Is everyone angry? Toxic Outrage Culture is consuming society.

[Brihaha]

I came across this article this morning and feel it's a worthy topic for discussion. In some ways it does seem like everyone is angry nowadays. In reading the story it talks about the prevalence of social media worldwide. And how people like to be included in society.

Social media heightens emotions and strengthens convictions, which may compel us to join in the negative discourse. We don't see the damage we do as anonymous online voices. We can't see the hurt we might inflict on others. They have dubbed our "joining the crowd" of criticism "emotional contagion".

We are all seemingly affected by this emotional contagion online. It appears that the more we are exposed to one-sided negative discourse the less inclined we are to resist listening to alternative viewpoints. This "groupthink" phenomenon has likely been seen by most people online, especially those consumers using social media.

It even appears that algorithms used by social media might be skewed to shape the nature of discourse to further fuel the flames of negativity. Which makes sense because these companies are trying to profit from their platforms. And by appealing to the basest of human emotions sadly increases their profits.

But we humans have the capability to eschew the hate and outrage that is perpetuated on social media. We have the capacity but often we don't have the strength of will to avoid immersing ourselves in this culture of outrage. I have no agenda with this thread but a singular interest in bringing awareness and discussion about the pros and cons of social media on our society.

Is Everyone Angry? Toxic 'Outrage Culture' Consuming Society Like Never Before

“Outrage culture” is pervasive in the digital age. It refers to our collective tendency to react, often with intense negativity, to developments around us.

studyfinds.org

 

[BCP1928]

I came across this article this morning and feel it's a worthy topic for discussion. In some ways it does seem like everyone is angry nowadays. In reading the story it talks about the prevalence of social media worldwide. And how people like to be included in society.

Social media heightens emotions and strengthens convictions, which may compel us to join in the negative discourse. We don't see the damage we do as anonymous online voices. We can't see the hurt we might inflict on others. They have dubbed our "joining the crowd" of criticism "emotional contagion".

We are all seemingly affected by this emotional contagion online. It appears that the more we are exposed to one-sided negative discourse the less inclined we are to resist listening to alternative viewpoints. This "groupthink" phenomenon has likely been seen by most people online, especially those consumers using social media.

It even appears that algorithms used by social media might be skewed to shape the nature of discourse to further fuel the flames of negativity. Which makes sense because these companies are trying to profit from their platforms. And by appealing to the basest of human emotions sadly increases their profits.

But we humans have the capability to eschew the hate and outrage that is perpetuated on social media. We have the capacity but often we don't have the strength of will to avoid immersing ourselves in this culture of outrage. I have no agenda with this thread but a singular interest in bringing awareness and discussion about the pros and cons of social media on our society.

Is Everyone Angry? Toxic 'Outrage Culture' Consuming Society Like Never Before

“Outrage culture” is pervasive in the digital age. It refers to our collective tendency to react, often with intense negativity, to developments around us.

studyfinds.org

The problem is that the toxic issues are all surrogate issues, thus unbounded by reality. The working class is not getting a big enough piece of the pie and are discontented. Their discontent must be channeled away from this reality and towards the abstract,

 

[Larniavc]

It appears that the more we are exposed to one-sided negative discourse the less inclined we are to resist listening to alternative viewpoints. This "groupthink" phenomenon has likely been seen by most people online, especially those consumers using social media.

I think this is why conspiracy theorists are normally the ones to go crazy eight bonkers with a gun.

They are in a hermetic echo chamber and have no access to challenging information.

 

[Brihaha]

I think this is why conspiracy theorists are normally the ones to go crazy eight bonkers with a gun.

They are in a hermetic echo chamber and have no access to challenging information.

Well, you have a point. Yet often we see the ones who are bullied and oppressed can snap occasionally too. Many want to be included so desperately that they subject themselves to the abuse on social media just to be part of the crowd. And they exacerbate their own anxieties by consuming social media.

Even social media like CF heightens our emotions and stress levels. Some people are not equipped to deal with the repercussions of social media on their well-being. I think it's become an addiction for people. And few would be willing to admit social media has made their lives unmanageable. (First step in many 12 step programs).

 

[Larniavc]

Even social media like CF heightens our emotions and stress levels.

Isn’t that a truth. Some times I have to take a break because reading some posts makes me nauseous.

