Support NeoGAF

[jellies_two]

As an aside, did you read the Time article on Bannon this week? Whether or not this is true I thought it was quite interesting:



http://time.com/4657665/steve-bannon-donald-trump/

Interesting but I don't buy it. He was so mad at Wall Street that he got himself an MBA, joined Goldman Sachs, made bank, moved out of Goldman Sachs and setup his own investment fund, made bank, got Soc Gen to buy it, made bank, Infiltrated a WOW gold farming outfit that was making bank, and repackaged it and sold it to Goldman Sacks for $60m where upon it collapsed because it was shit with a bow on it.
For someone who hated the financial system that destroyed his dad, he sure loved wallowing in it.

The thing I do buy is that he got very close to power for a brief time under Reagan in the Pentagon as someones special assistant and then got fired or resigned or was pushed out (one term only), and has been hankering to get back to washington ever since then.

I don't doubt he observed a lot of people losing their shirts during the GFC but one thing you probably shouldn't do is then embrace Goldman Sachs and their money to enrich yourself.

 

[Otnopolit]

What? The extreme left anti-pharm, anti-GMO, anti-vax groups invented that shit. They've even managed to main stream it to where even those on the right believe that crap. The alt-right definitely took a page out of that playbook.

Perfect, exactly what I wanted: examples of the extreme left book of tricks. Thank you, that gave me some needed context.

 

[Polari]

Interesting but I don't buy it. He was so mad at Wall Street that he got himself an MBA, joined Goldman Sachs, made bank, moved out of Goldman Sachs and setup his own investment fund, made bank, got Soc Gen to buy it, made bank, Infiltrated a WOW gold farming outfit that was making bank, and repackaged it and sold it to Goldman Sacks for $60m where upon it collapsed because it was shit with a bow on it.
For someone who hated the financial system that destroyed his dad, he sure loved wallowing in it.

The thing I do buy is that he got very close to power for a brief time under Reagan in the Pentagon as someones special assistant and then got fired or resigned or was pushed out (one term only), and has been hankering to get back to washington ever since then.

I don't doubt he observed a lot of people losing their shirts during the GFC but one thing you probably shouldn't do is then embrace Goldman Sachs and their money to enrich yourself.

Yeah I don't buy it either.

 

[chromatic9]

As an aside, did you read the Time article on Bannon this week? Whether or not this is true I thought it was quite interesting:



http://time.com/4657665/steve-bannon-donald-trump/

Is it said exactly how Steve Bannon's father lost most of his money?

 

[Cyrano]

How is a democracy to survive?

Democracy can never survive in a capitalist system. The two are incompatible and one will eventually push out the other. And right now? Capitalism is definitely winning. Hard to say how much longer that lasts though.

On the subject of the internet: the internet is possibility laced with poison. At the inception of the internet there was a dedicated fight against its monopolistic convergence, but the internet is now here and in many ways is the realization of its creators--monolithic, overpowering and overbearing. With extraordinary amounts of information-and capitalist paywalls to match.

 

[jellies_two]

Perfect, exactly what I wanted: examples of the extreme left book of tricks. Thank you, that gave me some needed context.

Box of tricks? out of that list, really only anti-vax is a full on conspiracy theory. I don't think the left is helpless in the face of conspiracy theories. Can you see a democrat calling for no funding for vaccine research for example?
I'm not sure what Anti-pharma is but it sounds a bit like anti price gouging.
Anti-GMO has elements that are important, at least for me it is mostly about not being totally for genetic manipulation as a way to help conglomerate exploit the environment.

If thats the both sides argument for extremist policies it is very weak. And the arrival of trump has made these things seem almost invisible in importance.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Box of tricks? out of that list, really only anti-vax is a full on conspiracy theory. I don't think the left is helpless in the face of conspiracy theories. Can you see a democrat calling for no funding for vaccine research for example?
I'm not sure what Anti-pharma is but it sounds a bit like anti price gouging.
Anti-GMO has elements that are important, at least for me it is mostly about not being totally for genetic manipulation as a way to help conglomerate exploit the environment.

If thats the both sides argument for extremist policies it is very weak. And the arrival of trump has made these things seem almost invisible in importance.

