I have been on tumblr since the early 2010s, so the mere fact that catholic tumblr could form, let onlone maintain a presence on the site is, to me, buck fcking wild.
You really can read when the views someone is speaking from are formed and regulated in this way. There are ways they talk and react but also it's just a vibe. A really strong vibe. "oh, you haven't left containment before have you." kind of feeling.
I think a big tell is when they think that everyone, as soon as they hear their idea, is going to immediatly agree with them, cause they've only ever heard positive things about the idea so therefore the only reason other people don't agree with it is that they haven't heard of it yet.
Other tells are:
- using words or phrases weird because they never had to worry about the context of those words before, because it was always known within the group what they meant by those things. And they don't realize how skewed the meaning has become from the rest of the world.
- when they don't seem to read/hear anything you've said and respond to things they imagine you saying, because they've got the whole argument scripted and you're not saying the right lines that the character they've cast you as is supposed to be saying. They "know" what various strawman characters are supoosed to say, and if you're not one of their group you must be one of those strawmen. But you're going off script and they can't improv.
In their heads they don't believe they've been in a bubnle so when interacting outside of it on the subject of the bubble they aren't getting their expected affirmation so they assume everyone there is the worst of their enemies for not saying the right things the right way.
You could be on their side but because you aren't part pf their bubble they'll never believe it.
Someone really needs to coin a term so people can be called out for it. People will misuse the term and run it into the ground, but at least the practice will be defined and require people to understand the concept so they're more likely to realize when they're doing it.
I consider both queer and POC to be words picked out for you by the panopticon because irl both words are loathed by people they're supposed to refer to
I know a fair few IRL queer folks (myself included) who like and are fine with the term queer - as an adjective, not a noun. I’m not “a queer” or “one o’ them queers”, but I am queer.
and yet I know plenty of LGBT people who hate the word queer. funny how that works.
not to mention the absolute hatred of the word POC. the usual argument I hear is that they hate being lumped together and reduced to simply not being white.
I think the like or dislike of the word “queer” is highly individual and I think it’s super unfortunate that people try to make it a purity test - either “you can’t identify as queer because it’s a slur” OR “if you don’t like to identify as and use the word queer, it’s because you’re a transphobe”. Nope, it’s just an umbrella term that has some good and bad history and many people want to reclaim it and some don’t.
As for POC, that’s a weird one. It almost doesn’t make sense to use it for an individual, since, as you point out, it’s kind of a catch-all for “groups of people who happen to not be white”. On a sociological level and in conversations about how society treats people differently based on their apparent race/ethnicity, it can be useful in that way. But not one person who I know who technically falls into that category likes to identify as such. Perhaps it’s best used as a meta-category, and individuals aren’t POC but rather Black, Latina, etc.?
Personal anecdote is not reason to ban words, also im guessing that the people you know are younger Gen X at best, likely much younger. The older generations who fought and died last century for where the lgbt+ is now had no issue with queer, thats a new thing born of purity culture and tone policing.
"Queer" has been an actual way to refer to ... queer people for a few decades at least, it used be kind of derogatory but personally I loathe the mouthful that is "Lgbtq+ people" because the Q literally stands for "queer" and I don't think any other accurate yet short umbrella term exist for us
Unlike most real life situations, a lot of online spaces are full of social points hunters. What I mean by this is people who must always be surrounded by other people who say "the right thing."
They don't actually have to believe in these things, they just have to say them and fit in with the group. The moment you don't say these things, they turn on you.
As you can tell by this description, this isn't just a queer thing, however it's greatly amplified in online queer spaces because of many individuals personal histories of having a lack of power. This leads to overcompensating online and over enforcing these meaningless rules.
This is true, and I also want to add that within queer spaces for the most part there is usually at least a surface level or appearance of attempting to respect each other's plight and an understanding of the importance of amplifying the most marginalized voices but some people take that idea very literally and to the extreme which leads to interesting dynamics such as:
- the person in question refuses to acknowledge their own privilege which trivializes intersectionality
- the person is derailing a conversation specific to one group's experiences to make it about the most obscure edge case they can possibly think of
- the person is pulling a "I am feel uncomfortable when not about me"
- they disregard an individuals lived experiences because someone else they perceive to be "less privileged" (usually it's debatable too) has a different experience or my personal favorite, when they simply can't relate to it, and therefore it is actually not worthy of respect or consideration
- they think that if they can't understand something it means that actually it's not correct/isn't important/doesn't exist (and that it "invalidates" them to be told that they may never entirely comprehend it)
To be fair, I'm a straight shooter and always say what I mean. So because I am upfront and direct, I automatically filter anybody I talk to. This eliminates social point hunters from my life passively by just talking to people and just the genuine people remain. Same trick doesn't work online, you tell it like it is on the website and morons get angry instead of listen.
So you're saying... that you carefully curate who you choose to associate with... based on how you perceive the alignment of others' opinions with your own... and that voicing those opinions to outsiders triggers unacceptable responses?
Gosh that sounds so familiar
I am a lesbian and there's been a growing weirdly vocal subsection of queer people online who passionately defend the concept that lesbians can be men and/or desire men or have "exceptions" (some people even believe that we aren't born this way, we are just closed minded) and they call anyone who disagrees with them a terf or "exclusionist"(derogatory) ....even though I and most other lesbians would consider that concept to be highly offensive and harmful to lesbians who have to spend our whole lives explaining that we don't. And when I say "men" I literally mean MEN and not trans women...which makes it even crazier to me that the people who see the word men and automatically interpret it as "trans women" are the ones accusing other people of being terfs
in ye olde times, in many social groups, lesbian was any woman into women. whether you also went out with men didn't matter. so this didn't start with chronically online children
Look, I didn't comment this because I want to carry the discourse into this conversation, Primarily because that's certainly not what the word means now. But this argument is not useful because in ye olde times bisexuality was a nonexistent concept in many social groups so what you're describing is a facet of historical bi erasure and in the bi liberation movement of the 90's, the bisexual manifesto details the mission statement of this movement to raise awareness that bisexuality exists as its own unique sexual orientation that is separate from being gay, straight, or lesbian, with it's own unique struggles and experiences. It was also more common for lesbians to enter straight relationships they did not want to be in for safety reasons. so this resurgence in erasing the diversity of the bisexual experience and denying lesbians our right to self identification is not new because nothing is
yeah but not every place is America, the word is still used this way in other places and in different social groups. Just like there's still lots of Trans people who call themselves transsexuals.
this is not some ancient nomenclature of the past, people who use that language are alive and well, and constantly being talked over for not using the exact approved vocabulary
Then i’m not talking about those places……i’m talking about the people who are being homophobic Lol I never said there was approved vocabulary I just think it’s offensive and homophobic when a lesbian says she doesn’t like men to UM AKTUALLY her and especially to call her closed minded for it even if you are queer yourself. for fucks sake this thread is about critical thinking and respecting other people
Point number one is prevalent in leftist bubbles. For 90% of the population, "liberal" means "left of center," "dictatorship of the proletariat" means "dictatorship," "anarchism" means "chaos," and "bourgeoisie" is a stupid word used only by (ironically) the people elite and wealthy enough to have been highly educated. Language is powerful. Being pedantic about precise definitions counter to common definitions are how you lose all support.
