I'll comment more later when I get near a computer rather than being on a cell phone, but I wanted you to know how wonderful this piece is. It is thoughtful and well written both.
So rather than make a long comment, I'm going to ask, do you think that (A) the online world took an already slightly polarized but still civil society and by creating a system of anonymity where vitriol and uncivil discourse are tolerated or even encouraged makes people expect that IRL we can treat each other that way, or (B) that lack of civility already existed beneath the surface, so something that could have allowed for greatly expanded minds and experiences was twisted it into a narrow world of bubbles and near hatred for anyone who disagrees with you? It's a chicken and egg argument.
Frankly, almost all of my response to Our Kind Host would largely take this form: *nods vigorously* And I like "Cultural Orphan" - it feels like it's more than just political. Maybe it's not really political at all. I don't know for sure but I am reviewing designs for _Island of Misfit Toys_ t-shirts with that theme in mind as we speak.
So, to quickly address Lillia's question, I kinda already have an answer. Or at least an explanation. No - more a long observation. I think it is (A) with a caveat: Society was Civil but, importantly, it was improving. I've surely shared how my generation of many of us Old White Guys were raised to literally apply Dr. King's "content of their character" test. We were willing and it was better. You could see it happening. It kinda started not mattering. Or, if it did, we were more sensible - more civil, as NFT notes - when we didn't fully agree. AND things were getting better. Race is fading and there are more Caramel Cream-colored people than ever. We're either more mixed or almost everyone now qualifies for the One Drop Rule.
I'm using race as a backdrop but I see the same in all sorts of social discourse.
** QUOTE BREAK **
“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
- Ronald Reagan
"Republicans by tennis shoes, too."
- Michael Jordan
** END BREAK **
We used to think 80% was enough. Hell, I'd think 50% would be at least favorable. And, in any case, we can engage in all sorts of productive, rewarding relationships - not just commerce - with people with whom we are diametrically opposed on many issues. We just don't. Why?
Politics has always been dirty. When Korg (c 70,000 BC) was running for Smilodon Catcher, surely he and his opponent, whose name is lost to pre-history, engaged in all manner of electoral skullduggery from Intimidation to Propaganda to figurative and literal Ballot Box Stuffing. The Other Guy has always at war with Pure Good People.
Enter the 2012 reelection campaign of Barrack Obama.
Without relitigating the entire election, BHO and his Team of Tech Young Hip Tech Geniuses, combined Facebook with some emergent belief that Obama had been subjected to all manner of racism in his lifetime - when, in fact, his skin tone and his tone of voice and his casual way with people and his intelligence made him a celebrity-in-training long before he got to Harvard Law School; if anything it made him even _more_ appealing, not less - and it became a thing to celebrate his blackness.
But that's not the thing. Not yet. This is how it started.
I should have put that in quotes. Dry humor doesn't translate well on paper, I've found. I wanted to get your opinion and for you to know NotFromTexas had his own substack and it's well worth interacting with.
LOL, nah. I got it. And I did try to find HERE the first day he left that comment on your Substack but it didn't turn up that day. So thank you for this link.
It is most definitely worth interacting with. Chatting with You People regularly has been some of the best fun I can have.
I was also swept up a bit. Being orphaned, as you say, I don't have any party loyalties and in 2008 voted for Ron Paul in the Primary (in MD, the Repub Cmte often opens primaries to all voters; there are no rules preventing this anywhere but Rs need all the help they can get in Midnight Blue Maryland) and... Obama in the General. I was never pro-Obama but was definitely anti-McCain. So I was, at least, not a BHO hater. Yet.
Rolling up to the 2012 Election, a couple of big events changed the tide for me. One was John Roberts making Obamacare "Constitutional." It isn't and never was but it's always going to be the Biggest Blue Ribbon in Barry's Trophy Room.
The other: "Trayvon could've been my son."
THIS. Broke. Everything.
