Makes me think it might be similar to the "I don't watch TV" or "movies" or "sports" crowds. Just any pervasive cultural activity in which some don't participate but still carry on.

I remember before I deleted my FB account (I've since created a new one), my buddy said to me that I'd be ok, just that I might be strongly disconnected from culture—not necessarily to tell me to not do it, but to be aware of the potential ramifications.

Agreed partially.

You have to question what "culture" are you missing on.

I'm still on Facebook and let me tell you, you're not missing much in the culture department.

Maybe not mass culture, per say, as that may have happened elsewhere. Maybe it was the conversation with friends, events, new lingo, reactions, updates, etc.—more focused on maybe a more local, group culture than a higher level US or global culture.

> right now, the culture isn't at fb, it's at places like reddit and 4chan

The fact that people in 2022 describe 4chan as having any kind of effect on our culture should send shivers down our collective spines.

/pol/ is 4chan, 4chan is /pol/

> The fact that people in 2022 describe 4chan as having any kind of effect on our culture should send shivers down our collective spines.

4chan has always been the undercurrent of digital culture. It's just way closer to the surface now. And contrary to popular belief, the entirety of 4chan isn't some den of degenerates and racists. People end up focusing on /b/ and /pol/, when the entire reason they were created was to quarantine that sort of discussion from infecting the rest of the boards. /fit/, /sci/, /mu/ etc are about as toxic as any subreddit.

1)That's still pretty toxic.

2)/pol/ overruns and sets the tone for the rest of the boards on 4chan IME. That's why I personally stopped reading there.

Early to mid 2010s, I think, and yes, I think it was more of a cultural current in some ways then.

I have no Facebook, Instagram, Snap, or any similar accounts. In casual converstation, I sometimes notice meme references or slang that I don't know, but that's about it. Not a big problem or loss IMO.

The importance of Internet memes is overblown by the always-online crowd. They are cultural phenomena, but not knowing them doesn’t confer disadvantages.

I think this was the bigger issue for me: missing out on what my friends were doing. It was a pain (and still is) to make accommodations for the one or two people who aren't on a platform, just as it would annoy me to remember to include the one person on Zoom when I'd be in an in-person meeting with 15 people. Switching modalities can add just enough friction to mean the one not on the platform misses out.

Perhaps some wanted that, maybe even I did—conflicted in wanting freedom from it and also fearing the loss of it.

It's not nearly that severe. In cases where I don't understand some reference, it's often clear by context. If not, I say "what does that mean?"

I should have written “exclusively planned/conversed”. As in you simply will not know about outings or get togethers, and so you simply will not see them.

I can be online constantly and escape whatever the flavour of the month is. The only time it bites me in the ass is when I get banned for not being up to date on whatever everyone good and decent has to agree with to be good and decent.

If you are getting banned regularly from online communities you might want to reconsider why that is happening

Yeah, online communities reflexively "other" anyone who does not agree with their increasingly robust (aka fascist) political dogma, given that that sort of thing seems to be inescapably creeping into everything

How many times have I walked by a table in a cafe to overhear someone complaining that it's impossible to be taken seriously unless you adopt extremeist left or right schools of thought?

How many times have I witnessed adherents dismissing moderates or centrists? Accusing them of helping the "enemy"? What about people who think for themselves and have concluded something out of the mainstream? Throwing in some other unrelated political cause and accusing anyone who doesn't agree to be wrong?

It's disgusting, and those communities should be ashamed of themselves

I'm assuming, of course, that GP is a decent person and independent thinker, as those types tend to get railroaded in this glorious new dawn of political groupthink

> glorious new dawn of political groupthink

[citation needed]

I don't see any reason to think that "groupthink", aka societal or subcultural values and beliefs, is at a notably higher level than much of history. In the west, look at the long dominance of the Catholic Church. Even after the rise of the Protestants, it was often more a set of competing orthodoxies, such that large groups were eager to cross oceans to get away from oppression. And when those people got to the US, quite a lot of them were eager to become the oppressors. Looks at the predominance of blue laws across the US. Look at who got tarred and feathered. Who got lynched. Who dealt with segregation and Jim Crow. Look at the Red Scare, the socially narrow dominance of mass media, or how eager and how violent the forces of conformity were in the 1950s.

I think today people are generally freer that at any point. But two big things have changed. One, the rise of the internet means the one-way, conformist channels of mass media have given way to everybody talking to everybody. And two, cultural power is no longer concentrated in a narrow slice of society, such that people previously unheard are now having some things to say.

I get why some people see that as "political groupthink". When you're in a dominant group, you're not used to getting challenged. But personally, I find it bracing, causing me to rethink a lot of things I took as givens because that's what the people around me believed. The death of old paradigms is always uncomfortable, but personally I'd much rather live in this era of ferment than in one where everybody believes the same comfortable old certainties.

I think you are meaningfully contributing to the conversation, but you don’t get to drop a “[citation needed]” and then proceed to state your un-cited opinions.

I do in fact get to do that.