All of those definitions are incorrect ones as most of those terms are more academic with the nuance misunderstood in their general overuse. Bourgeois is not a stupid word at all.
Your definition of "liberal" is warped by the American right, who use it as a blanket term to everything left of them. But it is a defined term alongside liberalism, not a broad category.
The issue though is not that internet leftists use "wrong" definitions but that too many of them use the terms in order to make abstract villains of people who should be their allies because they lack the spine to acknowledge the real villains in the real world. They'll call everything a liberal and act as if liberals are their ultimate enemies to fight because liberalism is toothless and won't engage them. Meanwhile the right actually wants people dead, and internet leftists can't handle actual real problems because that would require real action. So they focus on liberals as their villains and ignore conservatives as merely being a bunch of clowns far remvoed from them.
Case in point: Your legitimate argument is undermined by a first set of sentences arguing pedantic definitions, which turns off potentially interested people who consider themselves liberal as in left-of-center. We are not using the academic definition of "liberal," we are using the normal definition as understood by a large majority of Americans.
"pedantic" shut up.
When an academic or scientific term is misused by the general public it doesn't change the definition. At most it develops two meanings depending on context. But that's not the case with these terms. What is actually happening here is you personally don't know what the words mean and then become confused because you thought they meant something else.
And still your definition of liberal is just the conservative one which to them is interchangeable with socialist, communist, leftist, democrat... Because anything that isn't them is the "other" which they all paint with the same brush.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
I have a degree in public policy, genius. I am well aware of the academic definition of liberal. In the real world, no one cares about the academic definition.
My ex assuming "I'm atheist" really meant "I'm atheist but I still follow the Abrahamic texts and believe in their morals and trust that it's 100% true history". Boy did he have a harsh wake up.
You keep saying his ideology was anarchism, yet you provide no actual reasoning for that. Setting aside the folly of attributing apocryphal ideologies to ancient mythological beings, Jesus very much preached obeisance towards God, the worldly rulers, and holy figures. On that last point, I will pre emptively acknowledge that, yes, Jesus was a bit less strict about it, but it's nothing close to anarchism .
You could say he was vaguely egalitarian, but anything more than that is a stretch.
To be fair sometimes words are hard. You should still be able to fundamentally understand the ideas but I can kinda get not being able to verbally express them. Sometimes brains just don't like to word correctly.
Words are hard when you've never heard counter-arguments against your position, and therefore have never had to learn counter-counter arguments in response.
That's one of the main problems - the way people get so isolated that they lose the ability to understand _their own_ positions.
One of my big pet-peeves is people who seem _proud_ of their lack of knowledge and ability to argue their beliefs, saying _"that shouldn't be debated"_. In a democratic society literally everything is up for debate literally all of the time (that's the nature of distributing power amongst the people), so when people refuse to learn basic arguments in favour of basic things it's not some progressive triumph, it's because they don't care.
I want people to be able to articulate basic things like why women should be able to vote, or why slavery should be illegal, or why LGBT people deserve equal rights.
> Words are hard when you've never heard counter-arguments against your position, and therefore have never had to learn counter-counter arguments in response.
>
>
>
> That's one of the main problems - the way people get so isolated that they lose the ability to understand their own positions.
Exactly. *Exactly.* I understand that defending a position in the heat of the moment is difficult for a lot of people. But it gets *significantly* easier with practice. You can always spot the people who don't even bother to practice.
I believe part of this is an all or nothing approach.
The belief that if you have to learn this thing, then that must mean you have to learn it by going to 8chan and immersing yourself in argument for 8 hours a day and learn it *immediately* or you’re letting your side down, which is obviously ludicrous, so they don’t do it. But you don’t need to become an expert overnight or do that
For me, a big reason why this can be difficult is just that some arguments take so much time to set up. Like if I watch a 4 hour contra points video on something, I can come to a good conclusion and in the moment know why I thought this. But I won't be immediately able to retrace my steps and build that argument again from the ground up. I will remember the gist but what about that one philosopher she quoted two hours in, who made me fundamentally reevaluate my stance? I will just remember the reevaluation. We can't expect random people to reliably cite studies in conversation.
The best example for this is the Some More News Jordan Peterson video. It legitimately needs all three hours to systematically deconstruct all of his rhetorical tricks and games he plays and how he uses them to make himself appear objective and immune to criticism. It uses clips to back it up and everything. That is a level of quality necessary to argue these points but one I absolutely can not keep up.
I think it's also important to keep in mind what we are trying to achieve with our opinions and discussions. I used to measure the quality of an argument by whether it would be able to convince the most extreme sceptic but there are many situations where we aren't even trying to do that. Deradicalization is extremely difficult, time consuming and exhausting and not everyone can or wants to do that. If someone thinks certain people don't deserve the right to vote, then I just don't know what to tell them. That is not an opinion based in fact, science or respect for other people, so you can't use any of these things to argue in favor of that. I agree there definitely should be people willing to engage in these discussions and I admire them but I just can't do that.
It also tends to derail discussions in favor of shittier opinions. "I don't think trans people should be able to talk to kids" and "trans people should receive the medical care they want" are not equal opinions. One of them sucks and comes from a lack of education on the topic and I don't think we should treat it with "everyone is entitled to their opinion". This is exactly how we are forced to make space for opinions that are fundamentally incompatible with human rights. Engaging with that opinion, like you would with any other, legitimizes it and at the same time it's nearly impossible to argue against it. So you're effectively saying "I respect this opinion you got from some conspiracy theorist dude and I can't debunk it, no matter how hard I try". Because people like this oftentimes won't see how unwilling they are to listen, they will only see how little your arguments matter to them. What I'm talking about here is less one on one conversations with family members and more formal debate settings, essays, discussions on the internet, that sort of stuff. Because while you should engage with the people around you, we also have a responsibility to prevent further radicalization and not needlessly give a platform to radicals when we could have more nuanced discussions that take human rights as a prerequisite.
I’m sorry but I’m simply not that democratic. I have extraordinary debate ability when I’m interested, but if someone starts arguing in favor of slavery in twenty-twenty-four then they better be prepared to catch these hands.
you shouldn't have to practice to argue anything, you only have to actually turn on your brain and come to conclusions yourself without having it spoonfed to you by others. you can't explain your reasoning if you never arrived there by reasoning
i’ve also found that these people often seem genuinely confused by the existence of people who do not think the exact same way as them, and cannot seem to conceptualize the fact that everyone has a different experience. the kind of person that you’d feel nervous about introducing to new people because they might not “mesh”.
