You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
In the online/media world there appears to be a growing polarisation between left and right. The left seems to regard anyone on the right as a racist, homophobic, bigoted arse who cares only for themselves while the right seems to regard the left as a load of borderline communist nutters obsessed with diversity quotas, pronouns and the like.
Out in the real word this isn’t the case, people are a lot more complicated than left or right. I know people with widely different views on things that get along perfectly fine. Amongst my friend group I'd say 60% don’t really care about any of it, of the rest the extremes are ‘communism is the answer to all the worlds problems’ and ‘Donald Trump is the greatest president in decades’ with most people somewhere in the middle. It’s fun to argue about sometimes but no one really takes it that seriously.
I guess me question is, do people on here agree that the polarisation is a thing and if so, why has it happened and what should be done about it?
It's absolutely a thing and is driven by people seeking news from social media instead of traditional sources. Thus being fed click baity, echo chamber nonsense by the algorithms or their mate who has 'done his own research' based on some ****wit YouTubers output.
Other than hoping social media becomes much better regulated or people turn off it, I'm not sure what can be done. Maybe getting schools to really focus on teaching critical thinking skills and fact checking as a core life skill would help.
I just regard racist, homophobic, bigoted arses as racist, homophobic, bigoted arses. The Venn diagram with right of centre politics is not a circle and there are more than two sets.
I seem to have a made a cockup of my post. I don't know why it's in small black type.
I guess me question is, do people on here agree that the polarisation is a thing and if so, why has it happened and what should be done about it?
Not sure what a libtard is. Definitely not of the left is it?
I prefer to see the polarisation as those with plenty stuff and those without.
Those without need some help.
Troll detection function?
In this instance a libtard would be the opposite of a gammon. It's not a real thing, just a generic insult from right to left
I do like gammon. I'm unsure what libtard tastes like but willing to give it a go
It’s absolutely a thing and is driven by people seeking news from social media instead of traditional sources. Thus being fed click baity, echo chamber nonsense by the algorithms or their mate who has ‘done his own research’ based on some **** YouTubers output.
I watched something recently that suggested this is backwards, actually, although the outcome is the same.
I short, iirrc, online, people are constantly bombarded by views totally opposed to their own, but in such short and unproductive exchanges that it causes people to double down on their own beliefs rather than find common ground.
I have always been confused by the echo-chamber theory of the internet tbh, as I encounter a far larger diversity of people and views on the internet than I ever do in real life and I figured that must be the same for most people.
Social media and a lot of the general online media thrives on controversy to promotes fast-thought, emotive responses and exaggerate or polarise views on things. Clicks is money and social media algorithms probably don't help. I don't think it reflects reality but it's shaping it. If you're engaging in all that stuff you're just feeding that whole thing. It's quite hard to keep social media working for you because generally it seems to bias what you see and I think a lot of people are being played by the algorithms.
what should be done about it? - 'never read the comments' : )
Troll detection function?
I don't think this is trolling. It's a legit question. Is the polarisation we see in online discourse reflected in our face to face, real life interactions? The OP seems to be saying that in his experience no, people are more moderate in their views IRL. I'm not so sure. I definitely have acquaintances who are influenced by online stuff and now voice views I consider extreme, offensive or just batshit crazy. These are people who didn't hold (or voice) those views in pre SM days. Not all of them and none of my close friends*, but enough for it to be a noticeable trend.
*maybe that means I live in my own echo chamber?
Amusingly, those using the phrase 'libtard' often don't seem to realise that left and liberal are different things, they are not mutually exclusive.
Gammon on the other hand is pretty well defined... its simply a synonym for righteous indignation, given away by the pale skin and flushed cheeks, like a cut of pork.
Those who can be bothered to argue (and thus who's voices are heard most) are normally on the further extremes of the political spectrum. Those who are more central can't be arsed getting involved
Using terms like 'libtard' and 'gammon' is stereotypical, reductionist and simplistic. I guess if you're a bit basic in your understanding then fair enough you'd like some simple answers. I'm afraid there aren't any.
