After Kirk shooting, Utah governor calls social media a “cancer.” Will we treat it like one?

We did not evolve to handle this, Utah governor says.

See full article...

 

[wrecksdart]

Groypers are currently busting up Kirk memorials...

Getting a strong 'broken clocks are correct twice a day' vibe from this.

 

[aikouka]

The real issue is how companies like Facebook, TikTok, and X have abused Section 230 protections to build systems that maximize engagement at any cost. Their algorithms reward cruelty, outrage, and misinformation while executives pretend they are powerless or hide behind free speech bullshit whilst they have their hand on the algorithm. The problem is not people’s biology or even the existence of social media itself. The problem is corporate incentives that profit from amplifying our worst impulses. It started in conservative media in the 90s, and everyone on every side has since rushed in to get those dollars.

I understand what you're trying to get at here, but as someone that works in software, it came across to me as leaning more into the whole "software as a boogeyman" sort of problem. Essentially, we ascribe more nuance to software than it truly has. I think what we can say in that regard is that these algorithms have become scarily good at giving people exactly what they want. You've got some teenager with poor self-esteem that wants to blame everyone else but themselves and is presented with a nicely worded man-o-sphere video ends up down a deep rabbit hole.

From my understanding, YouTube doesn't have some insidious workings in the background. It just attempts to understand how interests relate across videos to present what someone wants to watch. I bring that up because while the algorithm is doing its job well, arguably, the issue is with the content in general. Actually, no... I don't think that's being fair either. (Although, I do think that content such as man-o-sphere stuff is absolute garbage.) I think the most important thing to understand is one of the basic journalism questions, "why?" Is YouTube's algorithm the problem? Or is it the content? Or is it us?

I bring this up because, as much as I hate to admit it, I bet that younger me would've been sucked into that man-o-sphere garbage. When I was younger, I dealt with self-esteem problems, and one thing that people with self-esteem don't want is to feel even worse. So, they're likely going to seek external reasoning for their issues as it feels better to blame other people for your problems. It's that mentality that the man-o-sphere videos leech onto. You could also say that it's what Republican rhetoric tends to use too by blaming various entities/groups for problems.

I haven't really figured out the "why" much beyond that point. I've wondered if it's partly genetic based upon some writings that I found in my dad's yearbook and knowing what his teens and 20's were like. I've also wondered if the problem might have to relate to how I was raised. I think one problem is a lack of responsibility among kids and teens, and I do emphasize kids because you have to start early. Your 5-year-old is done playing with their blocks? "Okay, junior... since we're done, let's put away the toys together." To go in tandem with that, there's also exploration of hobbies where possible. (Hobbies can get expensive, so it's understandable that low income families may have issues there.)

Overall, my main thought is that some of these kids are empty husks. They've gone throughout the childhood and young-adult lives without being able to truly form an identity, and they're suffering as a result. They seek to identify themselves through whatever community will accept them or make them feel better.

Oh, and one of the reasons why I wanted to make this comment is that I think it's important that Ars -- a science/tech website that arguably tries to focus on science and truth -- doesn't fall into typical fear-mongering of technology. I think it's also important to avoid surface-level problems and attack things where they truly are. If you remove the bad YouTube videos without fixing the kids that are being "corrupted", they'll just get corrupted some other (potentially less effective) way. In my opinion, politically, I think we have a really bad habit of just trying to fix problems on a surface level without tackling the main issue.

 

[wrecksdart]

On a related note, a few years ago I listened to an NPR segment about people who had had their hero moment and shot and killed the bad guy. What this show highlighted was the after-the-fact emotional damage that the shooters suffered, and how none of them were prepared for the aftermath.

A similarly related note: I've a cousin who was a cop and he related a weapons training exercise wherein cops in one part of a city-like environment would hear--but not see--gunshots and screams of panic and terror. They were expected to run to the scene and secure it, and when my cousin did the training, he rushed into the shooting area to see someone with a gun kneeling over an obviously wounded person. He raised his own training weapon and fired, psuedo-killing the person with the gun. The person with the gun turned out to be an off-duty cop with his badge on the front of his body near his holster, which my family member couldn't see from his viewing angle.

He related this story to me after I asked him about a 'more guns' scenario where cops responding to a shooting have to immediately discern which people with guns are dangerous and which are not--like me, he is firmly on the side of gun control laws/regulations.

 

[Falos]

It was too much too fast. Paradigm shifts are praised by the scant victors, no one writes books about the marginal losses by the many. A rapidly injected turbulence rarely goes well, and usually benefits from being a more generational drift.

