Divided and Conquered

[Michigan Swampbuck]

Divide and conquer, a technique used to weaken the enemy is often applied to left/right politics. I hear the claims that the deep-state players are using this to control the masses by keeping them at each other's throats and distracted from the people behind the curtain pulling the strings.

I believe whoever is using this technique has succeeded. There is no middle ground now, there is no opinion, no matter how logical, fact-based, or unbiased, that will not be placed on one side or the other. Families are being torn apart by this political polarity and it sure seems to be serving a purpose. My girlfriend experienced this personally at a recent funeral in her family.

I have an example of my own to illustrate the point. The incident with the black kid in Kentucky (correction, Texas) at the track meet who stabbed a white kid who told him to leave his seat. When that report hit the media, the facts were scant and people automatically made assumptions, you know the kind. A young black male stabs a white guy to death, so it is a problem black people have with violence. The other side of that is young southern white boys threatening an "uppity black" to leave his seat who then defends himself.

If you are a liberal who would wonder out loud if the black kid was a murdering criminal, your liberal friends would call you a red-neck Trump MAGA Nazi. Conversely, if you were a conservative white guy who wondered if this was some racist southern white boys threatening a black guy who had the right of self-defense, then you are automatically a closet liberal or some kind of political double agent. In some circles, you'd be called a fag or a Jew as well.

Now, I'm hearing that this black kid had it out for the white kid he stabbed to death, if so, then it was premeditated murder. Then, as predicted, this kid is the new liberal martyr who needs a go fund me for his defense and is racking up the defense funds as we speak. Meanwhile, the media is trying to imply the white kids were racist militant MAGA types because of a picture of them out hunting in camo clothes.

Unless I am making my observations public in the appropriate echo chamber, I will be doomed to be labeled one way or the other. You cannot be moderate anymore, you can't look at both sides and voice your independent thoughts and ideas without being placed in one camp or the other. We have already been divided and conquered when moderate objectivity is no longer allowed.

If I were to point out the extreme propaganda and rhetoric of both sides, I'd still get pigeon holed into one side or the other. I find that I must self-censor in public now, I discovered this at a local restaurant recently, not that I disagreed with the talk I heard. I have to keep it to myself for the most part, and that is the goal here, to stifle our free speech and keep us divided and unorganized.

[TokenLiberal]

Divide and conquer, a technique used to weaken the enemy is often applied to left/right politics. I hear the claims that the deep-state players are using this to control the masses by keeping them at each other's throats and distracted from the people behind the curtain pulling the strings.

I believe whoever is using this technique has succeeded. There is no middle ground now, there is no opinion, no matter how logical, fact-based, or unbiased, that will not be placed on one side or the other. Families are being torn apart by this political polarity and it sure seems to be serving a purpose.

I agree that polarization is real, and a big problem. What I don't agree with is your suggestion that someone or some group did this to us intentionally.

I think today's political polarization is the natural consequence of how we consume media, which is itself a consequence of technological advances in media which were not intended to divide us, rather to get our attention. We are in an attention economy, and competition for our attention is fierce. Political polarization, among other things, is a side effect of this. Now that we have the pick of the litter in how to get our instant dopamine, the way to get and keep our attention is to make us feel good about ourselves in as little time as possible (content is getting shorter and shorter, have you noticed?). The algorithms in our social media, as well as content creators, have become very good at doing so. They have to be, or they get outcompeted. They grab and keep our attention by offering us content that quickly validates us and confirms our existing beliefs, and does it in a way that provokes a strong emotional reaction. Often, it blames others for our problems. After all, we don't want to self-reflect. That's painful and consumes our energy. We don't want to spend energy. We're doing enough of that during our day job. We want to feel validated, right now.

In short, we have lost the muscle memory, or the passion, or both, to spend energy in the pursuit of knowledge. People don't listen to Andrew Tate or Joe Rogan or Hasan Piker to get informed (although they may think that's why), they do it because it makes them feel good.

Ultimately, it's not modern (social) media's fault. Modern media is, after all, exactly what we want it to be. Social media platforms were developed by people who wanted to make money by grabbing our attention, nothing more, nothing less. It's our own fault that our attention is so easily grabbed by validating, radicalizing content. But entertaining that thought would be self-reflection, and that's painful. It's more comfortable to blame others (e.g. this "deep state" you're talking about) for our problems. In the rare occasion that we run into content that challenges our belief, we simply ignore it. This is an opportunity for you not to.

I have an example of my own to illustrate the point. The incident with the black kid in Kentucky (correction, Texas) at the track meet who stabbed a white kid who told him to leave his seat. When that report hit the media, the facts were scant and people automatically made assumptions, you know the kind. A young black male stabs a white guy to death, so it is a problem black people have with violence. The other side of that is young southern white boys threatening an "uppity black" to leave his seat who then defends himself.