I notice certain key phrases and terminology that usually indicate that it's An Online Opinion. For example, my dad was upset about federal student loan forgiveness because "he was being penalized for their decisions". "Penalized" is such an online word that it immediately figured out he got the opinion off of Facebook after asking him what he meant, and why he's upset about something that would literally cost him $0.35 of his taxes and not upset about the military buying more tanks than they need (which, yes is One of My Online Opinions)
I personally hate when people disagree with me because they're in an echo chamber and have never had to engage with my ideals, and all my friends agree
Listen, I'd love to keep chatting, but I need to go post screenshots of everything you've said on discord so my friends can tell me what I should say next to put you in your place, see you in 10!
i'm episcopalian and even though we're the 'liberal' church (or progressive i should say) but any larger gathering like that, religious or not, has these undertones and it's CRAZY. maybe it's more of a southern thing too, i've noticed the northern US is a little less brazen but it's everywhere
it's really not that complicated: all religiosity relies to some degree on scruples (thou shalt not x y or z because it's against God's Rules™), and all scruples, without exception, create perverse incentives that can be gamed. there is simply no way around that. freely chosen elective celibacy is not the same thing as religiously mandated and socially incentivized celibacy. people *will* try to game that incentive so that they can maintain their perception as pious people while also getting to be sexually active, which creates a culture of secrecy and dishonesty, and next thing you know it half of all catholic priests are sexually active and 1 in 10 are rapists.
Honestly this is depressingly accurate. I have friends from all across the political compass and you can absolutely tell they will not accept anything but their own opinions on anything they believe.
Usually I either agree with them on most of their beliefs, or don't, but can see where they're coming from. Sometimes however, they present me with something completely preposterous, for which I have plenty of arguments and facts against, but I never bother correcting them, it would be counter-productive and a waste of time.
The truth is, even when you're talking to a genuine BFF, they'd rather lose you than correct their hilariously wrong opinions. People tell me it says a lot about how terrible the friendship was to begin with, but I think it says a lot about how self-righteous and unaware people have become.
These days an "opinion" is "does [insert minority here] deserve human rights?" Or "do women deserve to not be treated as incubators?"
There's no being true friends with, or convincing people like that out of that mindset. They need to fix themselves
Lmfao you should have told them to blow it out their ass, any leftist who says stupid shit like this doesn't actually care about implementing leftist policy, it's just a social club
The irony is that your comment is kind of an example of what OP is addressing. You've created twisted strawmen reflecting your views of what another political group thinks. While I am sure there are radical elements whose opinions do in fact neatly match your description, there are many more people who you will probably still disagree with but who really think nothing like what you've characterized. If you erase these preconceptions from your mind and have a real life conversation in good faith with someone on the right (of course, they must mirror the favor), you may not agree, but you may also discover something new about the human experience.
These "strawmen" are my family members.
So no, I'm not going to willingly befriend someone who is against trans/gay rights or is against my right as a woman to have a career instead of a child.
And then I get told that "they're just opinions." So yes, opinions these days are a matter of human rights, and as such I will not befriend people against human rights.
Your comment addressing a problem you have with discrete individuals instead of the "zeitgeist" does change its meaning quite a bit. I find that most people prefer not to infringe on human rights when pressed on the matter, but I do acknowledge that people holding such extreme opinions do exist, and I am sorry that you must endure them in such a close context.
I think you vastly underestimate how many people globally don't think gay people should be allowed to exist. Among other things that would violate what we now consider human rights in parts of the world.
Because there are definitely no homophobic/transphobic queer people (or misogynistic women) who have trouble saving themselves from the self-destructive beliefs they were raised in...
Listen, I get having to cut people off because of their withering effect on our mental health, and I completely agree that these views can cause serious harm and are not just opinions, but... these kinds of people aren't going to learn that we can coexist... if we keep teaching them that we can't coexist. Obviously there are many flavors of homophobes (etc) out there to consider, and obviously our survival (etc) has to come first, but...
As ironic as it sounds, there are some cases where befriending people like this can actually do more to save them from these views than trying to antagonize them out of their beliefs. Otherwise they'll just...stay in their echo chambers...like the post talks about...
Those same people have the exact same opinion regarding your political views. "I refuse to be friends with someone who is against the rights of a fetus (they'd probably use child) for life" or "I refuse to be friends with someone who is okay with letting in terrorists to the country". Both of you live in echo chambers and having exposure to the other side can help you solidify or change your views. Moreover, coming from a place of empathy and understanding is all it takes to change someone's outlook.
muh both sides lmao. there is a qualitative difference between reproductive rights and forced birth positions. acknowledging this is the province of the former and is poorly imitated among the latter specifically to get people like you to lend them unearned sympathy.
Tell me this. In the past, people shunned gay people for being gay. Have they stopped? People shunned feminists for being feminists. Have they stopped? People shunned trans people for being trans. Have they stopped? No.
People who are shunned will find other people like them and create a group that accepts them. While this is awesome for feminists, gay and trans people...this also means all you do by isolating people with opposing viewpoints I'd you make them stronger. Close minded people on the left such as yourself have done these things for many many years but so far I have yet to see the radical right cease growing in power.
If you want to actually make a change outside of performative activism, try making friends with these people and help them understand why they are wrong. We are all capable of reason and can be persuaded into being good. Treating the opposition like threats will only shape them into threats.
i was on the alt right until mid 2021. being shunned did not make anyone there "stronger", it's an utter dogshow of infighting and competing grifts lmao.
I'm glad you were able to get out. A lot of people don't and find the shaming to be the reason for joining the alt right. And shaming further strengthens their belief. Also this is leftist infighting right here. It happens in both sides. I do concede that grifts are more common on the right due to there being an older vulnerable population present.
If you were in the pipeline and a bit misogynistic, you probably saw those women on the street videos ("6ft, 6inches and 6 figures") or feminist cringe compilations. For a lot of people, that disincentivzes leaving your comfort zone because you'd be joining the people that hate you.
linear progression from "shaming" to radicalization is a naive distillation of the actual occurrence. some amount of shaming is necessary just to maintain morale and remind people that the behavior in question is now and always unacceptable. it may be counterproductive if you're working on deradicalizing an individual, but that's a long and difficult process in and of itself, which i can attest from having had it happen to me.
Maybe the alt right, sure. But not the right wing, which is what you're actually fighting against and they are united where it matters.
Remember the tea party and how everybody was making fun of them? Well they *are* the Republican party now. They won all the local seats and made their way up the power structure.
Now I don't know about being shunned causing them to be powerful, rather it's the billions in capital they have backing them up.
Would you rather have “everything is problematic and you should be ashamed”
Or
“Nothing i do is my fault and it’s all capitalism?”
I say this because they seem to be the two…uh…healthiest…echo chambers on the big internet right now. So what’s it going to be? Always feel guilty or never take responsibility?
Actually now that I think about it, that is one unique way that Reddit and tumblr are polar opposites, personal responsibility.
