Do you ever "self filter" before making a post or comment and what is it based on?
Lately, I've started posting a bit on twitter as much as I do here. What I've found is that I used to just pour my heart and post anything I wanted earlier but since I've got a couple hundred followers now (many folks I often interact with have started following me), I always keep wondering what they will think as they see this new post on their timeline.
Another thing is that many of those folks are from different countries and issues pertaining to India (which I'm often tempted to post on!) may not even be relevant to them. Further complicating the issue is that the tastes, cultures, morals, ethics, etc. vary greatly between the Orient and Occident. How aware are Western folks about the politics and happenings in this part of the world, especially India and surrounding regions? Of one thing I'm sure is that there is an ample scope for misunderstanding here, of one another's perspectives. The kind of things and views which are popular or even acceptable here may not be in other parts of the world and vice versa.
One of the obvious filters I apply to all my conversations is the "political filter" (in the sense of electoral politics) which I think is a wise thing to do. Politics has this very nasty habit of dividing people who are very well meaning of one another and come to the discussion in good faith otherwise. I don't think a person should be cancelled due to their mere opinion (however radical or unacceptable it might be). We can disagree however strongly we want and as long as the other person reciprocates, it's a win-win for everyone, right?
I vehemently disagree. Letting a hatemonger continue to spout off more hatred, or letting a conspiracy theorist spout off more misinformation, is not a win-win. It's a lose-lose, since all that does is give those people more opportunities to spread their dangerous beliefs and ideologies to others, who might then, in turn, do the same to even more people.
Relevant comment of mine from a few weeks ago:
And another:
As Jonathan Swift once said, "Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it". And see also, the Paradox of Tolerance.
I think that's the important point I was trying to get at in my comment which you wrote more directly here. When we promote discussions of hate-fueled conspiracy theories in a common platform, for instance, we end up giving it legitimacy and it can act as a recruiting ground towards those belief. This isn't going to completely prevent the spread of these ideas, and certainly banning that sort of discussion will only fuel their conspiratorial beliefs, but we limit the spread of such ideas.
A counterpoint I've encountered is, "Who dictates what beliefs are able to be discussed and which aren't?" and I think a good starting point is removing discussions prejudiced towards immutable traits, particularly those that target a group at large. I don't see any value that they add to society.
Yep, agreed. And there is also the Nazi bar problem to consider as well. When you allow a Nazi to hang out at your bar, even if they're currently behaving themselves, it still tends to make your other non-Nazi customers uncomfortable, and less likely to return. But the Nazi, now realizing they're tolerated at your bar, will likely start coming even more often, and inevitably invite some more Nazi friends along who might not behave so well. At which point most of your non-Nazi customers will probably stop coming to your bar entirely. And good luck kicking the Nazis out once they're the majority of the patrons at your bar.
p.s. That's not just a hypothetical. We've seen that exact scenario play out on sites like Voat, and several others. And it's currently playing out on Substack.
Seems more like a lack of healthy discussion.
Sure, not allowing the discussion "solves" that, but it really only pushes it to the online bubbles where there'll never be rebuttal.
I don't think topics for discussion are "dangerous".
But people rather broadcast their opinion than wait to hear the response. Although this depends on the site demographic.
This stuff doesn't worry me, particularly on Tildes.
But the places with no rebuttal tend to also be places with far less reach. Someplace like TheDonald.win has far less influence versus r/The_Donald, which could be seen across Reddit for a long time.
Unless you're suggesting r/The_Donald had rebuttal and failed, there is no difference, it's the exact same community.
The problem isn't the topic, it's the etiquette.
I filter not because of controversy, but because reading over, I realize whatever I’d post isn’t worth it.
Usually I don’t have anything meaningful to say. Other times I have a fact I’m not sure is accurate, or an opinion which is too one-sided, especially when I think more about it, and the nuanced take seems too obvious and vacuous.
Maybe this sounds like low self-esteem. But the reality is, lots of internet threads devolve into the same themes, with (sometimes literally) the same basic statements over and over. And some people seem to think they understand how a decent-sized chunk of the world works, but nobody really does. Today’s world is so complicated, with so much hidden information, I doubt anyone understands more than a deep narrow slice of whatever they specialize in, and a surface-level understanding of everything else. Most (but not all) of the surface being no deeper than other’s understanding, especially in the community they’re posting in (which is already biased towards them since it has their interest).