Even when an industry or single business benefits from a surge in clumsy interest (covid saw many) and seemingly avoids all the side-effects the idea of immediately scaling up is another ill-fated move. Ars itself probably has countless stories of small studios and companies that explosively multiplied without the benefit of ongoing adaptability, adjustment based on experience, and got burnt for it. The covid cases are probably the easiest to find, but I recall Angry Birds being such a yo-yo.

Reality is here either way, of course. Recommendations and advisories lean on the delusion of human behavior (appetites, etc) not being a constant ("the cause of X is people are now Y!") and force (regulations, etc) works poorly in cyberspace, entire nations resort to crude cudgels (great firewalls) and they're still leaky. Septembers are going to swarm their identity-obsessed skinnerboxes and there's no going back. This does mean Extremely Online People with cultural whiplash and unpredictable outcomes, some wide-scale (and exploitable for profit) some one-offs.

e: Seeing all the trainings robotaxi corps are giving to first responders and noticing the same pattern, implementation surge and trying to play catch up. Rapid expansion across unforeseen tramplings. You can be sure the overnight paradigm shift is rosy enough from the vendor's perspective, same as ebike/scooter rentals. Putting the species on social media overnight wasn't orchestrated, but turbulent all the same.

 

[General Malaise]

I don't disagree with the governor from Utah, even as I'm clear that this is mainly another instance of NRA-funded politicians' rush to look for something, anything to blame that can take the focus off easy gun availability as a HUGE contributor to the practical deployment of this kind of violence.

As both laymen and even professional futurists considering how AI might end civilization seem to focus on media-interactive LLM's, I see too little consideration about the LLM's that read and write not words and numbers, but human feelings and psychological weakness. If the achievement of a dangerous superintelligence is a function of data intake, I think it is foolish not to consider the fastest and most harmful path to that to be current social media algorithms under private control.

While the focus clearly needs to be on reducing the lethality of the fringe elements that go as far as taking part in political violence, there also needs to be a focus on the psychological poison that currently most effectively feeds the social narcissism behind today's polarization.

Unfortunately, as tobacco, asbestos, lead additives in gasoline, greenhouse gases, PFAS, etc have and continue to teach us, we are REALLY bad at judging the harm of things that don't kill us quickly, we have quite a way to go and a large amount of "random" violence to endure before enough of us see what is happening.

That is, if we even see what is happening in time for us to extricate ourselves from it.

 

[Oldmanalex]

When you were in college, did you ever have an opportunity to hear Marx lecture?

His chemistry really sucked, and s-orbitals really do not care much about didactic materialism.

 

[JoHBE]

Breaking news: it appears irony ALSO doesn't work.

 

[JoHBE]

Our community has rules. There are things you can’t say here.

It’s kind of pointless to compare that to general society.

More social sites should be better about that too, but moderation is very difficult to scale.

SOLUTION: hiring enough skilled and motivated human moderators
FAKE SOLUTION: something AI
ACTUAL SOLUTION: bribery, ass-kissing and ideological alignment with a fascist government to gut moderation completely, in the name of freeze peach

 

[Carewolf]

SOLUTION: hiring enough skilled and motivated human moderators
FAKE SOLUTION: something AI
ACTUAL SOLUTION: bribery, ass-kissing and ideological alignment with a fascist government to gut moderation completely, in the name of freeze peach

The actual solution is not gutting moderation, but changing it to ban the center and left and anyone stating the truth.

 

[gosand]

You know, as a teen in the mid-late 90s like many of the readers here, there was something unique about the internet in that it had an on/off switch. You dialed in, and for me using AOL could go into a chat, but couldn't say anything you want because you could get reported and a TOS to the account holder - that happened a couple times.

There's no off switch now, not only no off switch but that computer is in your pocket 24/7. Nothing is moderated, there's no rational judge of going too far. Words like regulation and repercussions for being an idiot don't happen - its a 'restriction' on free speech. There's no objective shared reality - if someone doesn't agree, many just warp their insanity down the rabbit hole to make it fit. That's it.

So off people go, into the deep end, like apparently is being shown by this newest murderer who apparently lived in a nihilistic world of meme culture (according to the memes used in his engraving on the bullets). All with no 'Goodbye' sound to set the line of demarcation between the online world and whatever this subjective reality they create for themselves is.

I suspect many of the readers here are like me, in that they were around well before the internet. I was in my mid-late 20s in the mid-late 90s.

There is an off switch. You just have to choose to use it. I made that choice around 2015 when I looked around at work and saw everyone, including myself, was pecking at their phone all day like a bunch of chickens in a yard looking for food. Scrolling to make sure they didn't miss anything.