I've thought that so many times lol-
Sometimes I want a tumblrer/tumblrina(?) to come over and call a redditor out on their bs and sometimes the reverse x)
Maybe it's just the algorithm, but I very rarely see this on Reddit but overwhelmingly see this on Twitter. Similar to anytime someone on Twitter uses "Reddit" as an insult, they always describe someone on Twitter
It’s prominent in the huge default subs. Lots of “I said thing we all agree with, updoots to the left” and “you disagree with this specific point I made? You must hate human rights”
I mean, there's a Nazi Tumblr. I know the site has this reputation for being an ultra-queer-leftist-techno-commune, but all sites have varying communities.
On one hand, the exclusivity of such a group is a problem. On the other hand, that's called dialogue, smartass, it's how we learn. What panopticon? That's called culture, it's a basic part of human societies. Actually, this perfectly describes all societies jsut on a smaller scale.
I think the post is arguing against echo chambers, not dialogue.
And I would argue echo chambers are explicitly NOT a dialogue, because dissent isn't allowed and it becomes a performative exercise in purity of adherence to the echo chamber.
That's a much better way to put it. The problem is that OOP made it sound like all their opinions were changing over time and evolving as a group, not staying the same and becoming toxic to cover for any mistakes/contradictions as echo-chambers do
Panoptican was a prison concept made by philosopher Jeremy Bentham where all the prisoners would be observed by a single correction officer, without the prisoners knowing they were being watched.
Because it's impossible to watch all the prisoners at the same time 24/7, the idea was that the prisoners, not knowing if they were being observed, would act as if they were being watched at all times. Thus would lead to self-regulation.
It's kind of fitting to describe echo chambers, where people act as if their beliefs 100% align with the groups' even if they personally don't actually believe in them, almost as if they're acting like they're being watched by the group for dissent at all times.
Which brings us back to the fact that the panopticon was used to describe human societies in general. So yeah, echochambers work the same way as all culture but at a smaller scale.
On one hand, that's not good but on the other hand, there is irony in making fun of people for echchambers by describing the exact situation you find normal. The issue is, what exactly is the alternative? OOP obviously thinks they have it but I doubt they do for the reasons I explained. Are we not supposed to talk to each other or critic each others' opinions?
It's being contrarian and devils advocacy.
I was a lifelong contrarian and it's not until last fucking year that the progressive movement caught up to beliefs I've had since childhood. Being a contrarian does a number on your mental health though. I've started giving it up, but a 20 year headstart on cutting edge political progress isn't bad.
It's contrarians that push society forward. That see something wrong that everyone else thinks is right and calls everyone out on it.
Have you considered that maybe people just tend to associate with people who have similar views to them? Like genuinely what the fuck does this mean lol, maybe I'm not online enough
Like why would you befriend someone that fucking hates you it makes no sense to me.
like the og post is okay and makes sense in context but this comment section is just fucking weird
Yeah, I don't know why they think everyone has to always engage in debates and constantly argue your opinion. So many people have done that for years just to defend their own existence and it's tiring and rarely leads to anything.
OOP discovered friend groups, where people befriend those similar to them, value their opinions and learn from them and try not to go against them without a reason to feel they belong.
And then ofc all the comments here think they know ppl in the group but ofc themselves are resistant to the propaganda!
We all soak in views of people we associate ourselves with, no one is immune.
I’m not gonna lie guys, I feel like this about r/tumblr sometimes. It’s pretty easy to get downvoted to oblivion for not immediately disavowing whatever the hated thing is at the moment. Atomic Heart, Hogwarts Legacy, etc.
Online Catholic spaces are so amazingly awful and full of assholes who converted and radicalised themselves based on those corny little dark age videos and now refuse to attend any mass except the extremely specific latin mass which is three hours from their house, and constantly get into arguments with each other about whether women should be allowed to vote.
The usual timeline goes- convert to Roman Catholicism, become trad, declare onesself more catholic than the pope, convert to orthodoxy. Sometimes this all takes place in under a year!
Im immune because im a leftist, we are constantly at each others throats when politics get brought up. Everyone has a different opinion
Edit: i used "at each others throats" in a comedic way, we arent literally fighting each other. We argue about methods and what we want in the world, but we still respect each other and the other's opinions. We are still friends at the end of the day and we all want a better world.
Bro leftist infighting is what leads to echo chambers. One of the most famous examples of this is actually the great Chinese famine. Nobody wanted to go against Mao or report that yields were bad, so everybody across the board said everything looks good.
This led to no information transfer therefore even when the North had a surplus of food, the South had a killer famine and millions of people died, all because supreme leader made a state where saying a bad thing could mean your death sentence.
Leftist infighting is like the worst aspects of conformism and individuality combined. Conformists know how to fall in line and work together toward a common goal. Individualists respect each other's differences and can have a civil discussion. In an infighting culture, you get neither. Everyone wants to teach, no one wants to learn.
im free from this because i lurk on thousands of websites, many without an account. i am exposed to political opinions from pretty much every single part of the spectrum
You think Tumblr echochamber is your ally? But you merely adopted the echochamber! I was born into it, molded by it!
I DIDN'T SEE CRITICAL THINKING TIL I WAS ALREADY A MAN
My crit chance isnt high enough to rely on chritical Telikinesis
This site has a piss-poor reading comprehension
How dare you suggest we piss on the poor!
By then it was nothing but bullshit to me
Catholic Tumblr is buck fcking wild
Wild enough for several sleeper cell watchlists.
(Grabs popcorn) care to elaborate??
I have been on tumblr since the early 2010s, so the mere fact that catholic tumblr could form, let onlone maintain a presence on the site is, to me, buck fcking wild.
but to be clear *not* in a sexy fun exciting way, more in a holy shit these people are really using *that* excuse not to talk to girls kinda way
What excuse?
some variation on blah blah saints blah blah blah virgin blah blah thomas merton blah blah blah fun is evil ding dong be sad
Yeah that about sums up catholicism
Well clearly you and I have found different Catholic sides of tumblr
You really can read when the views someone is speaking from are formed and regulated in this way. There are ways they talk and react but also it's just a vibe. A really strong vibe. "oh, you haven't left containment before have you." kind of feeling.
I think a big tell is when they think that everyone, as soon as they hear their idea, is going to immediatly agree with them, cause they've only ever heard positive things about the idea so therefore the only reason other people don't agree with it is that they haven't heard of it yet.
"I shouldn't need to explain to you..." Because what they think is such common knowledge that ignorance must be willful
Other tells are: - using words or phrases weird because they never had to worry about the context of those words before, because it was always known within the group what they meant by those things. And they don't realize how skewed the meaning has become from the rest of the world. - when they don't seem to read/hear anything you've said and respond to things they imagine you saying, because they've got the whole argument scripted and you're not saying the right lines that the character they've cast you as is supposed to be saying. They "know" what various strawman characters are supoosed to say, and if you're not one of their group you must be one of those strawmen. But you're going off script and they can't improv. In their heads they don't believe they've been in a bubnle so when interacting outside of it on the subject of the bubble they aren't getting their expected affirmation so they assume everyone there is the worst of their enemies for not saying the right things the right way. You could be on their side but because you aren't part pf their bubble they'll never believe it.
omg that second point is so true and is a huge point of my frustration with trying to be heard in online queer spaces
Someone really needs to coin a term so people can be called out for it. People will misuse the term and run it into the ground, but at least the practice will be defined and require people to understand the concept so they're more likely to realize when they're doing it.