I think that people posting too leniently is the main reason why we have echo chambers, black-and-white worldviews, and a low signal-to-noise ratio. I think that if more people read over their posts before submitting, and try to post only content they believe is significant, accurate, and contains more than what’s already expressed, forums would be better and more interesting. Key word being “try”: I definitely still post tropes and inaccuracies, there’s nuance in filtering and it has downsides (like almost everything else), but just try harder than however they’re trying now.
Tildes is a lot better at this, which is nice even if there’s less discussion, because there’s less noise. Hacker News is sometimes good at this, in part because most of the content is technical, but the culture helps too; but there’s definitely still an echo chamber & noise & inaccuracy problem there. Next are niche Reddit subs, but even with factual, technical content, they tend to be invaded by low-effort discussion or common tropes unless they’re very niche. Popular Reddit subs are the worst of any social networks I use. I don’t use Facebook or Twitter so I can’t compare.
Some of it’s definitely misinformation, karma farming, bots, etc. But I do think a lot is real people with good intentions who don’t realize, the “Eternal September”. Basically, my argument is that aggressive filtering is a good thing: because even if there are less posts, most of what gets removed is insignificant noise, and the important posts have concrete, significant content so they are not filtered.
I think you have a very good point. One of the most important qualities of any given community is how well it is organized - how well it is able to have effective conversations. The “signal-to-noise ratio”, so to speak. If everyone is posting unfiltered streams of thought the quality will be very low indeed, and those who have the role of moderator will have far too much work on their plate. A lot of subreddits are a good example of this. So it only stands to reason that one of the best ways to have a high-quality community is to have its members self-moderate to the best of their abilities.
The bar for a moderator to outright remove something "not interesting enough" is usually (and IMO should be) very low. The more important factor is what gets promoted.
Even some of the most biased communities sometimes have good posts and comments (like new information, uncommon facts backed by sources, or uncommon opinions with good arguments), which tend to get pushed to the top of the feed or thread. Most noise already gets filtered by not being upvoted, so it falls to the bottom where most people will never see it. And although there are people who upvote memes and non-credible statements and downvote anything they mildly disagree with, I'm sure there are moderator, "veteran", "new member", and other weights which can counteract those.
However, it's hard for users and mods to find and promote interesting content when there's so much uninteresting content to sift through.
I know that what I think is interesting and significant usually differs from others' opinions, and I understand perfectionism, people who almost avoided (or did avoid) sharing meaningful ideas and works because they felt they weren't interesting enough. Some misses here and there are inevitable, and creating some noise really isn't an issue. But words are cheap, by which I mean: the average real-world impact of a single post is almost 0; there are so many people on the internet, that if everyone posted much less frequently, there'd still be continuous new posts; and I think when someone has something especially meaningful to say, they absolutely know. So I also think, even with a system in place to filter good posts, even if their post is just not upvoted, people should still self-filter and only post what they believe is high quality.
I very much disagree with that conclusion.
Typically (not always, but often) what gets upvoted is jokes and quips. Noise in other words. At Reddit, as one example, you can fairly reliably count on most threads having the top, often the two top or three, comment chains being headed by something stupid where the poster wanted to be "funny" or "edgy" or "cool."
Or, just as often, one or more of those chains will be topped by some quote that's designed to get either a nostalgia or "oh that seems familiar" upvote. With anything entertainment related, especially movies or tv, they just quote from the property. No context, no comment, just a quote. If it's a celebrity thread, they'll quote in the same fashion from the most (or one of the most) popular property that celeb was involved in.
With political or news threads, they quote the meme comments that circulate. The ones that usually come up when that subject appears in a thread. Again, they don't use the quote to clarify or comment, to frame or initiate thoughts; they just drop the quote and smile as they get upvoted.
If they quoted something, then expanded on it with thoughts and discussion, it would be helpful. That would be signal and not noise. But no, it's just "ooh, I had something for this ... yeah that thing that always gets dropped when this comes up. I'm early, the thread's only minutes old. I get the karma this time bitches!"
So no, people are not a reliable filter. There are a lot of them who will uplift useless bullshit that adds little (often nothing) to a thread. They upvote it because it's familiar, or they thought it was funny, or they agree. Things like that. The upvote system, theoretically as laid out by Reddit (and Tildes too as far as I know) is intended to promote comments that contribute to the discussion.