Anti-Pharma is basically a rejection of drugs entirely in favour of holistic medicine and the like... but yeah it is hardly a meaningful number of people

 

[jellies_two]

Is it said exactly how Steve Bannon's father lost most of his money?

It would be delightful if he lost all his money in highly leveraged investment funds that were sold to him by bankers who thought Dodd Frank was anti-competitive red tape government interference.
the people who lost their shirts (not their homes) tended to have been indulging in high risk high leverage hedge funds. If he had all his money "in the stock market" the most he would have lost is 30% if he sold it at the bottom in a panic.

Maybe his son told him to stick it all in speculative dotcoms. A lot of people were doing that back then. This Bannon origin story stinks.

 

[jellies_two]

Anti-Pharma is basically a rejection of drugs entirely in favour of holistic medicine and the like... but yeah it is hardly a meaningful number of people

Oh yeah well every now and again I watch That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E and realise that hasn't got a chance. And since it has 3 million views and 280 thumbs down, they don't seem very successful as a subversive force.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

This is the issue - not that people are drawn to their own biases, but that the illusion that we are instead influenced by rationality or intellect has been exposed; we are instead confronted by mankind's willingness to self-destruct so visibly.

This. Acceleration towards that destructive end IS the problem. Slowing down (I.e., making information propagation and distribution less efficient and/or filtered through better moderation for the quality/efficacy of the information's sake) would ultimately be healthier for both our individual and collective psyches, as it would allow us to utilize critical thinking more effectively instead of just wading in an endless torrent of babel.

The internet as a technology is an accelerator for information propagation and distribution, but the technology does not consider the information's quality with any significance relative to the aforementioned properties. Information channels that adhere to strict methodological forms of peer review by experts within a particular field relevant to the information in question will always be much better at parsing the nature of reality than something like the internet affords due to it's lack of structure and formalities.

 

[devilhawk]

Anti-Pharma is basically a rejection of drugs entirely in favour of holistic medicine and the like... but yeah it is hardly a meaningful number of people

It should also include the depressingly common conspiracy theory that drug companies are not trying to produce cures but are trying to maintain sicknesses.

Alternative medicine is a 30+ billion dollar industry. That's a 2012 number too. It is in no way obscure.

 

[Yamauchi]

I do not believe that the internet and its echo chambers undermine democracies. One of the basic assumptions of democracy is that within a democratic society every individual is drafted into complicity with the ruling order through no choice of their own. This produces the impression (and demand) that everyone must be political, though viewed logically this is a rather elementary fallacy. Prior to the spread of the internet, political dialogue could at least be compartmentalized to some extent ("Never discuss politics in polite company") since most dialogue occurred face-to-face, but it has always been on a trajectory of occupying a greater and greater space, first with newspapers, and then with radio and TV. Now with the damaging echo chambers of the internet, we see one of the logical conclusions of the spread of information and digital communication within a democratic society. This seems to be a symptom of something inherently broken within the democratic system as currently envisioned rather than the fault of the internet itself. The fact that there is so much anxiety and frustration accompanied by endless fighting and hand-wringing indicates to me that no solution to this issue has yet been found. I've certainly not seen a good one.

 

[jellies_two]

It should also include the depressingly common conspiracy theory that drug companies are not trying to produce cures but are trying to maintain sicknesses.

Alternative medicine is a 30+ billion dollar industry. That's a 2012 number too. It is in no way obscure.

I won't object if alternative Medicine - which probably is lumping things in like chinese medicine hypnosis and so on to get to that scary 30 billion number - takes some profits from big pharma that run ads each day telling what expensive pill you should be popping to be a happy grandparent in a green field.

I won't shed any tears for the financial success of some less than mainstream ideas. Just don't block research into how bad they are.

People should be allowed to kill themselves with alternative therapies if they are so determined to do so. But not their kids. And I don't think it is a particularly pressing issue right now to distract people with.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

You can't really lump social and economic viewpoints together as easily as that. Plus I would argue GAF is more like the "alt-left" - more concerned about race and gender than class (with little interest or engagement with economic issues beyond what they mean for race and gender divisions). The alt-right is similar in its ontology, just from the opposing side.

I've got some analysis I'd bounce off you about the social development of race and gender through class exploitation, but before that, can you really say that I'm wrong in terms of which groups really ride for social and economic issues? I feel like they are pretty obviously linked in practice.

