The Era of Over Reaction

[Rex Kickass]

I wonder if the internet is becoming a curse rather than a blessing. Last week, my roommate and I were talking about how life has changed in the last 20 years, especially politically. He's a good dozen years older than I am - and I asked him if it seemed to him that we started entering an outrage spiral in that time, where the policy or underlying meaning of something didn't matter so much as the offensive action that happened to overlay it. Where the story stopped being about the substance of an issue as much as how the issue or candidate or elected official is polling.

 

In politics, do we care too much about momentum at the expense of our own daily lives? Has life become so fast that we've stopped using level heads and started relying solely on gut reaction? And is that a good thing?

[iWiN4PreP]

On alot of things - I would agree.

 

We get every single news (true, false, little news, big news, bit city news, little town news) at the click of a button now. Things are being manipulated easier, and everything is being seen (once again up to the beholders eyes to see it a certain way).

 

With the overwhelming information available it is very easy to get lost into it. Connect some dots, over-react.

 

So and so is doing this, This country wants this to happen, etc. makes it feel like everything is happening and concerns us ultimately.

 

But - then again, it could be a good thing that so much people are concerned with issues. Maybe we just need to find a certain balance of everything.

 

But yes - I agree there is alot of over-reaction.

[NorthSideSox72]

The internet is noisy. People want to be heard over the din, so they yell louder. And louder, and louder. This combined with the unwillingness to dig into details, gives you the now pandemic need for people to exaggerate things to get a point across. This causes more polarity in people's words (both media and just plain people), and this is reflected in our politicians as well. Thus, the era of over reaction is really more accurately, the era of exaggeration to make a point. Its kind of sad, really.

 

[Balta1701]

Another issue to think about on this topic is the 24 hour news networks, and the 2 outcomes that have come with it; specifically the need to fill a whole lot of airtime without necessarily having a lot to fill it with every day, and the rise of an explicitly partisan news network (and kind of sorta a 2nd one at least if you only pay attention to 2 of their prime time shows) which has actual motivation to over-react because there's political benefit to having your supporters over-react (see; the Health Care debate).

[southsider2k5]

I curse both Al Gore and Johannes Gutenberg.

[juddling]

In politics, do we care too much about momentum at the expense of our own daily lives? Has life become so fast that we've stopped using level heads and started relying solely on gut reaction? And is that a good thing?

 

 

As a wise man once said " Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it"

[Jenksismyhero]

Like everything, there's the good, and there's the bad. There's more information out there, which means more information that can be destorted. But at the same time, we have more news outlets with more exposure so things can't slip through the cracks as easily (though i guess some would argue if you have 2-3 people at the head of all of those outlets it really doesn't matter).

 

Also, the fact that I can be arguing with someone about topic X, and be able to pull up the right answer on the interwebs on my phone within 30 seconds, is absolutely amazing. I dunno how this country functioned prior 2000. Seriously.

[Rex Kickass]

Like everything, there's the good, and there's the bad. There's more information out there, which means more information that can be destorted. But at the same time, we have more news outlets with more exposure so things can't slip through the cracks as easily (though i guess some would argue if you have 2-3 people at the head of all of those outlets it really doesn't matter).

 

Also, the fact that I can be arguing with someone about topic X, and be able to pull up the right answer on the interwebs on my phone within 30 seconds, is absolutely amazing. I dunno how this country functioned prior 2000. Seriously.

 

I think we've become an angrier country for it.

[bmags]

I'm not just going to blame the internet. Look at the WaPo editorial page.

[iWiN4PreP]

TV is also to blame, we got hundreds of channels now, sports any game any time.

 

Then the impact of the TV to popular culture.. etc. etc...

 

snowball effect

[jasonxctf]

what the internet has done, is make everyone a commentator. Everyone has an opinion and feels the need to share it. (kinda like Sports talk radio) Quite frankly, I don't give a rats as* what Bill in Baltimore thinks about the economy.

 

The other thing it has done is rapidly increase the myths/lies associated with things/people.

I remember in 1997, my future mother in law convinced, that if she forwarded this "email" from Walt Disney Co to 15 of her favorite friends, she'd get a free admission to Disney World. I knew then, that we are in trouble.

[bmags]

Quite frankly, I don't give a rats as* what Bill in Baltimore thinks about the economy.

 

But then neither will anyone else. There's no obligation to read what everyone is publishing. The potential of the internet is the true "marketplace of ideas". I, personally, think the analysis and dynamic writing of the blogosphere will provide as good of journalism as newspapers did. The reaction of "I just want to know what happened, not to know what to think" perspective is strange, arguments and analysis are just as important to look at with critical thinking as normal reports. And so we also get these fascinating debates, such as what happened with Manzi (which i will look for the link), where a bit of analysis led across a huge debate across many blogs. No one person was right, and it's up to critical thinking to decide your own views.

 

BUt, if not for blogs and Harper's, who the hell would be covering the gitmo suicides? No network or anyone is covering it.

 

Edit: It looks like sullivan had a pretty good link to 4 peoples reactions in the debate here: Chait v. Manzi

 

It was an analysis of whether social democracies in Europe came at the cost of a share in world economic power.