In actuality, what happens is they don't upvote if they disagree. Or if they don't understand it. Or if they found it difficult to parse and evaluate. On Reddit, they go a step further and downvote anyone they disagree with or dislike. Magnifying the swing between the useless shit that's funny to the masses and the useful things that add to the discussion (but that aren't as amusing and simple) which end up at the bottom.
At least here the worst that can happen is the comment doesn't rise. Removing the downvotes does keep the worst of the brigading from happening, but people are still our own worst enemy.
Not sure what is exactly meant by filter. I do proofread my posts in various levels.
I check for typos and grammar.
I try to eliminate any usage of the 2nd person. From what I learned in technical writing, using "you" in writing causes the reader to put themselves in the sentence and potentially become defensive. So I try to correct my writing to either be first or third person. Sometimes I give myself leniency with "we/us" if I am referring to something that I think is "global" and affects all of humanity. By using this technique, I am able to better understand when I am possibly getting a bit more aggressive in my online discussions based on how tempted or how often I am writing "you" in my comments.
I check for logical fallacies or cognitive distortions. I check most commonly for all-or-nothing thinking, usage of absolutes (always, never, everything, nothing, noone, everyone, etc.), stereotyping groups of people, etc.
I check for nihilism or overall negativity. I don't want to add pointless negativity to the world. I try to balance this with reasonableness, like sometimes things suck and it's fair to point it out.
I try to remember anyone can be reading what I'm writing. So while I might be replying to one person directly, there are many others possibly reading.
I try to keep all these in mind. I also acknowledge I am human and not perfect.
Definitely agree, but I think this needs to be contextualized a bit - in an internet argument, this is definitely good advice. But if you're writing something like a tutorial or similar, then this use of "you" is exactly what you want, and you should write entirely in the 2nd person.
It certainly depends on the type of content being discussed. If it's something light-hearted I will throw out a quick reply without much thought (often missing typos or grammatical errors in the process). If it's something more serious, or if I end up getting into a lengthy discussion with someone, I will usually wait about 15-30 minutes before posting a comment so I can give myself time to process how I feel about it, how my message could be conveyed and perceived, and also if I really want to be involved in any ensuing back-and-forths.
Regarding your last few sentences, I think I have to disagree. If someone is expressing opinions that are clearly bigoted towards immutable traits, I think it's fine for them to face repercussions for said opinions. I'm not really a fan of the "marketplace of ideas" concept, because it gives validity to certain ideologies that are damaging to our society. Do we really have to rehash the same arguments over fascism? Is there some important truth to racial supremacy that should allow it to be continually acknowledged? I don't think so, and I think letting these people have the dignity of a proper discussion is not helping the situation.
Isn't there a possibility of winning them over and make them reject fascism and accept your way of life? As long as they're willing to engage in a rational discussion, a better approach perhaps is to convince them with sane arguments how that idea is eventually self destructive?
On the other hand, if you just cancel or reject them, there is a real danger that they will go one step ahead from opinion and actually do something really destructive, resulting in that ideology damaging the society as you said.
The marketplace of ideas can actually work but only as long as the person is willing to not only engage in rational discussion but is also prepared to change their views and perspectives.
There's a lot of nuance in this topic.
Generally speaking I land on the side of free speech (yes I know that term has extreme right connotations these days, but they can't have it).
But unfortunately it's not as simple as that. We've spent the last decade or so learning just how powerful misinformation, digitally distributed, can be. When nation state level actors are running political and social misinformation campaigns to destabilize other nations, Nazis are having a resurgence, anti-intellectualism is on the rise, and polarization is an intentional tool for clout, censorship is a necessary evil.
You can't debate people who aren't there in good faith.
But also, I agree with you. While I think some level of censorship is currently a requirement, at the same time progressives have taken cancellation way too far. Some people actually are there in good faith and can be reasoned with. If instead they're immediately shut down with no attempt at empathy, everyone loses.
There's a large demographic of well meaning voters who lack the context to understand some of the things progressives value. If we tell them they can't have a voice, they will look to people that tell them otherwise (like Trump). If instead we explain what we're talking about in a way they can relate to, maybe they won't need to find a place for themselves among fascists.
It might be better to talk about right-wing authoritarians who promote racial, gender, ideological/religious and economic hierarchies with themselves at the top, and seek to enforce their will through violence and threats. The violence and threats are deployed opportunistically until they can be legalized.
