Are we being groomed for hatred?

[boatsnguitars]

Social media algorithms, the invisible architects of our digital experience, have been exposed as culprits in the proliferation of flame wars. Their bias toward controversy and 'engagement' raises a fundamental question: Are these algorithms inadvertently training us to harbor animosity?

A new pair of studies from ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) and TTP (Tech Transparency Project) show how some of the biggest social media platforms and search engines at times directly contribute to the proliferation of online antisemitism, hate, and extremism through their own tools and, in some cases, by creating content themselves. While there are many variables contributing to online hate, including individual users’ own behavior, our research demonstrates how these companies are taking things from bad to worse.

https://www.techtransparencyproject.org ... nline-hate

The Lost Voices in the Blizzard of Anger:
Within the digital maelstrom, our comments often vanish amidst the avalanche of angry sentiments. The Taylor Swift controversy exemplifies this phenomenon, where blame is misplaced, and constructive conversations become casualties in the blizzard of online rage. That blizzard of hateful comments isn't retained. Sure, it may sit on the internet for decades, but it will most likely be lost to history forever. All that is truly left is the resulting feelings of hatred for the "other."

Political Ideologies and the Erosion of Politeness:
Tracing the historical narrative, conservatives have transitioned from criticizing liberals as 'snowflakes' to lamenting 'Political Correctness.' This shift reflects a broader tension between rugged individualism and collective collaboration. A broad overview of this ideological clash provides context to the evolving landscape.

Moral foundations research suggests that liberals care about moral values related to individual rights such as harm and fairness, while conservatives care about those foundations in addition to caring more about group rights such as loyalty, authority, and purity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8096906/

Contemporary conservatives, particularly supporters of figures like Trump, often reject traditional decorum in favor of unapologetic confrontation. The emphasis on brutal "honesty" (usually it's their honest feelings, not any kind of honest fact) over kindness, respect, etc. challenges social norms, that, in fact are blamed on Liberals from Conservatives when they point to the 1960's when women's rights, the youth movement, and an attack on the Government was shocking to everyone. Yes, the drugs, free sex, rock and roll were all part of this shift in public awakening, but now we are in a new era - one in which the Conservatives are trying to throw down the status quo because they feel attacked by it.

The Paradox of Positive Comments and Hateful Responses:
A peculiar phenomenon unfolds in the online realm – even positive comments attract hate.

Take two examples:

One can wonder why Swifties felt the need to write back in anger, sure, but what made the writer feel the need to express her dislike in the first place?

But, more oddly, someone posted a Instagram video of Taylor being happy about Travis Kelci catching a ball, and thinking it nice - recieved as much, if not more hateful comments about the person who posted the video, Taylor Swift herself, Travis, the NFL, Biden, and a whole host of other people.

Why? Why do we feel so comfortable as a society engaging in flame wars, even in a video that expresses nothing but Joy?

Additional studies like those published in the Journal of Political Economy (https://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/dilemma ... rrectness/) and Sociology Review (https://www.hoddereducationmagazines.co ... d-wokeism/) offer valuable insights into the dilemmas posed by political correctness and the rise of wokeism in shaping contemporary discourse.

I feel this is a complex topic. There are many forces at play: Political, Sociological, Economic, Racial, Sexual, etc.

As one person pointed out, the Taylor Swift story should have been a feel-good, Hallmark story for the Right Wing: Country girl goes to big city, dates a bunch of losers, then comes back to the Mid-West to find an All-American man. Football, apple pie, grandma - it's classic American story except:
1. Taylor doesn't like Trump
2. Taylor is a billionaire based on her own hard work and talent

These are unforgivable to the Right Wing.

So, it's not easy to see where we are headed, especially as AI becomes a major aspect of our lives (AI scientists predict that in the "game" of Attention (getting people to click on things) - AI will get better than humans (like AI has been able to dominate Chess). We will all be at the mercy of the algorithm and the AI tweaking it to get us to respond.

And if hateful flame wars are what gets those 'clicks' then we can expect this to escalate.

Religion can't help us. This is beyond any religious text, regardless of how perfect one thinks that book is. The Algorithm will know how to cut through religious dogma. It will be able to turn the pacifist into a war monger, the war monger into a dove. Whatever it takes to get eyes onto a product and a click on the "buy" button.

So,
1. Are we being trained to hate?
2. Can we change this fate?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #9

You can't train someone to harbour animosity that isn't already there.

Yes, you can----by planting seeds of suspicion (review the second video in my previous post).

Then a person has a suspicious nature, not a trusting one.

The reason people so love harassing whites for their racism, when there may not be evidence of that racism... is because they know... because it is true... that eventually the facade will crack and the racism will show.

What you're describing is racebaiting to support a confirmation bias.

