PalteseMalconFunch · 36-40, T
TangledUpInBlue · F
@PalteseMalconFunch interesting. Yes of course things don’t exist for no reason, I agree. What do you think motivates people to see everything through ideology or identity do you think it’s applied to all issues? Those lenses?
PalteseMalconFunch · 36-40, T
@TangledUpInBlue Because those are the reasons people did the things in question
Social media has conditioned people to seek attention and validation at all costs, and how people usually choose to express themselves is through the lens of identity. That includes politics and religion.
Rather than having conversations with people face-to-face, we put ourselves out into the void, unsure of who will see or respond. This has popularized people using controversy to drum up attention. Whether it's conspiracies, victimhood, demagoguery, or polemics, we've entered an age where there is no appeal in appealing to the common ground.
People have substituted instant gratification and virtue signaling for empathy and understanding, the things that used to make society function. It's sad, but we have a media landscape that cares more for ratings than for truth, for clicks and engagement over educating and informing, and ultimately more for money and influence than for humanity.
Until our companies work towards putting humanity first, we'll continue careening towards the precipice of collapse
Rather than having conversations with people face-to-face, we put ourselves out into the void, unsure of who will see or respond. This has popularized people using controversy to drum up attention. Whether it's conspiracies, victimhood, demagoguery, or polemics, we've entered an age where there is no appeal in appealing to the common ground.
People have substituted instant gratification and virtue signaling for empathy and understanding, the things that used to make society function. It's sad, but we have a media landscape that cares more for ratings than for truth, for clicks and engagement over educating and informing, and ultimately more for money and influence than for humanity.
Until our companies work towards putting humanity first, we'll continue careening towards the precipice of collapse
TangledUpInBlue · F
@TinyViolins do you think there is a way to move towards more empathy and honest discourse with the way things are, especially on social media?
TinyViolins · 31-35, M
@TangledUpInBlue Social media is a Pandora's Box that there's really no going back from, as much as I wish we could.
There are a couple of ideas, but none of them are silver bullet answers. They'd probably all need to be tried simultaneously to have any real hope of being effective.
One thing is to try to regulate things at the media level. A lot of people's politics and ideology gets spoon fed to them through their personalized news feeds. It's helping radicalize people that otherwise wouldn't be consuming so much of this opinionated content. One way to curb that is to eliminate the algorithms entirely so that people will have to manually search for content they like, or to perhaps use AI to search for articles that articulate an opposing point of view. The end goal is to help people have a more balanced information diet.
But I think what we should also do is try to promote community and honest dialogue rather than what we have now of everything being done through text over the internet. People often get a high when posting ideological content, either by reinforcing pre-existing beliefs or allegiances, or to disparage those they don't agree with. So much of the discourse out there is virtue signaling and self-gratification.
I would like to see that need people have to belong to a certain group translated into something a lot more pro-social. To replace partisanship with community. One idea is to use social media to promote gatherings and social events that welcome all kinds of people based on their hobbies and interests. Interacting with different people of different backgrounds helps a lot to bust the myths and stereotypes people have of each other.
But there are serious questions of accessibility and logistics of getting something like that organized en masse. An easier solution would be to explore something like the Metaverse. Having digital hang-out spots for people to communicate through mics and actually talk to each other in real time. We can get a better sense of tone and be able to see when others are communicating earnestly. It's also likely to help phase out a lot of the foreign bots promoting discord that these websites are infected with.
I think bringing back the Fair Use Doctrine and applying across all media sources would also do a lot of good towards bringing balance and moderation back into a political arena overrun with radicals.
There are solutions at play, but they don't really stand a chance at competing with financial incentives, nor does there seem to be a lot of political will towards holding these corporations accountable
There are a couple of ideas, but none of them are silver bullet answers. They'd probably all need to be tried simultaneously to have any real hope of being effective.
One thing is to try to regulate things at the media level. A lot of people's politics and ideology gets spoon fed to them through their personalized news feeds. It's helping radicalize people that otherwise wouldn't be consuming so much of this opinionated content. One way to curb that is to eliminate the algorithms entirely so that people will have to manually search for content they like, or to perhaps use AI to search for articles that articulate an opposing point of view. The end goal is to help people have a more balanced information diet.
But I think what we should also do is try to promote community and honest dialogue rather than what we have now of everything being done through text over the internet. People often get a high when posting ideological content, either by reinforcing pre-existing beliefs or allegiances, or to disparage those they don't agree with. So much of the discourse out there is virtue signaling and self-gratification.
I would like to see that need people have to belong to a certain group translated into something a lot more pro-social. To replace partisanship with community. One idea is to use social media to promote gatherings and social events that welcome all kinds of people based on their hobbies and interests. Interacting with different people of different backgrounds helps a lot to bust the myths and stereotypes people have of each other.