 

[Brihaha]

The problem is that the toxic issues are all surrogate issues, thus unbounded by reality. The working class is not getting a big enough piece of the pie and are discontented. Their discontent must be channeled away from this reality and towards the abstract,

I agree our discontent should be channeled, but I think we have positive outlets in which to channel our unhappiness. Like voting for example. If one really values reducing the disparity between the elites and working class, one might choose to vote for candidates who prioritize citizens over the concerns of the relatively few elites. We aren't forced to vote for politicians who ignore the working class to placate the rich folk. Many voters do this willingly, whether they fathom the fact or not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I came across this article this morning and feel it's a worthy topic for discussion. In some ways it does seem like everyone is angry nowadays. In reading the story it talks about the prevalence of social media worldwide. And how people like to be included in society.

Social media heightens emotions and strengthens convictions, which may compel us to join in the negative discourse. We don't see the damage we do as anonymous online voices. We can't see the hurt we might inflict on others. They have dubbed our "joining the crowd" of criticism "emotional contagion".

We are all seemingly affected by this emotional contagion online. It appears that the more we are exposed to one-sided negative discourse the less inclined we are to resist listening to alternative viewpoints. This "groupthink" phenomenon has likely been seen by most people online, especially those consumers using social media.

It even appears that algorithms used by social media might be skewed to shape the nature of discourse to further fuel the flames of negativity. Which makes sense because these companies are trying to profit from their platforms. And by appealing to the basest of human emotions sadly increases their profits.

But we humans have the capability to eschew the hate and outrage that is perpetuated on social media. We have the capacity but often we don't have the strength of will to avoid immersing ourselves in this culture of outrage. I have no agenda with this thread but a singular interest in bringing awareness and discussion about the pros and cons of social media on our society.

Is Everyone Angry? Toxic 'Outrage Culture' Consuming Society Like Never Before

“Outrage culture” is pervasive in the digital age. It refers to our collective tendency to react, often with intense negativity, to developments around us.

studyfinds.org

Many times, the resulting outrage is an expression of personal expectations accompanying an acculturation, and sense of certainty, of a particular ideology. Like Marxism or Communism, for instance. Or even, on the other hand, a 'prosperity religion.'

It's painful to encounter a social world that doesn't deliver what is expected ... especially when Reality is other than what we perceive it to be.

 

[Brihaha]

Many times, the resulting outrage is an expression of personal expectations accompanying an acculturation, and sense of certainty, of a particular ideology. Like Marxism or Communism, for instance. Or even, on the other hand, a 'prosperity religion.'

It's painful to encounter a social world that doesn't deliver what is expected ... especially when Reality is other than what we perceive it to be.

I think I agree with you here. My brain isn't at full capacity this morning . Your comments are occasionally challenging to grasp too. I often make things more difficult than they need to be as well. I'm confused why people would expect society to deliver them whatever they want, especially if they aren't willing to alter their perceived reality to match truthful reality. See, I am confusing myself lol. I realize people hate change. We often prefer others to change to conform to our views. Without accounting for the fact that it may be more difficult for others to change too. We are reluctant to compromise or even listen to others, especially opposing views on social media. This obstinance seems to carry over into society in public nowadays. And exacerbating our polarization in America.

We know social media is not the real world, yet many seem to treat it as such. Or maybe social media is simply role-playing for people to showcase their alter egos. And grab attention for themselves. I just joined to stay connected with society during the pandemic. And curiously, I'm still here. I can't explain why.

I'm going to bow out for a while today. I have real life issues that need my attention. I appreciate your reply.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think I agree with you here. My brain isn't at full capacity this morning . Your comments are occasionally challenging to grasp too. I often make things more difficult than they need to be as well. I'm confused why people would expect society to deliver them whatever they want, especially if they aren't willing to alter their perceived reality to match truthful reality. See, I am confusing myself lol. I realize people hate change. We often prefer others to change to conform to our views. Without accounting for the fact that it may be more difficult for others to change too. We are reluctant to compromise or even listen to others, especially opposing views on social media. This obstinance seems to carry over into society in public nowadays. And exacerbating our polarization in America.

We know social media is not the real world, yet many seem to treat it as such. Or maybe social media is simply role-playing for people to showcase their alter egos. And grab attention for themselves. I just joined to stay connected with society during the pandemic. And curiously, I'm still here. I can't explain why.

I'm going to bow out for a while today. I have real life issues that need my attention. I appreciate your reply.

I'm sure your brain isn't being challenged as much as you may feel when reading what I write. I occasionally truncate my prose on purpose, allowing others to read between the lines.

But yes, there are sociological theories which imply that certain rights and values are (or should be) inalienable from the lives of every individual, and if those supposed rights are at some point perceived to be hampered by the actions of others, those who are hampering should then be directly criticized, countered, or even sometimes disposed of.