"Why I'm Leaving the Cult of Wokeness", an open letter by Africa Brooke:
https://ckarchive.com/b/d0ueh0h67mpd

If you're white just ask yourself honestly, if you could maintain the facade, after being assumed to be racist, after being punished for being racist, or if you wouldn't start to have what you know is irrational hate.

Or take race out of it and ask this question honestly. A man believes that you will, after enough times being struck, strike him. He believes you're not perfect and you'll eventually hit back, despite knowing it is wrong to hit back. He strikes you, as righteous punishment for the fact that you will, eventually, hit back, despite knowing it is wrong. Can you endure this forever, and promise you'll never hit back? I can't. And I know, when I am struck, that is what I'm being punished for, and it is right.

Capacity for Irrational Hate = Irrational Hate

If you ask the question honestly, if you consider honestly, you will find that the answer is that you already have that hate inside you, it's just being activated, and that's why you deserved the assumption and the punishment in the first place.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #11

Then a person has a suspicious nature, not a trusting one.

Human nature is universal, having the capacity for trust and suspicion.

A man believes that you will, after enough times being struck, strike him. He believes you're not perfect and you'll eventually hit back, despite knowing it is wrong to hit back. He strikes you, as righteous punishment for the fact that you will, eventually, hit back, despite knowing it is wrong. Can you endure this forever, and promise you'll never hit back? I can't. And I know, when I am struck, that is what I'm being punished for, and it is right.

If you're struck often enough, you may be tempted to strike back even if the one striking you has skin the same color as yours. It isn't about racism; it's about annoyance.

A man who strikes you in the hope that you will eventually strike him back is not striking righteously. He's trying to pick a fight so he can play the victim card.

[Purple Knight]

A man who strikes you in the hope that you will eventually strike him back is not striking righteously. He's trying to pick a fight so he can play the victim card.

This is where we disagree. If he's working under the assumption that you will eventually hit back, and he happens to be right, then he's dishing out punishment that is deserved, because we all know that hitting back is wrong. People who will hit back are no different than people who will murder; they are dangerous animals. If you can know who will murder, without them having to actually do it, with the same certainty that is needed in court, punishing them beforehand is not only right, but it actually saves lives, when punishing someone only after they commit the crime does not.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #13

If he's working under the assumption that you will eventually hit back, and he happens to be right, then he's dishing out punishment that is deserved

Absolute, utter nonsense. If you won't hit him unless he repeatedly hits you and he knows that, then it's wrong for him to hit you and he should know that.

And if no one can be hit repeatedly without hitting back and should be punished for being pushed to hit back even before they're pushed that far, then by your logic it's never wrong to hit anyone.

[Purple Knight]

And if no one can be hit repeatedly without hitting back and should be punished for being pushed to hit back even before they're pushed that far, then by your logic it's never wrong to hit anyone.

I admit this is a problem. Someone who wants to hit out of spite can simply hit any white person. The right way to think about it, is not to care. So what if it's spiteful? Why assume that? Why hate that person? Why want to hurt him? So he'll stop? Surely you understand that not only will he hit you more, but everyone else will too, because they can now prove it's justified. Even if you don't like the way this works, this is how it works now. And not only that, you become one more straw on that pile of evidence that every last white person is rotten inside, spoilt by privilege, unable to tell right from wrong. So there's no rational reason to hit back. You're only helping him and hurting yourself.

If you can be happy being hit, knowing you deserve it, then maybe you don't. But that's a big ask. IMO it's not true of anyone. Definitely not me. Intellectually I know it, but I think I'd break and lash out eventually. That caveman part of my brain would insist, this is not fair, this is not right. Want hurt stop, hurt back, make stop. It's not intuitive to understand that when struck first, I'm being justly punished, precisely because that caveman part of my brain exists, and if pushed, will drive my actions.

Absolute, utter nonsense. If you won't hit him unless he repeatedly hits you and he knows that, then it's wrong for him to hit you and he should know that.

It's not pure nonsense though. Replace hitting back with anything else that's wrong. I won't murder unless someone shows me a canary. By your logic, showing me a canary is wrong. I'll admit it's morally ambiguous. But since not everyone thinks I'll murder under these circumstances, it might be better to show me the canary, have me break down and murder, and have me put away where I belong... if I'd really murder just because I was shown a canary.

The only thing that can make a wrong, right, is when it is done in just punishment. That's the only assumption I'm working under.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #15

Even if you don't like the way this works, this is how it works now. And not only that, you become one more straw on that pile of evidence that every last white person is rotten inside, spoilt by privilege, unable to tell right from wrong.