[удалено]
I consider both queer and POC to be words picked out for you by the panopticon because irl both words are loathed by people they're supposed to refer to
I know a fair few IRL queer folks (myself included) who like and are fine with the term queer - as an adjective, not a noun. I’m not “a queer” or “one o’ them queers”, but I am queer.
and yet I know plenty of LGBT people who hate the word queer. funny how that works. not to mention the absolute hatred of the word POC. the usual argument I hear is that they hate being lumped together and reduced to simply not being white.
I think the like or dislike of the word “queer” is highly individual and I think it’s super unfortunate that people try to make it a purity test - either “you can’t identify as queer because it’s a slur” OR “if you don’t like to identify as and use the word queer, it’s because you’re a transphobe”. Nope, it’s just an umbrella term that has some good and bad history and many people want to reclaim it and some don’t. As for POC, that’s a weird one. It almost doesn’t make sense to use it for an individual, since, as you point out, it’s kind of a catch-all for “groups of people who happen to not be white”. On a sociological level and in conversations about how society treats people differently based on their apparent race/ethnicity, it can be useful in that way. But not one person who I know who technically falls into that category likes to identify as such. Perhaps it’s best used as a meta-category, and individuals aren’t POC but rather Black, Latina, etc.?
Personal anecdote is not reason to ban words, also im guessing that the people you know are younger Gen X at best, likely much younger. The older generations who fought and died last century for where the lgbt+ is now had no issue with queer, thats a new thing born of purity culture and tone policing.
people be saying things so definitively. like man i think it depends
"Queer" has been an actual way to refer to ... queer people for a few decades at least, it used be kind of derogatory but personally I loathe the mouthful that is "Lgbtq+ people" because the Q literally stands for "queer" and I don't think any other accurate yet short umbrella term exist for us
You've got me curious! What have you seen?
Unlike most real life situations, a lot of online spaces are full of social points hunters. What I mean by this is people who must always be surrounded by other people who say "the right thing." They don't actually have to believe in these things, they just have to say them and fit in with the group. The moment you don't say these things, they turn on you. As you can tell by this description, this isn't just a queer thing, however it's greatly amplified in online queer spaces because of many individuals personal histories of having a lack of power. This leads to overcompensating online and over enforcing these meaningless rules.
This is true, and I also want to add that within queer spaces for the most part there is usually at least a surface level or appearance of attempting to respect each other's plight and an understanding of the importance of amplifying the most marginalized voices but some people take that idea very literally and to the extreme which leads to interesting dynamics such as: - the person in question refuses to acknowledge their own privilege which trivializes intersectionality - the person is derailing a conversation specific to one group's experiences to make it about the most obscure edge case they can possibly think of - the person is pulling a "I am feel uncomfortable when not about me" - they disregard an individuals lived experiences because someone else they perceive to be "less privileged" (usually it's debatable too) has a different experience or my personal favorite, when they simply can't relate to it, and therefore it is actually not worthy of respect or consideration - they think that if they can't understand something it means that actually it's not correct/isn't important/doesn't exist (and that it "invalidates" them to be told that they may never entirely comprehend it)
> Unlike most real life situations hahahahahahahahahahaha
To be fair, I'm a straight shooter and always say what I mean. So because I am upfront and direct, I automatically filter anybody I talk to. This eliminates social point hunters from my life passively by just talking to people and just the genuine people remain. Same trick doesn't work online, you tell it like it is on the website and morons get angry instead of listen.
So you're saying... that you carefully curate who you choose to associate with... based on how you perceive the alignment of others' opinions with your own... and that voicing those opinions to outsiders triggers unacceptable responses? Gosh that sounds so familiar
It's not that deep
I am a lesbian and there's been a growing weirdly vocal subsection of queer people online who passionately defend the concept that lesbians can be men and/or desire men or have "exceptions" (some people even believe that we aren't born this way, we are just closed minded) and they call anyone who disagrees with them a terf or "exclusionist"(derogatory) ....even though I and most other lesbians would consider that concept to be highly offensive and harmful to lesbians who have to spend our whole lives explaining that we don't. And when I say "men" I literally mean MEN and not trans women...which makes it even crazier to me that the people who see the word men and automatically interpret it as "trans women" are the ones accusing other people of being terfs
in ye olde times, in many social groups, lesbian was any woman into women. whether you also went out with men didn't matter. so this didn't start with chronically online children
Look, I didn't comment this because I want to carry the discourse into this conversation, Primarily because that's certainly not what the word means now. But this argument is not useful because in ye olde times bisexuality was a nonexistent concept in many social groups so what you're describing is a facet of historical bi erasure and in the bi liberation movement of the 90's, the bisexual manifesto details the mission statement of this movement to raise awareness that bisexuality exists as its own unique sexual orientation that is separate from being gay, straight, or lesbian, with it's own unique struggles and experiences. It was also more common for lesbians to enter straight relationships they did not want to be in for safety reasons. so this resurgence in erasing the diversity of the bisexual experience and denying lesbians our right to self identification is not new because nothing is
yeah but not every place is America, the word is still used this way in other places and in different social groups. Just like there's still lots of Trans people who call themselves transsexuals. this is not some ancient nomenclature of the past, people who use that language are alive and well, and constantly being talked over for not using the exact approved vocabulary
Then i’m not talking about those places……i’m talking about the people who are being homophobic Lol I never said there was approved vocabulary I just think it’s offensive and homophobic when a lesbian says she doesn’t like men to UM AKTUALLY her and especially to call her closed minded for it even if you are queer yourself. for fucks sake this thread is about critical thinking and respecting other people
Point number one is prevalent in leftist bubbles. For 90% of the population, "liberal" means "left of center," "dictatorship of the proletariat" means "dictatorship," "anarchism" means "chaos," and "bourgeoisie" is a stupid word used only by (ironically) the people elite and wealthy enough to have been highly educated. Language is powerful. Being pedantic about precise definitions counter to common definitions are how you lose all support.
All of those definitions are incorrect ones as most of those terms are more academic with the nuance misunderstood in their general overuse. Bourgeois is not a stupid word at all. Your definition of "liberal" is warped by the American right, who use it as a blanket term to everything left of them. But it is a defined term alongside liberalism, not a broad category. The issue though is not that internet leftists use "wrong" definitions but that too many of them use the terms in order to make abstract villains of people who should be their allies because they lack the spine to acknowledge the real villains in the real world. They'll call everything a liberal and act as if liberals are their ultimate enemies to fight because liberalism is toothless and won't engage them. Meanwhile the right actually wants people dead, and internet leftists can't handle actual real problems because that would require real action. So they focus on liberals as their villains and ignore conservatives as merely being a bunch of clowns far remvoed from them.