The complications in what feels like a self-evidence reaction, of course, come when misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and/or social engineering (along with the social media by which they are conveyed) become an intrinsic aspect of the public analysis, turning a proletarian attitude of justice into a movement of delirium and mass psychosis.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think the anger we see in society stems from the fact that never (seemingly more than any recent time I can remember) have the factions been so far part. (obviously you had some pretty contentious times in the 60's...but I'd argue that there's some subtle differences comparing that time to now....and it goes without saying the civil war trumps all in terms of being a contentious time...but I'm more referring to last 40/50 years.)

There have always been "3 camps" (left, moderate, right). Obviously we only really have 2 teams to vote for, but the moderates typically just vote for whoever is just slightly closer to them on the spectrum.

It would seem as if the further two flanks drift apart, the more moderates that end up getting pushed in one direction or the other (to the point where they're no longer in the moderate zone) based on whichever side they see as being more "out there" than the other.

Name just about any hot button topic (guns, environment, lgbt issues, abortion, immigration, etc...) and you'll see this to be the case.

The spectrum has sort of evolved from being something like this:

To being this:

The more ideologically zealous people on the two ends always had beefs, but that purple buffer has shrank to the point where instead of having only 20% of the population that can't stand each other (with everyone being able to somewhat get along), it's more like 70% now.

And it also seems like the more ideologically zealous folks are less responsive/accepting of moderates from their half of the spectrum.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The problem is that the toxic issues are all surrogate issues, thus unbounded by reality. The working class is not getting a big enough piece of the pie and are discontented. Their discontent must be channeled away from this reality and towards the abstract,

I'm not convinced that this is largely an issue of material well-being. The outrage seems to be primarily over cultural issues.

I think the anger we see in society stems from the fact that never (seemingly more than any recent time I can remember) have the factions been so far part. (obviously you had some pretty contentious times in the 60's...but I'd argue that there's some subtle differences comparing that time to now....and it goes without saying the civil war trumps all in terms of being a contentious time...but I'm more referring to last 40/50 years.)

There have always been "3 camps" (left, moderate, right). Obviously we only really have 2 teams to vote for, but the moderates typically just vote for whoever is just slightly closer to them on the spectrum.

It would seem as if the further two flanks drift apart, the more moderates that end up getting pushed in one direction or the other (to the point where they're no longer in the moderate zone) based on whichever side they see as being more "out there" than the other.

Name just about any hot button topic (guns, environment, lgbt issues, abortion, immigration, etc...) and you'll see this to be the case.

The spectrum has sort of evolved from being something like this:
View attachment 343127

To being this:
View attachment 343128


The more ideologically zealous people on the two ends always had beefs, but that purple buffer has shrank to the point where instead of having only 20% of the population that can't stand each other (with everyone being able to somewhat get along), it's more like 70% now.

And it also seems like the more ideologically zealous folks are less responsive/accepting of moderates from their half of the spectrum.

It isn't that the flanks have never been so far apart (look at the unrest in the 60's, for example); it's that the different issues didn't used to map so cleanly onto each other. In the past, it wouldn't be uncommon for you and me to disagree a lot on Issue A, but be in total alignment on Issues B and C, and kind of near each other on Issue D. Nowadays, it's much more likely that we'll agree or disagree on all of them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not convinced that this is largely an issue of material well-being. The outrage seems to be primarily over cultural issues.



It isn't that the flanks have never been so far apart (look at the unrest in the 60's, for example); it's that the different issues didn't used to map so cleanly onto each other. In the past, it wouldn't be uncommon for you and me to disagree a lot on Issue A, but be in total alignment on Issues B and C, and kind of near each other on Issue D. Nowadays, it's much more likely that we'll agree or disagree on all of them.

Well, I think that ties in with the latter aspects I mentioned

Which is that the moderates get pushed in one direction or the other due to the fact that the flanks have grown to be more than half of the spectrum, and that moderates are less-tolerated by the flanks.

Some of that could purely be a numbers game (in which the flanks of yesteryear would've liked to have called moderates "sell outs" or "not a real <insert affiliation here>", but simply didn't have the numbers to do so.

Now that the more ideologically zealous players are "in command" (so to speak), they don't have to try to win the favor of the moderates, and in fact, can shun them because they feel they don't need them anymore.

It used to be the other way around, where the more radical people had to moderate their position to get a big enough coalition to achieve a few political goals. Now, in order to not get labelled "DINO/RINO", moderates have to radicalize their own position (or at least give lipservice to it), and walk on eggshells to make sure they don't publicly deviate in anyway from the party platform.