I deleted IG from my phone. I never had FB. This might sound crazy, but I survived just fine. Yes, I obviously still use the internet but people do have the power to not let things like social media run your life. People choose to read the comments, and then comment themselves. That is where the poison lies. It is born from the creation of 'content' by users, just like we have here. But when outrage is the product and everyone has a voice with no moderation, the loudest win. There used to be a saying "don't feed the trolls" but it seems the trolls have taken over.

 

[Aurich]

SOLUTION: hiring enough skilled and motivated human moderators
FAKE SOLUTION: something AI
ACTUAL SOLUTION: bribery, ass-kissing and ideological alignment with a fascist government to gut moderation completely, in the name of freeze peach

It's a legit tough problem, but I think Twitter of old did a pretty good job all things considered. Then Elon Musk fired everyone and we saw what happened.

Doing it well is hard, doing it badly is easy.

 

[rnturn]

The Utah Gov is certainly playing up his fifteen minutes of fame.

 

[MagicDot]

Section 230...only Citizens United has done more harm to our society.
In the 1960's, Democrats ran the government and prominent leaders like JFK, MLK, and RFK tried to use that power to improve our society...they were all gunned down.
Today, Republicans run the government and they use their power to erode every part of society that helps you and me because it conflicts with their paying clients.
Social Media has become a scourge on our society, but it didn't have to be this way.

 

[Mental Gear Reduction]

I swear, I feel like I have less and less understanding of what the rules are every single day.

Rules only apply to liberals. Conservatives get to do what they want, and hurt who they want, without consequence.

 

[chaos215bar2]

As someone who loathes social media, I have to agree with you. IMO there is plenty of blame to go around -- singling out social media in this case is just an act of finding a convenient scapegoat. They are not innocent in this matter, but they're not at the top of the blame totem pole here.

Yes, the ubiquity of guns and ammunition is a problem. Too much ink has been spilled on that already, with very little progress. No point re-hashing further. But IMO, its not the top item in the totem pole either.

For social media, less greed on their part would have reduced the algorithm-based targeting, but its no guarantee that this individual would not have taken the same actions.

IMO, there are three items at the top of the totem pole here: violent rhetoric by politicians themselves, violent actions set in motion by them, and lastly the subverting of democracy that leads people to conclude that there are no other options.

The violent rhetoric -- DJT is a great example as was Kirk himself. Brian Killmeade on Fox News just suggested killing homeless people via lethal injection. DJT says both sides have fine people, tells the Proud Boys to stand by. GOP full of violent rhetoric targeted towards LGBTQ people.

Violent actions -- deploying armed forces against civilians (Los Angeles, DC, Memphis and Chicago look like they're next...), clamping down on protests (with force -- tear gas, riot police, etc.) in college campuses and framing peaceful protests as riots, and then persecuting those peaceful protesters.

Subverting of democracy -- the persecution of peaceful protests and silencing of speech is one exhibit -- basically it sends the signal that peaceful protest is not going to be tolerated.. then why be surprised when someone resorts to violence instead? But it doesn't stop there -- the power grab by further gerrymandering (an already heavily gerrymandered) Texas, stacking the courts with awful judges when you already have a 6-3 majority in the supreme court with 6 puppets who will rubber stamp any rubbish you do, and then the very unfortunate (but set-in-stone in the constitution) rule that each state gets exactly 2 senators, which so heavily skews the senate in favor of Republicans.. that is a lethal combination that has doomed America -- it means the senate leans heavily red by default, the house leans heavily red by gerrymandering, and the courts lean heavily red by various reckless actions and appointments in the past (worst of which is Mitch McConnell's refusal to have a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland.. but even the very nominations of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia (RIP), Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas were absolute travesties.. all of them are complete ideologues.. very far from being impartial arbiters of justice, and by no means should have ever sniffed the top court of the land.

But to tie it all together -- with all three, senate, house and judiciary so heavily imbalanced, and DJT and GOP states willing to purge voter rolls etc., and DJT being willing to employ so many dirty tricks to extend his power and hold on to it, there are valid reasons to fear that correcting the current trajectory cannot happen at the ballot box. And then there will be people who are unable to accept that, and then resort to actions like Kirk's killer did.

The solution to this very much lies in GOP hands, and in Trump's hands. He needs to de-escalate, and not just in verbal rhetoric --- but by correcting all the things mentioned above that would restore people's faith in ballot boxes, courts, and peaceful protest. Because if you take those options away, then what is left but violence?

If I could give you more upvotes, I would. This is spot on.

Yes, social media is part of the problem. So is Fox News. So are people like Charlie Kirk and the hateful, divisive messaging they promote.