Since the late 60s, race relations had improved gradually, with setbacks tending to be toward Jews (Freddie's Fashion Mart) or Koreans (surprisingly, in the aftermath of Rodney King; someone had to pay!) but not typically openly focused on blacks. We were getting better. Scotty became Mr. Huxtable. Arnold became Mr. Miyagi. Cheech became Joe. And it's not even clear that their race was any sort of factor in any of their before-characters (except that Cheech needed to be from East LA and I guess Arnold had to be Chinese *ponders*) - at the very least, they were not lesser or unliked because of their race. It felt to me, a nerdy jock-wanabee teen from the suburbs where my best HS friend was black as was my date to my Senior Homecoming Dance. It didn't matter. I think it might even have improved my stature... (only 5'6" in those days, not all big and strapping and 5'9" like I am now)
My point is (yes, sorry; Incoming) that these positions, (A) and (B), aren't/weren't just static in time.
Yes, (A)-ish. We _were_ still sorting things out but so very much less so than in, say, 1972.
There's a flow in a Civil Society that pretty much always flows toward Better. If there are setbacks, they're usually local and got sorted out (or maybe went underground; that's still in this mess of a thought somewhere) with little fanfare. Things just kept always flowing toward Better.
We were creating all sorts of avenues for civil disagreement. We could talk about things the bad things kept getting better. I mean, even a black guy could be The Prez. Glass Celings? Racism - be gone with you! Colorblind! Content of your character!
Obama's Team recognized its power and reach and it flipped paradigm quickly.
I don't think we were polarized and then tech just tugged at the seams until things popped out. I think we were pretty neutral, tending toward embracing of others different than us, and that technology in the hands of a handful of bad but powerful, wealthy, authoritarian to completely create discord ** TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ANONYMINITY to push unprincipled people to drawing lines in the sand from near-whole cloth. They used human nature to turn us against one another.
I should note that this doesn't help Democrats more than Republicans. It helps Collectivists more than Those of Us Who Just Wish to be Left Alone. It helps The Connected and ignores We the Little People. And Twitter is just the best current tool for keeping the froth all whipped up.
I wish I was writing this on the weekend but, dag. I really have thoughts and no doubt all the unpleasantness over at That Substack That Shall Be Nameless (TSTSBN, if you'll allow it) pulled this scab.
You two are both writing. Good writing. Duck is as well. I think a lot of stuff but I've never put it down thoughtfully. I just make smart-ass replies to good comments like the kind you guys tend to share.
I need to think about writing. If only I knew someone with some experience editing who wasn't already writing their own good stuff.
Cynic that I am, I believe that more often than not, when left to own devices, our true natures skew toward the darker side, and are lurking much closer to the surface than we realize. Whether it's flipping off the driver who almost hit you cutting into your lane, taking the open parking spot (even when you know someone was there before you, waiting for it), or telling the telemarketer where to go after you realize that you could have just let it go to voicemail, or the guy who decides he's had enough, pulls the other driver from his car and beats him to a bloody pulp. The latter is an example of someone who has completely yielded to his demons – we all have our own, and they are always close by.
That being said, for most of us, there's something that keeps us from being total douchebags when interacting person-to-person – at least, there was when I was growing up. My hometown wasn't Mayberry, RFD-small, but it wasn't a large metropolis. It WAS small enough that if I misbehaved, someone who knew my folks likely saw it, and they knew about it before I got home – so that "threat" tended to keep me honest, at least until my late teens.
I think it's the removal of that barrier that came about via social media. Far too many of us found we could indulge our darker impulses with little or no consequence.
I'll comment more later when I get near a computer rather than being on a cell phone, but I wanted you to know how wonderful this piece is. It is thoughtful and well written both.
Thank you, so very much!
So rather than make a long comment, I'm going to ask, do you think that (A) the online world took an already slightly polarized but still civil society and by creating a system of anonymity where vitriol and uncivil discourse are tolerated or even encouraged makes people expect that IRL we can treat each other that way, or (B) that lack of civility already existed beneath the surface, so something that could have allowed for greatly expanded minds and experiences was twisted it into a narrow world of bubbles and near hatred for anyone who disagrees with you? It's a chicken and egg argument.
Frankly, almost all of my response to Our Kind Host would largely take this form: *nods vigorously* And I like "Cultural Orphan" - it feels like it's more than just political. Maybe it's not really political at all. I don't know for sure but I am reviewing designs for _Island of Misfit Toys_ t-shirts with that theme in mind as we speak.