Every homeless white person living on a sidewalk is "spoilt by privilege"? Every white person who's lost a job to outsourcing and is now living on the brink of poverty is "spoilt by privilege"? Every white person who goes bankrupt trying to pay a sick child's medical bills is "spoilt by privilege"?

"Every last white person is rotten inside, spoilt by privilege, unable to tell right from wrong" may be magic words which will get you invited to parties where shmoozing can score points with the cool kids and win acceptance by the in-crowd, but the whole thing is nothing more than a celebration of ignorance. And what does it serve? It serves a greed-driven system which has less control if there is solidarity among the populace. This is the point in the first video I posted above. It was also brought up by Africa Brooke:

"My biggest realisation has been that most of these people that pose as Social Justice Warriors, Activists, Agents of Change etc - don't actually want to improve and repair society. They don't want a better world. For some the goal is to make things worse.

"A lot of the people I know in these spaces have brands, careers, and management teams from this. Their livelihood depends on them playing this role, which often means that they will continue to find everything wrong with society instead of making consistent efforts to unite and truly empower."

If you can be happy being hit, knowing you deserve it, then maybe you don't. But that's a big ask. IMO it's not true of anyone. Definitely not me. Intellectually I know it, but I think I'd break and lash out eventually. That caveman part of my brain would insist, this is not fair, this is not right. Want hurt stop, hurt back, make stop. It's not intuitive to understand that when struck first, I'm being justly punished, precisely because that caveman part of my brain exists, and if pushed, will drive my actions.

If I'm not happy being hit and I apply a firm-but-gentle joint lock to the guy's arm, pin him to the ground where he can't hit me anymore, ask a passerby to call the police and wait until they come to haul him off for assault, I'm no longer being hit and my caveman aggression had nothing to do with it.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #15

Even if you don't like the way this works, this is how it works now. And not only that, you become one more straw on that pile of evidence that every last white person is rotten inside, spoilt by privilege, unable to tell right from wrong.

Every homeless white person living on a sidewalk is "spoilt by privilege"? Every white person who's lost a job to outsourcing and is now living on the brink of poverty is "spoilt by privilege"? Every white person who goes bankrupt trying to pay a sick child's medical bills is "spoilt by privilege"?

Yes. Privilege doesn't mean you're never disadvantaged. It doesn't even mean you aren't at the very bottom. It just means that sometimes, another white person will look favourably on you, and disfavourably on a nonwhite person in the same situation, simply because you are white. Having one advantage doesn't mean you don't have other disadvantages.

"Every last white person is rotten inside, spoilt by privilege, unable to tell right from wrong" may be magic words which will get you invited to parties where shmoozing can score points with the cool kids and win acceptance by the in-crowd, but the whole thing is nothing more than a celebration of ignorance. And what does it serve?

Morality. And it's not about ignorance at all. It's simply an adjudication of moral values that not everyone agrees with. To be totally honest with you, I don't agree with it. I don't see why racism is the absolute worst thing to be destroyed at all costs while ugly women suffer worse discrimination but it's simply not considered immoral that they can't work at Hooters or get into nightclubs. I don't agree with this, but this is the moral determination society has made, and I have to follow along with it the same as I have to agree that murder is wrong when I don't innately feel that it is. What I feel is that there's nothing wrong with people who don't want murder in their society self-segregating, but that THEY would be wrong if they went to the purge society and purged it for simply being evil. There are some reasons people can't control for which you may hate and exclude them, and some for which you may never do so.

The entirely of wokeness follows logically from the simple premise that racism is evil and must be stopped at all costs.

I'm not prosocial. I'm a psychopath. No points will ever be scored by me. I will never have even one friend, let alone be invited to anything ever. But I do have to admit that all this new morality is right, if racism is wrong.

"My biggest realisation has been that most of these people that pose as Social Justice Warriors, Activists, Agents of Change etc - don't actually want to improve and repair society. They don't want a better world. For some the goal is to make things worse.

I mean, of course. Same with car mechanics. Why would they fix your car instead of breaking it more while pretending they fixed it? One way, they lose their jobs. The other, they protect them. That doesn't detract from the fact that the car is actually broken.

There are a lot of ways these problems can be fixed simply. We already tax the rich and give to the poor. We can already measure the effects of racial discrimination because we know what the income gap is. A simple reparations tax that focused on the income gap would fix everything incredibly cleanly and smoothly, however, it wouldn't give a large guaranteed income to anyone for doing nothing, empower the landlords of morality, or intentionally put minority members where they won't succeed so that they can create more racism.

