This war shows just how broken social media has become — The global town square is in ruins::The global town square is in ruins.

  • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I predate the internet and honestly I can’t remember people ever being so aggressively stupid. Social media has fucked them up.

    Sure, we’ve always had reactionaries shovelling Murdoch dogshit directly into their skulls, but they weren’t cults.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah I mean instead you just had an entire country pretty much unanimously vote for Reagan economics that we’re still feeling the brutal effects of today while the dissenting voices were just entirely unheard.

      People are louder, they aren’t stupider. Shit, at least 2016 was split.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think that proves your point at all.

        When people elected Reagan, they saw an articulate, charismatic man offering easy to digest solutions that sounded plausible. They had no context to know that neoliberalism was bullshit that only made rich people richer with each successive failure.

        Any dissenting voices were (at best) saying “I don’t agree with their guess, so here is my guess instead”.

        Meanwhile, what do we have now? Donald fucking Trump. A man who is barely coherent. A man whose inherited wealth has shielded him not just from multiple dogshit business decisions, but extremely serious charges of being a traitor to his country. And of course, a staunch neoliberal in the modern “don’t say it out loud” movement.

        Every piece of information people needed to make a better choice was out there and freely available. There was no excuse for not knowing who he was or that his economic ideas had failed to deliver on their promises thousands of times the world over.

        But people continue to enthusiastically support him. They would kill and die for a man who is openly revolted by having to interact with them.

        Yes, they’re louder.

        But they’re stupider too.

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t that just show young people are informed to the point that American conservatives have to resort to general silliness and outrage to get their shitty base of mainly older generations to vote?

          I think you’re confusing the loud minority for the majority

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Andrew Tate is a role model for millions of boys and young men.

            Okay, maybe they don’t have the context needed to understand that he’s just a rapist who is desperately trying to pretend his father’s abuse was love in disguise.

            But the man claimed he was the world’s first trillionaire. That’s the kind of lie a literal toddler would tell, yet grown men believed it.

            Are they the majority? No, probably not.

            But I can’t remember another group of people so deliberately, unapologetically stupid as modern reactionaries, nor a time where they’ve wielded so much power.

            • Steeve@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are they the majority? No, probably not.

              No, hard stop. Not even fucking close. Your examples are confirmation bias.

              nor a time where they’ve wielded so much power.

              Do you not remember the Christian groups of the… 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s? They always have, you just weren’t informed via the internet about it.

              • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No, hard stop. Not even fucking close.

                Articulate the group of people you’re talking about then so we can actually discuss them, rather than you just insisting they’re everything you pinkie promise they were.

                Because you’re awful confident about who they are, what their numbers are, what they believed and how much power they weilded without actually articulating who “they” are in any meaningful way.

                • Steeve@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What? That was a direct response to your comment. I quoted you, “they” is from your comment lol. Try reading that again.

                  you just insisting they’re everything you pinkie promise they were.

                  Do you really think that I have to provide evidence to disprove bullshit anecdotal claims that were never proven in the first place? That’s not how discussion works.

                  • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Okay, so you don’t actually know who you’re talking about, but you’re certain you’re correct.

                    I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in case it was a miscommunication and we were talking about entirely different groups of people.

                    But nope, you’re just saying any old bullshit with absolute conviction because you want to look like the smartest person in the room.

                    Reading back, it’s actually pretty obvious that you didn’t experience Reagan nor the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. You’re just extrapolating your 5 years of adulthood backwards 50 years and assuming you’ve nailed it.

    • Cannibal_MoshpitV3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The internet shows you what you are looking for. Rather than find several sources to make an informed argument, most people Google something along the lines of why their stupid opinion is correct.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think that’s already giving them too much credit.

        Post an article to social media and internet pseudo-intellectuals will just uncritically adopt the top comment as their opinion, meaning they can be bought for literal pocket change.

        There are teenagers whose entire worldview has been lifted from memes. They’ll just casually abuse women because the PCM memes they read in between Overwatch pornography tell them to using pictures of Chad and Wojack, color coding everything like a book for toddlers.

        It’s the reprogramming scene from A Clockwork Orange, only people voluntarily pin their eyes open and the goal is to make them worse, not better.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I predate the internet and honestly I can’t remember people ever being so aggressively stupid. Social media has fucked them up.

      Right wing hate radio was the main culprit.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think all of these are refinements of the same sleazy, manipulative tactic that is growing more effective with each iteration.

        Newspapers pushing xenophobia is about as old as newspapers themselves. But you had to actually buy the newspaper then actively sit down and read it, which isn’t a great start if you want to build an army of deliberately misinformed idiots.

        Then we had your hate radio. Not only was it free, people could just let it passively wash over them, absorbing opinions like a sponge, unable to take a moment to think critically about what was just said, even if they cared to.

        But even the worst of them struggled to openly advocate white supremacy and genocide.

        That was left to extremists spreading xeroxed propaganda and they struggled to find an audience. They often targeted things like punk gigs, searching for an angry, disaffected group of young white men, instead finding a kick in the head from people who would be considered “woke” today.

        Fortunately for people with dogshit where their personality should be, 24 hour reactionary TV was here to escalate things. With its constant barrage of flashing lights and blaring stingers, it was a struggle to ignore for even a second.

        Bigotry was no longer just an opinion, it was full blown entertainment. But underneath it all the careful stage management and production value, you could see them seething at being unable to go mask off.

        The internet eventually became accessible enough that they found it and for a while, they were so excited. They could say whatever vile shit they wanted! Their friends and family would never find out! Nobody could punch them!

        But they had all the same pitfalls as the newspapers did. People needed to actively seek them out and people just weren’t typing “top ten reasons it’s cool to be a Nazi” into AskJeeves.

        Sites like Stormfront tried their old tricks, “raiding” other forums to spam propaganda, but it was so easy to mop up. They struggled to get their misinformation out there without making it clear it was just 12 people with 80 IQs on a warm who couldn’t regulate their emotions.

        Then social media arrived to give them everything they wanted, short of an ethnostate and a wife that was too scared to say no. It was passive, it was entertainment and you could say whatever horrific shit you wanted without worrying about repercussions in the form of violence or bad PR.

        It took them a while to figure things out at first. Initially they tried just openly admitting they were white supremacists but quickly found platforms wouldn’t tolerate that. And so the “alt-right” was invented and they insisted they weren’t neo-nazis, they just happened to have the same opinions, talking points, figureheads and tattoos.

        That plausible deniability took them to dizzying new heights. They were on the news! People were listening to their opinions and then not spitting on them! They were so confident, when “Unite the Right” came around, they tore off their masks, grabbed their tiki torches, paraded around with their swastika flags then killed an innocent woman for disagreeing with them in an act of domestic terrorism.

        Which is when they learned they’re not as bulletproof as they thought. They were immediately fired, disowned and deplatformed. But the lesson they learned wasn’t “don’t be genocide promoting fuckstains”, it was to always stay mask on, no matter what. To cling to that plausible deniability even in the face of the most damning evidence to the contrary.

        From that, the modern reactionary movement was born.

        You just use social media to feed them a constant stream of talking points, “jokes” and trigger words, denying it the whole time. They’ll self-select and signal boost their favourites, form their own little incestuous relationships and get pushed deeper into culthood, guided by the gentle hand of “the algorithm”.