The parts that were my opinions ("I think", "I see", etc) were clearly cited to me. But a fair bit of what I wrote was pointers to things people can look up. If there's something apparently factual that you're having trouble looking up, let me know and I'm glad to give you a pointer. Because I'm happy to give citations when people ask for them.

The reason I put a "citation needed" in was that was phrased as an objective claim, not a personal opinion. An objective claim I believe to be false. (And which I'll note that the author didn't give any further data on despite me asking.)

Growing up I do not remember political associations to be so strong in folks. Twenty years ago, when 9/11 hit, we put aside our differences in a remarkable display of national unity. (Granted, not all good came out of this; a number of racial groups saw a ton of negative attention at the time. But even with that, the climate felt like one of unity, at least for me.) Comedians like Trey Parker/Matt Stone, Dave Chapelle, even Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would regularly poke the bear on a wide range of social issues without constantly sparking nationwide outrages.

Now, we have... this: an endless cacophony of unqualified and undeserving voices spouting off whatever they want, for every purpose other than advancing productive debate. Where all get to be heard regardless of merit, yet original ideas suppressed because of pedantry (like "citation needed") and not having the backing of the melange of different social issues and media idols that we suffer under today. I don't think the political climate has been so stifling since at least McCarthyism, and for this I blame Twitter and social media.

I don't understand how you think such flowery, subjective language constitutes an objective statement of reality; all of my input into this matter is pretty clearly stated as opinion and observations outlined serve to reinforce it.

Besides, sitting there banging out "Citation Needed" like this was fucking Wikipedia is a crass, petulant move, and wholly inappropriate for something as counterfactual as a comment board. You can save the nitpicking for r/AskHistorians, where the rules clearly require it.

No, I am not saying this is a fact-free zone. What I am saying is that it is a zone for opinions, which may or may not be true (counterfactual may not be the best word choice here, but it is close enough), and is not to be held to the same standard as wikipedia, whose copy you are using in what I read as a flippant remark.

I don't have data for you, just my perceptions and opinions. There are too many structural problems with the way political data is collected in this country (starting with the wording on questions in political surveys, and ending far beyond redistricting shenanigans). Given how deceptive and manipulative most election campaigns are, and how third parties are disproportionately disadvantaged financially, I don't think that looking at the proportion of left/right seats in congress is a good proxy for political polarization.

What I do see as a proxy is the behavior of those around me, and then trying to extrapolate that to reflect a larger population. I live in one of many pockets of conservativism in a very liberal state, and I am judging on the tone and tenor of political conversations and how freely friendly, amicable political debate flows among social groups in a fairly politically diverse area. Again, this is highly subjective for many different reasons, and I can say that I used to travel around a lot and have rubbed shoulders with many different social groups and castes in this society, and so I feel that I am at least somewhat qualified to extrapolate here.

And that observation is that political discussion is getting narrower, more pointed, and more focused on nationally-popular memes/issues. 12 years ago I sat in a meeting of one of the local tea-party chapters, and it was mostly older folks rabblerousing over local stuff. There wasn't much in the way of conspiracy theories, there wasn't a whole bunch of liberal shit-talking, just a bunch of people bitching about this-or-that with the local schooldistrict. When they happened to pick on my own high school, I knew that much of what they were saying was factually false, and I was able to state to the crowd why, and that was that. (There was some grumbling but the conversation turned elsewhere.) There were both left- and right-leaning folks in my friend group, and there was a quiet understanding to not get into political debates, and people weren't on-edge about it so if something was said, it didn't blow up.

We didn't have too many local crazies flying massive American flags on their trucks, with their cheap shots at trolling regular folks -- but now we do; there are places I can go where I can see them on a regular and predictable basis.

Nowadays I stay out of political shit, people are way too toxic, obsessive, and focusing on the same dozen or so things that everyone else is talking about. What would this tea party meeting have looked like today?

I have a different social group now; one that I like far more but we are very left-leaning, and increasingly (and troublingly) so. There is a much higher proportion of "polsplaining" (like mansplaining, but politicos talking down to people that offend them), many more suggestions that people self-evaluate (and insinuations that they are bad for towing a particular line), and hot political buzzwords are on people's tongues (and used as scapegoats) far more often than I can recall. I find myself hesitating to argue some points as I don't really want to die on any of these hills.

When the Roe v Wade decision dropped I broke my rule and attended a local rally, as I was pissed (much like everyone else). But at that rally someone got up on the podium and actively denounced people that not only just opposed abortion or womens health issues, but also anyone that opposed Black Lives Matter, anyone that opposed reparations, anyone that opposed ACAB; they kept calling for a unified front to address all of these issues as one.

I don't recall overhearing anyone complaining about feeling unable to speak up, but in the last year or two it has occurred multiple times at my usual haunts.

But once again this is all subjective experience of one person, albeit someone who tries to be at least somewhat perceptive and thoughtful about it. I have an axe to grind, so I am very quick to denounce certain cohorts -- hence my original comment here -- but again this is all subjective and nowhere have I explicitly asserted anything as fact. If you take the omission of certain wording as an attempt at factuality, you should consider that certain kinds of language training encourage writing in a way that minimizes some phrasing as a matter of style, and that it is very common in many places where people write professionally.