But, fundamentally, the problem is more a trifecta of three simultaneous bad things: a political party that decided between 2000 and 2015, slowly, that decorum didn't matter and politics is better played as a blood sport, a media landscape that enabled this, including both social media and main stream media owned by self-interested billionaires who found that kind of messaging to be good for their bottom line, and a political system that's proving to be eminently unqualified at the task of managing these threats.

This is how empires fall.

 

[AlaskanDruid]

Utah is a dumpster state like Idaho. Their gov is worth ignoring.

 

[stk5]

Section 230...only Citizens United has done more harm to our society.
In the 1960's, Democrats ran the government and prominent leaders like JFK, MLK, and RFK tried to use that power to improve our society...they were all gunned down.
Today, Republicans run the government and they use their power to erode every part of society that helps you and me because it conflicts with their paying clients.
Social Media has become a scourge on our society, but it didn't have to be this way.

Without 230, websites would only have a choice between no moderation and no user comments. Maybe you're saying you expect the latter to happen more? But the former would definitely still happen and I don't see how that would be an improvement for anything else you brought up. It's also hard to understand what you mean about 230 because those assassinations happened a quarter century before its existence.

 

[One off]

I understand what you're trying to get at here, but as someone that works in software, it came across to me as leaning more into the whole "software as a boogeyman" sort of problem. Essentially, we ascribe more nuance to software than it truly has. I think what we can say in that regard is that these algorithms have become scarily good at giving people exactly what they want. You've got some teenager with poor self-esteem that wants to blame everyone else but themselves and is presented with a nicely worded man-o-sphere video ends up down a deep rabbit hole.

From my understanding, YouTube doesn't have some insidious workings in the background. It just attempts to understand how interests relate across videos to present what someone wants to watch. I bring that up because while the algorithm is doing its job well, arguably, the issue is with the content in general. Actually, no... I don't think that's being fair either. (Although, I do think that content such as man-o-sphere stuff is absolute garbage.) I think the most important thing to understand is one of the basic journalism questions, "why?" Is YouTube's algorithm the problem? Or is it the content? Or is it us?

I bring this up because, as much as I hate to admit it, I bet that younger me would've been sucked into that man-o-sphere garbage. When I was younger, I dealt with self-esteem problems, and one thing that people with self-esteem don't want is to feel even worse. So, they're likely going to seek external reasoning for their issues as it feels better to blame other people for your problems. It's that mentality that the man-o-sphere videos leech onto. You could also say that it's what Republican rhetoric tends to use too by blaming various entities/groups for problems.

I haven't really figured out the "why" much beyond that point. I've wondered if it's partly genetic based upon some writings that I found in my dad's yearbook and knowing what his teens and 20's were like. I've also wondered if the problem might have to relate to how I was raised. I think one problem is a lack of responsibility among kids and teens, and I do emphasize kids because you have to start early. Your 5-year-old is done playing with their blocks? "Okay, junior... since we're done, let's put away the toys together." To go in tandem with that, there's also exploration of hobbies where possible. (Hobbies can get expensive, so it's understandable that low income families may have issues there.)

Overall, my main thought is that some of these kids are empty husks. They've gone throughout the childhood and young-adult lives without being able to truly form an identity, and they're suffering as a result. They seek to identify themselves through whatever community will accept them or make them feel better.

Oh, and one of the reasons why I wanted to make this comment is that I think it's important that Ars -- a science/tech website that arguably tries to focus on science and truth -- doesn't fall into typical fear-mongering of technology. I think it's also important to avoid surface-level problems and attack things where they truly are. If you remove the bad YouTube videos without fixing the kids that are being "corrupted", they'll just get corrupted some other (potentially less effective) way. In my opinion, politically, I think we have a really bad habit of just trying to fix problems on a surface level without tackling the main issue.

Interesting post, thanks. But, I don't think that absolves the social media companies from knowingly exacerbating the problem, it's not the software being criticized but the human decision makers who choose to put squeezing out additional profit above social responsibility. That isn't because they are Dr Evil style evil (well maybe Zuck given his dreams of putting each user in the centre of a web of fake friends), but the banal evil of following the incentives built into society. Regulation of any type exists to protect others from incentives that produce perverse results for wider society. Why not regulation while more fundamental solutions are explored?

Off topic, but I agree that it is an easy comfort to misuse our built in pattern matching of cause and effect to point the finger at someone or something. I also think that a lack of in person and reasonable unsupervised socialisation can really stunt the growth of a sense of self. We are the narrative we tell ourselves and so much of that is reflected from others. As much as US libertarians hate to hear it, we are social creatures, there is no me without we.

 

[One off]

His chemistry really sucked, and s-orbitals really do not care much about didactic materialism.