 

[Kenclops]

Weird day. I just finished fixing a computer for two cigarette smoking lesbian lovers that are pro Trump.

 

[jellies_two]

Weird day. I just finished fixing a computer for two cigarette smoking lesbian lovers that are pro Trump.

If they are 400 lbs combined, live with eight cats and play online games 24/7, then I think I may know them.

 

[Arkage]

Anti-GMO has elements that are important, at least for me it is mostly about not being totally for genetic manipulation as a way to help conglomerate exploit the environment.

GMOs help prevent exploiting the environment by artificially increasing crop yields so less resources (land, water, time) have to be used in growing and producing food. Being anti-GMO has no important elements, and is often sold as "genetic modification is scary!" garbage, just like anti-vax is sold as "putting dead viruses in babies is scary!"

 

[dpunk3]

Some things do not have a large gray area. Things like human rights, understanding and reacting to human-caused climate change, etc. Similarly, as has been stated by some others, reality has a liberal bias. Comfortable people benefitting from the status quo are fearful of change (conservatives) for the fear (be it real or imaginary) that progression will make them less comfortable. If these individuals cannot handle reality and need to escape into fantasy and conspiracy filled echo chambers, they are not rational actors and would best be isolated. There are not two equal sides, but rather reality and fiction.

This is a really good comment.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

People will generally create a reality that's convenient for them. This has been happening since the dawn of time. The internet just makes it so much more obvious.

 

[jellies_two]

GMOs help prevent exploiting the environment by artificially increasing crop yields so less resources (land, water, time) have to be used in growing and producing food. Being anti-GMO has no important elements, and is often sold as "genetic modification is scary!" garbage, just like anti-vax is sold as "putting dead viruses in babies is scary!"

That's what your expert says but you need to read more widely. For example Tasmania is planting one type of genetically selected / modified tree for logging and as a result of this massive monoculture that has taken over natural forests many specific insects and fungi and predators are dying out because they are not adapted to this one tree. Well duh, what a surprise.

That's kind of an important element on the negative side.

experts know (that are not on payroll of corporations) that making wholesale changes to the delicate balance of nature always has unexpected consequences many of them are bad. if you take over from nature in the name of margins, you own it, and it's a fucking complex system.

So you should and they should not pay to receive the advice they like and instead have independent experts actually think about What Could Go Wrong.

Lately the right in Australia have coined this disgusting talking point "take the ideology out of power generation"
What this means is stop considering climate change, do what is most profitable and easiest stop trying to make people feel guilty for being cartoon villian industrialists.

 

[Joe T.]

I mean the bigotry that is prevalent on the right also makes civil discussion difficult. When campus Republicans are falling over themselves to invite Milo to speak. What kind of dicussion are we really going to have anyway?

Consider that abortion thread. The other side was literally arguing that men should have the final say in if a woman can get an abortion. What value is there in entertaining that idea? Because it was and the end result was that person declared there were selfish and basically wasn't going to change their mind and argued that physical health of a pregnant against her will woman was nothing compared to his sadness for not having that child she didn't want to carry. So what value is gained in making opinions like that more welcom?

Your mileage will always vary, but it's important that we go down that road regardless of the distance we're able to travel in the hope that some progress can be made. It's frustrating conversing with bigots, but how do you hope to ever change their minds? If all options are exhausted without success it becomes a case of agreeing to disagree, but depending on the topic of discussion we can't always settle for that and at least we will have gained some insight into the person/people we engaged.

As it concerns that particular abortion issue you have to ask yourself how they reached that conclusion and what can be done to make sure it's not an opinion that becomes more common, which answers the question you had about the value of entertaining those views.

Joe, are you suggesting that liberals are not more informed than their counterparts on the Right?

I can answer that with what I believe to be a safe assumption, but I don't like to throw blanket statements around, especially when we're talking about tens of millions of people. It's the quickest way of distancing yourself from a large segment of the population. In my experience reading or taking part in political discussions on the internet I've come across some sharp minds from both sides of the aisle.

On an altogether different note, the rise of "fake news" was a silver lining to me because more people are now, finally, taking a deeper look at their news sources.

 

[blame space]

democracy is a dumb idea if you think the internet undermines it.

