[didibus]

Its a good hypothesis. I think there's more psychology at play then just this though. In a way, Facebook helps minorities find each other, and then isolate themselves virtually to be "just amongst them". Possibly its the no consequence framework that has given them the courage to continue to pursue finding others of similar values. As they grow though, and realize they are not alone, the isolated group can now open itself to others and recruit into the group, promoting its values.

Now, for a lot of minority groups, this can be great, maybe positive overall for society. Unless a group with vicious values comes along, then it turns into a problem. Especially if it is found that this minority was in fact never small, just very well amortized across all of our society.

Another aspect though, is that those values could have even been amortized among each individual, in the full set of a person's value. So maybe a person believe many things, and has many values, but they balance out, and generally an overall behavior comes out of them. This behavior maybe is a desired one for society at large. Now comes the internet, or Facebook, and one can explore a subset of its values, maybe the ones that often get most repressed. You explore this in isolation of your other values, almost as a fantasy. Now through this exploration, you find others exploring the same subset. This social finding could somehow re-enforce that value, suddenly weighing it higher into your overall balance. This would mean that it might be a bad thing, as it can alter ones balancing values which have worked for society till now, into a new balance that might exhibit a more detrimental behavior. Alternatively, it could also not affect the behavior when away from the internet. In which case, the internet behavior could mislead us into thinking we have all these people which would have detrimental behavior in real life also, when in reality, we do not, they only exbibit such behaviors when online. And off-course, as we move most of real life on the internet, that might still mean trouble overall.

Just some thoughts.

[indubitable]

I think there is a bigger danger in this sort of isolationism (quite the euphemism!) than just vicious values being allowed to coalesce. The isolationism results in individuals' values not being challenged, which can push them further and further away from reality. Let's create an imaginary example. We're trying to solve a math problem. The correct answer to this problem is 0. However, one side believes the answer is absolutely at least 50. And the other side believes the answer must be no more than -50. When these two groups remain within contact, they counter balance each other. But now let's isolate these groups. In the past when the -50 side chose to go -60 there would be some push back against that and it would help create a more of a central equilibrium. But in isolation without opposition, -60 sounds awesome. Why not -70, or even lower? And on the other side an equal but opposite push for 60, 70 and more is simultaneously happening.

Taking this into real life, I think this is arguably what is happening with politics today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being right leaning or left leaning. But as we have begun to segregate ourselves into 'only right leaning' or 'only left leaning' the individuals within these groups have started becoming increasingly radicalized. News that is supportive of the chosen belief is accepted unquestioningly. Negative news of 'the other side' is similarly accepted without question. And, perhaps more than ever before, we are creating a country where people are not only becoming radicalized in their beliefs, but mutually intolerant of anything except those beliefs.

And now a thought experiment. Imagine we broke the country into two by political view. And, for the sake of fairness, we'll pretend that both magically have all the resources/wealth/etc of the original nation. Would this resolve the issues with everybody living happily ever after? I imagine we'd see the exact same cycle begin to be carried out without these new nations as people divided and radicalized once again to no real end. The founding fathers were, in terms of identity and broad political view, relatively homogenous. Yet it took no time for them to break into Federalist vs Antifederalist (in spite of their astute prognostications on the dangers of parties). And as one side or the other gained dominant support it never resulted in stability. Instead there would be a fracturing and new split to no end. But as they remained with arm's reach of each side, radicalism never took that much of a hold. Granted, we did have a sitting vice president kill the first secretary of the treasury in a duel. But in a paradoxical way that illustrates how generally respectful the parties remained. Sufficiently impugning somebody's honor, part and parcel of modern politics, was sufficient cause for a duel which did on occasion result in death.

[pjc50]

> But as they remained with arm's reach of each side, radicalism never took that much of a hold. Granted, we did have a sitting vice president kill the first secretary of the treasury in a duel.

I think this is a rather rose-tinted view on the amount of corruption and discord that has prevailed in the US, such as the Harding administration.

It also rather depends on your definition of "radicalism". Is white supremacy radical or mainstream? Does that change over time? Does that make it right?

[indubitable]

You're definitely correct about there being some ambiguity in the definition of radicalism.

I think there are two main indicators of radicalism. The first is the assumption that one is correct to the point that there is a complete unwillingness to even consider contrary possibilities. The second, which is often linked to the first, is a tendency to resort to violence against those do not feel the same as they do.

So for instance Jehova's Witnesses are certainly not mainstream and their views are quite extreme. But even the most devout and determined door knocker is not somebody I would call a radical. They're happy to, and indeed seem to take immense pleasure, in discussing and defending their religion even to those who would challenge and reject its very core - even if the questioner does so in less than tactful ways. While Jehova's may not necessarily change their view, they would certainly indulge alternative views. And violence is never even considered.

By contrast take those who adhere to radical Islam. In that case anything short of complete deference is seen as a grievous offense. Acts such as drawing their religious figure is seen as sufficient cause to literally murder individuals, in mass. That behavior is absurdly radicalized. In the US we're still far away from that level. But increasingly we're seeing individuals incapable of discussing things with one another, and violence is an increasingly common outcome. And as individuals become further and further ideologically isolated, this radicalism and mutual intolerance is only like to increase.