Yes it's a thing and as per usual, it's a US import in the main turned up to 11 by social media... Hence you can see MAGA, sovereign citizen, Auditors and Qanon dipsh*t stuff taking off over here too.
Where America goes, we follow.
Unfortunately.
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Always works for me. Anyone who uses those terms or others I deem ideologically oriented gets a swift ignoring from me.
Leave them to their position and go about your day as life is too short to argue with mid-wits.
Rule 3:
”Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”
"Maybe getting schools to really focus on teaching critical thinking skills and fact checking as a core life skill would help."
Good luck with that mate... Critical thinking more likely to get you a detention these days and don't forget that 'facts' are either alternative or a social construct.
You seem to be confusing passionate about politics with position on the political spectrum. A cursory look at just Sunaks thread shows this premise to be somewhat flawed.
Yes exactly and neither does being in the centre of something necessarily make you a moderate or have the correct vantage point automatically - especially if it's between two bad positions to start with.
How do you know anything is true?
I met some Americans on holiday in 2018.
They thought George Bush (junior) was the best politician ever. Like ever in the history of the word. They though Hilary Clinton was a Liar and pure evil.
This was revealed over the course of an hour in a car with them. After I steered the conversation away from politics they seemed perfect lovey.
As they went on I wondered where they got their information from. Then I wondered where I got my information from.
Mostly the guardian/ bbc for me. Mostly fox news for them.
I have no actual idea if Hilary Clinton was lying. I know what I was told by the media. Same for them.
Imagine if George Bush (junior) WAS actually the best politician the world had ever seen and it was just the media painting a picture of a total idiot when he was an insightful genius.
I've not met him.
I've not met anyone who had mentioned meeting him.
I'm pretty sure there would be loads of degrees of separation between us.
I've not studied the long term impact of his policies in any meaningful way, and I don't know anyone who has.
How do you know anything is true?
I decided it give up arguing politics at that point.
Watching my wife's family fall out with each other over Brexit really reinforced that.
We all live in an echo chamber.
I don't hang out with people who, for example, think either George Bush was a great politician. Or any other view I find fundamentally different to my own. I suggest most people don't hang out with those with radically different views.
On here most people seem similarly politically aligned- I mostly leave the politics threads alone. If everyone was a different political persuasion to me, I would not read and comment here. I enjoy piston heads, mostly I read very specific parts of the forum as folk hold different views from me there.
When was the last time someone flat out told you your political view was wrong -to your face?- on the internet?
I have friends and family from elsewhere on the political spectrum to me. They were friends before the strong polarisation occurred (around 2016 seems to have catalysed much of it) and we still have more in common, not least a long friendship, than we have in difference.
A new acquaintance with opposing views to me - i'd struggle to become friends with. I realise that given time we might have more in common, but for some reason I don't feel inclined to invest that time in the same way as I 'forgive' a friend's alternative political views.
I do have some red line issues, that friend, relative or family, I will not stand for, and have 'cancelled' friends because of it.
Agree that extreme views get clicks, whether likes or argumentative counter views. So SM promotes them and creates the polarisation. Average, conciliatory views don't create the same responses.
Imagine if George Bush (junior) WAS actually the best politician the world had ever seen
That is not a suggestion which I have heard before, but he was certainly adaptable - he came to office as a neoliberal US president and left office as a socialist.
George Bush Becomes a Socialist
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-bush-becomes-a-soc_b_127006
My general perception is the left has not drifted further left. The stuff the left are accused of being, like Woke (which I find a pretty bizarre concept for a negative trait) is pretty much the stuff the left has believed in my whole life. I suppose an awareness and appreciation of the imminent climate nightmare is more broadly held belief than it was as the science has developed.
The right has however drifted further right. That's pretty obvious. I'd also argue that right wing populists are the worst offenders of blatant lying.
Not quite sure where we go from here, other than violence.
It can be fun to push either side for more detail and the basis for their position on issues. There was a recent one on legal immigration numbers.
