Reddit slowly became filled with hate
I have been on reddit for just about 12 years now. Something I've noticed over time is just how hateful the place has become. A complete outrage machine. Every single sub became filled with it. I've filtered so many subreddits over the last few years, it's insane. I don't know enough about this place to be sure, but I do hope it doesn't become the same type of echo chamber of anger.
You're viewing a single thread.
To be fair to reddit, it really depends on the sub. If you go on /r/fightporn or /r/crazyfuckingvideos you're going to get a certain demographic that tends to be reactionary.
Then if you go on /r/politics or /r/socialism or /r/conservative you're gonna get clickbaity echo chambers
But there are subs with great discussion on niche topics. /r/zizek or /r/credibledefense or /r/askhistorians all have very little outrage and instead good discussions and analysis.
The problem is not unique to reddit. It's a side effect of a large enough community. The focus gets broad and the issue is that posts like Twitter screenshots or memes are easier to digest. Because they are easier to digest, more people click on them and upvote. Therefore these posts will almost always reach the top before articles or other long for articles.
This over time gives incentive for posts that can a) draw the most attention with a headline and b) is fast and easy to digest
Outrage porn is exactly that. You see an image "DeSantis passed a bill to out toxic chemicals in roads!"
People don't bother to do research on what the law says m and they immediately go to the comments and make jokes or berate the GOP/DeSantis
Nuanced discussion gets pushed to the bottom and once again people will downvote whatever they feel is against the narrative constructed by the OP.
Tldr: no reddit isn't getting worse in this regard. It's a function of large online communities. This website will likely see the same effect should certain communities get large enough.
Zizek is a sexpest obsessed with comparing everything to rape and his followers are a cult of personality. This is a very strange one to include in your list of non-echo chambers, particularly as he and his audience are political partisans just like the first three you criticised.
The inclusion here seems more like snifffff ideeeology, as he would say.
I admit my inclusion is ideology- I am trying to subconsciously convert people to Stalinism. You will be the first to get sent to the gulags.
On a more serious note, it's obviously partisan but it's not click baity and it's a small community that's actively moderated. Posts are kept on topic so the focus of the sub doesn't get too broad and lead to the phenomenon in question.
For a sub that got wrecked, check out /r/chomsky
Before 2016 it was a place to post long form articles, interviews with Chomsky, nuanced discussions, etc. Afterwards it was placed on some astroturfing list and now it's just a generic center left Twitter screenshot type sub. Get similar content as /r/politics or /r/whitepeopletwitter
Which brings me endless amusement to find out when most people on the sub actually hate Chomsky's belief in freedom of speech or his opinion of the Ukraine war
I don't think the Chomsky sub going to shit matters much given the Epstein connections now tbh. Left needs to move on from him just as much as zizek
I think you focus too much on the messenger and not enough on the message, which is ironic that you complain about cult of personality. Manufactured Consent would be just as valuable even if Epstein write it himself.
Have you read any works by either Zizek or Chomsky? I don't ask this in a "gotcha" attempt. I'm genuinely curious if you have, and if yes what specifically do you take issue with? I'm a fan of both although Chomsky hates Zizek. I think Chomsky has done a massive public service cataloging and broadcasting US War crimes, while Zizek is a bit more theoretical
I think you focus too much on the messenger and not enough on the message
Should the left say the same about Stalin?
Serious question. I want to know if you apply this logic consistently or if you see an issue with it now.
Have you read any works by either Zizek or Chomsky?
Of course I have this is a strange question to be asking unless you think I'm a teenager new to the left or something, these people are very entry-level cringe-leftism 102 stuff, they were good gateways into various things for their time but nothing more radical because to be so would be to lose the platform and "prestige" they both covet provided to them by capitalists. Neither of them have made significant contributions to the left that were not made first by other people, Chomsky's most known work Manufacturing Consent is just a rehash of Parenti's work Inventing Reality, while Zizek on the other hand is focused on philosophy of ideology and media literacy rather than action.
I think Chomsky has done a massive public service cataloging and broadcasting US War crimes, while Zizek is a bit more theoretical
You have these backwards. Zizek is not theoretical, Zizek is philosophical. Theory can be applied as action, that is not what Zizek does.
Would you mind posting some good authors or thinkers to move forward from Chomsky please? I'm only familiar with him and would like to broaden my knowledge. I see you mentioned Parenti so I'll look them up.
Can do. Some suggestions:
Blackshirts and Reds is your starting point with Parenti.
You should look into Vincent Bevins. His Jakarta Method is a serious wakeup call about the use of mass murder against the left around the world and what last resort capitalism is willing to go to.
Vijay Prashad should also be on your list. He wrote Washington Bullets and continues to be extremely valuable and influential in the left today. He's also a really fucking good speaker, like Parenti.
Oh and anyone who considers themselves to still be a socdem (rather than an anticapitalist of some sort) should read Imperialism in the 21st Century by John Smith.
Chomsky & Herman didn't "rehash" Inventing Reality. Parenti didn't provide a model by which the propaganda system operates. Concentration of media ownership, advertising revenue, and reliance on government sources are methods by which Chomsky'a model operates whereas Parenti focuses on the ideological underpinnings - essentially trying to debunk the myth of liberal bias in media.
These are similar topics but they are not rehashes. I think Chomsky's has more value personally and there's a reason it has had a much broader impact on the left and society as a whole.
I also personally prefer Chomsky's matter of fact style.
Having said all that, like I said - my question wasn't an attempt at a gotcha. You just never know who you're talking to - I don't trust people just because they say things confidently. You do seem well read so I respect your opinion.
As for Zizek being philosophy- that's a given. His works are theoretical though, and I don't really want to argue the semantics. Zizek has a lot to say and I think he's right that we need to be reinventing leftist ideology for the 21st century.
r/politics and r/conservative should be the same sub to create some balance.
Either that or force r/politics to merge with r/progressive or r/liberal or r/socialism or r/far left or something
r/politics not having a conservative voice was my biggest “wtf” when I first joined reddit
The sub name is so misleading
Ya /r/politics should be /r/centerlefttwitter
I think the idea of mixing subs is cool. There's a sub.. /r/capitalismvssocialism which I liked. Basically people from different perspectives actually discuss things.
I hate echo chambers
I remember /r/debatefascism too before it got banned. I would go on there and talk to fascists. I don't understand why they banned it. Better to have them out in the open instead of hiding in dark spaces of the internet
In fairness, I don't believe in debating fascists; I believe in stomping them out given they historically trend toward wanting my whole race either liquidated or enslaved. There'll never be a day where I'm talking cordially to a known brownshirt.
Really the debate is for the fence sitters. You can't convince a fascist but you can convince someone entertaining fascism.
Forcibly suppressing ideas doesn't have a great track record historically, unfortunately. No easy way to prevent fascist ideas from spreading in open societies. Look at the massive Nazi rallies in NYC right before WW2
Look at the massive Nazi rallies in NYC right before WW2
You've gotta remember how many Klansmen existed in Amerika during that point in history. Which I still think should've been fought and suppressed, en masse, as soon as it first started cropping up. Fascism is like a strangling weed; the best time to deal with it is before it's sprouted and started growing. Otherwise, it's gonna get messy with exponential speed.