Ok so idk if this is the most appropriate place to post this, but are the extreme views and statement we see on these platforms really just “bots” and “internet noise” are these genuinely the worst parts of humanity?
For context/elaborating on it, I kinda drifted off from lemmy to reddit due to lack of content here and holee fuck, its just horrifying, the amount of pro genocidal statements and cheers for extremism genuinely makes me feel at extreme unease, but it also makes me ask a question. I come from a conservative southasian society and whenever you bring up topics like treatment of minorities, lgbtq+ rights, feminism etc, people normally dont comment on this stuff or make a “harmless joke” out of it, but seeing reddit pages of the same grp of ppl it makes me genuinely feel that these guys hold on to genuinely insane beliefs, and are just afraid to present it to anyone in person…
In order to be civil, thoughtful, and graceful, a person needs to reflect and understand complexity. The platforms of the internet incentivise the opposite. Extremity is louder than resonability so it floats to the top of the discourse.
Additionally, seeing 100, 1,000 or 10,000 people on a platform, from around the world, express shocking or anti-social viewpoints represents an infinitely small sub section of the population. A group that includes provacateurs, bots, nation-state actors, and wing-nuts.
The real trouble comes from others who aren’t taking time to reflect, who see this content every day and begin to believe that it must be valid because they keep seeing it. Slowly they twist and adopt pieces of rhetoric because there isn’t enough of a counter balance of opposing views sharing the same weight in their feeds.
What you consider to be civil, thoughtful and graceful I might consider barbaric, thoughtless and brutish.
This goes for every statement of yours that entails some sort of objective threshold beyond the argument that those who speaks the loudest are often the ones that are heard the most.
I’m sure we have opposing views on some subjects and I maintain that I might have spent more time reflecting on them than you. Does that mean that you are wrong and I am right? Or perhaps that we reflect on things in different light, inevetably ending up with different conclusions - Both equally valid?
After reflecting on the topic of subjective world views for quite some time, I feel I can confidently hold the latter opinion.
If people communicating in a public space are of differing opinions regarding a topic, and all can claim truthfully to have reflected thoughtfully, and understood the complexities of the topic, then disagreements about the topic can still be communicated gracefully to one another. If left unpersuaded, they can agree to disagree and part peacefully. The act of the discourse is valuable even in disagreement, either to re-enforce ones own convictions or to soften a stance when presented with new information.
I’m fairly confident that the OP isn’t referring to discourse and debate but rather comments or posts that unnerved them. I suspect the comments were some shade of anti-social, ignorant, or violent from their perception. I’m speculating on the specifics, as I’m working from the same post you saw.
If you want to talk about objective and subjective thresholds of truth vs. fact and determination of what is considered valid, I’m not sure this is the right place. The OP seemed to be concerned at the prevalence of concerning rhetoric online, at least, that’s what I took from it. A broader philosophical discussion might be better served in it’s own post/comments.
I’m curious about the tone of your reply. My perception is it seemed combative and contrarian, though I can’t be sure that you intended it that way. Your comments seemed to be directed at me specifically rather than at the ideas only. Am I misinterpreting your meaning?
Hmm, yeah ig it maybe a fair possibility that most are just agnostic, and get influenced by opinions that are propagated by a ridiculous amount of funding