I imagine in one lesson, grouping more reactive elements together was the inevitable catalyst for the noble gasses to be pulled down to the bottom of the periodic table.

Yes, that sentence did exhaust my entire knowledge of both chemistry and Marx.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

 

[*(__|__)*]

• Since Columbine we've had 435 school shootings
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/school-shootings-database/
• 185 children have been assassinated in those school shootings
• Republicans have repeatedly indicated they don't give one fucking shit about any of those children
• But take out one right-wing spew mouth of hatred hiding behind the bible and suddenly they start caring...not for the children of course...for the spew mouths

 

[jtwrenn]

Here (where emphasis added):

That is you downplaying his transphobia by drawing a direct comparison to Joanne's as if she herself is also only a mild transphobe. To the point of wholly misrepresenting the depth and vindictiveness of Joanne's transphobia.

She does not, for example, consider trans people's interests - whether incorrectly (and offensively) as a "sickness" or not - to come "after" the matter of women's rights. Joanne barely cares about women's rights beyond using them as an excuse to attack trans people. She does not believe trans people exist (in the way they actually do), or if they do she believes they should be systematically removed from society, if not destroyed, because she does not approve of their existence. She is vicious, aggressive and consistent about this.

By saying that his being "less transphobic" than racist because his views on trans people were like those of Joanne, you inherently imply that she is in some way not that transphobic.

If that wasn't your intent, then don't do that.

Oig, come on. I am saying we are focusing on the least horrible thing he did and you are acting like I am saying it was ok. This is a very stupid way to look at where we should focus. I said several times it was horrible, and gross, but instead you are acting like I am apologizing for his views on trans people because I said it was some of his less horrible views.

This is perfectionist idiocy. You can't focus on everything, it just doesn't work. He was horrible on many things. His trans views, while abhorrent were not his MOST abhorrent things. I am making a statement about how you push back on right wing insanity by saying focusing on the most niche issue then gets turned against you when it is his most defensible horrible thing. Do you understand that? IT WAS HIS LEAST HORRIBLE DOES NOT MEAN IT WASN'T HORRIBLE! It's like attacking someone with a broken left arm from his right side. You are hitting one of his least vulnerable spots...that doesnt' mean it's not horrible or I am apologizing for it.

Still someone tried to talk strategy about how to go at a horrible person at his weakest point, and that isn't the point you feel the most about so you are pushing back on it. This is exactly why they are winning right now, and ruining the country and world.

FYI JK (the Joanne thing is childish), is a nutbar. She is all over the place and clearly very damaged. Her stance on trans rights is equivalent to every white person who doesn't want to give black people equal rights. I think her stance on trans people is disgusting and horrible....and still not nearly as bad as Kirks' stance on misogamy, white nationalism, and racism.

Just perfectionist bullshit. Stop eating your own, and focus on the real bad guys.

 

[scrimbul]

Agreed. I do believe it will take work to marginalize these forces--it won't happen "on its own"--and that to cross the lines you propose crossing in the form of targeted punitive action would have the opposite effect that you intend. T.R.U.M.P. Inc doing it does not make tit for tat the response of the just society I prefer we cultivate.

We disagree on method; it is also disingenuous of you to mischaracterize that disagreement as "planting head in sand."

/tips hat

As ever, saying 'it will take work' without defining the work and then refusing to engage, after being the one to reply in protest in every instance first, is disingenuous at best.

It's fair to call you to the mat with an alternate solution. It does not have to be Agenda 47 but it also kinda does, just from the wording in this reply alone.

There IS a point in studying foreign disinformation campaign principles and applying them to the GOP to destabilize their political party and voters, for the simple reason that you don't have to get caught in a lie or AI generate a misdirection, or waste time calling out hypocrises that the GOP voting base doesn't care about, other than any lies you're supposedly telling the GOP manufactures.

(of course doing this without a leading candidate that understands and agrees with the tactic, and has plausible deniability away from said tactic, is less than fruitful)

But doing that by itself doesn't do much unless you're going to manipulate the entire party toward being dismantled the same way they did the government that came before them. Doing that by itself also is not morally wrong, but it is ethically gray. The rest is simply leveraging the corruption endemic to how the right wing campaign donation-grifting infrastructure works.

We've tried it your way since the Bush Administration, I'd say after 5 or 6 times it's time for a change, but you refuse to articulate what. That's fair to call out, because even if you admit you can't answer, it's Democratic leadership that actually has to answer in the end.