Don't quote me on numbers but it was something like 75% thought there was too much immigration into the UK. Simple question, simple answer.
The same people were then given a number of different occupations of immigrants and ask which there were too many of. The ones that came out positive were those with no skills and foreign bankers and finance people. More detailed question and a more precise answer.
As people with zero skills aren't allowed in normally, it must be all the bankers that everyone is getting angry about, right?
Seems a simple thing for the Tories to fix surely?
Libtard - Coined by the right wing extremists of the US. Basically the usual divisional hatefulness we see from that side of the pond.
.
Gammon - Coined here in the uk as comical reference to people who get all ranty about silly things.
Personally, I can't see how the 2 descriptives can be used in the same sentence. As one is a bit of piss taking, the other is born of pure hatred.
I just don’t think I’ve got the figure for a libtard these days, but I do like jeans with a bit of stretch.
It's just a cheap and thoughtless, throw away slur.
[examples removed - mod]
They are not impressing anyone.
Good work, MOD, and thank you for not banning me.
ernielynch@
Full Member
Imagine if George Bush (junior) WAS actually the best politician the world had ever seenThat is not a suggestion which I have heard before, but he was certainly adaptable – he came to office as a neoliberal US president and left office as a socialist.
George Bush Becomes a Socialist
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-bush-becomes-a-soc_b_127006
/blockquote>Interesting link, I'd not made the link between bailing out companies and socialism
After the slating of George Bush and the ridiculing of his intelligence in the media I consume, their views were very different to mine. Memorably so
Is the polarisation we see in online discourse reflected in our face to face, real life interactions?
I don't know, have you met all the people who say the the stuff online and are they any different in real life?
I am exactly the same and say the same stuff online and face to face and I find when I debate any subject with people of opposite views they either don't want to discuss it or stop discussing it after a couple of minutes when the basis of their views is questioned with questions they can't answer or hadn't really thought about.
These same people could very well be posting/contunue to post under the perceived anonymity of being online who knows.
I don’t think this is trolling. It’s a legit question.
Just realised who the OP is. It is a legit question but also to a long time lurker one that has been debated variously and in different words in several places. I'm not totally saying troll, but given the 'contributions' made to the Far Right thread I'm suspicious, let's say, that they aren't really interested in the answer. Rather, how het up they can make various members get.
Bear that in mind while debating this legit topic, to not become someone's entertainment.
I have always been confused by the echo-chamber theory of the internet tbh, as I encounter a far larger diversity of people and views on the internet than I ever do in real life and I figured that must be the same for most people.
Tell that to Cambridge Analytica.
The (modern, corporate) internet is all about 'engagement' and echo chambers are great for that (left or right of centre).
As ever money is the root of all evil, or is that a bit lefty?
Just realised who the OP is
I hadn't, thanks. Just made the connection. Slightly more wary now 👍
The title was just an excuse to use the term gammon, I'd never heard it before and thought it was funny. I could just have easily used left vs right or The Culture War or something.
Personally I think its a combination of factors, most of which have already been mentioned. Social media, traditional media trying to compete with online, peoples natural inclination towards tribalism, looking at the UK through a US lens, potentially outside influences stirring up division (bot farms etc).
Mostly I put it down to humans not understanding how powerful social media really is and how new and weird it is to be able to communicate in such a way with such a large number of people.
I am not sure it would work. Zombies vs Gammons, or indeed Zombies vs Libtards, there is some potntial there.
The title was just an excuse to use the term gammon, I’d never heard it before and thought it was funny.
You describe yourself as a longtime lurker on stw but you hadn't heard the term gammon before?
Worth watching for perspective -
https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?
And 'The Social Dilemma' on Netflix
https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/81254224
Basically if you're not actively filtering your SM you're being used 100%. Even if you're wary and know this stuff.. you're being used.
Probably fair to say that the more blinkered or ignorant you are the more you're being used, so both extremes of politics are vulnerable to it (since to be at either extreme isn't rational). The far right in politics seems to be playing this card they've been handed pretty well and Zuckerberg, Musk etc are well aware of what's going on.
