Hmm, yeah ig it maybe a fair possibility that most are just agnostic, and get influenced by opinions that are propagated by a ridiculous amount of funding
BorisBoreUs@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
In order to be civil, thoughtful, and graceful, a person needs to reflect and understand complexity. The platforms of the internet incentivise the opposite. Extremity is louder than resonability so it floats to the top of the discourse.
Additionally, seeing 100, 1,000 or 10,000 people on a platform, from around the world, express shocking or anti-social viewpoints represents an infinitely small sub section of the population. A group that includes provacateurs, bots, nation-state actors, and wing-nuts.
The real trouble comes from others who aren’t taking time to reflect, who see this content every day and begin to believe that it must be valid because they keep seeing it. Slowly they twist and adopt pieces of rhetoric because there isn’t enough of a counter balance of opposing views sharing the same weight in their feeds.
respectmahauthoritybrah@sh.itjust.works 21 hours ago
DrDystopia@lemy.lol 20 hours ago
What you consider to be civil, thoughtful and graceful I might consider barbaric, thoughtless and brutish.
This goes for every statement of yours that entails some sort of objective threshold beyond the argument that those who speaks the loudest are often the ones that are heard the most.
I’m sure we have opposing views on some subjects and I maintain that I might have spent more time reflecting on them than you. Does that mean that you are wrong and I am right? Or perhaps that we reflect on things in different light, inevetably ending up with different conclusions - Both equally valid?
After reflecting on the topic of subjective world views for quite some time, I feel I can confidently hold the latter opinion.
BorisBoreUs@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
If people communicating in a public space are of differing opinions regarding a topic, and all can claim truthfully to have reflected thoughtfully, and understood the complexities of the topic, then disagreements about the topic can still be communicated gracefully to one another. If left unpersuaded, they can agree to disagree and part peacefully. The act of the discourse is valuable even in disagreement, either to re-enforce ones own convictions or to soften a stance when presented with new information.
I’m fairly confident that the OP isn’t referring to discourse and debate but rather comments or posts that unnerved them. I suspect the comments were some shade of anti-social, ignorant, or violent from their perception. I’m speculating on the specifics, as I’m working from the same post you saw.
If you want to talk about objective and subjective thresholds of truth vs. fact and determination of what is considered valid, I’m not sure this is the right place. The OP seemed to be concerned at the prevalence of concerning rhetoric online, at least, that’s what I took from it. A broader philosophical discussion might be better served in it’s own post/comments.
I’m curious about the tone of your reply. My perception is it seemed combative and contrarian, though I can’t be sure that you intended it that way. Your comments seemed to be directed at me specifically rather than at the ideas only. Am I misinterpreting your meaning?