Is the Internet a Blessing, or a Curse? What is the Actual Source of Today's Hyper-Partisanship?

[WestCanMan]

Ideally the internet is a place where people would inevitably be exposed to the reality that people all over the world are the same, and would be willing to live in harmony with each other. We'd all see that "those guys" don't have fangs or eat babies.

In reality the internet seems like a cesspool of echo chambers, brainwashing and partisanship.   

Honestly, if the partisanship between Conservatives/Libs, and DNC/GOP here in NA is getting so much worse, what is likely happening between Jews and Muslims, Russians/Ukrainians, etc? 

It's literally impossible to convince leftists here that holding a severed head effigy of the president is wrong. They all know when it makes sense to say "You have freedom of speech, but you can't say the word 'bomb' in an airport", but when it comes time to say "Severed-head effigies aren't funny" they clam up. 

It's literally impossible to convince leftists here that the validity of a woman's public rape claim should not depend upon the political party of the accused, but rather their ability to name a part of town where it occurred, the year it occurred, the month it occurred, whether or not they have witnesses, and the existence of physical evidence.

It's literally impossible to convince leftists here that it's a really big deal when the FBI is caught lying and committing crimes to influence an election. 

It's literally impossible to convince conservatives here that Trudeau's support of WE and SNC was entirely above-board, that Trump colluded with Russia, or that the US government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th. 

How can our understanding of those things be entirely based upon our party affiliations? How can common sense and the existence of indisputable evidence be of no consequence whatsoever? Isn't that kinda scary? 

If the beliefs of so many people in Canada and the US depend entirely upon their party affiliation, could people in the religious hotspots of the world be expected to see past their own religious affiliation? Are highly religious people supposed to be able to hold themselves to a higher standard of decorum and reasonability than the atheists, agnostics and the mildly religious of the world? 

 

Is the internet to blame for the hyper-partisanship in NA or the MSM? 

 

IMO it's just lies, regardless of the source. Anyone who is willing to tell lies to support their argument is part of the problem actually is the problem, whether they're doing it on their keyboard or at a national news desk.

Once you lie you've basically crossed the Rubicon IMO. People with the lack of decency to lie can never be expected to suddenly rise to the level of being able to fess up. It's like levelling up in character, and in my experience, no one does that here. 

[Nationalist]

IMO...and I've been in IT since before the TCPIP network was widely accepted...we humans have taken a valuable tool, and turned it into a club. We humans do this consistently.

The web allows for anyone to post their opinions. Some opinions are based on reality, and some opinions are based on desires. But because we value freedom, we allow all of it. So where did this all go sideways?

Sensationalism.

Joe Biden is old and visibly addled. Yet we on "the right" sensationalize this and beat our opponents over the head with it.

Donald Trump is not the most savoury person that ever lived. But "the left" attacks him relentlessly for this.

We ALL knew Joe was a bit of a twit...and we ALL knew Donny was a bit of a dick. Yet we attack each other relentlessly with these commonly known facts.

The more sensational...the more harsh...the more outrageous the post...the more exposure it gets. I doubt most folks who post this sensational crapolla, really believe what they're posting. But...it gets "clicks" and this new-ish social media thing works on "clicks".

I often imagine an alien race encountering us here on Earth, watching us carry on for a while, and concluding that we're nutty as Hell and dangerous to ourselves and to the universe at large. So...they peter off hoping we never find a way to travel great distances.

One WestCanMan can produce pure genius. Put 100 of you in a room and the result would be chaos.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Nationalist

[impartialobserver]

Our love of style over substance predates the internet. We simply did not possess the conduit for it. If you want to test this.. talk to someone about something and only give them objective data points. Examples would batting average, hits, wins above replacement, touchdown passes, etc. They glaze over and fall asleep in 2 minutes. Now.. tell them that player xyz is the best of all time or that team xyz is going to win a championship. They wake right up and are ready to "debate".

[Michael Hardner]

McLuhan taught that there's no point in moralizing media.  We do need to look at effects though.  And we don't have religion or nationalism to call upon either.  

