Is everyone angry? Toxic Outrage Culture is consuming society.

durangodawood said:

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

Click to expand...

I think we see a fair amount of "selective thoughtfulness" in the current political climate.

Selective thoughtfulness meaning - when trying to refute or "dunk on" an assertion/position of the other side, people are willing to go way in-depth on that and delve into charts/data/graphs/studies, but when it comes to something that affirms their own preference, they'll gleefully accept bumper sticker premise and/or abstract platitudes.


So, I don't think it's so much that people necessarily prefer outrage over thoughtfulness, it's that superficiality (which tends to manifest as outrage) becomes the default when someone from the other team's thoughtfulness leads them to a different conclusion than their own.

...and it's always easier to construct an algorithm that quickly jumps to the default "default" than it is around a scenario in which it's pressed to make a non-default decision.

In the programming world, if there were a complex problem we're trying to solve, if a person wrote two "if" statements and then sent it to a default path if it didn't neatly meet either criteria, we'd call that lazy programming. If pressed for a solution that has to make the best decision and "defaulting isn't an option, you gotta keep going till you get the best answer", that takes more time and effort.

Given that social media companies exist on ad revenue, I can fully believe that they're taking some shortcuts in that regard.

I think outrage itself is often overexaggerated. Meaning people are perceived and described as far more angry and emotional over topics and situations than they actually are. I've gotten told I'm being emotional and that I'm outraged when discussing a topic, when in actuality I'm quite tranquil.

Really I think a lot of it has to do with if you have an opposing view then there's got to be something wrong with you. You need a therapist.

ThatRobGuy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Polarization can be a necessary part of political awakening. The 1950's was a time of little political polarization, but it was so because Americans had a fairly regressive consensus (pro war, pro segregation, etc.).

Brihaha said:

If you note threads here based on number and topics rehashed over and over it seems clear the outrage is real. And these forums I consider tame compared to the more popular social media platforms. Social media is a poor substitute for beneficial therapy. People seem attached to the emotional contagion that thrives on anonymous social media networks. And we are beginning to see the detrimental effects of people overusing social media in America.

Click to expand...

Beats me, I'm far from outraged over the rehashed topics I doggedly debate. My attitude is pretty much what one sees on Gutfeld and Rita Panahi on Sky News (note: I only occasionally watch youtube clips of those shows). More a matter of finding woke stuff silly, weird and messed up, as opposed to being furious and outraged over it.

ThatRobGuy said:

I think we see a fair amount of "selective thoughtfulness" in the current political climate.

Selective thoughtfulness meaning - when trying to refute or "dunk on" an assertion/position of the other side, people are willing to go way in-depth on that and delve into charts/data/graphs/studies, but when it comes to something that affirms their own preference, they'll gleefully accept bumper sticker premise and/or abstract platitudes.


So, I don't think it's so much that people necessarily prefer outrage over thoughtfulness, it's that superficiality (which tends to manifest as outrage) becomes the default when someone from the other team's thoughtfulness leads them to a different conclusion than their own.

...and it's always easier to construct an algorithm that quickly jumps to the default "default" than it is around a scenario in which it's pressed to make a non-default decision.

In the programming world, if there were a complex problem we're trying to solve, if a person wrote two "if" statements and then sent it to a default path if it didn't neatly meet either criteria, we'd call that lazy programming. If pressed for a solution that has to make the best decision and "defaulting isn't an option, you gotta keep going till you get the best answer", that takes more time and effort.

Given that social media companies exist on ad revenue, I can fully believe that they're taking some shortcuts in that regard.

Click to expand...

I agree about selective thoughtfulness for the minority of people who are inclined to be thoughtful at all. But it doesn't really get to the emotional reward mechanism thats central to the topic of being "outraged".

