It's interesting reading this thread over the course of the past few years. The frustration that people have with those of an opposing viewpoint is very obvious, even as someone who was not involved in the conversation, reading from 1-2 years after points were discussed and posted.
One thing that jumped out to me was a few posts of self-awareness from
@Las Veghost grower (there were others, just using these to highlight) :
This is generally a good idea, read both sides and find the truth, problem is most people already already have their mind made before hand or read multiple outlets from the same side, I think your better off staying away altogether from known propaganda media outlets and only ready the ones that sit in the middle, if everyone did that then in order to be a successful media outlet you would have to leave your biases at the door and just report the facts, if you want better journalism in the US then stop clicking on or watching shit from Washington post FOX CNN newsmax ect.
Hey I’m just as guilty as the next person when it comes to seeing someone go so far in one direction I take it equally as far or further in the other direction almost like making a point, but I like to think I can see most things for what they are
I specifically highlight these because I appreciate the self-reflection, especially because I find most of their/(your) expressed views to be ones I disagree with, and some of the rationale expressed to be biased:
It just makes no sense to me how anybody could call what happen a insurrection or even a attempt at a insurrection…it was a textbook protest turned riot
Calling something a textbook "..." is lazy homework, especially when questioning the veracity of the term insurrection.
I don't mean to pick on you, this is just an example of something I see quite a bit online, and it feeds into the very same type of Red Sox/Yankees type political discourse that online spaces have become - one with a bias towards binary absolutism, with very little capacity for nuance. In my experience, almost everything in the real world is nuanced.
I think part of why we're in this situation is that people shy away from having discussions with others outside of their comfort zone about politics (and religion), but the rules of polite conversation go out the window in online spaces. It also means that the same factor that Las Veghost was pointing to, has pushed us to a point where we literally cannot understand how someone with an opposing view holds those views, or how:
I do find it really interesting how the 2 sides see each others actions totally differently, I feel like I’m seeing it pretty clearly and so does the other side, but who is right, is anybody right ? Or are we all just running through the smoke so we can’t see what’s going on around us, it does seem like if your on the right you are almost instantly considered a bad guy, which should be a red flag, but what do I know
Which is one of the most insightful things I've seen someone post online in a while. I feel the same way, particularly when reading posts of people whose views I don't share, though I do find that when I talk with people in real world settings there's much more nuance and commonality that can be found. So -
@Las Veghost grower - My apologies for picking on you, and I hope you (and imagine?) you can appreciate why. I think it's really fucking important that we challenge our own biases, and try to find ways to have conversations, see one another's viewpoints, and recognize how as Marshall McLuhan so sagely observed that the medium is the message.
Personally, I hope that 2024 brings us some alternative to this bullshit. I'm tired of the arguments, the outrage, and the lack of trust that is so pervasive in the U.S. In Adam Curtis's documentary, Hypernormalization, he explores how this sort of thing was/is common in Russia, and is designed to confuse the public to a point where nothing is real, and unified opposition is unable to manifest, maintaining the status quo while giving the illusion of choice.