Reminds me of what Scott Alexander said, that "the closer you come to true freedom of association, the closer you get to a world where everyone is a member of more or less the community they deserve".

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-...

FWIW I had to unfollow more than few people on twitter in last few months. These folks were getting so bitter and filthy because liberal-progressive ideas were not resonating with popular politics across the world. Before that they would have something funny, interesting to say but lately they were all consumed with 'alternate facts', 'post truths' and so on.

I have come to conclusion all this logical sophistication is fine cover when events were happening the way these people liked else the world is going to hell.

Yep, people bitching or being super partisan are good grounds for dropping them from your circle(s) -- what I've not worked out yet is: was everyone so polarised already as you suggest (and simply had no reason to behave in this way as, if it's as you say they are only being vocal now that their views no longer match where global events seem to be taking us)? -- or is something going on which is making us all more militant in our views?

Reading only news which matches your views over a longer period seems to be making us all more aggressive/silo'd in our views..

It's pretty worrying, I'm not sure I can even have a reasonable discussion with someone who disagrees with me on any political topic which would end in a productive outcome anymore -- is it just me or does it seem that as a whole we're becoming more dismissive of others views and just shouting over each other, avoiding any challenges to the views we hold personally and then retreating back into our strongholds of those who agree with us?

edit: mef

I think they were always polarized but most of the time they had something interesting to say. What I was unaware before they would have such bad meltdown because of events across the world. I would think in the past people would get angry, say something and move on to other stuff.

I am just no longer interested in erudites who display such shallow understanding of human nature and world events but nonetheless whine whole day, whole year about how world is going to hell.

Nowadays I stick to tech, philosophy, Netflix etc. Though on netflix I notice how simplistic the social/political views of characters are even in shows with fantastic production values.

When thing are going well, people have fun and tell happy jokes. When things are going poorly, and getting treacherous, people get serious and tell bitter jokes.

I come to the conclusion all this logical sophistication is fine cover when people don't bother you with their problems, else the world is unentertaining for you.

If it were their problem it would be fine I guess but they were claiming it is world's problem. On personal level they seem doing well: doing PhDs, launching startups, taking pictures of fine food and places and so on. It is their ideology which is consuming them.

I mean I am no fan of any flavor of politicians or groups but I do not believe someone is 'uniquely evil', 'specially dangerous' but getting lot of public support.

I would agree if we were talking about center-right or center-left politicians, where the biggest criticism is "being too much like the previous person".

Trump, for example, lost the popular vote and seems to anger many of the people who voted for him. The only voices of support we hear are from Vladimir Putin and Marine Le Pen.

People are afraid and feel the impulse to do what they can to counter what is happening right now.

On a tangential note, I would recommend the 1995 French (fiction) movie "La Haine" (Hate). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Haine

Thanks, I will check that movie.

You say:

> The only voices of support we hear are from Vladimir Putin and Marine Le Pen.

I imagine It is same thing that somehow who voted for Trump were more than who were claiming to be supporter of Trump. There will be more leaders who are neutral or agree with Trump but would prefer to just keep quiet.

For example I notice a lot of support for Trump in India apart from a small section of elite who are ideologically opposed or IT workers/companies who are hopeful or dependent on US visas.

That frustration and cynicism is basically the (predictable) result of being protected from actual discourse with people actually disagreeing with them. Now those people are in power, and it's not possible anymore to hide from the fact that they and their views exist.

Given how our brains work, and the basic tenents of communication, is there such thing as objective content?

If I write an article about global warming, is it biased to not present the "denial" angle? Is it biased to present the denial angle with the same weight as the "scientific" angle?

Everything is tainted by this to some degree.

If you present scientific evidence and then correctly draw conclusions, then - assuming quality data sources - the only thing that's biased in your article is reality itself.

Truth doesn't lie in the middle, nor does it care about politics.

Almost all conclusions are drawn from a certain set of assumptions.

For example, the Affordable Care Act is in place, but costs are still rising. Some people think that this is because it's not "enough socialism". Others think it's because of "too much socialism".

You could list facts, but people are not looking for raw data, they're looking for analysis. How do you analyze this "objectively"?

Even if the content is objective in the sense of reality, many people will say it's not objective. And public opinion of "objective" sources are usually those that play to the both sides fallacy.

Going back to GGP's thing, people read what they want to read. What if you just happen to be right? Like, what if the "liberal echo bubble" is "actually" the truth? does this problem go away?

I think objectivity is hard to maintain, but objectivity + belief of objectivity in the public eye is probably impossible.

> How do you analyze this "objectively"?

At the very least, an acknowledgement of conflicting ideas would go a long way to gaining the trust of those who may have disagreeing opinions. Give me two partisan views of the same topic, and one author points out a summary of the conflicting ideas of their "opponent" while the other is silent, if I am on the fence on the issue I am going to have more trust in the opinions of the party who was transparently honest.

I'm not seeing much of this from anyone these days.

Instead of seeking unbiased information, it's better to seek out information with biases you disagree with. Too many people are exposed to the "other side" through the lens of their own pundits, rather then going to the highest quality arguments that oppose their views.

I personally can't feel confident in my views until I have heard and understood the motivation and arguments for all sides.