We have had a peek at what is possible, the massive amount of change that can happen.

All we need to do is to grow up a little and we will start correcting all the problems that internet and social media brought.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[Nationalist]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

McLuhan taught that there's no point in moralizing media.  We do need to look at effects though.  And we don't have religion or nationalism to call upon either.  

We have had a peek at what is possible, the massive amount of change that can happen.

All we need to do is to grow up a little and we will start correcting all the problema that internet and social media brought.

Correct...how?

Can you tell the public they can post only approved messages? That's being done and it p1sses most people right off.

Should social media be turned off completely?

[impartialobserver]

The internet has made everyone instantaneously into experts on every topic. Its quite remarkable honestly. They did not care in the least about a topic and had not given it a second of thought for decades but now it is in the news and all of a sudden.. there are passionate, adamant, outspoken, and an expert. Being that folks are anonymous.. there is no way to verify this supposed expertise. Also, folks tend to be vastly more outspoken and confrontational when they can hide behind the shield of anonymity than in person. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

1. Correct...how?

2. Can you tell the public they can post only approved messages? That's being done and it p1sses most people right off.

3. Should social media be turned off completely?

1. We don't know. One thing I do believe is that a public has to feel that they are in control of their media.

2. You used passive language, as in this is being done... But who is telling the public this?

3. No, I don't think so.

[Nationalist]

On 10/12/2023 at 12:25 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. We don't know. One thing I do believe is that a public has to feel that they are in control of their media.

2. You used passive language, as in this is being done... But who is telling the public this?

3. No, I don't think so.

1 & 2. Well the governments are stepping in and taking control of the media.

[impartialobserver]

What is comical is that folks do not realize that facebook, instagram are not governmental institutions. If they are.... then show some evidence that they are a local, state, or federal government office. 

[Nationalist]

On 11/27/2023 at 1:17 PM, impartialobserver said:

What is comical is that folks do not realize that facebook, instagram are not governmental institutions. If they are.... then show some evidence that they are a local, state, or federal government office. 

What's even more comical is when government openly uses its power to influence media, and even after having been publicly exposed, so many people actually continue to deny the admissions and their own senses.

Don't you think?

Edited December 13, 2023 by Nationalist

[impartialobserver]

On 12/12/2023 at 7:01 PM, Nationalist said:

What's even more comical is when government openly uses its power to influence media, and even after having been publicly exposed, so many people actually continue to deny the admissions and their own senses.

Don't you think?

Here is where we differ.. You think that the government has full control over Facebook. I think that they give recommendations and warnings but do not rule over them with an iron fist. 

[eyeball]

On 10/9/2023 at 12:05 PM, WestCanMan said:

Is the internet to blame for the hyper-partisanship in NA or the MSM? 

No, partisans are responsible for their hyper-activeness. Simply breathing more slowly and evenly does wonders to bring that down.  

[Nationalist]

19 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Here is where we differ.. You think that the government has full control over Facebook. I think that they give recommendations and warnings but do not rule over them with an iron fist. 

What I think, is the government has no business even suggesting censorship. In fact, I have a feeling that's illegal. 

[impartialobserver]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What I think, is the government has no business even suggesting censorship. In fact, I have a feeling that's illegal. 

So you admit that the government does not rule Facebook with an iron fist? So when Facebook bans xyz for whatever reason.. it demands that you do research and know what you are talking about instead of the default conspiracy theory that the government told them to do so. 

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So you admit that the government does not rule Facebook with an iron fist? So when Facebook bans xyz for whatever reason.. it demands that you do research and know what you are talking about instead of the default conspiracy theory that the government told them to do so. 

I said none of that but, nice try.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

I said none of that but, nice try.

So then can you prove definitively that Facebook takes explicit directive from the government.. links to article will not suffice. Lets see something better than subjective opinions that supposedly are truth. 

[Nationalist]

https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/

That took 10 second. Want more?

[OftenWrong]

11 hours ago, Nationalist said:

https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/

That took 10 second. Want more?

We love it when you hit 'em with facts. Factum.

You really factum