I would be interested to see the numbers, and see whether or not the prevalence of primarying incumbents "because they're not ideologically pure enough" has increased. I know there were some high profile ones that have happened over the past decade, but not sure if there's actually an increase, or if it's just optics and it happened at the same rate a few decades ago and just wasn't talked about as much.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not convinced that this is largely an issue of material well-being. The outrage seems to be primarily over cultural issues.

You think that was an accident?

It isn't that the flanks have never been so far apart (look at the unrest in the 60's, for example); it's that the different issues didn't used to map so cleanly onto each other. In the past, it wouldn't be uncommon for you and me to disagree a lot on Issue A, but be in total alignment on Issues B and C, and kind of near each other on Issue D. Nowadays, it's much more likely that we'll agree or disagree on all of them.

Because for the most part they were not so intensely ideological as they are today. Why do you think that gun control and global warming, for instance, have been made into Christian issues?

 

[durangodawood]

If people preferred thoughtfulness about difficult issues over outrage and indignation, the algorithms would be steering them toward more of the former.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You think that was an accident?

No, I think if your goal is to rile people up, stoking concerns over cultural issues is much easier and more effective than stoking material concerns, at least in the US.

Because for the most part they were not so intensely ideological as they are today. Why do you think that gun control and global warming, for instance, have been made into Christian issues?

Gun control and Christianity have always been intensely ideological. Global warming may not have been at first, but it didn't take long to go that way. What has not always been the case is that a single group of people feels intensely about gun control AND Christianity AND global warming in the same ways.

 

[BCP1928]

No, I think if your goal is to rile people up, stoking concerns over cultural issues is much easier and more effective than stoking material concerns, at least in the US.


Gun control and Christianity have always been intensely ideological. Global warming may not have been at first, but it didn't take long to go that way. What has not always been the case is that a single group of people feels intensely about gun control AND Christianity AND global warming in the same ways.

It's been going on for a long time, right out in the open where everyone can see. I remember back in the early '60s when the Rev. Billy Bright was looking around for money to grow what became his Campus Crusade for Christ, Adolph Coors gave him $300K (not chump change in those days) on condition that he discover the Bible to prohibit union membership. And no, that's not a conspiracy theory, it was openly regarded a coup by conservatives. I first read about it in the LA times, a right-wing paper. Then there was Paul Weyrich, who persuaded the Roman Catholics and the Southern Baptists to put aside their mutual hostility and join forces over Roe v. Wade, a ruling which the SBC had initially endorsed. And so on. The present divided state of our country did not happen by chance, nor did it happen in secret.

 

[stevil]

Overall, I'd say I'm not angry.
I'm a very tolerant and private person. I don't peer over at my neighbors to watch and judge them. I just live my life.

Stuff happens, at any moment, somewhere in the world something horrible is happeneing, but also something wonderful is happening too.
I don't even try to put the weight of the world on my shoulders. I focus on the things I love, I try to find value and happiness and enjoyment in my life.

 

[Brihaha]

If people preferred thoughtfulness about difficult issues over outrage and indignation, the algorithms would be steering them toward more of the former.

Sounds like paradise for an optimist. People prefeering to get along and learn from each other. We would need people to sacrifice a bit of profit for the widespread welfare of society. These billionaires call themselves philanthropists yet the people who run their businesses don't seem to account for the longterm mental health effects of their profit stirring media products. They could be steering with a bit of oversteer towards the goodness of human nature as opposed to our sinful propensities. It stands to reason their returns will diminish and disappear as society deteriorates. Addiction is profitable until the clientele disappears.

 

[Margaret3110]

No, I think if your goal is to rile people up, stoking concerns over cultural issues is much easier and more effective than stoking material concerns, at least in the US.

Not only easier and more effective. Notice how big corporations have gotten involved in Pride and such? They can be "progressive" and "culturally relevant" without having to actually, I don't know, pay their workers a livable wage and things like that. They can continue to price gouge and monopolize and punish anyone who tries to form a union. The cultural issues don't hurt their bottom line one bit so they are more than happy to have everyone else squabble about those issues.

 

[durangodawood]

Sounds like paradise for an optimist. People prefeering to get along and learn from each other. We would need people to sacrifice a bit of profit for the widespread welfare of society. These billionaires call themselves philanthropists yet the people who run their businesses don't seem to account for the longterm mental health effects of their profit stirring media products. They could be steering with a bit of oversteer towards the goodness of human nature as opposed to our sinful propensities. It stands to reason their returns will diminish and disappear as society deteriorates. Addiction is profitable until the clientele disappears.

I do actually believe "elites" of society should be operating with the public good somewhat in mind. That's probably wishful thinking tho