But attempts by people who would actually fix the problem suffer from capitalistic exclusion. Let's say I want to do something, like repair bicycles, honestly. But I have to compete with the dishonest, who say they will repair your bicycle but will take your money and not do it. I have overhead in parts that they don't have. I have extra labour I need to put in when something I fix goes wrong, while they don't. They can use all their extra profit to generate hundreds of times the good press I generate by doing my job and relying on word of mouth. They can even smear me, accusing me of what they do, and everyone will believe it. They can hire lawyers and use legal power to stamp out anyone smearing them, for libel. They will simply push me out of the market. It is inevitable. In the same way, as long as there is a free market, the race hustlers will win, and anyone who actually wants to address the issue will lose. As long as money is involved, absolutely everything will degenerate into a moneymaking cesspit.

If I'm not happy being hit and I apply a firm-but-gentle joint lock to the guy's arm, pin him to the ground where he can't hit me anymore, ask a passerby to call the police and wait until they come to haul him off for assault, I'm no longer being hit and my caveman aggression had nothing to do with it.

Yes, you want not to be hit. So do I. It's a primitive drive. I try to consider first whether I deserve it. I don't always succeed, but I've never once in my life, after being hurt and considering the situation honestly, determined honestly that I didn't deserve it. It's always the immediate reaction, "That's not fair! I don't want to be hurt!" but after Reason comes in, it's pretty obvious that the visceral reaction was that of what I really am: A morally retarded filthy animal.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #17

Every homeless white person living on a sidewalk is "spoilt by privilege"? Every white person who's lost a job to outsourcing and is now living on the brink of poverty is "spoilt by privilege"? Every white person who goes bankrupt trying to pay a sick child's medical bills is "spoilt by privilege"?

Yes. Privilege doesn't mean you're never disadvantaged. It doesn't even mean you aren't at the very bottom. It just means that sometimes, another white person will look favourably on you, and disfavourably on a nonwhite person in the same situation, simply because you are white. Having one advantage doesn't mean you don't have other disadvantages.

How does it benefit someone to be thought of more highly than someone else in the same position?

Privilege does mean not being disadvantaged.

It's just as likely that someone----regardless of race----will look favorably on a homeless nonwhite person, because (are you ready for it?) there are people of all races who look first at someone's situation and not at the color of their skin. No, really. There are many such people.

The entirely of wokeness follows logically from the simple premise that racism is evil and must be stopped at all costs.

Then how does it end up at....

every last white person is rotten inside, spoilt by privilege, unable to tell right from wrong

....which is itself racist?

I mean, of course. Same with car mechanics. Why would they fix your car instead of breaking it more while pretending they fixed it? One way, they lose their jobs. The other, they protect them. That doesn't detract from the fact that the car is actually broken.

The point is that while the job of car mechanics is to fix things, Africa Brooke is saying that the "job" of "social justice warriors" is to break things.

We already tax the rich and give to the poor.

Not in my neck of the woods. In these parts the rich pay around 3% in taxes, when they pay anything, while the working poor pay far higher.

Let's say I want to do something, like repair bicycles, honestly. But I have to compete with the dishonest, who say they will repair your bicycle but will take your money and not do it. I have overhead in parts that they don't have. I have extra labour I need to put in when something I fix goes wrong, while they don't. They can use all their extra profit to generate hundreds of times the good press I generate by doing my job and relying on word of mouth. They can even smear me, accusing me of what they do, and everyone will believe it. They can hire lawyers and use legal power to stamp out anyone smearing them, for libel. They will simply push me out of the market. It is inevitable.

No, it isn't. They aren't going to be able to do any of that with their profit, because they aren't going to have any profit. They won't have any profit because if they take people's money and don't provide their advertised service, they aren't going to have any repeat customers and they'll go out of business.

as long as there is a free market, the race hustlers will win, and anyone who actually wants to address the issue will lose. As long as money is involved, absolutely everything will degenerate into a moneymaking cesspit.

Here, it looks to me like you're making Africa Brooke's point.

[HeelingGrounds024]

The observation that social media algorithms can fuel flame wars and amplify animosity is spot on. These algorithms are designed to maximize user engagement, often by promoting content that sparks strong emotional reactions, regardless of whether those reactions are positive or negative. Unfortunately, this can lead to a vicious cycle where contentious content gets prioritized, further polarizing users and fostering hostility.

Moreover, these algorithms tend to create echo chambers, where individuals are primarily exposed to content and opinions that align with their existing beliefs. This reinforcement can intensify feelings of animosity toward those with differing views, as people become less exposed to diverse perspectives and more entrenched in their own ideological bubbles.

In essence, social media algorithms are shaping our digital experiences in ways that may inadvertently cultivate animosity and division. Addressing this issue requires a multi-faceted approach, including increased transparency and accountability for algorithmic decision-making, as well as efforts to promote healthier online discourse and encourage critical thinking skills among users.

[TheHolyGhost]

Are we being groomed for hatred?

No, it is already bred into you.