If you are a liberal who would wonder out loud if the black kid was a murdering criminal, your liberal friends would call you a red-neck Trump MAGA Nazi. Conversely, if you were a conservative white guy who wondered if this was some racist southern white boys threatening a black guy who had the right of self-defense, then you are automatically a closet liberal or some kind of political double agent. In some circles, you'd be called a fag or a Jew as well.

Now, I'm hearing that this black kid had it out for the white kid he stabbed to death, if so, then it was premeditated murder. Then, as predicted, this kid is the new liberal martyr who needs a go fund me for his defense and is racking up the defense funds as we speak. Meanwhile, the media is trying to imply the white kids were racist militant MAGA types because of a picture of them out hunting in camo clothes.

Unless I am making my observations public in the appropriate echo chamber, I will be doomed to be labeled one way or the other. You cannot be moderate anymore, you can't look at both sides and voice your independent thoughts and ideas without being placed in one camp or the other. We have already been divided and conquered when moderate objectivity is no longer allowed.

If I were to point out the extreme propaganda and rhetoric of both sides, I'd still get pigeon holed into one side or the other. I find that I must self-censor in public now, I discovered this at a local restaurant recently, not that I disagreed with the talk I heard. I have to keep it to myself for the most part, and that is the goal here, to stifle our free speech and keep us divided and unorganized.

I haven't heard about this event and know nothing about it, but if your characterization is accurate, the black kid is obviously a murdering criminal. If all the other kid did was say something to him, killing him couldn't have been self defense. No matter what they said, murdering them in response is obviously wrong. I know plenty of "liberals", none of whom would crucify me for saying this.

[FCD]

MSB, it's a crazy case to be sure.  From all accounts I've seen the whole thing went down in the blink of an eye.  I don't buy the 'self-defense' angle, but with the crazy liberals anymore I guess it's okay to go on a stabbing spree if someone touches you, so it will be interesting to see what happens.  Sure looks like Murder-2 at the very least.  If there was intent, as you suggest, then it should be Murder-1.  I thought I read that the kid was charged with Murder-1 which surprised me.  If all the witness accounts are accurate, and the two truly didn't know each other, then Murder-1 would be almost impossible to prove (which would mean a likely acquittal, unless the DA backed off and convinced the defense to plead to a lesser like Murder-3 (manslaughter essentially)).

Here's one thing I do know though (not an opinion).  Yesterday I read an article which said that the black kid had received several hundred thousand dollars to fund his defense from donors.  Much like the murderer who killed that insurance executive in NYC.  To your point, this kind of tells you were the public's head is at with this case.  Now you can become a hero if you kill whitey and insurance execs!  Society is rewarding this behavior!  It's pretty fucking twisted if you ask me.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

Thanks guys, no one tore me a new one for expressing my opinion, and have even offered some very thought-provoking responses.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

More has been released about that case, it wasn't exactly the way I thought about it. Still, it was merely an example of what I was talking about.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

I agree that polarization is real, and a big problem. What I don't agree with is your suggestion that someone or some group did this to us intentionally.

I think today's political polarization is the natural consequence of how we consume media, which is itself a consequence of technological advances in media which were not intended to divide us, rather to get our attention. We are in an attention economy, and competition for our attention is fierce. Political polarization, among other things, is a side effect of this. Now that we have the pick of the litter in how to get our instant dopamine, the way to get and keep our attention is to make us feel good about ourselves in as little time as possible (content is getting shorter and shorter, have you noticed?). The algorithms in our social media, as well as content creators, have become very good at doing so. They have to be, or they get outcompeted. They grab and keep our attention by offering us content that quickly validates us and confirms our existing beliefs, and does it in a way that provokes a strong emotional reaction. Often, it blames others for our problems. After all, we don't want to self-reflect. That's painful and consumes our energy. We don't want to spend energy. We're doing enough of that during our day job. We want to feel validated, right now.

In short, we have lost the muscle memory, or the passion, or both, to spend energy in the pursuit of knowledge. People don't listen to Andrew Tate or Joe Rogan or Hasan Piker to get informed (although they may think that's why), they do it because it makes them feel good.

Ultimately, it's not modern (social) media's fault. Modern media is, after all, exactly what we want it to be. Social media platforms were developed by people who wanted to make money by grabbing our attention, nothing more, nothing less. It's our own fault that our attention is so easily grabbed by validating, radicalizing content. But entertaining that thought would be self-reflection, and that's painful. It's more comfortable to blame others (e.g. this "deep state" you're talking about) for our problems. In the rare occasion that we run into content that challenges our belief, we simply ignore it. This is an opportunity for you not to.


I haven't heard about this event and know nothing about it, but if your characterization is accurate, the black kid is obviously a murdering criminal. If all the other kid did was say something to him, killing him couldn't have been self defense. No matter what they said, murdering them in response is obviously wrong. I know plenty of "liberals", none of whom would crucify me for saying this.

I can go along with your premise, that polarization is a consequence of advances in media. I suspect that such an effect may have occurred after the printing press mass produced media took hold in Europe. Once people had a copy of the Bible in their native tongue, they weren't blindly following the church after that. 

