Smashed Windows, Town Squares and Outrage for the next 50 years
There used to be a common ground for people you would get into an argument with, not so much anymore. That's probably why they piss you off so much.
The world seems to be going mad. Everyone's more upset than ever, opinionated to heck. Politics? An absolute state. The media? It's at a frothy, boiling point with no end in sight, stewing in negativity and strife. People are either angry, ignorant, or the most dangerous combination - both. There's a tonne wrong in the world. And folks who think the world can be better, should be better, are bound to be mad about this. So, a lot of people get angry, push for change. But it's just them against a whole society, right? Or at least it feels that way. They can't change everyone. This gets super tiring. After a while, a few start to wonder, 'How did we get here?' I started to wonder about that, and what will change in the future?
So, naturally, you start researching. You read up, understand a bit, hopefully not just from one or two sources, but from a bunch across the political spectrum. You don't stick to one favoured news source; you read a few. That way, you get a well-rounded understanding of what's happening on different sides of the political spectrum. Then you start forming your own opinions, some wild, some moderate, but a well-read opinion typically ends in a muted grey.
I'm always a bit surprised when someone doesn't have a far-out thought they haven’t entertained for a while. Even if I agree with all your opinions, having a mad thought, entertaining it for a while, and seeing its extremes is an important part of ideation. You don't want to take everything at face value. That's equally dangerous. And that's something I've noticed on both ends of the political spectrum. There are common themes: the dogmatic belief that they're right — The term I’m looking for here is critical thinking.
So, you have this online madness, but as a reasonable person, you try to see both sides. When there's mad discourse, when two sides butt heads, there’s war. Real change comes from people who can see both sides. The peacekeeping negotiators, the therapists in a couple, the swing states in an election. They are crucial. You're not going to go to a deep-blue area in London or a deep-red area in the States and effect change. You want a swing state, to talk to people who are open to discussion — that typically happens through moderation and understanding, not by being dogmatic.
There are a couple of concepts that help me frame this; the Overton window and the digital public town square.
The Overton window is a vague indicator of how mad an idea is. From one extreme to another, with a lot of room in between. Someone can disagree with you and not be mad. That's totally fine. But if someone's views are so out there they fall outside the Overton window, then they're bonkers. When trying to convince someone of something don’t fall outside of their Overton window. It renders your point moot.
The second concept, the digital public town square, is a bit different. Historically, when an issue affected a community, they'd hash it out in the local town square and eventually go home. They might have argued, but they were still neighbours ultimately. They would have things to tie them together. A community, a culture, a sense of shared identity. Now, this town square has moved online to places like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook. Keep these two ideas in mind as I go on.
The issue with the town square is you're exposed to ideas far outside your Overton window. This leads to shouting matches without the moderating effects of shared spaces or common beliefs. It's easy to 'otherise' the person you're arguing with. They’re an idiot, extremist, racist, foreigner, etc. You have these limited online spats, and that's it. This person or entity you're interacting with exists only in the context of these online arguments and your common ground? Nonexistent. That sucks. In a physical town square that would not be the case. You would be respectful at the very least.
An example of this in my life. I had a friend who went down a political rabbit hole. I've known this guy forever, and we were close enough. He started getting into these racially charged theories. I thought he was nuts. He's smart, but his beliefs were way off from mine.
He challenged my opinions on other topics, and through 'facts and logic,' he made me rethink some of my beliefs. We naturally don’t like having our beliefs challenged, but overtime we moderated each other. We argued in the public town square, metaphorically speaking, since we were in the same friend group. Ultimately we had to make peace and contend with each other's continued existence.
When we talked again, years after the fact, that common ground has grown. His views had moderated, and so had mine. It took time to understand his thought process. Interacting with someone whose views seem far-fetched to you can actually moderate your views and theirs. Discourse moved from outside the bounds of the Overton window to within bounds. Now, a lot of views people commonly hold about others are outside those bounds. You need to find common ground, but it's hard these days. There's no home ground for people to moderate over time. People have different beliefs, backgrounds. There's a lack of community, communal institutions are breaking down and cross-cohort solidarity is less of a thing than ever before. The internet's too big, too many people and too interconnected. We're paying the price.
Realising this has made me almost — and controversially so to people I mention this to — in favour of a more divided internet. People with toxic opinions will likely have those toxic opinions no matter what. Rather than having those opinions leech into the public internet let them have their own self-contained toxic communities. Will you produce some extremists? For sure. Though you’re also limiting their corrupting reach. You lose some arguments against that, sure. But changing views is a slow process, and you'll probably change too.
This new, flatter, 280-character internet gives people enough time to entertain horrible thoughts but less time to digest, empathise, and converse.
So, the world does seem to be going mad, and probably is. Everyone's more upset than ever, more opinionated than ever. Politics is a frothy mess with no end in sight. People are angry or ignorant, and they have good reasons to be both. The public town square's gotten too big, the Overton window has been smashed, but we can still talk. It's just really uncomfortable and needs a huge dose of empathy. If you're reading this and can have those conversations, it's almost your duty to do so kindly. If people who can have them aren't having them, then who will?
Yeah, I agree that people who have different political ideologies and also cultural backgrounds need to have face-to-face interactions, in order to realize that in general, we do have more in common than we think, particularly in terms of socioeconomic issues and concerns.
People should ultimately unite and work with each other over such issues, and not let themselves be divided as well as distracted by the ruling class over culture war issues.