Regardless of what that community is about, a good amount of the members seem to be content with simply repeating existing talking points, making statements with nothing indicating say, maybes or showing another person's perspective. Is Reddit just full of Echochambers?
I admit, even a lot of supposedly leftist subreddits show barely anything more than black and white thinking, something that disturbs me, as a gray thinker. They seem to refuse to think of say, what would lead to someone to at first be a chud. In fact, a lot of those leftist subreddits show signs of being more liberals than leftists.
It makes me think: Am I closer to being a chud than a leftist, if I have gray thinking, which causes me to want to be informed as to why say, a non leftist would be annoyed with corporate run cultural wars? Am I wrong for being troubled by black and white thinking on supposedly leftist subreddits? Am I just projecting by thinking "I would not make so bold a statement."?
I'm not sure calling yourself a "gray thinker" and accusing others of being "black and white thinkers" is a useful way of framing things. Reddit is very mainstream and so discourse is curated by admins, mods, and true believers to align with what's tolerated by the american bourgeoisie. People also spend time on sites like Reddit and Hexbear for entertainment. Getting into a stupid low-stakes argument for a bit of a dopamine hit probably doesn't really elicit the sort of critical thinking you're expecting people to have in that sort of situation.
Well, I took a careful look at socialism, even with it's history, and I concluded that, even with said possible flaws in place, it is ultimately for the betterment of people, to have a system where they get their basic needs fulfilled, rather than to live in an inherently exploitative and competitive system such as capitalism.
"People are participating in black-or-white thinking"
Absolutely
"Except for me, I am not like that"
People have their own reasons for participating on these online platforms. Having a discussion is usually not one of them - especially when the form of the platforms isn't conducive for that necessarily but more conducive for quick responses that affirm mass belief, etc.
If your definition of "grey" is the same as those promoted by Scott Aaronson, Less Wrong, etc. I'd suggest that you are falling into the trap of Naive Materialism. Humans are ideological beings and you're likely not engaging properly with the interplay of how material conditions lead to ideological formation and in turn lead back to progress on material reality.
Idk, is it? Sorry if this isn’t your intention, but you’re coming across as very
Sigh Why can't I ever read what comes off well to people? Am I that bad with people?
It's just that to Leftists that have been tech-optimist adjacent "grey-tribe" and "grey-thinker" immediately ring alarm bells.
IDK it's easy to point a finger at r*dditors but people are pretty black-and-white here too, and are quick to dogpile on people expressing nuanced positions.
I am aware that it seemed I was pointing fingers, but I didn't know how else to bring it up without too much tact or too much passive voice. It is also often frustrating when people don't care about finer details. Every time I bring up nuanced parts of both sides, my mom always accuses me of "being argumentative for its own sake"
I think “gray” (or “centrist” or “nuanced”) classifiers are often used as a way to shield a position from criticism while not really engaging with it to any end. This is the “gray” position that you might see discouraged.
The “gray” that I often see encouraged engages with the entire complexity of an issue. It follows the issue to its roots and at those roots interrogates them to their conclusions, establishing for each a black or white position. In aggregate, these conclusions might not fall neatly in line with an existing black or white position.
An example might be the war in Ukraine. You may simultaneously feel like Russia is being imperialist by annexing parts of Ukraine, feel that Ukraine has a fascist sect that should be eliminated, that Ukraine is right to self-determination, that it is unfairly positioned as a proxy pawn for NATO to exercise its power, and that the war is being drawn out to force national pressure on access to oil, that the historical recognition of a regional ethnic group should be respected. Taken to their ends, these positions do not land fully in support of either side in the war in Ukraine, but each facet requires interrogation and is owed a decisive stance.
If you’re putting in the intellectual work, then gray positions (as the aggregate of more decisive positions) are fine. If you’re not, and you’re just washing your hands of engaging with issues. “centrist” positions are even more dangerous because they are not defined by beliefs, but rather relative to others’ beliefs, allowing them to shift without ever consciously forming any opinions.
tl;dr: gray fine, ignorance not fine.
That Ukraine War stuff was so quickly astroturfed I felt like I was reliving the Bush years for a bit.
So it can be the wrong thing to be indecisive or skeptical of all things?
Not what I’m saying. It’s totally fine to be indecisive and skeptical, but that’s not an opinion and you shouldn’t expect people to respect it as a stance on an issue.
It’s great when you can recognize that you’re indecisive and see that as an opportunity for further investigation.
I had to repeatedly walk back a friend who was seemingly gleeful at chuds getting Covid and dying, there was a whole Reddit sub for that but I can't remember the name. Had to carefully illustrate that yeah they were ignorant of how dangerous the plague is but that they've also been conditioned for possibly decades that the government is out to get them, coupled with the failings of U.S. healthcare leading them to believe a myriad of theories and sources like the real answer is horse paste.