But there are serious questions of accessibility and logistics of getting something like that organized en masse. An easier solution would be to explore something like the Metaverse. Having digital hang-out spots for people to communicate through mics and actually talk to each other in real time. We can get a better sense of tone and be able to see when others are communicating earnestly. It's also likely to help phase out a lot of the foreign bots promoting discord that these websites are infected with.
I think bringing back the Fair Use Doctrine and applying across all media sources would also do a lot of good towards bringing balance and moderation back into a political arena overrun with radicals.
There are solutions at play, but they don't really stand a chance at competing with financial incentives, nor does there seem to be a lot of political will towards holding these corporations accountable
TangledUpInBlue · F
@TinyViolins Thank you for this answer
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
I don't think everyone does, but certainly social media and this site particularly there are people who engage this way at all times. I certainly do it a lot.
Speaking for myself, this is the only place I do that. I don't hash out my political beliefs amongst friends and co-workers because of the fraught nature of politics these days. It's extremely polarized. The reasons for that are many, shifting, overlapping, and complicated. It's easier to stay anonymous here and have heated discussions in safety and privacy as having the "wrong" opinion in Western society exposes you to consequences that are sometimes unfair and unwarranted.
I see 3 users on this thread who are promoting seemingly fair, simple measures to reduce this.
All 3 of them treat me with contempt and hatred and don't speak to me sincerely or genuinely. Their preference would be for me to shut up. If push came to shove, they likely would support people like me being sanctioned much like they do in the UK if I continue to express my opinions on politics.
I roll my eyes and snear at their suggestions as they are insincere and selfish. What they advocate is a return to before, when progressive, liberal ideals were ubiquitous and shared my the majority.
Their comments are hypocritical.
Speaking for myself, this is the only place I do that. I don't hash out my political beliefs amongst friends and co-workers because of the fraught nature of politics these days. It's extremely polarized. The reasons for that are many, shifting, overlapping, and complicated. It's easier to stay anonymous here and have heated discussions in safety and privacy as having the "wrong" opinion in Western society exposes you to consequences that are sometimes unfair and unwarranted.
I see 3 users on this thread who are promoting seemingly fair, simple measures to reduce this.
All 3 of them treat me with contempt and hatred and don't speak to me sincerely or genuinely. Their preference would be for me to shut up. If push came to shove, they likely would support people like me being sanctioned much like they do in the UK if I continue to express my opinions on politics.
I roll my eyes and snear at their suggestions as they are insincere and selfish. What they advocate is a return to before, when progressive, liberal ideals were ubiquitous and shared my the majority.
Their comments are hypocritical.
View 4 more replies »
TinyViolins · 31-35, M
@SumKindaMunster
This site is an online community, and like any other community, members tend to hold each other accountable when someone is disturbing the peace. I'm not the one going onto other people's comments to dispute, deny, and dismiss what they have to say, with the ironic exception being this one. Though to be fair, you were calling me out.
That's completely false. I don't go onto your comments and posts to start debates with you, you go onto mine to peddle things that are verifiably false or undetermined at best and use these to attack my positions with. I care about being as truthful as possible without succumbing to partisan biases. When the facts are being disparaged and denied, I get miffed. If something is an opinion, I'll state it as my opinion. We can disagree there. I'm very careful to keep the two separate. I don't think you hold yourself to the same principle.
I thoroughly research the claims I make. Even if it's frustrating dealing with things I know to be misinformation or people that are willfully obtuse, I still feel comfortable debating it. I don't have to worry about putting a partisan spin on the things I say. The facts are the facts whether people like them or not.
The only time I stopped responding to you was when my dog died. I had much bigger things to worry about back then, and when I came back I had no interest in reviving a month's old conversation with someone that's just gonna flippantly dismiss my response as bullshit anyway.
I try to reserve my blocks for people who are intentionally vile or aggressively stupid. I never really break from those parameters. While I do think your point of view is extremely one-sided, your relentless cynicism definitely challenges me to put the facts I have out there, and I like keeping the conversation around for the sake of education. It's like sharpening a knife against a rock.
I'm well aware. That's literally the root of the problem. You know you're not going to change your mind but still debate people anyway. You're just aggravating people into proving something to you that you're never going to accept. It's just kinda sad really
Who are you to hold me "accountable"?
This site is an online community, and like any other community, members tend to hold each other accountable when someone is disturbing the peace. I'm not the one going onto other people's comments to dispute, deny, and dismiss what they have to say, with the ironic exception being this one. Though to be fair, you were calling me out.
The entirety of your disagreements with me have to do with the opinions I hold and value
That's completely false. I don't go onto your comments and posts to start debates with you, you go onto mine to peddle things that are verifiably false or undetermined at best and use these to attack my positions with. I care about being as truthful as possible without succumbing to partisan biases. When the facts are being disparaged and denied, I get miffed. If something is an opinion, I'll state it as my opinion. We can disagree there. I'm very careful to keep the two separate. I don't think you hold yourself to the same principle.
you should have the self discipline to stop responding if you are frustrated with the conversation. You've done it before, not sure why I have to point this out to you.
