[87tau]

While social media seem to be the problem, I find myself internally conflicted. On the one hand I see myself as a supporter of democracy, freedom of speech and liberty of expression, but I'm dismayed by the self harm these ideals are causing at the moment. It's the feeling of being unable to defend against painfully obvious (to me) propaganda but also the worry that I don't close doors to the freedom these platforms allow.

Why do information campaigns seem to be failing against the propoganda mills?

Living in underdeveloped part of the world I believed for the most of my life that it was lack of education but having in the US for the past few years I had to firmly discard that notion. I currently believe that it is the inherited values that society imparts on us, and that serves as a lens to view facts that is being manipulated.

The last company I worked for our executives, all highly educated and good natured, for most parts, held political opinions that I thought were only held by the 'idiots' captured by someone on cell phone videos. They had built a successful company on highly educated immigrant workforce, with major workforce still outside the US, headquarter located in a deep 'blue' state with the founder and chairman of the company an immigrant and PhD holder a first generation immigrant but everyone still a vehement, vocal supporter of current anti-immigrants, anti-science, anti-obama/hillary, anti-medicine propaganda.

I don't think it's simply dismissable as biased by financial profit. Is it because everyone near them believes in such and these opinions are manifestation of values they grew up with? Is social media just giving it a loud-speaker. We need to address that somehow I feel.

[em-bee]

it still is lack of education. it's the moral education that is lacking. education in justice (part of that is social justice if you like, but don't mistake that with social justice warriors, those are not about actual social justice, but rather they are political correctness gangsters)

education in equality. education against racism. education to help people out of poverty. education about diversity. education about critical analysis and discourse. education about religions. (even atheists should have a better understanding about the various religions and vice versa)

people claim a right not to be subjected to ideas that they don't agree with. they want to live in a bubble. this is part of the problem.

these are just some of the points that current education is missing. i am sure we can find a few more.

[ganoushoreilly]

Who determines what is moral as the baseline? That's the problem. You could argue your morals are right, the opposite side could argue theirs are right. People do have a right to not be subjected to ideas they don't like. I think part of the problem is hard line stances against ideas, then yelling at people that they're not "moral" ends up pushing people further away.

The 2A arguments are a good example of this. By default you would think many of the 2A advocates would be against federal forces policing (ignoring any context, not taking sides, just using an example). In fact many of the left that aren't pro 2A are calling them out for just that. But from their perspective, for years they've been told they are foolish, uneducated, or just simple people that are wrong. After all of that treatment for their stance on 2A, why would they be open to discussions from the same individuals on other topics?

So the problem is two fold. Both sides are ignorant, both sides get hyper focused on their causes, and don't care about the other sides perspective, or the collateral damage the hardline stances have.

In order for anything to work or be peaceful, we have to stop trying to change each others positions on everything, but instead realize, that for a functioning society, we have to accept, not everyone is going to get what they want.

It's tough. It requires calm discussions on both sides and notably hyperawareness about how one projects themselves. Online media makes it infinitely worse when you don't have the human behavioral cues as part of the narrative. It's why you can read the same line two or three ways and get two or three things out of it based upon the state of mind you enter the conversation at.

[em-bee]

great points.

we can start with the things that we agree on. racism for example is a rather obvious one (although there will still be differences about what that means).

and with the tools, how to have a calm discussion and the related aspects that you mention. those things are learnable. learning how to communicate, how to listen to others, all that should be part of education

[ganoushoreilly]

Yep!

[koheripbal]

Think of Democracy as a system that embodies the wishes & will of the average voter (not the average citizen).

Now imagine that you invented a system that would get tens of millions more people emotionally engaged to vote, but they happened to also be the least educated, least nuanced, least mature voters - people who seldom voted before.

Then imagine your surprise when intelligent debate disappears, and politics devolves into reality television.

That is what we've done.

Imagine if we allowed the average person dictact Climate Change policy, rather than the scientists? ...oh wait, we've done that as well...

[bzb3]

Since the effects of regulations put in place around climate change are enjoyed/suffered by all citizens, and not only scientists, it's appropriate that everybody gets to dictate what those regulations are.

[koheripbal]

The problem is when the masses completely disregard what the scientists recommend.

It's like having a random group of people do your heart surgery.

Expert opinions matter - more. ...and we need a mechanism to ensure that specialists in a field have more say than the uneducated rabble.