/tips hat

 

[jtwrenn]

He called for doctors that assist in gender-affirming care to be rounded up, put on trial, and executed. That's pretty fucking extreme. JK Rowling is virulently anti-trans herself; she literally fears that trans people using bathrooms is a plot to sexually victimize ciswomen. You don't believe that about a group unless you're deeply, deeply prejudiced against them and want to treat them as dangerous predators just for being trans.
It's not really credible to say that his views on trans people were less extreme than all his other bigotry.

Why can't people get what I am saying here. He was horrible on all of it, but worse on other things. Sorry, he just was. His Trans stuff was bad, abhorent, every fucking word you want to throw at it....and still not as bad as his misoginy in my opinion. Hell even on that comment, he always pushed that it was people taking advantage of kids and making them trans (insane but that was his argument). Then went on to say gays should be stoned to death.

it also is about the worse area to go at it because wether you like it or not (and I certainly hate it) trans rights is a much harder fight than racism, misoginy, or even Christian nationalism. It sucks but it's just fucking true. You know why? It represents a tiny tiny fraction of people, and very few people have trans friends.

It's a losing place to put so much attention, and Kirk fucking knew it so he tempered his actions there and not on others. It's bait. It's stupid and horrible but it's bait.

It's so wild that people can't see just a simple ranking of what he was horrible about as excusing it. Have some perspective, and stop this perfectionist crap. Get strategic or we are going to get completely run over because the right is being sneaky. They are laying out their plans and going for the weakest links, while we are bashing our heads right into their armor. It's idiotic.

 

[*(__|__)*]

I think the problem here is not that humans did not evolve to process violent imagery or that technology itself is inherently a cancer. People have always been capable of encountering violence and history is full of examples of public spectacles far worse than anything on a screen.

The real issue is how companies like Facebook, TikTok, and X have abused Section 230 protections to build systems that maximize engagement at any cost. Their algorithms reward cruelty, outrage, and misinformation while executives pretend they are powerless or hide behind free speech bullshit whilst they have their hand on the algorithm. The problem is not people’s biology or even the existence of social media itself. The problem is corporate incentives that profit from amplifying our worst impulses. It started in conservative media in the 90s, and everyone on every side has since rushed in to get those dollars.

I stopped watching TV news after a school shooting in the Dallas, TX, area prompted Ashleigh Banfield, then with KDFW, to pepper an elementary school girl repeatedly asking her if she had seen any children get shot. Ashleigh was doing all she could, and hoped for, to get this girl to say she had seen a child killed even though the little girl repeatedly said no. Ashleigh represents the mountain of shit driving traditional media and social media today.

 

[*(__|__)*]

I don't particularly like social media and I use it very little - but I also think it is mostly a scapegoat for problems, conflicts and pathologies that have been around for decades or even centuries.

In any event, I don't believe I had even heard of this individual until it was on the news and I immediately assumed he was a congressmen, senator or governor given the apparent severity with which it was being treated.

Completely agree. People have always been assholes, social media just gives us an all-too-easy way to amplify our biases and ignorance. I'd also never heard of this guy. Perhaps it's sad what happened, but not nearly as sad as all of the school children that have been assassinated nor anymore sad than everyone else who dies unnecessarily every day around the world. Being on social media doesn't make you more important or more valuable as a human. Also, when you put yourself out in public and purposefully spew hatred, well...

 

[*(__|__)*]

Social Media is not great in many ways. But it goes deeper than that. Our culture is sick. Grab a gun and shoot up a school, or now I guess assassinate someone famous, and you’re on your way to infamy. We need gun control and we need it yesterday. We can’t stop the more disreputable online communities from glorifying shooters, so we gotta stop the shooting.

Before online communities it was the national media that drove this, and they still do. They absolutely love it when these things happen. Ratings go up, ad revenue goes up. They do everything they can to sensationalize it and drag it out as long as possible in the name of "news". When you're a psychopath, that's the perfect trigger to go after the attention you crave.

 

[Aurich]

FYI JK (the Joanne thing is childish)

Just to single out this bit, because I think it's worth commenting on further.

Calling JK Rowling "Joanne" is meant to be insulting and demeaning, by using a name she does not refer to herself by in public, in a familiar way.

I've always found it troubling and cringey when people who claim to be trans allies adopt the deadnaming tactics of the people they're critical of.

But, beyond that, on a personal level, it's really irritating because it just sows confusion. Nobody knows who the fuck you're talking about with the cutesy stuff. It is absolutely childish.

It's just as bad as when people call Elon Musk "Elmo" and the like. There's a reason we ban that kind of behavior in the Soap Box.

 

[Cherlindrea]

Social media being shitty is mostly a symptom of humans being shitty, and its not a solvable problem.

You're not wrong. But I do think it's more nuanced than that.

It's a multifaceted problem really.