I thoroughly research the claims I make. Even if it's frustrating dealing with things I know to be misinformation or people that are willfully obtuse, I still feel comfortable debating it. I don't have to worry about putting a partisan spin on the things I say. The facts are the facts whether people like them or not.
The only time I stopped responding to you was when my dog died. I had much bigger things to worry about back then, and when I came back I had no interest in reviving a month's old conversation with someone that's just gonna flippantly dismiss my response as bullshit anyway.
Maybe you need to develop a thicker skin or do what others who have found me objectionable have done, and ignore me or block me. You have the power to solve this if it's so objectionable to you.
I try to reserve my blocks for people who are intentionally vile or aggressively stupid. I never really break from those parameters. While I do think your point of view is extremely one-sided, your relentless cynicism definitely challenges me to put the facts I have out there, and I like keeping the conversation around for the sake of education. It's like sharpening a knife against a rock.
I am not changing, this works for me
I'm well aware. That's literally the root of the problem. You know you're not going to change your mind but still debate people anyway. You're just aggravating people into proving something to you that you're never going to accept. It's just kinda sad really
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@TinyViolins Sorry about your dog. I've lost a few over the years. It sucks. I can tell you that while you will never forget them, over time you heal and it becomes a comfortable but bittersweet memory. I hope its less painful for you now.
I'm not responding to the rest of this. I moved on and YOU chose to re-engage. Remember that.
Again, have a great weekend.
I'm not responding to the rest of this. I moved on and YOU chose to re-engage. Remember that.
Again, have a great weekend.
TangledUpInBlue · F
@SumKindaMunster thank you for your honest answer
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
It's a lot but you asked why so:
First, our brains rely on cognitive shortcuts, or heuristics, to quickly interpret complex information without expending excessive mental energy. Politics, identity, and ideology serve as ready-made frameworks that allow people to evaluate issues rapidly based on their existing values and beliefs rather than reassessing each issue from scratch. For example, an environmentalist will automatically view news about oil pipelines through ecological and ethical considerations because it aligns with their pre-existing mental categories.
This ties into social identity theory, which shows that people derive self-esteem and a sense of belonging from group memberships, whether those are political parties, cultural groups, or religious communities. Viewing issues through a group’s ideological lens reinforces solidarity and affirms one’s identity, strengthening group cohesion. It’s not merely about analysis; it’s about affirming who they are.
Layered onto this is confirmation bias. Humans are naturally inclined to seek out and prioritize information that confirms what they already believe while discounting or rationalizing away contradictory evidence. Politics and ideology provide strong filters that help people maintain cognitive consistency and protect their worldview from unsettling challenges.
Additionally, motivated reasoning plays a crucial role. People often reach decisions based on their emotional and moral intuitions first, then use reasoning to justify those conclusions. As moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues, reason often acts like a press secretary rather than a judge—explaining and defending decisions rather than arriving at them impartially. Thus, individuals process issues politically or ideologically because those frameworks align with their deepest moral emotions.
Another factor is the perception of stakes and power. Issues are rarely abstract; they affect people’s lives, safety, autonomy, and group status. Politics and identity help individuals quickly determine how an issue might impact them or their group, especially in polarized contexts where “us vs. them” thinking is prevalent.
Furthermore, social signaling is at play. Expressing political or ideological stances publicly communicates values, loyalty, and worldview to others. This was evolutionarily important for establishing alliances, gaining protection, and fostering cooperation within groups.
Finally, it’s important to recognize the lack of cognitive separation between “neutral facts” and interpretations. Even topics that appear purely factual, such as nutrition guidelines or education policy, are embedded in societal structures shaped by political decisions, cultural norms, and ideological debates.
The notion that people could think about issues purely objectively is unrealistic, because meaning itself is socially constructed.
While it may seem illogical that people frame nearly every issue through politics, identity, or ideology, it is actually a deeply rooted cognitive, social, and evolutionary strategy to navigate an overwhelming world with limited mental resources, affirm belonging, maintain coherence in worldview, and act in alignment with their moral emotions and group interests.
First, our brains rely on cognitive shortcuts, or heuristics, to quickly interpret complex information without expending excessive mental energy. Politics, identity, and ideology serve as ready-made frameworks that allow people to evaluate issues rapidly based on their existing values and beliefs rather than reassessing each issue from scratch. For example, an environmentalist will automatically view news about oil pipelines through ecological and ethical considerations because it aligns with their pre-existing mental categories.