It's a big tent that encompasses historical Nazis, Neo-Nazis, classic Italian Fascisti, Christian Nationalists and theocrats of all stripes, white supremacists, warlords bent on genocide, Neo-Monarchists, and even ostensibly Communist dictatorships.
And goodness knows, they're all having a resurgence. And it's complicated.
I don't think you can necessarily equivocate the prevalence of fascism with the prevalence of conspiracy theories. While fascism and conspiracy theories often go hand in hand, it's perfectly plausible for the number of conspiracy theory folks to remain about the same but for the most popular conspiracies to skew more and more fascist in tone. Not to mention the non-conspiracy theory side of things -- I think a rise in alt right (at best quasi-fascist) politics is extremely observable in most of the Western world over the past decade.
You might be right, maybe Nazis wasn't the best example. Although, it seems significant that white supremacists were able to openly support a candidate for president that actually got elected. Maybe there aren't more of them, but they have a bigger public profile.
On thinking about this further, the light bulb went on for me. The Fascists realized that Brandolini's Law makes a great weapon. One of the architects of the right-wing resurgence gleefully admitted as much.
I'm giving Anand Giridharadas' book, The Persuaders: At the Front Lines of the Fight for Hearts, Minds, and Democracy a deep read, as well as the SAGE Handbook of Propaganda. Simply reciting facts at diligent bullshit consumers and propagators online is mostly ineffective and exhausting; we need better tools.
From The Persuaders:
Intolerance of bullshit-spreaders seems like a sensible practice in general. And perhaps we should censor ourselves out of a duty to avoid spreading bullshit further, in the hope we can maintain a clear enough space for discussion that we'll build structures which don't allow it to proliferate in the first place.
Also, we've been fighting the online discourse battle against propagandists for most of a generation, without full awareness or really improving our game much. Time to learn cognitive judo, and hope that it won't take a war to wake future generations up.
*** The Cranky Uncle game is fun and free - pass the word.
For me, the difference is "free speech" (or "free press") vs "free amplification."
You have the right to say anything you like, and to publish anything you like, but you do NOT have the right to assume that you'll get your message transmitted & multiplied after you say or publish it. When you post on a platform, all the platform is providing to you is amplification, and they absolutely have a duty to ensure that they aren't amplifying hate speech.
IMHO a fascist is not part of a rational discussion. If someone is a fascist they have left the realm of rational thought. Rational people do not become fascists.
Being afraid of what a fascist might do if you don’t take on some debate to win them over is proof.
To add, it’s like forcing someone out of an addiction. An addict has to want to end their addiction.
I’m also under the impression that fascists are created as a result of some sort of trauma. You don’t come out of the womb like this. A debate is not going to undo that. I’m pretty sure if Mussolini had a different childhood and upbringing we wouldn’t know who he was.
Fascism is a mental disorder, I guess.
There certainly is a possibility - people obviously are persuaded of ideas over the internet. I think the question lies with what is the likelihood of that possibility, and am I willing to commit that time. In that vein, how can I know that someone is approaching a discussion in good faith or that rational arguments will convince them? How invested in their own stances are they? For someone who is starting with the premise, "white people are superior to black people", what sort of evidence is going to persuade them? As you acknowledge, this only works if people are open to shifts in their perspective, and that is not the norm for many people in my experience, especially those that hold such antisocial beliefs.
I certainly am happy to offer basic explanations for why certain ideas are damaging, or at least point people towards reading they can do. But I think in your phrasing you implicitly shift some of the responsibility of damaging actions on the rejector and not the rejectee - not that this is intentional. For example, if someone has such a warped view of black people that they go and commit racially-based mass murder at a grocery store or church, it's not my fault for failing to persuade or even ostracizing them for expressing racist rhetoric. The best I can do is point them towards good information and reject outright bigotry.
Now, having said that, I am much more open to having more frank discussions in person. I think conversing through a digital medium removes too much nuance of human interaction that I don't think is conducive to rapid fire communication of inflammatory topics. That's not to say there isn't a place for it, but I think removing certain topics off the table altogether in common internet discourse is a better optional.
But there's no guarantee that being cancelled or rejected actually does make this more likely, especially in terms of internet spaces like this one, and it completely ignores the deleterious effects allowing fascists in your community can have on the others there. Does a fascist have more right to engage in a rational discussion with you in which they may or may not be convinced that people don't deserve death for being Jewish or gay than the gay and Jewish people in your community have to have discussions in a space where their right to exist isn't the subject of debate?