However, I must consider the way media is used and how it panders to the ego of its audience, usually toward some commercial or political end. Ultimately the application of media in any form should be of highest consideration (Nazi propaganda coming to mind).

They grab and keep our attention by offering us content that quickly validates us and confirms our existing beliefs, and does it in a way that provokes a strong emotional reaction. Often, it blames others for our problems.

Your statement above supports my contention that intent is a major factor for consideration.

[TokenLiberal]

I can go along with your premise, that polarization is a consequence of advances in media. I suspect that such an effect may have occurred after the printing press mass produced media took hold in Europe.

I'm talking about modern advances, social media specifically. The most significant change that came out of it is that there is now an insane amount of content out there (any opinion you can think of has probably been expressed somewhere) and algorithms have become very good at offering us exactly what we're looking for. The result is that we are slowly nudged into echo chambers. People are constantly validated and almost never see things that challenge their views. After all, they don't click on it, so the algorithm stops offering it.

Once people had a copy of the Bible in their native tongue, they weren't blindly following the church after that. 

Explain what you mean here?

However, I must consider the way media is used and how it panders to the ego of its audience, usually toward some commercial or political end. Ultimately the application of media in any form should be of highest consideration (Nazi propaganda coming to mind).

Your statement above supports my contention that intent is a major factor for consideration.

For the most part, I don't think the intent is to radicalize us. It might be the intent of some (Musk's purchase of Twitter comes to mind), but the vast majority of media companies just want to make money. It's not that they want to radicalize us, it's that we want to be radicalized. We no longer reward balanced, fact-based reporting as much as we used to. We reward, by our clicks, sensationalized appeals to emotion. (The general "we". I'm not saying you and I do).

My point is that it's ultimately our own fault. The media is offering us exactly what we want. We shouldn't want it, but we apparently do.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

"Once people had a copy of the Bible in their native tongue, they weren't blindly following the church after that."

Explain what you mean here?

It might be nicer to make that a request and not a command disguised as a question, but here you are, five minutes of my time on a search engine and a post here to share it.

The printing press, credited to the German inventor and printer Johannes Gutenberg (l. c. 1398-1468) in the 1450s, became the single most important factor in the success of the Protestant Reformation by providing the means for widespread dissemination of the “new teachings” and encouraging independent thought on subjects previously rigidly controlled by a literate elite.

LINK

Printing Press Changes the World

The worldwide spread of the printing press meant a greater distribution of ideas that threatened the ironclad power structures of Europe.

In 1501, Pope Alexander VI promised excommunication for anyone who printed manuscripts without the church’s approval. Twenty years later, books from John Calvin and Martin Luther spread, bringing into reality what Alexander had feared.

LINK

By the 1490s, when Venice was the book-printing capital of Europe, a printed copy of a great work by Cicero only cost a month’s salary for a school teacher. The printing press didn’t launch the Renaissance, but it vastly accelerated the rediscovery and sharing of knowledge.

“Suddenly, what had been a project to educate only the few wealthiest elite in this society could now become a project to put a library in every medium-sized town, and a library in the house of every reasonably wealthy merchant family,” says Palmer.

LINK

[TokenLiberal]

Oh you just meant to bring up a historical example of polarization through advances in media? Sure, I suppose it checks out.

Most advances in media, including the printing press, ultimately improved people's relationship with the truth. They made people more lilterate, more informed, etc. The only exception, as far as I know, is social media. As advances in media often do, it makes information more readily available to everyone, yet uniquely it makes people less informed.

It might be nicer to make that a request and not a command disguised as a question, but here you are, five minutes of my time on a search engine and a post here to share it.

My bad; it was a request, for the record. I don't mean to tell you what to do.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

Oh you just meant to bring up a historical example of polarization through advances in media? Sure, I suppose it checks out.

Most advances in media, including the printing press, ultimately improved people's relationship with the truth. They made people more lilterate, more informed, etc. The only exception, as far as I know, is social media. As advances in media often do, it makes information more readily available to everyone, yet uniquely it makes people less informed.


My bad; it was a request, for the record. I don't mean to tell you what to do.

No prob, I figured you were merely asking for follow up, it just seemed passive/aggressive to me. I do love this part of your statements . . .

The only exception, as far as I know, is social media. As advances in media often do, it makes information more readily available to everyone, yet uniquely it makes people less informed.

Is this ability of social media to make people less informed a symptom of the way media is manipulated?

Historically, I was thinking more about the power shift from the literate elite who knew Latin, to the masses who only understood their own native language. The movable type printing press opened the flood gates of information to be used and manipulated toward various ends. Sounds familiar some how, digital fonts and typesetting, hum, I did major in advertising graphic design in college.

How much of the early books contained any real "truth"? How much of the information we get on social media contains truth? Currently, our situation is similar, but instead of plugging along on the impulse engines, we are at warp speed now, maybe warp two.