I have a client whos exceeding grumpy about how the country is "going to hell..." At one meeting he had the Fox "news" on in the background (as so many American do all day long) and he'd be muttering about the state of the nation after this piece and that piece until we turned it off. Thats the outrage Im talking about. People like him are now trained to believe that every little moral travesty delivered to them reflects the median condition of the nation.

And theres an addictive component to being "outraged". A little bump of adrenaline or something. People prefer that to the tedium that's much of the normal life of people who arent creatively engaged. And so they seek it themselves, which the algorithms, of course, are designed to tune in to.

BCP1928 said:

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,

Click to expand...

Hmmm... This in reliant on someone deciding to do this and promote it. Someone who is part of the "ruling" class who actually thinks they need to feed the working class information to channel them away. Who would this be? Who is in control of this?

This sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory.

Brihaha said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think what is going on is that social media allows us to express our opinions like never before. We are exposed more than ever to the "other side" and can actually converse with them and hear their thoughts and reasonings.

Before social media we were very limited in our contacts. It was limited to those in our closet circles and those we may be around daily at work or school. And those places we often didn't have these challenging discussions. We didn't sit around and debate our co-workers every day who might disagree with us.

Secondly we did not have access to all this information. Having access to the information causes people to desire to "do something about it". We actually get exposed to just how bad it is in certain places in regards to what's going on. Before we were pretty much limited to our local information.

News was given in 1/2 to 1 hour segments at 5 and 10. Now it's all day everyday.
Seeing what's happening world wide can really cause us to want to fight back.

FireDragon76 said:

Polarization can be a necessary part of political awakening. The 1950's was a time of little political polarization, but it was so because Americans had a fairly regressive consensus (pro war, pro segregation, etc.).

Click to expand...

The difference between the decades ago vs. now (that I was referring to earlier)

...is that that the "flank to moderate" ratio was much lower in the leadership positions than it was in the general population.

So while there may have been people on the "flanks" in general population back in the 80's and 90's, the house/senate had much more level headed people who were much more moderate.

So while you may still been just as likely to encounter a Marjorie Greene or people like "The Squad" out in the gen pop back then, you were far less likely to see them in congress.

When it came to the legislature, regardless of how radical the people "out in the wild" were, the people steering the ship were people like Newt Gingrich or Joe Lieberman.

Brihaha said:

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

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the U.S. has always been what it is: a land of reactionaries who have inspired the rest of the World toward revolutions.

Let's just face historical facts: we still have the centuries old pluralistic presence of competing denominations that were stewed in a Revolutionary, Enlightenment Age. It's like we have, simmering below the surface, and from decade to decade to decade, century to century, a microcosm of the Thirty Years Religious Wars from the 1600's still at play, with everyone constantly jostling and jockeying for one-upmanship and competition. It was the consideration of the highly disruptive dynamics to civility from the Thirty Years Religious Wars in Europe that influenced the design of the Constitution by the Founding Fathers in our United States. They tried to make a legal formula by which it could all balance out.

Unfortunately, these competing ideological tensions STILL run through the central cores of our respective political and religious viewpoints.

We have to wake up to the long running, underlying leftover political tensions which have extended themselves from the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation and the Age of Revolution (the last of which we are still in ... )

Revolutionary ideology isn't, and never was, an answer, especially not a Christian answer. It wasn't the answer in the American Revolution, nor the French Revolution, nor the Russian Revolution, nor the Chinese or other Eastern Revolutions.

And Revolutionary Ideology, whether of the form of the Left or that of the Right, and the outrage it typically produces and/or catalyzes, is not the answer today. And it never was.

Brihaha said:

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

Click to expand...

I disagree with articles like this. Very much so.

Nothing new under the sun. It has always been this way. Town criers, town papers, now digital. Information got out slowly, was hard to find, limited, and may have had zero opposite side of the story. Imagine living during the Revolutionary war or the Civil War on one side or the other. They have always Controlled information. And they have always lied. And there is now more opposing sides and opportunities for opposing views. And they still lie.

Nothing new.

Peace and Blessings