- atrributed to multiple people
If someone's beliefs aren't based on logic, reason, internal consistency, etc. then you can't challenge that person's beliefs on those grounds because they've already shown that those things don't matter to them.
I filter constantly. I work in a domain with fussy legal and policy constraints and very little personal "cover" from my employer or professional contexts.
I know without a doubt that my personal socials are monitored by my employer, so the personal risk of me shooting off my mouth is amplified.
I probably write and self-censor as often as I write, then post.
What kind of things are you worried will "shoot out of your mouth" if left unchecked? And why should your employer worry about what you post on your socials? Isn't it often understood that an individual's opinion is of personal nature and doesn't represent that of their employer?
Depending on where you work and what you do there, people might reasonably confuse your opinions with those of your employer. (Funnily enough, that one doesn't flow the other way.)
As for topics, I steer clear of politics, religion, most media recommendations, virtually any kind of commercial endorsements, any comments on regulations (or compliance) in my field, or anything excessively "spicy".
That’s why it’s so important to spin up fake identities to spout off all the forbidden opinions. Sockpuppeting is a tactic of the wise and stupid alike.
I have a difficult time not filtering.
Perhaps to an over extent, this is the 4th iteration of this reply I'm trying to write.
I don't think it's a bad thing, but it certainly limits the amount of replies or posts I make. About 80% of replies will get aborted during the first sentence.
And the ones that do make the cut, are re-read many times. Corrected or rewritten, and once posted are periodically checked in case I missed something.
I've just come to accept it.
And it's a bit timely for me as well. Spouse has been trying to get involved with starting up a local Braver Angels chapter.
tl;dr - Braver Angels aims to get "red" and "blue" Americans to speak with each other face-to-face, for purposes of diminishing the affective polarization [PDF warning] which prevents healthy civic participation.
The lead organizer's complaint was that there are any number of local progressives who want to join up... and no conservatives. And it's a mix of a couple of things - the progressives are too eager to be right, and don't abide by the Braver Angels' conversation guidelines. And the conservatives are both feeling besieged and suffer from epistemic closure - they do not want their minds changed under any circumstances, and certainly not by those people.
Spouse is center-left, but has managed to hang onto right-wing friends by talking with them about everything they care about for a long time before politics enters the discussion.
The problem with Internet discussions is that you can never build that interpersonal trust. The forums are too big, too noisy, and polarization is rewarded. Maybe it's possible if you censor yourself for long enough to build parasocial relationships with your fanbase, but that can go badly as well.
I've talked with you about this recently, so I'll post an update.
My sister visited my family over the holiday break. She tried that strategy with my brother, and was barraged by over 90 minutes of Infowars bullshit. Even my father, whom is a Fox News Dad and a pretty reliable ear, eventually told him to just shut up.
Incidentally, my FIL mostly just went off on anyone whom spouted right-wing bullshit on Facebook till they unfriended him. He's much happer than he was in 2016 when he first felt the need to start doing that.
I've noticed clinging on to right wing friends has mostly just resulted in leaks from the right to the left, and rarely the other way. From what I've seen most of the conservative talking points are backed by theur religious leaders so you're having to inject a level of trust that exceeds their direct representative to God.
Good luck to all the braver angels, they'll need it.
I'll put yall in touch with my mom lol. She's plenty nice till you start seeing the real monster behind the mask.
It's got to start somewhere. Spouse was talking with one of the neighbors not long after we moved in. This was during the height of the pandemic lockdowns...
She advised us sotto voce that two of the other neighbors weren't talking with her or each other because of politics. He was gobsmacked that they couldn't rely on one another for help with a dead car battery, a walk that needs shoveling, or the proverbial borrowed cup of sugar. They might be fascists for all I know, but the erosion of basic human decency and mutual care can't be so far advanced that you refuse to help someone in need when you can.
And I did watch my parents' brains rot away from constant Fox News exposure, and I did spend as much time running from it as possible, including moving half a continent away. I still regret the time I lost with them, though I have no illusions that more talk would have resolved anything.
Edit: I'm sorry you've had to deal with that. Over the years, I've tried the strategy of closing my mouth, and listening with my politics tucked away. Sometimes people reveal what they really need instead of their horrible belief systems, and sometimes they're just horrible people who relish others' pain.