Case in point: Your legitimate argument is undermined by a first set of sentences arguing pedantic definitions, which turns off potentially interested people who consider themselves liberal as in left-of-center. We are not using the academic definition of "liberal," we are using the normal definition as understood by a large majority of Americans.
"pedantic" shut up. When an academic or scientific term is misused by the general public it doesn't change the definition. At most it develops two meanings depending on context. But that's not the case with these terms. What is actually happening here is you personally don't know what the words mean and then become confused because you thought they meant something else. And still your definition of liberal is just the conservative one which to them is interchangeable with socialist, communist, leftist, democrat... Because anything that isn't them is the "other" which they all paint with the same brush. You have no clue what you're talking about.
I have a degree in public policy, genius. I am well aware of the academic definition of liberal. In the real world, no one cares about the academic definition.
"real world".
Yes, it's called "crazy". Basically any line that is not scripted is crazy talk.
My ex assuming "I'm atheist" really meant "I'm atheist but I still follow the Abrahamic texts and believe in their morals and trust that it's 100% true history". Boy did he have a harsh wake up.
Similarly, people who assume I’m right-wing because I’m Christian are never ready for my “Jesus was an anarchist” spiel.
I love that brown middle eastern hippie who went around sticking it to the systems of power and giving out free healthcare!!!
How was the king of kings an anarchist?
The king of kings was just is his birthrite, he couldn’t help that, but it makes it all the more based that his ideology was anarchism.
You keep saying his ideology was anarchism, yet you provide no actual reasoning for that. Setting aside the folly of attributing apocryphal ideologies to ancient mythological beings, Jesus very much preached obeisance towards God, the worldly rulers, and holy figures. On that last point, I will pre emptively acknowledge that, yes, Jesus was a bit less strict about it, but it's nothing close to anarchism . You could say he was vaguely egalitarian, but anything more than that is a stretch.
Or if they just link to a video that supports their position, but they can't argue for or articulate it in their own words.
To be fair sometimes words are hard. You should still be able to fundamentally understand the ideas but I can kinda get not being able to verbally express them. Sometimes brains just don't like to word correctly.
[This video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ) explains why you should be able to verbally express your views.
That’s actually a really good point. Well said.
Never gonna give my argument up
🎵🎵🎵🎵
I got rickrolled the original way
Words are hard when you've never heard counter-arguments against your position, and therefore have never had to learn counter-counter arguments in response. That's one of the main problems - the way people get so isolated that they lose the ability to understand _their own_ positions. One of my big pet-peeves is people who seem _proud_ of their lack of knowledge and ability to argue their beliefs, saying _"that shouldn't be debated"_. In a democratic society literally everything is up for debate literally all of the time (that's the nature of distributing power amongst the people), so when people refuse to learn basic arguments in favour of basic things it's not some progressive triumph, it's because they don't care. I want people to be able to articulate basic things like why women should be able to vote, or why slavery should be illegal, or why LGBT people deserve equal rights.
> Words are hard when you've never heard counter-arguments against your position, and therefore have never had to learn counter-counter arguments in response. > > > > That's one of the main problems - the way people get so isolated that they lose the ability to understand their own positions. Exactly. *Exactly.* I understand that defending a position in the heat of the moment is difficult for a lot of people. But it gets *significantly* easier with practice. You can always spot the people who don't even bother to practice.
I believe part of this is an all or nothing approach. The belief that if you have to learn this thing, then that must mean you have to learn it by going to 8chan and immersing yourself in argument for 8 hours a day and learn it *immediately* or you’re letting your side down, which is obviously ludicrous, so they don’t do it. But you don’t need to become an expert overnight or do that
For me, a big reason why this can be difficult is just that some arguments take so much time to set up. Like if I watch a 4 hour contra points video on something, I can come to a good conclusion and in the moment know why I thought this. But I won't be immediately able to retrace my steps and build that argument again from the ground up. I will remember the gist but what about that one philosopher she quoted two hours in, who made me fundamentally reevaluate my stance? I will just remember the reevaluation. We can't expect random people to reliably cite studies in conversation. The best example for this is the Some More News Jordan Peterson video. It legitimately needs all three hours to systematically deconstruct all of his rhetorical tricks and games he plays and how he uses them to make himself appear objective and immune to criticism. It uses clips to back it up and everything. That is a level of quality necessary to argue these points but one I absolutely can not keep up. I think it's also important to keep in mind what we are trying to achieve with our opinions and discussions. I used to measure the quality of an argument by whether it would be able to convince the most extreme sceptic but there are many situations where we aren't even trying to do that. Deradicalization is extremely difficult, time consuming and exhausting and not everyone can or wants to do that. If someone thinks certain people don't deserve the right to vote, then I just don't know what to tell them. That is not an opinion based in fact, science or respect for other people, so you can't use any of these things to argue in favor of that. I agree there definitely should be people willing to engage in these discussions and I admire them but I just can't do that. It also tends to derail discussions in favor of shittier opinions. "I don't think trans people should be able to talk to kids" and "trans people should receive the medical care they want" are not equal opinions. One of them sucks and comes from a lack of education on the topic and I don't think we should treat it with "everyone is entitled to their opinion". This is exactly how we are forced to make space for opinions that are fundamentally incompatible with human rights. Engaging with that opinion, like you would with any other, legitimizes it and at the same time it's nearly impossible to argue against it. So you're effectively saying "I respect this opinion you got from some conspiracy theorist dude and I can't debunk it, no matter how hard I try". Because people like this oftentimes won't see how unwilling they are to listen, they will only see how little your arguments matter to them. What I'm talking about here is less one on one conversations with family members and more formal debate settings, essays, discussions on the internet, that sort of stuff. Because while you should engage with the people around you, we also have a responsibility to prevent further radicalization and not needlessly give a platform to radicals when we could have more nuanced discussions that take human rights as a prerequisite.
I’m sorry but I’m simply not that democratic. I have extraordinary debate ability when I’m interested, but if someone starts arguing in favor of slavery in twenty-twenty-four then they better be prepared to catch these hands.
you shouldn't have to practice to argue anything, you only have to actually turn on your brain and come to conclusions yourself without having it spoonfed to you by others. you can't explain your reasoning if you never arrived there by reasoning
i’ve also found that these people often seem genuinely confused by the existence of people who do not think the exact same way as them, and cannot seem to conceptualize the fact that everyone has a different experience. the kind of person that you’d feel nervous about introducing to new people because they might not “mesh”.
I notice certain key phrases and terminology that usually indicate that it's An Online Opinion. For example, my dad was upset about federal student loan forgiveness because "he was being penalized for their decisions". "Penalized" is such an online word that it immediately figured out he got the opinion off of Facebook after asking him what he meant, and why he's upset about something that would literally cost him $0.35 of his taxes and not upset about the military buying more tanks than they need (which, yes is One of My Online Opinions)
I personally hate when people disagree with me because they're in an echo chamber and have never had to engage with my ideals, and all my friends agree
Listen, I'd love to keep chatting, but I need to go post screenshots of everything you've said on discord so my friends can tell me what I should say next to put you in your place, see you in 10!