 

[cryptosporidium]

The internet has given me a YUGE list of academia for any research I do for my degree. Its so convenient, and I can get like 100,000 different academic journals on non-state actors under international law with a few clicks of my mouse.

Ive really matured intellectually at an incredible rate over the 3 years so far of undergrad because of the interent

 

[jellies_two]

The internet has given me a YUGE list of academia for any research I do for my degree. Its so convenient, and I can get like 100,000 different academic journals on non-state actors under international law with a few clicks of my mouse.

Ive really matured intellectually at an incredible rate over the 3 years so far of undergrad because of the interent

Exactly
But for too many including this Reddit hero the " internet" is whatever is up-voted, or shoved in their feeds by an AI that has them pegged like a rat in a Skinner box . No argument this part of the net is a mess, but it isn't the internet, and it isn't everyone.

 

[Arkage]

That's what your expert says but you need to read more widely. For example Tasmania is planting one type of genetically selected / modified tree for logging and as a result of this massive monoculture that has taken over natural forests many specific insects and fungi and predators are dying out because they are not adapted to this one tree. Well duh, what a surprise.

That's kind of an important element on the negative side.

experts know (that are not on payroll of corporations) that making wholesale changes to the delicate balance of nature always has unexpected consequences many of them are bad. if you take over from nature in the name of margins, you own it, and it's a fucking complex system.

So you should and they should not pay to receive the advice they like and instead have independent experts actually think about What Could Go Wrong.

Lately the right in Australia have coined this disgusting talking point "take the ideology out of power generation"
What this means is stop considering climate change, do what is most profitable and easiest stop trying to make people feel guilty for being cartoon villian industrialists.

Planting a bunch of trees of a single type will be devastating to an ecosystem regardless of whether said tree is a GMO tree or a non-GMO tree. What you're talking about is biodiversity, not GMOs. Still waiting for that negative.

 

[Steel]

I agree, OP. Absolutely no way of putting the genie back in that bottle, but I agree.

I hear you.. but please provide one point in history where this wasn't the case. It's not a modern phenomenon or happening more because of the internet. You just see it easier and more clearly.

Further back in history you'd have far fewer news sources, so they tried to maintain credibility, and it was much harder to bring yourself into an echo-chamber, as your friends were simply people who lived near you.

 

[jellies_two]

Planting a bunch of trees of a single type will be devastating to an ecosystem regardless of whether said tree is a GMO tree or a non-GMO tree. What you're talking about is biodiversity, not GMOs. Still waiting for that negative.

The ability to gmo is the main reason it becomes economically advantageous to start laying out a mono culture. If you think that genetic modification - which is essentially removing the beta-testing of surviving in a diverse environment and replacing it with yield crop calculations - is immune to unintended consequences then you are very gullible.

You are trusting the profit motive to keep things safe?, gmo regulation and yes red tape is absolutely necessary to ensure we don't accidentally create larger issues. It is possible to think anti-gmo movement has something to say without going to a just as clueless "ban everything then" reaction.

It's like suggesting that stock trading AIs be developed with profit motive in mind only and no safeguards.
Elon Musk has something to say about what that might lead to.

 

[Arkage]

The ability to gmo is the main reason it becomes economically advantageous to start laying out a mono culture. If you think that genetic modification - which is essentially removing the beta-testing of surviving in a diverse environment and replacing it with yield crop calculations - is immune to unintended consequences then you are very gullible.

You are trusting the profit motive to keep things safe?, gmo regulation and yes red tape is absolutely necessary to ensure we don't accidentally create larger issues. It is possible to think anti-gmo movement has something to say without going to a just as clueless "ban everything then" reaction.

It's like suggesting that stock trading AIs be developed with profit motive in mind only and no safeguards.
Elon Musk has something to say about what that might lead to.

Your talk of unintended consequences, not wanting to rely on my "experts," and bringing up the profit motive is an exact photocopy of the talking points that anti-vaxers use.

Edit: A monoculture is always economically advantageous if there are high levels of demand for a specific product or crop - organic farming uses it just the same as industrial farming. GMOs still don't factor into the foundational premise of that debate.

 

[AaronB]

I haven't seen it posted in this thread, but I thought this survey was pretty revealing.

61% of conservatives and 64% of liberals declined to read arguments that they didn't agree with even when the survey offered them more money to do so.

