I know this article is about the effects on politics, and how female politicians are targeted specifically, but I'm sure of two things already: The cat's already out of the bag when it comes to...
I know this article is about the effects on politics, and how female politicians are targeted specifically, but I'm sure of two things already:
The cat's already out of the bag when it comes to social media making everyone more vitriolic and hostile; it's time for conscious reversal of attitudes.
The continuation of letting this social media rage-manufacturing is going to undo human progress overall, not just political progress; it's not a coincidence that more and more mass murderers seem to be charged by social media to be against the existence of the "other"
I don't mean to diminish the disproportionate amount of hostility that female politicians will receive thanks to this new paradigm but it kind of reminds me of those arguments about why singling out Trump as a racist doesn't really do much to show how the entire system is racist and can, in fact, distract from it. They will feel it first, and the most strongly, but aren't we all feeling it to some degree? These unfortunate female politicians aren't the canary in the coal mine, they are the first to be affected but will not be the last.
The particular effect is something quite dangerous: a silencing. We are seeing voices being removed from the conversation because the conversations have been hijacked in method and attitude to cater towards a certain bent. Groups like female politicians aren't falling behind, they're being targeted to the effect of being removed from the conversation. It absolutely sucks that so many female politicians are abandoning high level politics... But are enough people seeing it that way? Is the core problem really being identified? And once the female politicians are all gone, who is the next group to be silenced out? When all discourse is on (or is conducted by) social media, the pattern will continue until it is broken.
Even on this site, it feels like there has been a slide backwards into a more angry and hostile tone and atmosphere. It used to be that we were deprogramming ourselves out of this viper's nest attitude that reddit, Twitter, and comment sections fostered for years. But since the userbase expanded, it seems like that is no longer a priority. This suggests to me, anecdotally of course, that this poisonous atmosphere is not some kind of impending problem but it is the norm. And that's a huge problem that can only be solved with a conscious reversal of attitude and priority. I don't think this is something we can legislate away, this is something that requires the conscious effort of every individual.
Everyone is angry right now for a variety of reasons, but they've no way to channel that effectively into the change they want to see. The political reality is that many people actually want the...
They will feel it first, and the most strongly, but aren't we all feeling it to some degree?
Everyone is angry right now for a variety of reasons, but they've no way to channel that effectively into the change they want to see. The political reality is that many people actually want the same thing, better lives for them and theirs. But they can't have the conversation without some political windbag deciding that the only way that can be achieved is <with their guiding hand>, rather than conversation with our fellow man.
Even on this site, it feels like there has been a slide backwards into a more angry and hostile tone and atmosphere. It used to be that we were deprogramming ourselves out of this viper's nest attitude that reddit, Twitter, and comment sections fostered for years. But since the userbase expanded, it seems like that is no longer a priority. This suggests to me, anecdotally of course, that this poisonous atmosphere is not some kind of impending problem but it is the norm. And that's a huge problem that can only be solved with a conscious reversal of attitude and priority.
I've not been here long enough to see a slide. But this feels really hard to judge without significant sentiment analysis on the comment sections. People have had a go at me, I've had a go at them... and at the end we kind of go "You know what? This isn't worth it" and that's kind of more important than faux-politeness could ever be worth.
Much of the conversational problem is that everyone has been told that their opinion is just as valid as everyone elses. Therefore we end up in these wierd shit-fligging conversations where we agree, but we're just mad at each other for <reasons>. It happens everywhere, but it doesn't happen anywhere near as much here than it does anywhere else on Reddit. Tildes remains a bit of a sanctuary of "remember the user" and I abide by that as much as is humanly possible. But the only way we're going to ensure that remains the same is by ensuring that people are emotionally okay to not even comment in fury in the first place. Which is hard to do when the rest of the Internet Ecosystem is encouraging ragebating, vitriol and viciousness.
Broken Window theory aside. I find Tildes to be a breathe of fresh air. Where you can go "Actually, I think <controversy> is okay..." and people discuss it like grownups without just calling you a twonk and moving on.
How? The people who especially should, especially won't. Maybe by definition. Unless online harassment is legally treated like in-person harassment etc., nothing will ever change.
conscious reversal of attitudes
How? The people who especially should, especially won't. Maybe by definition.
Unless online harassment is legally treated like in-person harassment etc., nothing will ever change.
