this societal division is something which happens regularly... in fact, is always happening... From this, he asserts that my contention indicating that it's now occuring with greater intensity and broader scope makes me an idiot, especially since I have no solid data to back up this contention (sound about right, Turtle?).

 

Buffy shared points also supporting that this happens in an almost cyclic fashion, however seems to have added that those who act to polarize people in today's culture seem to do so with more regularity and effect. I apologize if I misinterpret, but I sensed this meant that much of the problem now is direct conscious effort toward division, as opposed to being a simple emergent property.

 

Craig seems also to have supported the idea of division, and attributed it to the adoption of one of two general viewpoints... Some assume the mentality of a nurturing mother, while others assume the mentality of a strict father. Craig also expressed some of the concern I think was inherent in my opening post, and contends that one of these mentalities will ultimately need to "win" for things to change. I apologize if I misinterpret, but I sensed this to mean that there is, in fact, division in the populace, and much of it has to do with how we learn and how we approach finding solutions to the problems we face.

 

Orbsycli seems to suggest that we will reach a societal "coming of age" in 2012. I agree that we are in a period where we're "growing up," just not necessarily with the certainty expressed regarding the date where this phase shift will occur. However, I thank orby for being one of the only four people who have contributed in this thread, and thank him also for his simply worded approach, itself paraphrased here: "Things are always changing, just keep swimming."

 

 

 

Dare I ask if this topic is too boring, or if you feel it is a conversation not worth having? I will accept that, but I'm trying to compare my own sense and interpretation to that of others, and need your help to do so.

[InfiniteNow]

Society and our perception of it seems to have so much less gray area these days. Large numbers of folks are at a very extreme end of whatever spectrum is being viewed, and deaf to arguments made from opposing viewpoints.

 

We're all skewed. That's a given.

 

Why do you think the ideological divisions these days seem to be so much deeper and wider than before? Do you at all?

 

 

:cup:

 

I do. ;)

[CraigD]

Why do you think the ideological divisions these days seem to be so much deeper and wider than before?

(bolding and italics mine)

 

I believe that political ideological division in the US is slightly greater than in 2007 than it was in 1994. I believe that this division seems to be greater because it is greatly exaggerated by many journalist and politicians, largely because of a political tactic initiated by Republican party candidates and strategists following the 1992 election of Bill Clinton. However, the actual distribution of people in the US of various political ideologies, has not, IMHO, changed significantly over this time period.

 

This slight change is a regional and national phenomena, largest in parts of the US with large shifts in employment patterns. Job dislocation and financial insecurity, I believe, significantly increases the likelihood of people adopting extreme political views. While such conditions has lead to “left wing” movements, such as in early 20th century Russia and mid 20th century Cuba and South America, since the 1980s in the US, it appears to me to have lead to “right wing” movements, marked largely by a shift of states dominated politically by the Republican party from the North (where unemployment and job dislocation has been lower) to the South (where it has been higher).

 

Compared to periods and places of extreme uncertainty and change, such as the present day middle east, mid 20th, 19th, or mid 18th century America, post WWI Russia and Germany, post WWII China, or many earlier periods and places, the divisions being experiences now in the US are so slight as to be trivial. Civil War is a fairly certain indication of strong ideological divisions. IMHO, the US is very far from conditions likely to provoke a civil war.

 

More, I believe that, in much the same way that participants in political debates at hypography are weary of extreme political views, the American public is growing increasingly weary of them, and have been since the late 1990s, and is currently experiencing a “swing to the center”.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Pardon the language - this post is a tad blue.

 

Had you called me "boy" in the same room, you'd now have a broken nose.

 

I want to say "A-f*ckin'-men." - but I also know that Turtle has this idiosyncratic way of typing, and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that the way that IN and I probably took it.

 

But that actually brings up a pretty good point. How much of the "polarization" is just due to the "Greater Internet ****wad Theory?" I can have perfectly reasonable conversations with Republicans in real life, and I'm probably not going to call them something like "Rethuglicans" or "heartless plutocrats" to their faces.

 

But on the Internets, I am no one. I can say what I like, to whom I like, and I can get as pissed off as I like. And although my first reaction to "boy" is also to get pissed off - in public, I'm unlikely to ACTUALLY punch anybody in the nose for it, or frankly to even threaten them, as I have a strong desire to avoid going to jail. But on the Internet... oh well.

 

I think that radio call-in shows have the same effect. In fact I am POSITIVE that they do. I know people who call those things and say the dumbest things I can imagine, and yet manage to hold their nose and act intelligently in "real life."

 

There's not really any accountability for what you say on the internet. If you call me a nasty name, what's the worst that can happen to you? I call you a nasty name back. Eventually we trade ridiculous tit-for-tat forum posts until one of us grows weary of pointless exchanges where we don't actually have to have any give and take and gives up.

 

Normal Person + Audience + Anonymity = Total ****wad.

 

I'm not sure that there's a whole lot more 'polarization' as much as there is increased 'publication' - in the past only people with printing presses and money could afford to be complete dicks. Then people with television cameras and money. Now anybody with an internet connection can get online and say ridiculous things about Republicans being soulless fascists. (They're really not, as we should all know (intellectually, anyway) If you could actually have a face to face (a really, really REAL one, and not some politically constructed stunt kind of one) with a politician for the opposite side, do you think you'd walk away "hating" them? I doubt it.)

 

Real diplomacy is still done face to face. And generally, eventually, we all find some common ground. The only people who DON'T want to get along are called sociopaths. How ironic that the technology that was supposed to "bring us all together" is just driving us apart, eh?

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks for the nice post, TFS. You imply that there are certain media (as in the plural of medium) which contribute to skewed and extreme belief sets (AM radio as an example). Also, that there is some polarization across society, but it's not necessarily new or different than before. Last, you (and I think correctly) indicate that much of the issue is anonymity, and were we physically together we'd be much more likely to form consensus.

 

 

So, although nearly everyone has good and bad qualities, the fact that we are faceless, nameless, formless, and without much consequence on the internet, we tend to feel more free to attack and push our own ideologies to the farthest end of the spectrum? It's safer, so we do it more?

 

If what I've perceived is accurate, I'd indicate it is very worthy of further reflection. Thanks again. :zip:

 

 

Cheers.

[TheFaithfulStone]

you got it.

 

tfs