2nd edit: It occurs to me that spouse and I can get away with a lot in face-to-face interactions. We cosplay as sweet, dumpy, harmless, grandparentish farm-and-country folks these days, not obviously different in upbringing and economic circumstances from some of the most fixed minds where we live. [When dressed for January, no one knows about the tattoos and piercings.] I've even got the native accent, so it's easier to get an idea or two in under the tribal radar. It's not like dealing with family members who have well-honed defenses against each other.
I concur about human decency though. One should always try to be on neutral or better terms with your neighbors. We never know when we need each other.
I think you meant this rhetorically, but I'll answer any way. I'm familiar enough with Modi and his party to have some context when he pops up in international news, though not with specific members of his cabinet or party, nor specific policies he's pushed. I'm familiar with Kashmir and border disputes with Pakistan, but not informed enough to say anything intelligent. That's all that comes to mind when I think of Indian politics.
I think I'm more informed than most my peers, but it isn't something that comes up, nor would I consider us representative of the average Western folk. I am interested in hearing about politics abroad, but tend to abstain from drawing judgement as I know I'm missing a lot of context.
Constantly. Usually it is because I talk too much. I don't need to see my own words when I can upvote or thumbs up something someone else has said that's either my thoughts or close enough to my thoughts.
But more often I delete my comments or posts because the internet is full of idiots and trolls and the two are indistinguishable from each other. I have neither the patience nor will to argue with people whose sole form of entertainment is arguing on the internet. They don't know anything about that which they argue and they will not be convinced to change their mind because they have no position besides being a contrarian. Even if you catch one in a contradictory position, it is a meaningless victory. They're just having fun. They can waste other peoples' time.
In an ideal world, people would engage in discussion. Discourse. An exchange of ideas. They would hear things, think about them, ask questions, and it would all be really civilized as we communicated with one another.
In our actual world (especially online), what happens is the moment you say something the listener disagrees with, they see it as the opportunity to touch fire to the fuse and unload the full battery they have constantly standing by on you.
They rarely verify, or clarify. They don't seek to get sources or ensure that, yes, their assumption is in fact exactly what you meant. They just aim that gun and start firing. The merest hint of (whatever it is) that they object to makes you a target. This is ten times worse for anything that might hold even the slightest, smallest, most insignificant hint of anything involving social/political topics.
They want to stamp out any disagreement. If you hold a different view, you're the enemy and they're going to try damn hard to hound you right out of town. Or, in the modern version, right off the internet. They don't want anyone who doesn't toe their party line able to freely communicate online. If you don't agree with their views on gender, or sexuality, politics, spirituality, a lot of things really, their goal is to shut you down.
Not learn. Not discover differing views. Not make any allowance for how people from different backgrounds, different cultures, different life experiences might hold another position. Certainly not to let and let live, to just allow you to do your thing and they do theirs; oh no. You must be destroyed if you don't hold right on that party line they've decided upon. And they'll whip up the brigade as much as they can to go after you until you either fall all over yourself apologizing until the end of time, or just vanish.
Either way, it's total war. The fact that you dared to be a different person, with your own unique views and perspective, holds no weight other than it makes you evil because you didn't hew to theirs.
So yeah, I filter constantly. People take anything you say and jump right to the most inflammatory, divisive, twisted interpretation they can come up with. With how many people there are online, it only takes one to find that juicy reaction and fill it in to start the brigade. Like a pebble, it rolls downhill, from one post in the response thread to the next, until it's an avalanche intended to bury.
Twitter makes no sense to me. Forums do, but only ones that aren't squarely in the zeitgeist. I treat them cautiously. Fewer people means fewer chances for one of those juicy assumptions to come into play, for them to seize on some remote interpretation, and put you in the mob's crosshairs. But Twitter is designed to let its entire community dial down to focus on one person if desired. And when the brigade gets going, they do.
They hardly ever do it for a nice, fun reason. Posting on Twitter or similar seems the same to me as tossing firecrackers into a dynamite store. Boom today, boom tomorrow; sooner or later, always a boom.
So, my line of work is essentially one of those "what you do in your off time is your business, unless anyone ever links you to this organization in which case, it might be your ass," so I'm already used to self-censoring a lot...