Reddit is also primed for this type of thinking because of the format of the site, if you go outside of the accepted consensus you're getting down voted into oblivion with no one having to elucidate why a statement may be wrong.
Everyone is exposed to propaganda all their lives in this hellworld. They are still responsible for their own actions. They were not just ignorant, but also dangerous to other people and their dependants. It's distasteful perhaps for people to take pleasure in seeing the irony of them dying from something they insisted wasn't real and exposed other people to, but not something I can blame them for.
the only subreddit I can remember that's for reveling in COVID deniers' deaths to COVID was (and still is) r/HermanCainAward.
I have had that happen before. I remember sarcasticly thinking "It seems I have angered the hive mind"
with no one having to elucidate why a statement may be wrong.
And then they come here and find themselves actually unable to because that part of their mind has atrophied like an astronaut's bones
It’s fair to revel in people in power dying of covid after denying covid restrictions, but it’s in poor taste for average people who’ve been brainwashed to think the way they do.
So many people online seem to be very happy to just parrot the most basic talking points imaginable no matter what the topic is. The level of discourse is genuinely on the floor the vast vast vast majority of the time.
I agree, so many people online seem to be very happy to just parrot the most basic talking points imaginable no matter what the topic is. The level of discourse is genuinely on the floor the vast vast vast majority of the time.
what is gray thinking, and what are the black and white thinking that you are annoyed about? this is the first time im hear the term, makes me think of enlightened centrism
I am often annoyed that lots of people say, wholeheartedly accept representation of diverse individuals, without considering that writers might not be creating them for the good will of it, but are only in it for the money. Said writers might make characters halfheartedly, or not care about the character at all.
Writers who make it to the professional level aren't doing their job for goodwill, the whole thing is for money. No big corporation producing commercial art gives a single shit about representation for moral reasons, they are making a product, and ensuring that it appeals to its target demographic and is broadly inoffensive to people they believe are likely to buy it.
We haven't yet managed to do away with this, and a soulless profit machine that includes diverse characters is better than one that doesn't.
Could you give some examples of what you feel are half-hearted diverse characters, or those created by writers just for the money?
Well, Disney often makes characters that often come off as token characters, only to then censor said characters for the sake of international markets. Such as Lefou in the Live Action Remake of Beauty And The Beast. His sign of being officially homosexual was in a very easy to miss moment. I have also heard that, they did a similar thing for the lesbian couple in Lightyear, showing it in another form of blink and you miss it scene, and removing it for some international markets. Not to mention that companies would likely no longer make characters like that if they aren't profitable.
Am I closer to being a chud than a leftist, if I have gray thinking, which causes me to want to be informed as to why say, a non leftist would be annoyed with corporate run cultural wars?
What, exactly, do you mean by this?
I mean that, I have seen lots of people react unfairly to say, the idea of a woman protagonist in games that are going to be released. They seem to be basing their reactions off solely a kneejerk impulse, but perhaps those same individuals might be seeing what they think is a pattern where they think all works with progressive ideas are poorly written.
Edit: I was just throwing out a possibility, based on my limited understanding with how people function.
i would be more open to that idea if all the arguments against femme protagonists weren't that their tits aren't big enough or that they're doing something society at large doesn't consider feminine. i'm probably being too 'black and white' for your tastes but I haven't yet seen one of these complaints that had anything to do with writing
I probably should have clarified that I was speculating, making guesswork.
There isn't a lot of room for nuance online. Even if everyone involved is being genuine (which is usually not the case), discussions will often just turn into "I need to prove this person wrong" and not generate anything of substance.
For example, with the culture war stuff you mentioned, my first instinct on seeing a random redditor say "we should understand the chud mindset" would be that that person is probably trying to start shit and/or justify being a chud themselves. There is something to examine there, about how capital nurtures reactionary mindsets or whatever, but that is a very intricate issue for an internet forum.
Well, I sometimes wonder what would cause someone in better economic straits to develop a reactionary mindset. Mostly because I have trouble with reading people.
Well, I sometimes wonder what would cause someone in better economic straits to develop a reactionary mindset.
Their better economic straits exist because of the exploitation of others under capitalism. They understand this and support their class interests accordingly.
Good-faith, nuanced discussion is only possible within cohorts of like-minded people. While echo-chambers often are annoying insofar as the common talking points become trivial to the already initiated, it is this exact initiation process and fomenting of the "party-lines" that allow for people to find others to engage in nuanced discussions finally becoming confident that the conversation is not being conducted in an adversarial manner.