It isn't that they already knew what the other side would say - they also did poorly on a quiz that checked this. On the whole, it was mostly that reading opposing viewpoints simply made them feel bad.

So, where we seem to be is that large sections of the country don't understand each other, talk past each other, and literally make each other feel sick when they speak.

 

[IsntChrisL]

I haven't seen it posted in this thread, but I thought this survey was pretty revealing.

61% of conservatives and 64% of liberals declined to read arguments that they didn't agree with even when the survey offered them more money to do so.

It isn't that they already knew what the other side would say - they also did poorly on a quiz that checked this. On the whole, it was mostly that reading opposing viewpoints simply made them feel bad.

So, where we seem to be is that large sections of the country don't understand each other, talk past each other, and literally make each other feel sick when they speak.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. It's insane to me that people are so unwilling to look beyond the box they've built around themselves.

 

[jellies_two]

Your talk of unintended consequences, not wanting to rely on my "experts," and bringing up the profit motive is an exact photocopy of the talking points that anti-vaxers use.

Edit: A monoculture is always economically advantageous if there are high levels of demand for a specific product or crop - organic farming uses it just the same as industrial farming. GMOs still don't factor into the foundational premise of that debate.

I have no idea what anti-Vaxxers say, And it's pointless to try guilt by association if that's your new tack.
Healthy skepticism. Research not perverted by cash incentives. Not absolutism, neither ban, nor do what you want, but something in between informed by science. This Is good policy.

And regarding mono cultures Tasmania has a diverse landscape and the advantages of fiddling around with genetics makes it possible to "tune" a tree that will grow anywhere and this is fundmentally a Bad idea as you correctly point out. Without custom designing things more of the natural environment would be preserved.

the corporate world has absolutely no track record (when freed from red tape) of doing things that are in the best interests of anyone except themselves and their bottom lines. When the most important thing is the next years profit you get economic vandalism and exploitation of anything that doesn't fight back. Having an anti-gmo movement around to present their case is healthy when nobody else is watching them.

For someone trying to point out the sins of the looney left to justify #bothsides this is 100% weak sauce. Thin gruel. when you look at the underlying motives for someone promoting "do what we want", it comes down to personal enrichment not good intentions. the same strategy promoted by big tobacco to delay taxes and any red tape: delay, lie, smoke screen, personal choice, payola "research", Astro turfing, obstruct, bribe.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. It's insane to me that people are so unwilling to look beyond the box they've built around themselves.

I listen to Michael Savage, Ben Shapiro and others for dark, morbid comedy. But in all seriousness, the right has nothing to offer intellectually. Youre not missing much outside the box.

 

[IsntChrisL]

I listen to Michael Savage, Ben Shapiro and others for dark, morbid comedy. But in all seriousness, the right has nothing to offer intellectually. Youre not missing much outside the box.

That's a shitty attitude. You shouldn't be proud of constantly shutting out other sides. Even if you're right. The divide will only strengthen if everyone pussies out and only chooses to associate with people that are willing to metaphorically jerk them off.

 

[water_wendi]

Its not so much the echo chamber thats the problem its that the echo chamber can be manipulated.

 

[NewGame]

Hug boxing echo chamber of sycophantic mono opinion mule headed plebeians is definitely something I believe and damn be those who try to make me think differently.

 

[jellies_two]

The internet is not broken if it brings this to me so quickly

https://twitter.com/iamjoonlee/status/828115159923175424

Spicer is that you? Dying.

 

[Kenclops]

If they are 400 lbs combined, live with eight cats and play online games 24/7, then I think I may know them.

No cats, just one angry dog growling at me the whole time.

 

[One Eyed Willy]

I wouldn't even blame the internet per say. I've been "online" since my first 1200 baud modem in the late 80s, years before dial up and certainly before "AOL". Back in those days, it was nothing like today. It was a community of nerds sharing data. In those later years you started to get an entire generation "online", and guess who mostly? Teenagers. To make matters worse, speed that timeline up and make the internet so easy that the following wave of kids basically grow up on it and are addicted to the culture of the internet that in turn basically just bread entire echo chambers of just about everything. Racism, political views, hobbies, literally everything. Society raised 2 generations online, and didn't know how to deal with it. Arguably, still doesn't.