This ties into social identity theory, which shows that people derive self-esteem and a sense of belonging from group memberships, whether those are political parties, cultural groups, or religious communities. Viewing issues through a group’s ideological lens reinforces solidarity and affirms one’s identity, strengthening group cohesion. It’s not merely about analysis; it’s about affirming who they are.
Layered onto this is confirmation bias. Humans are naturally inclined to seek out and prioritize information that confirms what they already believe while discounting or rationalizing away contradictory evidence. Politics and ideology provide strong filters that help people maintain cognitive consistency and protect their worldview from unsettling challenges.
Additionally, motivated reasoning plays a crucial role. People often reach decisions based on their emotional and moral intuitions first, then use reasoning to justify those conclusions. As moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues, reason often acts like a press secretary rather than a judge—explaining and defending decisions rather than arriving at them impartially. Thus, individuals process issues politically or ideologically because those frameworks align with their deepest moral emotions.
Another factor is the perception of stakes and power. Issues are rarely abstract; they affect people’s lives, safety, autonomy, and group status. Politics and identity help individuals quickly determine how an issue might impact them or their group, especially in polarized contexts where “us vs. them” thinking is prevalent.
Furthermore, social signaling is at play. Expressing political or ideological stances publicly communicates values, loyalty, and worldview to others. This was evolutionarily important for establishing alliances, gaining protection, and fostering cooperation within groups.
Finally, it’s important to recognize the lack of cognitive separation between “neutral facts” and interpretations. Even topics that appear purely factual, such as nutrition guidelines or education policy, are embedded in societal structures shaped by political decisions, cultural norms, and ideological debates.
The notion that people could think about issues purely objectively is unrealistic, because meaning itself is socially constructed.
While it may seem illogical that people frame nearly every issue through politics, identity, or ideology, it is actually a deeply rooted cognitive, social, and evolutionary strategy to navigate an overwhelming world with limited mental resources, affirm belonging, maintain coherence in worldview, and act in alignment with their moral emotions and group interests.
ImNotHungry · 36-40, M
politics, identity, or ideology?
This is the majority of peoples lives. Of course it occupies the majority of peoples discourse. I have to agree with [@bijouxbrossard]. It is a luxury to not have to. It's like asking why a poor person sees life from the perspective of a poor person...
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Miram · 31-35, F
I don't think that's necessarily a problem. All humans have patterns by which they reach their conclusions.
And all of them can be harmless and even useful..or harmful and useless.
Even answering this question requires narrowing down perception and forming possibilities and addressing those instead. Most human perspective is limited by subjective standards because we are limited beings.
And all of them can be harmless and even useful..or harmful and useless.
Even answering this question requires narrowing down perception and forming possibilities and addressing those instead. Most human perspective is limited by subjective standards because we are limited beings.
TangledUpInBlue · F
@Miram I agree, however when does that pattern of perception become a blinder instead of a filter? How does one navigate it?
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
TangledUpInBlue · F
@samueltyler2 do you think polarisation has escalated that it feels like identity and ideology aren’t just political positions, they’ve become personality traits, how so?
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@TangledUpInBlue good question, i think the personality trait started earlier.
bijouxbroussard · F
bijouxbroussard · F
@TangledUpInBlue I understand. It’s very different here, and more so recently. Just about everything has a political slant; and rarely is neutrality assumed. One can comment to a stranger about the weather and end up being scolded about "climate change fanatics".
TangledUpInBlue · F
@bijouxbroussard Neutrality seems to have become a rarity. Social media doesn’t help as platforms seem to care more about engagement than true discussions. ‘I’s my tribe against your tribe’ is the ongoing rhetoric. It should’ve been the other way around in my opinion. I accept that there is no such thing as true neutrality - however people can at least try. All of us..can try and practice non political listening and give ourselves media diets from time to time.
bijouxbroussard · F
@TangledUpInBlue That gets back to what I said initially—it’s not a luxury available to everyone. After a lifetime of trying I observe before I engage.
val70 · 51-55
One could argue that the Italians during the Renaissance were indeed much more inclined to view others through the lens of achievement than anything else but that means going back to an age when about ninety procent of people had a craft and were judged on the marketplace to what standard their produce would be something worthy
TangledUpInBlue · F
@val70 do you think that identity has replaced achievement?
val70 · 51-55
@TangledUpInBlue Eventually. It didn't use to be that people were identified by the actual features that they have. Once Ancient Rome had just the Roman citizenship and then any features were not even socially obvious. A blond slave in a household of a black family was because of what that family achieved
FloorGenAdm · 51-55, M
TangledUpInBlue · F
@dirge some of it I’m sure, not all of,it.
DrWatson · 70-79, M
How could anyone not view the world through the lens of their own identity?
TangledUpInBlue · F
@DrWatson absolutely true. Do you think there’s a danger in letting identity become the only viewpoint we see the world through? Isn’t that dangerous? Or has it always been that way?
