[zefool]

Here is the real clue in the article:

> Cassidy has noticed a growing dynamic. “The knitting community has a big issue with people being very concerned that, if they don’t support a callout, they’ll be called out themselves,” she told me. “Not joining it seems scary to people.”

I really have to say, I think this is a bad article. Not because it is badly written, or because it is factually wrong. But because an unfamiliar reader would get the wrong impression about what is really going on.

Ravelry and the knitting community do have a big problem. But it is not primarily with political polarization per se. It's the community-oriented mindset that does not work at scale.

The knitting community is experiencing what we all will experience wherever this mindset becomes dominant: homogenization and the enforcement of conformity. We need distance and live-and-let-live in society. It's not a family.

[PeterStuer]

Every problem can be modeled as an instance of a class of problems. This can be useful, but it does also detract from this specific instance of a totalitarian ideological attack on a specific community.

In game theory the 'punish those that do not actively join in punishing outsiders' is a requirement for group stability, and it has been a staple tactic in every totalitarian regime.

[busterarm]

> We need distance and live-and-let-live in society. It's not a family.

Get rid of social media. Problem solved. It's putting too many people in proximity who otherwise should and would not be. The end result is always an angry mob.

[mbostleman]

But didn't the problem really escalate when media scaled electronically with radio and television. Those mediums didn't include interaction like social media does, but it seems like the diversity of ideas (at least visibly) is inversely proportional to the scale of broadcasting.

[busterarm]

Broadcasting is a related, but separate problem.

What's in the news will be the topic of conversation in your community, but it does not lead thought in your community. It does not identify with anyone there.

Social media has replaced the community itself. It dictates who you speak to and how.

It is among the most insidious weapons that we've invented yet and it's aimed almost exclusively at civilians.

[mbostleman]

I'm reading Gad Saad's The Parasitic Mind at the moment. His metaphor of how parasitic ideas can take hold within a group and then take control of the host seems to be on display here.

[ISL]

I recently picked up a copy of Red Color News Soldier from the library, a photojournalist's description of events where call-out mentality is taken to the extreme (many of those who ran the call-outs later suffered brutal call-outs themselves, including the author).

One of my overarching questions as I read was really, "How is it that people come to support these events?" The initial conditions seem to require the right mix of organization, discord, and chaos.

The notion that the question is one of scaling is interesting. It isn't the internet that drives the emergence of large-scale call-outs -- humans have been doing this throughout history. The scaling argument offers a possible framework, i.e., is there a critical scale at which a call-out becomes systemically harmful?

[duxup]

It would also seem to be one of those situations where a bunch of very active social media folks are used to define a community.

Even in technology focused circles I think you'd get the wrong impression about an entire industry if you just read social media.

I don't know how people get a good litmus test for what a community is up to but conflict breeds lots of activity, you're bound to see a lot of it if enough people participate... but it's hard to really understand what a 'community' is up to beyond that.

[KittenInABox]

Diclaimer: I agree that loudly announcing one's political stance and trying to pursue it in a craft community is often more alienating than inclusive.

However, I want to ask how do we handle things that will always be viewed as political, such as trans or gay people? There is no non-political way to refer to a trans person- either you use a trans persons pronouns or you don't. And if you do either, you're making a political announcement in a group.

[rajin444]

There's a reason you don't talk about politics and religion in polite company. You should not be judged for your worldview if it differs from somebody else. The personal should not be political.

[KittenInABox]

I agree the personal shouldn't be political, but I also am willing to straight up say some people's personal lives are political, eg. trans people asking to be viewed as their gender identity is a political stance and that can mess up family/polite company altogether. There's just no escaping it.

[refenestrator]

What % of your words spoken/written are pronouns referring to a transgender person? 'No escaping it' seems like a bit much, and it needn't justify culture wars taking over an entire space.

I'd say that if someone pointedly uses non-preferred pronouns, they're being a jerk and they're the one bringing politics into the space. But most of what we're seeing here is not that scenario.

[flir]

> What % of your words spoken/written are pronouns referring to a transgender person?

If they happen to be trans, at least half of them?

[smt88]

It's not a family, but it is a republic, and there are people across the country from me who are not letting others live (using their votes).