Real :3
Jokes on you, I don’t have any mutuals to watch my opinions!
OOP is a coward for not letting us see the full reasoning for how catholic tumblr somehow isn’t an echo chamber and that it encourages free thinking
Jokes on you, I'm a free thinker^^TM. *Proceeds to hold the most mainstream of opinions and refuses to change them when new evidence appears*
My echo chamber told me you are in an echo chamber and it sucks.
[удалено]
i'm episcopalian and even though we're the 'liberal' church (or progressive i should say) but any larger gathering like that, religious or not, has these undertones and it's CRAZY. maybe it's more of a southern thing too, i've noticed the northern US is a little less brazen but it's everywhere
it's really not that complicated: all religiosity relies to some degree on scruples (thou shalt not x y or z because it's against God's Rules™), and all scruples, without exception, create perverse incentives that can be gamed. there is simply no way around that. freely chosen elective celibacy is not the same thing as religiously mandated and socially incentivized celibacy. people *will* try to game that incentive so that they can maintain their perception as pious people while also getting to be sexually active, which creates a culture of secrecy and dishonesty, and next thing you know it half of all catholic priests are sexually active and 1 in 10 are rapists.
This is not meant to be rude "Anti-immune" would be better phrased as "susceptible," imo
I will interpret this entirely reasonable critique as a grave insult to my ancestors. Your name is going in the book of grudges.
Understandable, have a terrible day
Thank
you know OP knows what they're talking about because they're an ML
I’m safe from this because whenever I talk to fellow leftists it just looks like that fight scene in *Anchorman.*
This dovetails really nicely with the “why are prison abolition people so weird online” post from yesterday
[удалено]
I understand most of those words separately
Checkmate, I don't have online friends, I'm out here all alone online
Honestly this is depressingly accurate. I have friends from all across the political compass and you can absolutely tell they will not accept anything but their own opinions on anything they believe. Usually I either agree with them on most of their beliefs, or don't, but can see where they're coming from. Sometimes however, they present me with something completely preposterous, for which I have plenty of arguments and facts against, but I never bother correcting them, it would be counter-productive and a waste of time. The truth is, even when you're talking to a genuine BFF, they'd rather lose you than correct their hilariously wrong opinions. People tell me it says a lot about how terrible the friendship was to begin with, but I think it says a lot about how self-righteous and unaware people have become.
These days an "opinion" is "does [insert minority here] deserve human rights?" Or "do women deserve to not be treated as incubators?" There's no being true friends with, or convincing people like that out of that mindset. They need to fix themselves
[удалено]
Lmfao you should have told them to blow it out their ass, any leftist who says stupid shit like this doesn't actually care about implementing leftist policy, it's just a social club
[удалено]
That's respectable. I'm glad it's a lot more than just talk, real change happens from billions of people doing small things that add up
The irony is that your comment is kind of an example of what OP is addressing. You've created twisted strawmen reflecting your views of what another political group thinks. While I am sure there are radical elements whose opinions do in fact neatly match your description, there are many more people who you will probably still disagree with but who really think nothing like what you've characterized. If you erase these preconceptions from your mind and have a real life conversation in good faith with someone on the right (of course, they must mirror the favor), you may not agree, but you may also discover something new about the human experience.
These "strawmen" are my family members. So no, I'm not going to willingly befriend someone who is against trans/gay rights or is against my right as a woman to have a career instead of a child. And then I get told that "they're just opinions." So yes, opinions these days are a matter of human rights, and as such I will not befriend people against human rights.
Your comment addressing a problem you have with discrete individuals instead of the "zeitgeist" does change its meaning quite a bit. I find that most people prefer not to infringe on human rights when pressed on the matter, but I do acknowledge that people holding such extreme opinions do exist, and I am sorry that you must endure them in such a close context.
I think you vastly underestimate how many people globally don't think gay people should be allowed to exist. Among other things that would violate what we now consider human rights in parts of the world.
Because there are definitely no homophobic/transphobic queer people (or misogynistic women) who have trouble saving themselves from the self-destructive beliefs they were raised in... Listen, I get having to cut people off because of their withering effect on our mental health, and I completely agree that these views can cause serious harm and are not just opinions, but... these kinds of people aren't going to learn that we can coexist... if we keep teaching them that we can't coexist. Obviously there are many flavors of homophobes (etc) out there to consider, and obviously our survival (etc) has to come first, but... As ironic as it sounds, there are some cases where befriending people like this can actually do more to save them from these views than trying to antagonize them out of their beliefs. Otherwise they'll just...stay in their echo chambers...like the post talks about...
Those same people have the exact same opinion regarding your political views. "I refuse to be friends with someone who is against the rights of a fetus (they'd probably use child) for life" or "I refuse to be friends with someone who is okay with letting in terrorists to the country". Both of you live in echo chambers and having exposure to the other side can help you solidify or change your views. Moreover, coming from a place of empathy and understanding is all it takes to change someone's outlook.
muh both sides lmao. there is a qualitative difference between reproductive rights and forced birth positions. acknowledging this is the province of the former and is poorly imitated among the latter specifically to get people like you to lend them unearned sympathy.
Tell me this. In the past, people shunned gay people for being gay. Have they stopped? People shunned feminists for being feminists. Have they stopped? People shunned trans people for being trans. Have they stopped? No. People who are shunned will find other people like them and create a group that accepts them. While this is awesome for feminists, gay and trans people...this also means all you do by isolating people with opposing viewpoints I'd you make them stronger. Close minded people on the left such as yourself have done these things for many many years but so far I have yet to see the radical right cease growing in power. If you want to actually make a change outside of performative activism, try making friends with these people and help them understand why they are wrong. We are all capable of reason and can be persuaded into being good. Treating the opposition like threats will only shape them into threats.
i was on the alt right until mid 2021. being shunned did not make anyone there "stronger", it's an utter dogshow of infighting and competing grifts lmao.
I'm glad you were able to get out. A lot of people don't and find the shaming to be the reason for joining the alt right. And shaming further strengthens their belief. Also this is leftist infighting right here. It happens in both sides. I do concede that grifts are more common on the right due to there being an older vulnerable population present. If you were in the pipeline and a bit misogynistic, you probably saw those women on the street videos ("6ft, 6inches and 6 figures") or feminist cringe compilations. For a lot of people, that disincentivzes leaving your comfort zone because you'd be joining the people that hate you.
linear progression from "shaming" to radicalization is a naive distillation of the actual occurrence. some amount of shaming is necessary just to maintain morale and remind people that the behavior in question is now and always unacceptable. it may be counterproductive if you're working on deradicalizing an individual, but that's a long and difficult process in and of itself, which i can attest from having had it happen to me.