Anonymity online gives us a false sense of invincibility to indulge in darker urges. Even when anonymity isn't present, not having to deal with immediate reactions and consequences from friends and family for the things we say also plays into a more cruel approach.

Echo chambers do exist to isolate people (which honestly is a cult trait, but cults were traditionally limited in size due to sustainable spaces and resources for the cult members--a limitation that's removed online).

And I think a highly underreported aspect is nigh-unlimited access to information. We humans are limited in our abilities to process and store information. Some have greater mental capacity to store and process (top-of-the-line CPUs, if you will), and some have lesser. But everyone has limits. But with the Internet and specifically social media, we now have almost unlimited access to information and we just simply cannot process it all. That's why echo chambers build up. Finite processing and storage space means we must limit input in some manner. The most obvious manner is discerning based off personal proclivities. This aspect is not one that can be fixed or even addressed. It's innate to humanity. We must find a way to proactively cope with it on a societal level if we wish to evolve past these current evils.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Why can't people get what I am saying here. He was horrible on all of it, but worse on other things. Sorry, he just was. His Trans stuff was bad, abhorent, every fucking word you want to throw at it....and still not as bad as his misoginy in my opinion. Hell even on that comment, he always pushed that it was people taking advantage of kids and making them trans (insane but that was his argument). Then went on to say gays should be stoned to death.

There really isn't a need to try and rank his bigotries in the first place, he had plenty of them.
What you need to understand is that when you pick one of them and try to minimize how bad it was compared to the others, you're still effectively communicating that it was some kind of lesser sin to be that kind of bigot than the other kinds.
You can apologize for inadvertently communicating that idea but then if that is the case you should not keep doubling down on it.

 

[Cherlindrea]

It's just as bad as when people call Elon Musk "Elmo" and the like. There's a reason we ban that kind of behavior in the Soap Box.

I've honestly never understood the "Elmo" nickname for Musk. I figure it's likening him to the Sesame Street character? But while Elmo is annoying and arguably a terrible character to influence kids, he's nowhere near as evil, hateful (weeeeelll... Maybe, but unlikely), and definitely not racist. So is it just to demean Musk by relating him to a not-very-beloved kids' figure? Is it really that two-dimensional?

 

[Mental Gear Reduction]

So is it just to demean Musk by relating him to a not-very-beloved kids' figure? Is it really that two-dimensional?

I always thought it was because Elmo wasn't too bright, but it's not like I actually know.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

I've honestly never understood the "Elmo" nickname for Musk. I figure it's likening him to the Sesame Street character? But while Elmo is annoying and arguably a terrible character to influence kids, he's nowhere near as evil, hateful (weeeeelll... Maybe, but unlikely), and definitely not racist. So is it just to demean Musk by relating him to a not-very-beloved kids' figure? Is it really that two-dimensional?

I always thought it was because Elmo wasn't too bright, but it's not like I actually know.

I never liked the Elmo nick (I mean, "Lone Skum" is RIGHT THERE!) and pretty much for the same reasons. If the epithet isn't obvious, clear, and witty it's not an effective epithet.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

I always thought it was because Elmo wasn't too bright, but it's not like I actually know.

I dont think it has anything to do with the Sesame Street character. Maybe people that use it derogatively dont even think about it being a character in a childrens show. Elmo just sounds like a dumb name. Kind of hick. Thats all.

 

[graylshaped]

As ever, saying 'it will take work' without defining the work and then refusing to engage, after being the one to reply in protest in every instance first, is disingenuous at best.

It's fair to call you to the mat with an alternate solution. It does not have to be Agenda 47 but it also kinda does, just from the wording in this reply alone.

There IS a point in studying foreign disinformation campaign principles and applying them to the GOP to destabilize their political party and voters, for the simple reason that you don't have to get caught in a lie or AI generate a misdirection, or waste time calling out hypocrises that the GOP voting base doesn't care about, other than any lies you're supposedly telling the GOP manufactures.

(of course doing this without a leading candidate that understands and agrees with the tactic, and has plausible deniability away from said tactic, is less than fruitful)

But doing that by itself doesn't do much unless you're going to manipulate the entire party toward being dismantled the same way they did the government that came before them. Doing that by itself also is not morally wrong, but it is ethically gray. The rest is simply leveraging the corruption endemic to how the right wing campaign donation-grifting infrastructure works.

We've tried it your way since the Bush Administration, I'd say after 5 or 6 times it's time for a change, but you refuse to articulate what. That's fair to call out, because even if you admit you can't answer, it's Democratic leadership that actually has to answer in the end.