So, to quickly address Lillia's question, I kinda already have an answer. Or at least an explanation. No - more a long observation. I think it is (A) with a caveat: Society was Civil but, importantly, it was improving. I've surely shared how my generation of many of us Old White Guys were raised to literally apply Dr. King's "content of their character" test. We were willing and it was better. You could see it happening. It kinda started not mattering. Or, if it did, we were more sensible - more civil, as NFT notes - when we didn't fully agree. AND things were getting better. Race is fading and there are more Caramel Cream-colored people than ever. We're either more mixed or almost everyone now qualifies for the One Drop Rule.
I'm using race as a backdrop but I see the same in all sorts of social discourse.
** QUOTE BREAK **
“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
- Ronald Reagan
"Republicans by tennis shoes, too."
- Michael Jordan
** END BREAK **
We used to think 80% was enough. Hell, I'd think 50% would be at least favorable. And, in any case, we can engage in all sorts of productive, rewarding relationships - not just commerce - with people with whom we are diametrically opposed on many issues. We just don't. Why?
...
Politics has always been dirty. When Korg (c 70,000 BC) was running for Smilodon Catcher, surely he and his opponent, whose name is lost to pre-history, engaged in all manner of electoral skullduggery from Intimidation to Propaganda to figurative and literal Ballot Box Stuffing. The Other Guy has always at war with Pure Good People.
Enter the 2012 reelection campaign of Barrack Obama.
Without relitigating the entire election, BHO and his Team of Tech Young Hip Tech Geniuses, combined Facebook with some emergent belief that Obama had been subjected to all manner of racism in his lifetime - when, in fact, his skin tone and his tone of voice and his casual way with people and his intelligence made him a celebrity-in-training long before he got to Harvard Law School; if anything it made him even _more_ appealing, not less - and it became a thing to celebrate his blackness.
But that's not the thing. Not yet. This is how it started.
- At work but have more to say [as if you care!]
...
Well, I care. That's why I drug you here. Interesting points. Now I have something to think about and distract me from my own work.
https://y.yarn.co/d87245fb-8a5c-4b82-becd-a38519ca1089_text.gif
We don't disagree much (but if we did, I'll betcha it would be civil!) but _drug_ connotes some sort of "against my will" flavor.
I should have put that in quotes. Dry humor doesn't translate well on paper, I've found. I wanted to get your opinion and for you to know NotFromTexas had his own substack and it's well worth interacting with.
LOL, nah. I got it. And I did try to find HERE the first day he left that comment on your Substack but it didn't turn up that day. So thank you for this link.
It is most definitely worth interacting with. Chatting with You People regularly has been some of the best fun I can have.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-son-of-a-bitch-im-in
And thank you for thinking to include me.
I was also swept up a bit. Being orphaned, as you say, I don't have any party loyalties and in 2008 voted for Ron Paul in the Primary (in MD, the Repub Cmte often opens primaries to all voters; there are no rules preventing this anywhere but Rs need all the help they can get in Midnight Blue Maryland) and... Obama in the General. I was never pro-Obama but was definitely anti-McCain. So I was, at least, not a BHO hater. Yet.
Rolling up to the 2012 Election, a couple of big events changed the tide for me. One was John Roberts making Obamacare "Constitutional." It isn't and never was but it's always going to be the Biggest Blue Ribbon in Barry's Trophy Room.
The other: "Trayvon could've been my son."
THIS. Broke. Everything.
Since the late 60s, race relations had improved gradually, with setbacks tending to be toward Jews (Freddie's Fashion Mart) or Koreans (surprisingly, in the aftermath of Rodney King; someone had to pay!) but not typically openly focused on blacks. We were getting better. Scotty became Mr. Huxtable. Arnold became Mr. Miyagi. Cheech became Joe. And it's not even clear that their race was any sort of factor in any of their before-characters (except that Cheech needed to be from East LA and I guess Arnold had to be Chinese *ponders*) - at the very least, they were not lesser or unliked because of their race. It felt to me, a nerdy jock-wanabee teen from the suburbs where my best HS friend was black as was my date to my Senior Homecoming Dance. It didn't matter. I think it might even have improved my stature... (only 5'6" in those days, not all big and strapping and 5'9" like I am now)
I digress.
