You ever have a fragile conversation with a recent acquaintance and find yourself unable to slow your approach into a challenging, divisive topic? What I’ve noticed tends to happen is that the other person (if they spend too much time online) will ask a series of Facebook quiz level questions with the transparent agenda to either categor…
You ever have a fragile conversation with a recent acquaintance and find yourself unable to slow your approach into a challenging, divisive topic? What I’ve noticed tends to happen is that the other person (if they spend too much time online) will ask a series of Facebook quiz level questions with the transparent agenda to either categorize you as one of Us or one of Them.
They’ll eventually think they understand you and summarize your view using one of the focus group tested phrases that bots help proliferate online.
Then they know how to treat you.
What’s ironic is that it’s SO hard to express my dissatisfaction with this cultural predicament without setting myself up as a self-righteous kook who’s above all the “tribal games” that that tribe of Others are playing.
Footnote: I wrote the above in a comment yesterday. One thing I love about Substack is this experience of synchronicity—the thoughts I’m swimming in tend to be the same streams the collective consciousness is moved by (at least in my algorithmic filter bubble).
BUT what do you think Alex? Is it possible to get caught in a kind of deeper tribalism, where it becomes we Metamodernists vrs those Others mired in the culture war? How can we radically include everyone in our philosophy? (Except maybe the extraordinarily rare but very real pyromaniacs who authentically and incurably get off on causing destruction.)
Anyway here’s the comment for proof we’re on similar pages, haha
In retrospect this isn’t the same exact phenomenon. But that “then they know how to treat you” line is meant to hint at the “then they know your opinions on every other topic under the sun” style assumption of monothinking in others that this essay deals with.
You ever have a fragile conversation with a recent acquaintance and find yourself unable to slow your approach into a challenging, divisive topic? What I’ve noticed tends to happen is that the other person (if they spend too much time online) will ask a series of Facebook quiz level questions with the transparent agenda to either categorize you as one of Us or one of Them.
They’ll eventually think they understand you and summarize your view using one of the focus group tested phrases that bots help proliferate online.
Then they know how to treat you.
What’s ironic is that it’s SO hard to express my dissatisfaction with this cultural predicament without setting myself up as a self-righteous kook who’s above all the “tribal games” that that tribe of Others are playing.
Footnote: I wrote the above in a comment yesterday. One thing I love about Substack is this experience of synchronicity—the thoughts I’m swimming in tend to be the same streams the collective consciousness is moved by (at least in my algorithmic filter bubble).
BUT what do you think Alex? Is it possible to get caught in a kind of deeper tribalism, where it becomes we Metamodernists vrs those Others mired in the culture war? How can we radically include everyone in our philosophy? (Except maybe the extraordinarily rare but very real pyromaniacs who authentically and incurably get off on causing destruction.)
Anyway here’s the comment for proof we’re on similar pages, haha
https://substack.com/@creekmasons/note/c-60391015?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1t12wr
In retrospect this isn’t the same exact phenomenon. But that “then they know how to treat you” line is meant to hint at the “then they know your opinions on every other topic under the sun” style assumption of monothinking in others that this essay deals with.