/tips hat

Your agenda amounts to "take back power and then fuck with conservatives." It's literally an eye for an eye. I mentioned him earlier and will now quote him: "You say you want a revolution? Well, we'd all love to see the plan." Be specific about how you will catch the elephant. I'm not hitching my wagon to a bullshit bus, son.

My approach has worked for more than two centuries. Vote, silly wabbit. Vote. Pound the pavement. Civil disobedience. Be honest with your perspective while respecting others. Decline to rouse rabble. When you claim it is not working now, I point out it worked quite well for the alt-right, who did a better job of turning out the vote than you did.

 

[jtwrenn]

Just to single out this bit, because I think it's worth commenting on further.

Calling JK Rowling "Joanne" is meant to be insulting and demeaning, by using a name she does not refer to herself by in public, in a familiar way.

I've always found it troubling and cringey when people who claim to be trans allies adopt the deadnaming tactics of the people they're critical of.

But, beyond that, on a personal level, it's really irritating because it just sows confusion. Nobody knows who the fuck you're talking about with the cutesy stuff. It is absolutely childish.

It's just as bad as when people call Elon Musk "Elmo" and the like. There's a reason we ban that kind of behavior in the Soap Box.

I concur, but extremism creates extremists. Hate and anger just does that. It to me is bait, that is purposefully made to get people to do things like this. I know you are but what am I type of silliness.

Not saying she doesn't deserve to be deadnamed....but am saying deadnaming her doesn't help the situation, win the argument, or do anything but make more anger and more extremism. She deserves a lot of things, but that doesn't make the situation better. In fact i think there are a ton of people Jk included, who would be a whole lot less extremist if people didn't resort to full bully culture ALL THE TIME.

Woste thing is I still laugh at those comments at her, but people can't have a middle road conversation about it where things have degrees. Is JK anti trans in a hateful way? Yes. Is she calling for all trans people to be murdered and that they will all go to hell and are satan spawn and raping children constantly? No. Are there a lot of weird extremists who believe that? Yes. Degrees exist.

Like it or not, grey is likely the best we will ever get in this world. A whole lot of people need to stop trying to win and get to black and white.

 

[jtwrenn]

There really isn't a need to try and rank his bigotries in the first place, he had plenty of them.
What you need to understand is that when you pick one of them and try to minimize how bad it was compared to the others, you're still effectively communicating that it was some kind of lesser sin to be that kind of bigot than the other kinds.
You can apologize for inadvertently communicating that idea but then if that is the case you should not keep doubling down on it.

There is when you are spending a ton of time on the least consequential and damaging bigotries. The idea we need to talk about him at all begets the idea that we should push back on his ideas strategically. We will lose the fight against fascism and the former alt right that pushes it if we don't rank these things and prioritize. That is my entire point. If you push trans as his worst thing you will lose arguments and minds much more than if you show people his bigotry against women if for no other reason that a lot more women exist and people know women personally.

That's my whole point. Don't just get mad. Fight smart. I absolutely will not apologize for pointing out that people are being baited into talking about less than 1% of the planets population over and over and over again. It's a losing debate in the public eye, even if it is just as horrible and evil...which it is. We need to go after kirk on other topics at least as much as we go after him on the trans thing, but the left keeps being reactive to the rights rhetoric instead of trying to win hearts, minds and votes. It's the Achilles heel of having empathy and the right wing has used it to win elections for complete morons.

So you can defend trying to fight every god damn front of this equally all you want in the face of the left wing getting it's ass handed to them over and over again. I am going to keep pushing prioritizing winning fights by looking for the widest effected groups that are getting the most vitriol instead of focusing on tiny groups that are getting it. I am going to push back on people on the right the most effective way, not just the way that makes me feel the most. It's a trap.

I am not communicating it is less evil. I am communicating it matters to less people, and pushing back on that instead of on the 50+% groups he is crapping on is less effective, and bait.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

No, we should absolutely not quietly ignore the bigotry in an effort to "win hearts, minds and votes."

 

[dobrien75]

Calling JK Rowling "Joanne" is meant to be insulting and demeaning, by using a name she does not refer to herself by in public, in a familiar way.

I've always found it troubling and cringey when people who claim to be trans allies adopt the deadnaming tactics of the people they're critical of.

Yeah, I largely agree with this, but I understand it is as well. It is a power asymmetry thing. How does one have any voice against billionaire level reach and power? Cheap shots are often a way to try and (de)humanise the powerful. To mock them. To bring them into a normal reality. Not good, but I understand it

 

[dobrien75]

No, we should absolutely not quietly ignore the bigotry in an effort to "win hearts, minds and votes."

Absolutely, about the only weapon we have left is shame leading to de-monetisation. It is shocking TBH