You can literally subscribe to the viewpoint you want online and shut out everything else. If you stick your fingers in your ears long enough you'll eventually start to actually think your opinion is the only one that matters, or that any rational person thinks like you because you only surround yourself with people you agree with. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are safe from this. Guilty as charged.

Every now and then people are faced to deal with the real world, varying opinions and lets be honest... people don't like that. I wouldn't blame the internet, it's a tool that simply allowed society to isolate itself into make believe bubbles.

 

[KimiNewt]

I wouldn't even blame the internet per say. I've been "online" since my first 1200 baud modem in the late 80s, years before dial up and certainly before "AOL". Back in those days, it was nothing like today. It was a community of nerds sharing data. In those later years you started to get an entire generation "online", and guess who mostly? Teenagers. To make matters worse, speed that timeline up and make the internet so easy that the following wave of kids basically grow up on it and are addicted to the culture of the internet that in turn basically just bread entire echo chambers of just about everything. Racism, political views, hobbies, literally everything. Society raised 2 generations online, and didn't know how to deal with it. Arguably, still doesn't.

You can literally subscribe to the viewpoint you want online and shut out everything else. If you stick your fingers in your ears long enough you'll eventually start to actually think your opinion is the only one that matters, or that any rational person thinks like you because you only surround yourself with people you agree with. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are safe from this. Guilty as charged.

Every now and then people are faced to deal with the real world, varying opinions and lets be honest... people don't like that. I wouldn't blame the internet, it's a tool that simply allowed society to isolate itself into make believe bubbles.

But before the internet you already only really interacted with people in your physical surroundings, which usually has similar opinions anyway.

 

[jellies_two]

But before the internet you already only really interacted with people in your physical surroundings, which usually has similar opinions anyway.

Speak for yourself Midwest America suburbia, cities have always been a melting pot one didn't need America online to find perspectives.

 

[water_wendi]

But before the internet you already only really interacted with people in your physical surroundings, which usually has similar opinions anyway.

Even if you lived in Pleasantville you would still run into people of varying opinions and values on the most mundane of issues. If you dont get out much or arent old enough to have experience pre-internet socializing you can view any news report about the internet when it was just getting mainstream and the ability to instantly meet up with people that have similar interests was one of the largest selling points. Even with something as broad as "gaming" in my normal day to day life i can go weeks without meeting another gamer or having a conversation about games let alone turn-based isometric choice and consequnce heavy role-playing games which i can get on the internet with just a click of a bookmark. Even the most extreme or fringe opinions you can find a community to call home with a 5 minute google search.

 

[careless mango]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

This CGP Grey video talks about exactly how people mad about people (and not mad at people directly) dominate internet discussion in their own separate spaces.

 

[Kenclops]

I wouldn't even blame the internet per say. I've been "online" since my first 1200 baud modem in the late 80s, years before dial up and certainly before "AOL". Back in those days, it was nothing like today. It was a community of nerds sharing data. In those later years you started to get an entire generation "online", and guess who mostly? Teenagers. To make matters worse, speed that timeline up and make the internet so easy that the following wave of kids basically grow up on it and are addicted to the culture of the internet that in turn basically just bread entire echo chambers of just about everything. Racism, political views, hobbies, literally everything. Society raised 2 generations online, and didn't know how to deal with it. Arguably, still doesn't.

You can literally subscribe to the viewpoint you want online and shut out everything else. If you stick your fingers in your ears long enough you'll eventually start to actually think your opinion is the only one that matters, or that any rational person thinks like you because you only surround yourself with people you agree with. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are safe from this. Guilty as charged.

Every now and then people are faced to deal with the real world, varying opinions and lets be honest... people don't like that. I wouldn't blame the internet, it's a tool that simply allowed society to isolate itself into make believe bubbles.

Which is why it's very important for everyone to become Independent.

 

[Nyx]

The internet gave everyone all the information they want, factual or not, and a platform to be heard by others. People read comments on news websites or youtube by people who didn't even finish high school but now think they have a good opinion on f.e. geopolitics.
It sometimes baffles me to see entire essays, full of spelling errors, about Putin's strategies, the Bilderberg group, ISIS, the Middle-East, etc. etc. in a comment section on let's say an article about Trump.

It could be 12-year olds writing that stuff with adult people going into debate and other people reading it all and forming opinions too.

