One could argue that the lack of a shared, verifiable experience like radio or live TV has contributed to the breakdown of social cohesion. Everyone can see what they want, whenever they want, instead of seeing what everyone else sees.
I’m not saying your wrong, or really trying to make an argument, but the book “bowling alone” came out in 2000 and it was describing the fall into social isolation and alienation before social media or the balkanization of news and entertainment. To go further back Marx was talking about the alienation of labor as far back as 1844. Like capitalism is killing us, the increased view/reach of technology is just making it obvious.
This is ancillary but perhaps contributing to it due to a lack of shared context. (For example, if someone asks me about a funny commercial I won’t have seen it and can’t relate.)
I’m thinking more like the zeitgeist has fractured.
I’d argue it’s being diluted by noise. There have always been conflicting narratives. History is so hard to untangle (for me at least), because most of us come out a bit brainwashed from the system.
I think we are seeing the ends of the safeties this form of democracy has to provide. We are all in it together, everyone hallucinating to some extent. The big difference today is that you don’t talk about tv around the watercooler. You send cat pics and talk about Will Smith AI spaghetti videos, digitally or in meat space.
The problem usually isn’t lack of shared context, I believe, especially when we have so much in our pockets. It’s signal dilution with some plain old ill-intent under the hood (i.e. ‘advanced’ marketing).
I agree with a lot of what you said, and maybe “fractured” wasn’t the right word to use. It’s more like “shattered”
Take advertising, for example. Back in the days of broadcast media they had to make broadly appealing ads. Ads people would talk about around the water cooler.
Now we can target ads very specifically, so I may never see an ad that you see.
People are still talking about inane things because that’s how we do, but there’s more niches and communities than before, and they’re more siloed.
I especially agree with this part:
I think we are seeing the ends of the safeties this form of democracy has to provide
The printing press brought down hereditary monarchies. The Internet may bring down nationalist liberal democracy.
Let’s hope what replaces it is as much of an improvement.
Let’s hope what replaces it is as much of an improvement.
I say we’re doing one better than ‘just’ hoping it. Talking about it and articulating modern needs lets others learn new ideas and maybe find some social structure.
I think I understand what you mean about the shattered zeitgeist (or social cohesion maybe?). One of my friends is leaning heavy into one of my lesser favored narratives, and he sends me lots of jokes that boarder being edgy (like racist n such), but sometimes actually being quite funny. He’s a close friend who casually said he’d have no quarrel if the nazis took over. What can I do? Cut him off based on philosophy? Teach him his wrong ways? So far just asking questions helped me understand more about my view. And as far as his shitty racist jokes go, I don’t send a pity smiley. That’s the best I have for now.
it’s not philosophy it’s ideology and personally my answer is yes. I spent my 20s hanging out with white people who openly though i was “one of the good ones” i’m so beyond over it. I’d rather have no friends than friends who I need to apologize for. Like what am i learning about my views? that I’ve surrounded myself racist assholes?
I don’t think I should severe the connection based on ideology either. The dude isn’t malicious, just edgy. It doesn’t bother me a whole much. While I don’t know the details of your conundrum, it feels that yours warranted the snipping.
Without me reacting to his non-funny stuff, he selfreflects on being nasty. I am not the thought police, so I don’t feel like it’s my duty to make an example, or have a fight on ideology. We do talk about it. I hear the usual spiel about grooming. I try and give credence to his worries, then come back to my point of view and try to take away stuff that makes sense.
To give you a concrete example: he made me realize an underlying flaw in my ideal: I am looking at the picture through lenses. Like how I think people will react differently to some ideal of mine, if only they understood the common win is best for us all. He helped me see the situation as it is. Or at least brought my thoughts from the clouds closer to the ground.
Of course we have to stand up against maliciousness, but when race, gender and so many other things are hot topic buttons, the shitty comedians are making a splash. I feel humor is a great latmus test. We need humor to digest all the info we are being bombarded with.
Just as an example: there is a ghibli imagine going around about the George Floyd murder. Both situations are so fucking scary in themselves (police brutality + advanced ML) and someone generated an incredibly offensive image that was so wrong that it got a chuckle from me. Taken at face value, even I can be easily called a racist (which I might be too, but just in denial). I am writing all this in hope to show that we are mostly gradients and not extremes. How I would be denying myself of an otherwise good friend. And while this is not a reason to stay friends, severing based on value signalling might entrench him in further stereotypes (that I happily played into).
Again, I can’t contrast it against your situation, as I can totally imagine the negativity in your case. And while I understand how a lot of edgy humor is just a front for being openly racist, and he may even help in a Holocaust 2.0, but he is not actively craving that or working to make it happen. Maybe my building bridges philosophy is also faulty, but I can’t live in a world where I have to pay attention who would kill me in a worst case scenario. If we vibe, we vibe. If he’s an asshole, I either call him out, or let it hang akwardly in the air, like bird shit.