Is Libtards really a widely used word in the UK? I've only really ever heard it being used in the US. Both it and Gammons are unhelpful though really, once you start down the path of this sort of abuse, its becomes increasingly easier to "other" people with different political belief's to you.
What exactly is the far left? I look around at western politics and fail to see any far left movement, in fact there is barely any left of centre movement. Where as the far right is a very real and well financed movement to drive wealth and power into the hands of the few using hatred as a tool.
The idea of some equivalence between the far right and the far left is just a fantasy, the far left doesn't exist in any real way, other than a lie to portray an imaginary ideological battle.
You describe yourself as a longtime lurker on stw but you hadn’t heard the term gammon before?
Has done nothing to reduce any thoughts it's just shit stirring and waiting for STW to turn on itself (again)
Is Libtards really a widely used word in the UK?
Not Really, it feels more like a Circa 2018ish RW American YT/Terminally online sort of "Slur". But TBF I've not called anyone a "Gammon" online or in person (Quietly, behind their back) for about a year...
The Buzzword-bingo term that does still apply (IMO) if "Culture war" that's still alive and kicking and as a term it covers both directions of play.
Broadly speaking I'd say British politics and social discourse is now "Centrist" and has been since at least the late 90s...
Most people are a bit to the left on some topics, a bit to the right on others, hence the frequent criticism that not much really differentiates Labour and the Conservatives.
The various online spaces are now just forums to rage bate those on the fringes and derive some guff for websites to froth about. nothing is really happening there.
I'm intrigued now, which returning edge lord is the OP suspected of being?
Another one to add to the list of very obvious Sockpuppets.
Is Libtards really a widely used word in the UK?
It doesn't make sense in the UK, because "liberal" means something completely different here.
Hmm. On reflection, I see that "making sense" is not necessarily a requirement ....
The centre of gravity in parliamentary politics has distinctly moved to the right but I'm not sure this is reflected throughout the electorate. It wasn't that long ago that it was unthinkable that doctors and nurses would strike or that hundreds of thousands of people would protest against apartheid. Some of the politicians are feeling the pressure from below and are now backtracking (a bit) on their earlier statements. But as with all these things, they allow all the killing to happen then eventually they cry 'never again', till next time.
Most people are a bit to the left on some topics, a bit to the right on others, hence the frequent criticism that not much really differentiates Labour and the Conservatives.
Yep. You Gov did a very interesting survey about people holding 'inconsistent' political views. Once again, real life is revealed to be more complex than either politicians, pundits or activists would like or try to pretend it is. Libtards and Gammons are pointless on-line labels that are just to try to wind folks up to reply to Bots
How does one grow the polarisation between left and right though? Compasses, how do they work?
"Libtard" is probably most commonly used by someone who identifies as leftish when characterising the small minded obnoxiousness of someone they see as being to the right. Popularised during the French revolution IIRC.
“Libtard” is probably most commonly used by someone who identifies as leftish when characterising the small minded obnoxiousness of someone they see as being to the right. Popularised during the French revolution IIRC.
That's the complete opposite of what I take it to mean.
I think it's a contraction of 'Liberal and fktard'. 'Liberal' in the US meaning - to the left of the US political spectrum and 'fktard' a juvenile and primarily American insult. I think f***ktard itself is a contraction of the F bomb and 'retard'. I can't imagine the supposed woke left adopting an insult with a derivation partly based on a word mocking the mentally ill
IME 'libtard' is favoured by Alex Jones devotees, Q Anon believers and others on the US far right. It's not a word I have ever seen used by a Brit. Maybe I don't hang out enough on conspiracist or far right websites.
I wonder why the OP chose to use it as a benchmark for one end of the spectrum? Particularly when he claims to have only just heard of Gammon as an insult. A word which is in very common British usage. OP are you US based? Where do you encounter the word 'Libtard'.
Tell that to Cambridge Analytica.
The (modern, corporate) internet is all about ‘engagement’ and echo chambers are great for that (left or right of centre).
