10/26/2023
Politics suck ass. Reading about politics also sucks ass. Political discourse becomes even more apparent when certain groups are involved in the conversation. I don’t think people go more ape shit than whenever “the Jews” are mentioned. The recent Israel-Hamas conflict has been brought to the forefront & serves as a reminder why I no longer read political news. Instagram somehow labelled Palestinian user bios with a terrorist tag. No idea how this happened… was it a disgruntled worker expressing their views?
People expressing their views over this conflict really brings humanity’s ugliness on full display. I can’t shake the feeling that a lot of individuals are misinformed on the subject, as apparent with Instagram labelling a whole group of people as terrorists. So I want to explore political discourse in general, and how it’s devolved into a toxic wasteland. Discourse was never really civilized, but it’s become especially bad.
One aspect of how we’ve arrived here is the internet and the worsening of echo chambers. Whatever you believe will be reinforced with similar opinions, regardless of how correct or just that view is. The scariest part of echo chambers is that many users don’t even recognize they’re in one. Everything online nowadays involves algorithms, which ultimately maximizes “engagement” over everything else. Every social media site and news feed incorporates algorithms to some extent. Facts and good faith arguments don’t generate as many clicks & comments — thus they aren’t as profitable. Engagement online usually involves controversial opinions, as that’s what it takes for many users to comment and engage with the topic.
It’s like how every YouTuber in the modern day doesn’t say “subscribe to my channel”, they say “subscribe, like, comment, & hit that notification bell.” Just viewing videos isn’t enough to sway what the algorithm will show you; it’ll weight likes & comments much more heavily, because that counts as engagement. The YouTube landscape promotes discord because offended people are more likely to comment with their opinion. The algorithm loves that and will promote videos with high engagement.
If you engage with something in your social media news feed, you’re more likely to see that subject again in the future. If you’re unaware of this insidious nature of the algorithm, you’ll think more people think like you do because you see it so often. This becomes even worse for those people terminally online. Reality warps to what they encounter online, but that’s a whole separate can of worms for another day. The side effect becomes apparent when it involves controversial opinions. Users will think their discourse is more common & more accepted than it actually is — the vocal minority gets mistaken as the consensus. Unaware users won’t understand why people tell them to “shut the fuck up” — it’s everywhere, isn’t it? It’s everywhere for them because they engage with it.
Another problem is because our lives involve being online for much of the day, these online opinions often bleed over into real life. In a more extreme example, take a 4chan user. They likely started using the site because it’s anonymous with true freedom of speech. Calling someone a faggot is normal and schizophrenic posts are everywhere. If someone spends enough time on the site, it’ll affect how they view reality too, especially for those terminally online. Hopefully they have enough self-awareness and self-control to know the two are separate words.
4chan bleeding over into real life.
“When someone has a strong opinion about something, it usually says more about them than whatever or whomever the opinion happens to be about. This is especially true when it comes to resentment and hatred of other people.”
I’m disappointed that cancel culture is a thing, but I also understand why it’s a thing. Companies don’t want to be associated with an influencer spouting “Hitler was right”. Sometimes it’s just contrary opinions and edgy posts for their own sake. The trouble there is Poe’s Law: “The most extreme forms of irony appear almost no different from whatever they're parodying.” It’s hard to figure out what people actually believe.
You have a right to free speech, but companies also have the right to take action (often in the form of damage control) due to the consequences of your speech. Thinking otherwise is just idealism, it isn’t reality — actions always have consequences.
A recent example of oversharing is the boycott of Web Summit after its CEO called Israel’s response to the Hamas attacks a “war crime”. If you’re a CEO, you have to know better than to publicly engage with topics like this. Even more bizarre to me is that since Hamas essentially engaged in a terrorist attack, of course ‣ will have a right to defend itself. Labeling one side as war criminals while exonerating the other… be ready for the consequences, especially if you’re a CEO.
<aside> 💡 Misinformation vs. Disinformation
Misinformation is false or inaccurate information; getting the facts wrong.
Disinformation is false information which is deliberately intended to mislead; intentionally misstating the facts.
</aside>
If you’re a freedom of speech purist, go ahead and engage with this shit if you want. If you’re representing a company, you’d better be ready for the consequences if you voice your opinion on Middle-East politics. You have to be aware that your controversial opinions can be weaponized against you, and likely will be.
Like with other actions you can take in life, voicing political strife should undergo the same risk-reward calculation — I’m not saying many people do that, but they should. It’s a solid method to avoiding regrets down the road.
Take the Israel-Hamas protestors who got arrested for doing so inside the White House. Protesting this war? Sure, no problem. Doing so inside the White House? Surely you’d acknowledge there’s a significant risk of arrest. And for what? This will make a news headlines, but won’t bring about any actual change. Speaking of headlines, ~300 of those protestors were allegedly charged with assaulting a police officer. That’s not a good look when you’re trying to protest violence. It's not that I disagree that lawmakers won't even think about it otherwise, it's that you either value yourself too little or the cause too much that you think getting arrested is worth the small chance of change.
The uncomfortable reality that most people don’t like to confront is that you can’t always make a difference. It’s a nihilistic outlook, but a pragmatic one. The key is to know what you can change, know what you can’t change, and have the wisdom to know the difference between the two. If there’s serious risks involved, think about it objectively.
Edward Snowden is an example I can think of regarding actually making a difference. Apparently he believed sacrificing his own well-being was worth exposing the NSA’s spying to the country. The January 6th Capitol riots also brought its topic to the forefront of the country. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but brought about more action than the Israel-Hamas White House protestors.
I agree that our elected officials don't give a shit and something needs to be changed. Retarded practices like Gerrymandering and outlawing abortions again show lawmakers have their own agenda to fulfill. It’s that just change won’t occur by parroting opinions you likely received from some e-celebrity thinking that’ll make a difference.