 

[Makai]

Search engines are tailored for individuals but people still get hyped by search suggestions and trending hashtags think it proves some political point. It really is a mind control machine. Although that's probably bogus because the pre-internet era was far more contentious and violent.

 

[ScientificPizza]

Yeah. But life is an echo chamber, and the internet just reflects that

 

[sugarhigh4242]

That's a shitty attitude. You shouldn't be proud of constantly shutting out other sides. Even if you're right. The divide will only strengthen if everyone pussies out and only chooses to associate with people that are willing to metaphorically jerk them off.

You don't have to get very far into conservative thought before you're wading into some real horrors. Even "respectable" conservatives have discreditingly bad ideas. Atlantic editor Android Sullivan, is one of the few conservatives I could almost respect, and he has an embarrassing curiosity for race science. David Frum is another one, and he was one of the top snake oil salesmen for the Iraq War.

Sorry, there's no rule that says "the other side" has to have good ideas.

For a pretty interesting explanation of *why* conservatives don't have good ideas (my words, not his), check out Corey Robin's "The Reactionary Mind". Lest you think I'm biased, here's an interview he did with another awful conservative, S.E. Cupp. In a nutshell the conservative movement exists to thwart emancipation movements (socialism, feminism, racial justice, etc) of all kinds. Conservatism derives its creative energy through reacting against, and reinterpreting effective emancipatory messaging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVNjzeNuOt0

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Nobody is prevented from posting from a conservative ideological viewpoint here.

It's only an "echo chamber" because those that would attempt a dialogue from the "other side" can't seem to stop using hate speech or victimizing themselves to actually take the time to attempt a dialogue.

They make the assumption nobody wants one in good faith, so they just shit threads up with hate and memes.

In 2012 when Opiate was a mod:

Yes, there are several considerations which make it difficult to be a US Conservative on GAF:

1) This is an international forum. A person who is a conservative by US standards is in the right wing of an already right wing country, and this makes their views relatively extreme on the first world international scale. If this were a US only forum we might see a 50/50 split; because it's an international one -- where even "conservative" Frenchman will be liberal by US standards, for example -- the split is probably closer to 66/33 or even 75/25 when speaking from a US frame of reference.

2) Socially conservative views are often explicitly bannable here. It is difficult, for example, to oppose homosexual rights on our forum without being banned, and that is one of the primary topics of modern social conservatism. Some of these views are inherently incompatible with the ethos of this forum.

3) Liberals are more likely to be online and more likely to be using social networking sites than are conservatives, relative to the general population, so even if the above conditions were not true, a random sampling of internet users would be disproportionately liberal to begin with.

Now think about US conservatism right now. You gonna say with a straight face that xenaphobia with immigration and refugee policy, sexism with abortion PP and "they need to dress like women," and the inevutable theocratic stuff that's coming soon--which implicates homosexuality as sin with a side of "abortion is murder--is not ban bait here?

I am highly incredulous of someone who claims that theyou are purely "economic" in their conservatism. That path is rooted in "welfare queens" and other heavily coated racial and sexual language.

 

[Pomerlaw]

The worst thing we did for the Internet was adding the comment section

I agree. Comment sections should be killed with fire.

 

[KingK]

Exactly
But for too many including this Reddit hero the " internet" is whatever is up-voted, or shoved in their feeds by an AI that has them pegged like a rat in a Skinner box . No argument this part of the net is a mess, but it isn't the internet, and it isn't everyone.

Yeah agreed. I don't really use the internet for any kind of social media other than GAF. I like having my ideas challenged and have used the internet to do just that and change my mind on a number of things over the years. It's also just increased my general knowledge of the world by an insane amount.

I think the fundamental problem isn't the internet. It's a compete lack of critical thought, information literacy and ability to evaluate sources. It has to be fixed in the way we teach kids. There's almost no effort at all put into teaching kids methods of determining the validity of a source. Or teaching then critical thinking to evaluate if what they're reading even makes sense, or what exactly it's saying beyond the headline. Kids are taught to just read what the teacher puts in front of them, memorize it, and put the identical words on the test. Nuance and critical thinking aren't just neglected, they are often outright discouraged.

Basically, I think the overwhelming amount of information available on the internet is mostly only damaging because we do a piss poor job of teaching people how to interpret and think critically about that information.