"Live and let live" doesn't work when we have people trying to deprive us of rights, either with their vote or by doing things like traveling across the country to attack the federal capitol.

[busterarm]

Alternatively, people in Oklahoma and people in New York don't want the same things, don't share the same values and should be free to choose to self-govern in different ways.

"Right to Travel", as in the right to move and relocate between states, is a well-established legal doctrine. Go live where it suits you. Don't force other people to live how it suits you.

[smt88]

People in Oklahoma are not a homogenous group. Lots of people are born in Oklahoma and would prefer to live elsewhere, but they can't afford to move (or aren't old enough yet).

> Don't force other people to live how it suits you.

That's exactly what I'm advocating for. "Live and let live" is something that has to actively be enforced.

For example: I live in Georgia and voted by mail. There are people in other states who are trying to pass federal laws that make it harder for me to vote by mail.

Another example: there are people trying to take away women's rights to reproductive care (and I'm talking about contraceptives too, not just abortion).

"Live and let live" implies a passive state, but it's actually a very active state. The constant and vigorous legal activity of the ACLU is proof of that.

[busterarm]

People in Oklahoma are not culturally homogenous, but they are on average more similar to each other than they are to people in New York.

Yes, obviously there are a minority of people in Oklahoma that are stifled by living there. That doesn't mean the solution to that problem is changing their laws. Orders of magnitude more money are spent to change those laws than is spent to simply help people relocate who could otherwise not afford it.

Instead of offering charity to solve a problem you're offering force (and a tyranny of the minority).

As far as mail in voting in your state goes, states have pretty much always set their own election rules. What's actually happening right now is the opposite of what you claim. The Federal government right now is trying to institute universal mail in voting and removing States' ability to set their own election laws.

To do the other things that you're talking about takes 38 out of 50 states to agree. It's a pretty high bar -- such that it's crossed fairly infrequently. And if it does so that might just be what's best for the country as a whole.

I live in New York and am fairly liberal, but this idea that we're going to make the whole country govern the same way is fucking batshit.

[jaegerpicker]

I have done this, I moved to Southern Maine from Ohio. A large reason was the political environment. The problem is that most people aren't satisfied with live and let live. You can see this in the flooding of courts with conservative judges, the rise of the Trump style party, and the constant fight over covid. When you have two diametrically opposed groups with shared power you have to have you need a common based and view point or the whole thing falls apart. I believe that we have reached the point of no return and the USA is broken. I don't believe it can be fixed at this point.

[busterarm]

I often share the same failed state sentiment, but at the same time we're more resilient than that and I think we can and have walked back from the edge of the cliff.

I have faith that at some point we'll shake off grifters and demagogues from politics and media and collectively come together and say "no more". Sames goes for social media. There is a growing concensus around the toxicity of these things and people walking away from it. Have hope.

[willcipriano]

If it was still a republic people across the country would have little effect on you since a weak federal government would be ineffective in enforcing their mandates if it was able to at all. Instead we have ended up at democracy as Aristotle long ago predicted: "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."

[smt88]

I think you're conflating "republic" with "federal system". The US is still very much a republic, in the sense that we vote almost exclusively for representatives, not for policies.

> If it was still a [federal system] people across the country would have little effect on you since a weak federal government would be ineffective in enforcing their mandates if it was able to at all.

The US had a system like that early on and it failed.

[jaegerpicker]

When you have a two party system and no one outside of their narrow policy definitions can be elected (not as it's illegal but as in not one can overcome the completely biased system) you vote for a representative is a de-facto vote for policies. If you vote R it's an anti-aboration, gun rights, anti-immigrant vote. If you vote D it's a gun control, immigration, climate change vote. Sure you can say we vote for reps but in reality you have the choice of R or D and nothing you say or do really changes the policies that you are voting for.

[willcipriano]

>The US is still very much a republic, in the sense that we vote almost exclusively for representatives, not for policies.

If you split hairs like that democracy never really existed at a national level anywhere. Representative democracy is still democracy as far as I am concerned.

[refenestrator]

None of this is about government power in the knitting space, though.

[willcipriano]

When the debate goes from "people want to take away your rights!" to "people in Florida want to pass a law and if you don't like it you have 49 other states to choose from" it tends to cool down the discourse a bit.