As ever money is the root of all evil, or is that a bit lefty?
@cookee, I agree. The point is that more engagement can be made not by siloing people, but by exposing them to views they despise in contexts where no common ground will be found, and let the arguing begin
What exactly is the far left? I look around at western politics and fail to see any far left movement, in fact there is barely any left of centre movement.
As someone who strongly supports the Morning Star editorial line I am very happy to be described as far-left (I make a clear distinction with the ultra-left, the MS is not ultra-leftist)
But the term which is probably generally considered to be more acceptable is 'radical left'. In Europe that political position is typically occupied by Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece, and Die Linke in Germany.
I agree that the far-left has little electoral support compared to that for the far-right though. But that is also true of the left generally and emergence of the pasokification phenomenon.
Almost 100 years ago in response to economic and social crisis support for the far-right rose in Europe, the lure of simple solutions and easy scapegoats was hard to resist.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
I think it’s a contraction of ‘Liberal and f***ktard’.
It's funny how the origins of terms is sometimes lost! I am fairly confident that the original term was retard. Which as a term of insult definitely has a presence in UK English.
I am fairly confident that the original term was retard.
Yes, as I said
I think f***ktard itself is a contraction of the F bomb and ‘retard’.
have you met all the people who say the the stuff online and are they any different in real life?
I am exactly the same
If been on the Internet for a long time and have met many people from different circles over the years. Anecdotally, people are either exactly the same or totally different. I wouldn't like to assume a direct correllation between the two. I'm told Fred is lovely in real life, for instance.
I’m suspicious, let’s say, that they aren’t really interested in the answer.
When threads/posts like this appear from a username I don't recognise, I always go and check the account creation date. I'm rarely surprised. Contentious posts whilst the ink is still wet on their application is the hallmark of a returning banned, genuine new users tend to keep their head down for a while or go asking for advice on pedals.
The title was just an excuse to use the term gammon, I’d never heard it before and thought it was funny.
I take it back, you must be new here.
I am fairly confident that the original term was retard.
I assumed "retard" also. Not a wildly uncommon insult pondside.
Yes, as I said
Missed that. Fair point.
So essentially the OP is pitting a US derogatory descriptor against a UK one? 3/10, poor effort - low grade trolling.
are they any different in real life?
I am far more likely to shrug and change the subject in real life. Many people are. Most even?
[ obviously, I don't consider what I post online as either extreme or polarised.. but then, who does? ]
3/10, poor effort – low grade trolling.
Two pages though which isnt a bad start.
However failed the, in my opinion, key test of starting a good argument as opposed to general musings.
However failed the, in my opinion, key test of starting a good argument as opposed to general musings
I'd argue they're specific musings actually.
Two pages though which isnt a bad start.
However failed the, in my opinion, key test of starting a good argument as opposed to general musings.
Fair. I'm sure once a few more of the usual suspects bite it'll start getting spicy.
They can't resist.
Something that just occurred to whilst reading through this:
We can argue about social media being evil because of various reasons, and some really love to argue just that (hilariously, on social media). It empowers people, it's somehow simultaneously both an echo chamber and a cesspit of unpleasant views. etc etc.
But, it also makes it a lot safer to challenge those views. Someone makes, let's say a misogynistic statement, it might all be a bit 'keyboard warrior' but it's easy to reply "actually mate, that's inappropriate." They might not care - they probably won't - but they might go "oh shit, sorry, I didn't realise, I'll try not to say that again." Either way, I read something recently which I thought was quite insightful: challenging this behaviour isn't for the person you're challenging, it's for everyone else reading. Things are only acceptable if we, well, accept them.
Compare and contrast. I was at a pub quiz on my own (because I'm a sad sack I was an advance scouting party to see if it was any good). One of the questions was "what nationality is [someone]?" I can't remember who it was, maybe Mo Salah, it's not really important. Someone at the back of the pub yells out really loudly, "a P**i!" I winced but... what could I do? Online I'd have said something, in more a favourable public situation possibly likewise, but in a pub full of half-cut Burnley scrotes? Getting my head kicked in for being a ****-lover would have achieved nothing.