One could argue that the lack of a shared, verifiable experience like radio or live TV has contributed to the breakdown of social cohesion. Everyone can see what they want, whenever they want, instead of seeing what everyone else sees.
I also liked Adam Conover’s video about how we stopped referring to decades as time periods. further breakdown of social cohesion.
I’m not saying your wrong, or really trying to make an argument, but the book “bowling alone” came out in 2000 and it was describing the fall into social isolation and alienation before social media or the balkanization of news and entertainment. To go further back Marx was talking about the alienation of labor as far back as 1844. Like capitalism is killing us, the increased view/reach of technology is just making it obvious.
This is ancillary but perhaps contributing to it due to a lack of shared context. (For example, if someone asks me about a funny commercial I won’t have seen it and can’t relate.)
I’m thinking more like the zeitgeist has fractured.
I’d argue it’s being diluted by noise. There have always been conflicting narratives. History is so hard to untangle (for me at least), because most of us come out a bit brainwashed from the system.
I think we are seeing the ends of the safeties this form of democracy has to provide. We are all in it together, everyone hallucinating to some extent. The big difference today is that you don’t talk about tv around the watercooler. You send cat pics and talk about Will Smith AI spaghetti videos, digitally or in meat space.
The problem usually isn’t lack of shared context, I believe, especially when we have so much in our pockets. It’s signal dilution with some plain old ill-intent under the hood (i.e. ‘advanced’ marketing).
I agree with a lot of what you said, and maybe “fractured” wasn’t the right word to use. It’s more like “shattered”
Take advertising, for example. Back in the days of broadcast media they had to make broadly appealing ads. Ads people would talk about around the water cooler.
Now we can target ads very specifically, so I may never see an ad that you see.
People are still talking about inane things because that’s how we do, but there’s more niches and communities than before, and they’re more siloed.
I especially agree with this part:
The printing press brought down hereditary monarchies. The Internet may bring down nationalist liberal democracy.
Let’s hope what replaces it is as much of an improvement.
I say we’re doing one better than ‘just’ hoping it. Talking about it and articulating modern needs lets others learn new ideas and maybe find some social structure.
I think I understand what you mean about the shattered zeitgeist (or social cohesion maybe?). One of my friends is leaning heavy into one of my lesser favored narratives, and he sends me lots of jokes that boarder being edgy (like racist n such), but sometimes actually being quite funny. He’s a close friend who casually said he’d have no quarrel if the nazis took over. What can I do? Cut him off based on philosophy? Teach him his wrong ways? So far just asking questions helped me understand more about my view. And as far as his shitty racist jokes go, I don’t send a pity smiley. That’s the best I have for now.
it’s not philosophy it’s ideology and personally my answer is yes. I spent my 20s hanging out with white people who openly though i was “one of the good ones” i’m so beyond over it. I’d rather have no friends than friends who I need to apologize for. Like what am i learning about my views? that I’ve surrounded myself racist assholes?
I don’t think I should severe the connection based on ideology either. The dude isn’t malicious, just edgy. It doesn’t bother me a whole much. While I don’t know the details of your conundrum, it feels that yours warranted the snipping.
Without me reacting to his non-funny stuff, he selfreflects on being nasty. I am not the thought police, so I don’t feel like it’s my duty to make an example, or have a fight on ideology. We do talk about it. I hear the usual spiel about grooming. I try and give credence to his worries, then come back to my point of view and try to take away stuff that makes sense.
To give you a concrete example: he made me realize an underlying flaw in my ideal: I am looking at the picture through lenses. Like how I think people will react differently to some ideal of mine, if only they understood the common win is best for us all. He helped me see the situation as it is. Or at least brought my thoughts from the clouds closer to the ground.
Of course we have to stand up against maliciousness, but when race, gender and so many other things are hot topic buttons, the shitty comedians are making a splash. I feel humor is a great latmus test. We need humor to digest all the info we are being bombarded with.
Just as an example: there is a ghibli imagine going around about the George Floyd murder. Both situations are so fucking scary in themselves (police brutality + advanced ML) and someone generated an incredibly offensive image that was so wrong that it got a chuckle from me. Taken at face value, even I can be easily called a racist (which I might be too, but just in denial). I am writing all this in hope to show that we are mostly gradients and not extremes. How I would be denying myself of an otherwise good friend. And while this is not a reason to stay friends, severing based on value signalling might entrench him in further stereotypes (that I happily played into).
Again, I can’t contrast it against your situation, as I can totally imagine the negativity in your case. And while I understand how a lot of edgy humor is just a front for being openly racist, and he may even help in a Holocaust 2.0, but he is not actively craving that or working to make it happen. Maybe my building bridges philosophy is also faulty, but I can’t live in a world where I have to pay attention who would kill me in a worst case scenario. If we vibe, we vibe. If he’s an asshole, I either call him out, or let it hang akwardly in the air, like bird shit.