This morning I saw this tweet, and decided to check out the comments. I know, I know...people have stopped doing that. It's ugly, negative, and you can't really tell who are bots, or paid responders, or just trolls trying to get people wound up.
Still, I like doing it for certain articles because it feels like I'm taking a pulse on an issue. That is, the media may decide what to write about and may even slant the article a certain way, but the comments is where you get readers responses. A sense of how they are interpreting the article. And it's not always in the way the author expected or intended. Plus, if there are bots or paid responders it's kind of worth knowing what sort of narrative is being pushed.
Let me rephrase that - comments may not accurately reflect the viewpoints of the population, but it can and does reflect the strength of certain narratives (whether genuine or paid) and it's worth knowing what those narratives are and how many responders take the time to share it.
I have to admit, I was disappointed/disturbed by the narrative thus displayed, and what it says about America today.
This post is pretty much an attempt to sort through why it bothered me.
When I was a kid, I argued with one of my younger brothers a LOT. I remember one particular argument - not the details, of course. I remember Mom got involved, and it didn't go the way I wanted it to. I wanted her to clearly back me up, see my brother's misdeeds and punish him.
What I do remember, however, is when she asked me "Do you think your brother thinks he won?"
Now, as a child I really didn't want to hear that, of course. I was right, he was wrong, and it was very black and white to me. But that question did kind of stick in my mind, because (now that I'm older) it brings up a very good point. Namely, that just because we think someone 'got away with it', or wasn't punished appropriately doesn't mean that they feel the same way.
I could go into a speech on human nature, on our tendency to exaggerate the hurts done us and minimize the hurt we do to others (thus making our evaluation of 'just punishment' flawed, as instead of "an eye for an eye" we feel that taking both eyes is just punishment for their taking one of ours) but I think that would take too long, so I'll skip it for now.
The point was that in a dispute we tend to focus on defeating the other, and in doing so we lose sight of the bigger picture. So, for example, in a counterinsurgency we start focusing on killing insurgents rather than the bigger picture (i.e. killing insurgents as well as reducing their ability to recruit new insurgents through a combination of policies. Like addressing the grievances that motivate new recruits, making it clear that there is a way out if they give up the fight (so they don't feel like they have to fight to the death), and remembering to create a safe place for neutrals and people caught in the middle. That way there clearly IS an alternative. You basically want to make it clear that supporting you is better than supporting the bad guys, not just morally...but also in terms of safety and your ability to protect those who support you.
On a less violent, less visceral level the same thing happens in politics. That is, true believers (on the left and the right) focus on their opponents. On wanting to clearly win, and make the other side clearly lose. They get tunnel vision, and lose sight of the bigger picture. They pander to their base, and stop caring about persuading those who aren't already true believers (like them.)
And they want to make the other side lose. Badly.
So they consider any attack on their own to be lies...while any attack against their opponent is God's honest truth. And anyone who doesn't see it their way is too stupid to know better, or misled by the lies of their opponents. Either way, it's not worth considering. And definitely not worth changing course - after all, that would mean their opponent won.
Still, I like doing it for certain articles because it feels like I'm taking a pulse on an issue. That is, the media may decide what to write about and may even slant the article a certain way, but the comments is where you get readers responses. A sense of how they are interpreting the article. And it's not always in the way the author expected or intended. Plus, if there are bots or paid responders it's kind of worth knowing what sort of narrative is being pushed.
Let me rephrase that - comments may not accurately reflect the viewpoints of the population, but it can and does reflect the strength of certain narratives (whether genuine or paid) and it's worth knowing what those narratives are and how many responders take the time to share it.
I have to admit, I was disappointed/disturbed by the narrative thus displayed, and what it says about America today.
This post is pretty much an attempt to sort through why it bothered me.
When I was a kid, I argued with one of my younger brothers a LOT. I remember one particular argument - not the details, of course. I remember Mom got involved, and it didn't go the way I wanted it to. I wanted her to clearly back me up, see my brother's misdeeds and punish him.
What I do remember, however, is when she asked me "Do you think your brother thinks he won?"
Now, as a child I really didn't want to hear that, of course. I was right, he was wrong, and it was very black and white to me. But that question did kind of stick in my mind, because (now that I'm older) it brings up a very good point. Namely, that just because we think someone 'got away with it', or wasn't punished appropriately doesn't mean that they feel the same way.
I could go into a speech on human nature, on our tendency to exaggerate the hurts done us and minimize the hurt we do to others (thus making our evaluation of 'just punishment' flawed, as instead of "an eye for an eye" we feel that taking both eyes is just punishment for their taking one of ours) but I think that would take too long, so I'll skip it for now.
The point was that in a dispute we tend to focus on defeating the other, and in doing so we lose sight of the bigger picture. So, for example, in a counterinsurgency we start focusing on killing insurgents rather than the bigger picture (i.e. killing insurgents as well as reducing their ability to recruit new insurgents through a combination of policies. Like addressing the grievances that motivate new recruits, making it clear that there is a way out if they give up the fight (so they don't feel like they have to fight to the death), and remembering to create a safe place for neutrals and people caught in the middle. That way there clearly IS an alternative. You basically want to make it clear that supporting you is better than supporting the bad guys, not just morally...but also in terms of safety and your ability to protect those who support you.
On a less violent, less visceral level the same thing happens in politics. That is, true believers (on the left and the right) focus on their opponents. On wanting to clearly win, and make the other side clearly lose. They get tunnel vision, and lose sight of the bigger picture. They pander to their base, and stop caring about persuading those who aren't already true believers (like them.)
And they want to make the other side lose. Badly.
So they consider any attack on their own to be lies...while any attack against their opponent is God's honest truth. And anyone who doesn't see it their way is too stupid to know better, or misled by the lies of their opponents. Either way, it's not worth considering. And definitely not worth changing course - after all, that would mean their opponent won.
No comments:
Post a Comment