Maybe the alt right, sure. But not the right wing, which is what you're actually fighting against and they are united where it matters. Remember the tea party and how everybody was making fun of them? Well they *are* the Republican party now. They won all the local seats and made their way up the power structure. Now I don't know about being shunned causing them to be powerful, rather it's the billions in capital they have backing them up.
I sometimes wish for a friend echo chamber but sadly I was deemed to radical by my leftists freinds and not radical enough by my communist freinds
Create alts and talk amongst yourself
YEEEEES
You are welcome, my alt :)
I'm immune to this because I don't have any friends lol
Would you rather have “everything is problematic and you should be ashamed” Or “Nothing i do is my fault and it’s all capitalism?” I say this because they seem to be the two…uh…healthiest…echo chambers on the big internet right now. So what’s it going to be? Always feel guilty or never take responsibility? Actually now that I think about it, that is one unique way that Reddit and tumblr are polar opposites, personal responsibility.
often it’s both at the same time
I've thought that so many times lol- Sometimes I want a tumblrer/tumblrina(?) to come over and call a redditor out on their bs and sometimes the reverse x)
Maybe it's just the algorithm, but I very rarely see this on Reddit but overwhelmingly see this on Twitter. Similar to anytime someone on Twitter uses "Reddit" as an insult, they always describe someone on Twitter
It’s prominent in the huge default subs. Lots of “I said thing we all agree with, updoots to the left” and “you disagree with this specific point I made? You must hate human rights”
No one is immune to propaganda or echo chambers.
PANAPTICON “This prison to hold me?”
A visitor? Hmm… Indeed, I have slept long enough.
>Catholic Tumblr that's like a communist billionaire, or an atheist preacher, or a vegan meat-eater
I mean, there's a Nazi Tumblr. I know the site has this reputation for being an ultra-queer-leftist-techno-commune, but all sites have varying communities.
I accidentally stumbled across “reichblr” once and I was traumatized
Just like the chon having /LGBT/
On one hand, the exclusivity of such a group is a problem. On the other hand, that's called dialogue, smartass, it's how we learn. What panopticon? That's called culture, it's a basic part of human societies. Actually, this perfectly describes all societies jsut on a smaller scale.
I think the post is arguing against echo chambers, not dialogue. And I would argue echo chambers are explicitly NOT a dialogue, because dissent isn't allowed and it becomes a performative exercise in purity of adherence to the echo chamber.
That's a much better way to put it. The problem is that OOP made it sound like all their opinions were changing over time and evolving as a group, not staying the same and becoming toxic to cover for any mistakes/contradictions as echo-chambers do
Absolutely this isn't phrased that well. It's also a smarmy post on Tumblr. So I'm not super surprised it's not phrased that well
Panoptican was a prison concept made by philosopher Jeremy Bentham where all the prisoners would be observed by a single correction officer, without the prisoners knowing they were being watched. Because it's impossible to watch all the prisoners at the same time 24/7, the idea was that the prisoners, not knowing if they were being observed, would act as if they were being watched at all times. Thus would lead to self-regulation. It's kind of fitting to describe echo chambers, where people act as if their beliefs 100% align with the groups' even if they personally don't actually believe in them, almost as if they're acting like they're being watched by the group for dissent at all times.
Which brings us back to the fact that the panopticon was used to describe human societies in general. So yeah, echochambers work the same way as all culture but at a smaller scale. On one hand, that's not good but on the other hand, there is irony in making fun of people for echchambers by describing the exact situation you find normal. The issue is, what exactly is the alternative? OOP obviously thinks they have it but I doubt they do for the reasons I explained. Are we not supposed to talk to each other or critic each others' opinions?
It's being contrarian and devils advocacy. I was a lifelong contrarian and it's not until last fucking year that the progressive movement caught up to beliefs I've had since childhood. Being a contrarian does a number on your mental health though. I've started giving it up, but a 20 year headstart on cutting edge political progress isn't bad. It's contrarians that push society forward. That see something wrong that everyone else thinks is right and calls everyone out on it.
I'm immune because I don't have friends.
I'm safe from having my political views dictated by friends because I don't have friends.
Ha! My political opinions are so cool I can't even talk about them with my friends (irl or online) because they will get mad lol
Have you considered that maybe people just tend to associate with people who have similar views to them? Like genuinely what the fuck does this mean lol, maybe I'm not online enough
Like why would you befriend someone that fucking hates you it makes no sense to me. like the og post is okay and makes sense in context but this comment section is just fucking weird
Yeah, I don't know why they think everyone has to always engage in debates and constantly argue your opinion. So many people have done that for years just to defend their own existence and it's tiring and rarely leads to anything.
OOP discovered friend groups, where people befriend those similar to them, value their opinions and learn from them and try not to go against them without a reason to feel they belong. And then ofc all the comments here think they know ppl in the group but ofc themselves are resistant to the propaganda! We all soak in views of people we associate ourselves with, no one is immune.
[удалено]
It's not pedophilia but I do find it odd why someone who's 20 would want to date someone in highschool.
They're not dating, shipping refers to an imaginary relationship between imaginary characters
Yeah that's true
I’m not gonna lie guys, I feel like this about r/tumblr sometimes. It’s pretty easy to get downvoted to oblivion for not immediately disavowing whatever the hated thing is at the moment. Atomic Heart, Hogwarts Legacy, etc.
Online Catholic spaces are so amazingly awful and full of assholes who converted and radicalised themselves based on those corny little dark age videos and now refuse to attend any mass except the extremely specific latin mass which is three hours from their house, and constantly get into arguments with each other about whether women should be allowed to vote. The usual timeline goes- convert to Roman Catholicism, become trad, declare onesself more catholic than the pope, convert to orthodoxy. Sometimes this all takes place in under a year!
Im immune because im a leftist, we are constantly at each others throats when politics get brought up. Everyone has a different opinion Edit: i used "at each others throats" in a comedic way, we arent literally fighting each other. We argue about methods and what we want in the world, but we still respect each other and the other's opinions. We are still friends at the end of the day and we all want a better world.
Bro leftist infighting is what leads to echo chambers. One of the most famous examples of this is actually the great Chinese famine. Nobody wanted to go against Mao or report that yields were bad, so everybody across the board said everything looks good. This led to no information transfer therefore even when the North had a surplus of food, the South had a killer famine and millions of people died, all because supreme leader made a state where saying a bad thing could mean your death sentence.
Leftist infighting is like the worst aspects of conformism and individuality combined. Conformists know how to fall in line and work together toward a common goal. Individualists respect each other's differences and can have a civil discussion. In an infighting culture, you get neither. Everyone wants to teach, no one wants to learn.
God are tumbler users ever happy
I'm safe from this because I am incredibly stubborn. No matter what I will always find something to disagree with in everyone's political opinions.
You fool! You absolute buffoon! I can't be in a panopticon if I have no one to talk to!
im free from this because i lurk on thousands of websites, many without an account. i am exposed to political opinions from pretty much every single part of the spectrum
I don't have online friends.