But, it also makes it a lot safer to challenge those views. Someone makes, let’s say a misogynistic statement, it might all be a bit ‘keyboard warrior’ but it’s easy to reply “actually mate, that’s inappropriate.” They might not care – they probably won’t – but they might go “oh shit, sorry, I didn’t realise, I’ll try not to say that again.” Either way, I read something recently which I thought was quite insightful: challenging this behaviour isn’t for the person you’re challenging, it’s for everyone else reading. Things are only acceptable if we, well, accept them.
The 'challenge' here is anonymity*. it makes the challenge toothless, and it provides a veil for those being challenged to hide behind. And challenging anything on line rarely leads to contrition like it may if you were face to face, you're losing all the other cues which could help in that situation to potentially not escalate things further, online seems to do nothing but.
I think the 'easier to challenge online' concept is something that's a product some have dreamed up to avoid reflection and acknowledgement of the limits of their own courage. Again, which is fine, everybody has the right to decide what they're comfortable/confident with challenging.
*i'm not advocating for full ID checks, simply offering how it's not as useful as people think.
Not everyone is anonymous on the internet. Agree on your main point, but your "lack of courage" point is a bit mean really. We moderate our antagonism more in real life, for good practical and social reasons. No one wants every Friday night out to turn into a tiresome argument with the chance if it escalating to violence.
Mean as it may be, doesn't make it any less valid. And your point about kicking off is equally as valid. Lets not dress it up, some people are far more comfortable and capable of dealing with differing levels of conflict than others.
It's not a judgement, but simply a reality.
Some people don't have the social skills to avoid conflict in public places. Don't dress that up as "courage".
Fair challenge. But my point still stands.
Sorry, your point was fair as well, if not taken in isolation. Lots of reasons for people avoiding conflict to "get along" in public, and fear of getting a kicking is definitely one of them, you are right there.
The ‘challenge’ here is anonymity*. it makes the challenge toothless, and it provides a veil for those being challenged to hide behind.
I don't disagree, but as I said, it's not for their benefit. Who knows what impressionable young minds are reading this stuff? What's the alternative, we just ignore it? Then they win.
I'm quite well aware of the limits of my courage. It's rather low, I'm ten stone wet through and really good at running away from things. Lying bleeding in the gutter outside the Dog & Bastard waiting for an ambulance to arrive would be a pyrrhic victory at best.
Yep, while it means those lacking 'courage' in real life have a voice it also allows those that know they can't get away with things as easily in real life (such as racism) to say whatever they want.
So for the latter is online really giving us the view of what people are really like when you remove their "I can't say this in public" filter?
So for the latter is online really giving us the view of what people are really like when you remove their “I can’t say this in public” filter?
Could very well be, but then also people for long-winded reasons do post things online they do not necessarily believe simply to get a response.
Isn't real life a bit less polarised than online simply because most people tend to be surrounded by other people like them?
relapsed_mandalorian
I’m sure once a few more of the usual suspects bite it’ll start getting spicy
Aren't you one of the usual suspects?
Aren’t you one of the usual suspects?
Oh the ironing!
No one wants every Friday night out to turn into a tiresome argument with the chance if it escalating to violence.
Have you been to Newcastle?
I have always been confused by the echo-chamber theory of the internet tbh, as I encounter a far larger diversity of people and views on the internet than I ever do in real life and I figured that must be the same for most people.
Because the echo-chamber theory of the internet is wrong. People get triggered on social media because they have to confront views and ideas that are outside their normal echo chamber.
The good people at Kurzgesagt even did a video on it.
do people on here agree that the polarisation is a thing and if so, why has it happened
One of the founders of Google stated in an interview years ago that the best way to keep people online (and therefore increase their profits) was through conflict/arguments, a lot of people make a LOT of money by promoting controversy and division online
Have you been to Newcastle?
Yup, great city for nightlife, always welcoming and always friendly.