But the honest truth is I work myself into a fuss, potentially doing extra research and writing a big long post before I realize that I don't even care enough to post it. My self censorship more goes towards apathy than anything else.
I very often write out a reply to something that I disagree with someone on in a forum or a Discord server, and then just click cancel instead of send. (I considered it just before posting this comment, actually.) It’s not a matter of not standing by what I said or even thinking it’s not a meaningful contribution, it’s a matter of getting to the final “post” button and realizing I don’t actually care enough about the topic at hand to start an argument, or I don’t value the other person’s contribution to the conversation enough to actively invite it by responding to them.
Yes.
My first sor5: "Is this a controversial take? Is it relevant? Can I defend it? Do I want to?"
The rest is considering context and audience. I don't hold many opinions others would consider abhorrent but often my questions above are a part of any comment I write.
I try to bite my tongue whenever I feel like I'm just driving up engagement on a clown's page or that I'll get harassed. Mostly the latter.
What a timely post for me!
I produce videos for an ancient history YouTube channel and we often put ourselves in the crossfire, setting the historical record straight on Ukraine at the beginning of the war, taking on the subjects of Aryan history and the history of abortion and many others.
There are specific themes and triggers in the digital world that are certain to rain hellfire in the comments. Knowing this and preparing one’s self for the backlash has become part of the process.
But what makes this so timely for me is that my next video is hopefully an overview of the Origins of India. With the rise in Hindu nationalism I’m fairly certain this will be a heavily disputed video. You may have a better vantage point than me to say how such a video might be received. I’d be curious about any of your thoughts, especially regarding Aryan and Vedic roots of India. My only goal is scholarly consensus. I have no social media points to make. If you or anyone else would like to chime in, I’m all ears.
All the time.
One of the great things about Tildes is how we're supposed to have more meaningful discussion. Which I personally like. That said, more meaningful discussion also takes more energy to write, and I'd prefer it if I got into an actual discussion. However, this rarely happens, so I often fell like it's just a waste of my time and energy.
The other major thing is this: if you have a way to be identified on social media (Facebook, X/Twitter, etc.), never post anything that could come back to bite you in the ass. I have friends with a variety of views, and with my own strong opinions, I'm going to end up upsetting at least half of my friends. I would prefer keeping peace with everyone, so whenever I post something, I try to keep it as milquetoast as possible.
Back to OP's original question -
I don't think my experience as a consumer of varied news sources and world history is representative. I have paid attention to the rise of the BJP in the wake of the Gandhi dynasty, and the various tensions among India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China at an overview level. I'm aware that Kashmir is a continuing source of friction, that there are regions which are still predominantly Communist, and that India is still working out national identity issues within post-colonial geographic boundaries that encompass 200+ languages. 30+% of Indian citizens adhere to belief systems other than Hinduism, which is yet another source of tension. I'm aware that the Hindu caste system has direct parallels in U.S. race and class hierarchies, not by accident.
I've also had the peculiar experience, via a Telegram global foodie chat, of finding out that Adolph Hitler is a popular figure in India, that the swastika is a common decoration in both orientations, and that what would be regarded as hideous anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, sexism, and racism in the U.S., is taken for granted. I think that neatly encapsulates what OP described as:
I don't know how to bridge these vastly different experiences and infospheres, other than by discussing direct personal experience and trying to neutralize emotional narrative in favor of clinical dispassion.
In any case, I'm curious about your perspective, and would like to hear what you have to say about life and politics in India.
You seem to be pretty well informed, yep. The Gandhi Dynasty (Congress Party) saw their best days in the early years of freedom movement and the first 70 odd years since independence in 1947. They were indeed great folks, my late grandpa was a huge admirer of MK Gandhi and generally a fan of Congress policies. Indeed, Indira Gandhi was perhaps our best PM till date and regarded as the Iron Lady today, though also criticized for the Emergency she brought in the late 1970s.
The Congress downfall began in the reign of her son, Rajiv Gandhi. He was probably a very good intellectual and individual but not an astute politician nor a visionary leader. In 1989, he took the controversial and fatal decision of opening the gates of the disputed Babari mosque which not only made Congress unpopular but sowed the seeds of communal politics resulting in a series of events like riots, communal tensions, etc. that eventually resulted in BJP's communal politics of Hindutva getting popular and finally BJP getting majority in 2014 when Modi became our prime minister.
