I agree with you that talking in and of itself isn't a solution. i even wrote about it just last week on my own Substack. But I don't see how you can get anyone to listen, let alone try, your way. I think there's a much quicker way that can immediately lower all the heat. It only takes the major social media platforms to change their algorithms to prioritize nonpolitical posts and posts that show unity & people of all backgrounds working together, rather than rage posts. The social media platforms have it in their power to change course for everyone today. But they won't do it. Rage posting drives their businesses.
Hi Alex. Of course, you're right. Trying to convince strangers online of the righteousness of your position was never going to work. It's fairly difficult to persuade someone if you don't know anything about them or understand their concerns/interests. Even then it can be a slog, but without this shared understanding productive dialogue is impossible. If we want a better civic discourse, it has to occur through shared institutions—churches, schools, or workplaces. There has been some research that has shown that showing people more apolitical content on social media platforms reduces polarization. But I agree that the social media companies are not incentivized to do it.
Ideally speaking, you're right about shared institutions. But in reality, in these places, there are no dialogues taking place because people self-censor in fear of losing jobs or social status. Sometimes they even face threats against themselves and their children. People are disowning F&F just for having different views. More and more, we're all living in echo chambers. If we disagree with the dicta of the echo chamber, we all know it's best to keep our mouths shut to keep the peace (or jobs and life).
“He argued the 1964 civil rights act was wrong”—you lost my trust there. He said the act was noble but its recent use to mandate trans women in womens spaces, etc. revealed flaws. You are not to be trusted in your representation of those you criticize.
Hi Alice. He called the passage a "mistake" and said that it came to be used as an "anti-white weapon." Regardless of his reasoning, I don't think it's inaccurate to describe these views as provocative and certainly offensive to some. You are free to disagree.
I agree with you that talking in and of itself isn't a solution. i even wrote about it just last week on my own Substack. But I don't see how you can get anyone to listen, let alone try, your way. I think there's a much quicker way that can immediately lower all the heat. It only takes the major social media platforms to change their algorithms to prioritize nonpolitical posts and posts that show unity & people of all backgrounds working together, rather than rage posts. The social media platforms have it in their power to change course for everyone today. But they won't do it. Rage posting drives their businesses.
Hi Alex. Of course, you're right. Trying to convince strangers online of the righteousness of your position was never going to work. It's fairly difficult to persuade someone if you don't know anything about them or understand their concerns/interests. Even then it can be a slog, but without this shared understanding productive dialogue is impossible. If we want a better civic discourse, it has to occur through shared institutions—churches, schools, or workplaces. There has been some research that has shown that showing people more apolitical content on social media platforms reduces polarization. But I agree that the social media companies are not incentivized to do it.
Ideally speaking, you're right about shared institutions. But in reality, in these places, there are no dialogues taking place because people self-censor in fear of losing jobs or social status. Sometimes they even face threats against themselves and their children. People are disowning F&F just for having different views. More and more, we're all living in echo chambers. If we disagree with the dicta of the echo chamber, we all know it's best to keep our mouths shut to keep the peace (or jobs and life).
“He argued the 1964 civil rights act was wrong”—you lost my trust there. He said the act was noble but its recent use to mandate trans women in womens spaces, etc. revealed flaws. You are not to be trusted in your representation of those you criticize.
Hi Alice. He called the passage a "mistake" and said that it came to be used as an "anti-white weapon." Regardless of his reasoning, I don't think it's inaccurate to describe these views as provocative and certainly offensive to some. You are free to disagree.