My point is (yes, sorry; Incoming) that these positions, (A) and (B), aren't/weren't just static in time.
Yes, (A)-ish. We _were_ still sorting things out but so very much less so than in, say, 1972.
There's a flow in a Civil Society that pretty much always flows toward Better. If there are setbacks, they're usually local and got sorted out (or maybe went underground; that's still in this mess of a thought somewhere) with little fanfare. Things just kept always flowing toward Better.
We were creating all sorts of avenues for civil disagreement. We could talk about things the bad things kept getting better. I mean, even a black guy could be The Prez. Glass Celings? Racism - be gone with you! Colorblind! Content of your character!
Then Trayvon.
We went from "Even YOU can be Prez!" to "Y'all been holdin' us down all along" in a blink. Us and Them.
Technology did this. This narrative was especially effective to young people, even pre-voters. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/built-to-win-deep-inside-obamas-campaign-tech/ .
Obama's Team recognized its power and reach and it flipped paradigm quickly.
I don't think we were polarized and then tech just tugged at the seams until things popped out. I think we were pretty neutral, tending toward embracing of others different than us, and that technology in the hands of a handful of bad but powerful, wealthy, authoritarian to completely create discord ** TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ANONYMINITY to push unprincipled people to drawing lines in the sand from near-whole cloth. They used human nature to turn us against one another.
I should note that this doesn't help Democrats more than Republicans. It helps Collectivists more than Those of Us Who Just Wish to be Left Alone. It helps The Connected and ignores We the Little People. And Twitter is just the best current tool for keeping the froth all whipped up.
I wish I was writing this on the weekend but, dag. I really have thoughts and no doubt all the unpleasantness over at That Substack That Shall Be Nameless (TSTSBN, if you'll allow it) pulled this scab.
You two are both writing. Good writing. Duck is as well. I think a lot of stuff but I've never put it down thoughtfully. I just make smart-ass replies to good comments like the kind you guys tend to share.
I need to think about writing. If only I knew someone with some experience editing who wasn't already writing their own good stuff.
*waves* Hi, Lil!
Excellent questions!
I'm inclined to slightly favour B.
Cynic that I am, I believe that more often than not, when left to own devices, our true natures skew toward the darker side, and are lurking much closer to the surface than we realize. Whether it's flipping off the driver who almost hit you cutting into your lane, taking the open parking spot (even when you know someone was there before you, waiting for it), or telling the telemarketer where to go after you realize that you could have just let it go to voicemail, or the guy who decides he's had enough, pulls the other driver from his car and beats him to a bloody pulp. The latter is an example of someone who has completely yielded to his demons – we all have our own, and they are always close by.
That being said, for most of us, there's something that keeps us from being total douchebags when interacting person-to-person – at least, there was when I was growing up. My hometown wasn't Mayberry, RFD-small, but it wasn't a large metropolis. It WAS small enough that if I misbehaved, someone who knew my folks likely saw it, and they knew about it before I got home – so that "threat" tended to keep me honest, at least until my late teens.
I think it's the removal of that barrier that came about via social media. Far too many of us found we could indulge our darker impulses with little or no consequence.
"Far too many of us found we could indulge our darker impulses with little or no consequence."
This I agree with completely, especially with anonymity. At least when you put your name on a letter to the editor, you had to face your neighbors.
Yep – and the editorial staff at the local paper would not print – hell, they wouldn't even accept – anonymous letters.
You HAD to own your words. Sadly, that is an old-time, truly professional journalistic standard that is no longer upheld.
This is fantastic and, like, Lil, I also will respond more thoroughly when I'm at a keyboard.
I'm glad to have a place to find you, NFT!
https://youtu.be/dzOHq5WbQ8k
And... like... Lil...
"Welcome to. The. Christopher Walken. School. Of Speaking."
*Oxford has entered the chat*
*waves* Hi, unTex!
Right back atcha, Guy!
My apologies for only now being able to respond, but the day job always takes precedence, and it's annual self-evaluation time, and it is a bitch.
It's over, now, though!
All Work and No Beer makes Johnny a Dull Boy.
Or something.