Edited January 22, 2010 by bmags

[lostfan]

The internet is a double-edged sword. The access to so much information is just a beautiful thing. But the downside to that is everyone has a voice and it's easy to be heard, even when you are one of those people who shouldn't be heard, and it's a lot easier for bulls*** to get traction and a lot harder to vet it all (or some people don't even try to vet, they like living in their insulated information loop, like anyone who takes Orly Taitz seriously).

[Rex Kickass]

The problem with the internet is that its so easy to wall yourself off. You only experience what you know you like, by and large. The fragmentation of audience has made providers more and more desperate to build an audience so it seems like any fad gets latched onto these days. And when it comes to newsworthy events, its more about outrage than anything else, followed by overreaction. We didn't act like this before. Case in point? Aviation.

 

Yesterday, a flight from LGA to Louisville was diverted to Philly because an orthodox jewish teenager was wearing wearing tefillin and saying his morning prayers. Because a stewardess got hebrew and arabic concerned and decided that terrorists now bomb airplanes with leather webbing wrapped around their arms and small black boxes on their forehead.

 

Do you realize that we actually were much more likely to experience terror in the air during the 1980s than now? In fact, US airliners experienced six such attacks and hijackings in a five year period during the 1980s. What do you think would happen if that happened now?

 

Great piece on Salon by Ask The Pilot about this today.

 

http://salon.com/news/air_travel/index.htm...erican_hysteria

[jasonxctf]

oh yeah... I also hate Twitter and its effect on Modern America.

[bmags]

oh yeah... I also hate Twitter and its effect on Modern America.

 

thread is full of taking the lowest common denominator and proposing it as the sole virtue.

 

twitter is fantastic.

[southsider2k5]

The problem with the internet is that its so easy to wall yourself off. You only experience what you know you like, by and large. The fragmentation of audience has made providers more and more desperate to build an audience so it seems like any fad gets latched onto these days. And when it comes to newsworthy events, its more about outrage than anything else, followed by overreaction. We didn't act like this before. Case in point? Aviation.

 

Yesterday, a flight from LGA to Louisville was diverted to Philly because an orthodox jewish teenager was wearing wearing tefillin and saying his morning prayers. Because a stewardess got hebrew and arabic concerned and decided that terrorists now bomb airplanes with leather webbing wrapped around their arms and small black boxes on their forehead.

 

Do you realize that we actually were much more likely to experience terror in the air during the 1980s than now? In fact, US airliners experienced six such attacks and hijackings in a five year period during the 1980s. What do you think would happen if that happened now?

 

Great piece on Salon by Ask The Pilot about this today.

 

http://salon.com/news/air_travel/index.htm...erican_hysteria

 

Well at least they are harassing white judeo-christians now...

[MexSoxFan#1]

Basically I just use the Internet for free porn sites and SoxTalk

[Texsox]

The internet is noisy. People want to be heard over the din, so they yell louder. And louder, and louder. This combined with the unwillingness to dig into details, gives you the now pandemic need for people to exaggerate things to get a point across. This causes more polarity in people's words (both media and just plain people), and this is reflected in our politicians as well. Thus, the era of over reaction is really more accurately, the era of exaggeration to make a point. Its kind of sad, really.

 

I agree. I also blame politics becoming a team sport with us versus them loyalties to political parties. It really hit home when I was teaching Washington's farewell address. Everything he predicted about political parties came true.

[Texsox]

Basically I just use the Internet for free porn sites and SoxTalk

 

And we appreciate it if you keep those two separate

[southsider2k5]

Basically I just use the Internet for free porn sites and SoxTalk

 

I am not surprised.

[bmags]

I agree. I also blame politics becoming a team sport with us versus them loyalties to political parties. It really hit home when I was teaching Washington's farewell address. Everything he predicted about political parties came true.

 

hmmm...when I read washington's farewell address it kind of comes across as not so much political parties are bad as much as...that other political party is bad.

[Texsox]

hmmm...when I read washington's farewell address it kind of comes across as not so much political parties are bad as much as...that other political party is bad.

 

 

 

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

 

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

 

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

 

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

 

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

 

Washington did not have a party affiliation. He did have Jefferson and Hamilton, both from opposite ends of the spectrum battling it out within his administration.

[Soxy]

Washington did not have a party affiliation. He did have Jefferson and Hamilton, both from opposite ends of the spectrum battling it out within his administration.

I find it ironic that you are so active in this thread Tex.

[Texsox]

I find it ironic that you are so active in this thread Tex.

 

He slowly approaches the bait, it was unusual in these waters. Eying it warily, he ponders who was fishing in these waters. As he drew closer, he couldn't help but notice the scent. Not the pungent smell of Vienna Sausages and beer, this was more exotic, actually cosmopolitan. Deciding to get a closer look, he follows the line up, up towards the surface. All the while realizing the risks, but inexplicably drawn closer. As his curiosity begins to peak WHAM! he bangs his head on the ice. Momentarily stunned, he hears the laughter from the fisherman above, "serves the dumb s.o.b. right" he hears her say. Her! Could it be? Circling he finds the hole cut into the ice and squeezes towards the surface. Yes! It is Soxy. Surprised to find her fishing, and remembering what an ass he was earlier, he slips a dozen roses, hot chocolate and peppermint schnapps on the ice and swims away . . .