There are a lot of options, the idea is to discourage and demonize such attittudes and behaviour instead of letting it slide or saying "that's just the internet for you". Going back to the...
There are a lot of options, the idea is to discourage and demonize such attittudes and behaviour instead of letting it slide or saying "that's just the internet for you". Going back to the article's recommendations (which inspired that particular thought), it will take more than just legislation and hoping the justice systems around the world can just somehow process and take care of all these individuals. This is a human psychology problem, I don't think going after people legally will generate the proper outcome. If anything, I'd worry that would only galvanize many as then there would be actual martyrdom for "free speech".
I know this article is about the effects on politics, and how female politicians are targeted specifically, but I'm sure of two things already:
The cat's already out of the bag when it comes to social media making everyone more vitriolic and hostile; it's time for conscious reversal of attitudes.
The continuation of letting this social media rage-manufacturing is going to undo human progress overall, not just political progress; it's not a coincidence that more and more mass murderers seem to be charged by social media to be against the existence of the "other"
I don't mean to diminish the disproportionate amount of hostility that female politicians will receive thanks to this new paradigm but it kind of reminds me of those arguments about why singling out Trump as a racist doesn't really do much to show how the entire system is racist and can, in fact, distract from it. They will feel it first, and the most strongly, but aren't we all feeling it to some degree? These unfortunate female politicians aren't the canary in the coal mine, they are the first to be affected but will not be the last.
The particular effect is something quite dangerous: a silencing. We are seeing voices being removed from the conversation because the conversations have been hijacked in method and attitude to cater towards a certain bent. Groups like female politicians aren't falling behind, they're being targeted to the effect of being removed from the conversation. It absolutely sucks that so many female politicians are abandoning high level politics... But are enough people seeing it that way? Is the core problem really being identified? And once the female politicians are all gone, who is the next group to be silenced out? When all discourse is on (or is conducted by) social media, the pattern will continue until it is broken.
Even on this site, it feels like there has been a slide backwards into a more angry and hostile tone and atmosphere. It used to be that we were deprogramming ourselves out of this viper's nest attitude that reddit, Twitter, and comment sections fostered for years. But since the userbase expanded, it seems like that is no longer a priority. This suggests to me, anecdotally of course, that this poisonous atmosphere is not some kind of impending problem but it is the norm. And that's a huge problem that can only be solved with a conscious reversal of attitude and priority. I don't think this is something we can legislate away, this is something that requires the conscious effort of every individual.
Everyone is angry right now for a variety of reasons, but they've no way to channel that effectively into the change they want to see. The political reality is that many people actually want the same thing, better lives for them and theirs. But they can't have the conversation without some political windbag deciding that the only way that can be achieved is <with their guiding hand>, rather than conversation with our fellow man.
I've not been here long enough to see a slide. But this feels really hard to judge without significant sentiment analysis on the comment sections. People have had a go at me, I've had a go at them... and at the end we kind of go "You know what? This isn't worth it" and that's kind of more important than faux-politeness could ever be worth.
Much of the conversational problem is that everyone has been told that their opinion is just as valid as everyone elses. Therefore we end up in these wierd shit-fligging conversations where we agree, but we're just mad at each other for <reasons>. It happens everywhere, but it doesn't happen anywhere near as much here than it does anywhere else on Reddit. Tildes remains a bit of a sanctuary of "remember the user" and I abide by that as much as is humanly possible. But the only way we're going to ensure that remains the same is by ensuring that people are emotionally okay to not even comment in fury in the first place. Which is hard to do when the rest of the Internet Ecosystem is encouraging ragebating, vitriol and viciousness.
Broken Window theory aside. I find Tildes to be a breathe of fresh air. Where you can go "Actually, I think <controversy> is okay..." and people discuss it like grownups without just calling you a twonk and moving on.
How? The people who especially should, especially won't. Maybe by definition.
Unless online harassment is legally treated like in-person harassment etc., nothing will ever change.
There are a lot of options, the idea is to discourage and demonize such attittudes and behaviour instead of letting it slide or saying "that's just the internet for you". Going back to the article's recommendations (which inspired that particular thought), it will take more than just legislation and hoping the justice systems around the world can just somehow process and take care of all these individuals. This is a human psychology problem, I don't think going after people legally will generate the proper outcome. If anything, I'd worry that would only galvanize many as then there would be actual martyrdom for "free speech".