This is just a brief summary of events, there are entire books and biographies written on the decades of political churn as Congress gradually started losing power and BJP's influence and ideological reach increased. BJP's core ideology is Hindutva (Hindu Nationalism) and it draws its inspiration from the RSS which is a pro Hindu organization. But those smart enough to read between the lines are able to see that their real ideology today is Capitalism (perhaps not much different than what CCP does in China in the name of "Communism"). Big Corporate houses supportive of BJP party like Adani and Ambani are able to get government contracts for constructing highways and airports, telecom work, etc. Though to be fair, all the parties and politicians across the spectrum appease to these corporates these days not just BJP!
In effect, BJP is like this two faced Daitya or Dragon where on one hand they monetize the gullible's Hindu faith in order to ensure election victories and on the other, play nice with these corporates to ensure that infrastructure also gets built. To be honest, infra has indeed been built tremendously over the last few years, be it the improved state of national highways, railway stations, airports, etc. or the highly affordable 4G data cost. But inflation is still very high with petrol and diesel heavily taxed, per capita GDP is low, the promises of smart cities was never fulfilled and our big cities like Bangalore, Mumbai, etc. are getting congested with more engineers resulting in further inflation. But despite all of this, people seem to be generally happy and more interested in social issues and even religious issues like the newly built Ram Temple in Ayodhya which is going to be inaugurated on 22nd January to the best of my knowledge. The current hot debate of the nation is that temple and which politicians will be visiting that!
Whether BJP will succeed again in distracting the nation with these non issues and get elected in 2024 again for another term despite their lack luster economic performance? Only time will tell but the pathetic performance (and some would say even complicity!) of the opposition parties like Congress will be a major reason if that happens.
Please don't take this as a criticism of Indian people, but rather authoritarian political systems in general.
There's a particularly toxic combination of ethnonationalism, opaque governance, cronyism, patronage, and corruption which causes nations to stagnate. The leaders pursue showcase projects that benefit the powerful, reward supporters at the expense of the nation as a whole, and offer violent oppression of "enemies" and militarism rather than general welfare. I saw some stats today indicating that one of India's biggest export industries is now weaponry.
The same factors are at work in Turkey, Israel, Venezuela, China, Russia, Hungary, the US under Trump... it's not a matter of religion or ideology, just unchecked greed and lust for power. And once the authoritarians take power, they'll spend years patiently consolidating it until they can erase opposition with impunity. I may be a pessimist, but I don't see Indian civil society having the power and solidarity to dislodge BJP for a very long time.
When you're at a bar, no one pays attention to you if you yell and curse. When you're at a library, they tend to frown on that kind of behavior.
So it depends on where I am. Places like Tildes, I'll think before hitting post because I know people are listening and actually think about posts here. YouTube, Reddit, twitter... posting there reminds me of kicking a car when it dies, you know it can't feel it or hear you yell, but it makes you feel better.
Earlier someone posted a CNN link and I started ranting about how anyone could read the article given how much they muddy down their articles with manipulative crap to the point that it's difficult to see the news in it. Hop over to Reuters or any number of less bias news sites and same topic is explained rather well, without the filler and every other word expressly written to stop their thinking and steer the audience's emotions toward their goals. AHEM Anyhoo, it wasn't really relevant to the topic and could have been seen as a dig at the person posting when it was just me wanting to grumble about CNN so no need to post it. Now if I had been on reddit, I'd probably just post. 😋
Usually bogs down to two questions:
YEP.
Seldom, but I do.
I have written comments here that I eventually scraped and withdrawnnfrom discussion.
Sometime I do so because it could have been perceived as an attack on other people even though it wasn't meant like that, other times because I may be seen as racist/xenophobe/whatever and I don't want to explain myself (everytime) because the language barrier is strong in such discussions where I don't know the right words and more basic words can be perceived in a bad way.
There are discussion I don't even think to partake in due to me not knowing proper english terms. Ie. crime in US, as I don't know how the system there works and know only our own (Czech) system (and that only a bit).
I definitely do. Especially on a website where I have an account which could be reasonably found by people I know in real life (like this one). I often start typing something out and then if I realize it's too much in any way I rather not post it. I am not even really scared of someone using something I said 10 years ago as dirt on me (though that is also a part), I just don't want some of my coworkers or whoever knows which username I use online to find me posting some "cringe". It might just be me being dumb though.