I don't have citation, but I concur with the GP, I grew up in the east, and it is far easier to socialize and also form deep friendships because everything is said out in the open and not hidden behind layers of decorum. Here is an example and a demonstration. As an example people are allowed to comment on someone being too heavy or too thin with them present. Here is the demonstration: Now as soon as I gave an example I have made this a controversial topic for the western audience. There is no way to look past the controversy and talk about other things or form bonds based on speech. Only an infinite loop.
There’s plenty of bigotry like that but that’s part of being able to say what you like. I guess the idea is that a small minority has a pretty bad experience in life but the overwhelming majority feel content and speak their mind.
There is actually some truth in the idea that developed countries suffer from more social awkwardness than developing countries. If you compare the north east coast to southern states, richer northern European countries to the poorer southern European countries, or urban areas to rural areas. A similar thing also plays out in East Asia where more developed countries tend to has more complaints about social awkwardness than less developed countries.
Has this anti-social behaviour become more prevalent because of social media, though? I suspect it has, although perhaps supplanting some other type of 'decorum' witnessed in pre-social media times.
Perhaps, but "citation needed" is always just an attempt to shut down those who don't fit the 'decorum'. It adds nothing to the conversation and is not good faith forum participation. There is no quote taken that could be cited, and there never is. The request is impossible to fulfill. Of course, that's the point.
This anti-social "unless your words come from someone I respect, I don't want to talk to you" behaviour has most definitely shown to extend out into the real world. That became quite apparent during the COVID ordeal. But it is less clear if that was always the case, or if social media has made it more prevalent.
It has nothing to do with decorum. It is simply a way to point out that someone’s assertion is unwarranted by presented evidence (often none) and aggressive.
It’s far better faith to ask for some evidence than to rebuttal with “No, you’re wrong”, which is equally dumb.
If you can’t support a claim, you shouldn’t assert it as a fact.
> It is simply a way to point out that someone’s assertion is unwarranted by presented evidence (often none) and aggressive.
There was nothing unwarranted or aggressive about the idea presented originally. It may not be true, but who cares? The purpose of discussion is not simply to tell truths. Nobody wants to hear that 1+1=2. That's pointless and boring. The purpose of discussion is to explore ideas and see what that uncovers.
“No, you’re wrong” is quite dumb too, yes, but a rational person would not respond with either. Instead, they would present their own take and provide something meaningful. If they really cannot find anything of value to respond with, they would not respond at all.
> If you can’t support a claim, you shouldn’t assert it as a fact.
If you can support a claim, why bother asserting it at all? You already know it to be a fact. You are not going to learn that it is an extra double fact. Once you know something to be a fact, it ends there. There is nothing more you can do with that.
When people assert something, you fundamentally know they are not quite sure about it. It is why they are still talking about it, and why they aren't just going around saying 1+1=2 all day long.