2. Hidden Tribes

[lesbotronic]

Americans** have an exaggerated idea of the popularity of views expressed by the far left, particularly on Twitter, according to the "Hidden Tribes"* study of core beliefs conducted by the non-profit organization More in Common.  This research found seven "tribes" sharing beliefs and behavior, whose political opinions were remarkably consistent even across stated political affiliation and personal demographic.

The New Yorker reported "the group farthest to the left contained only eight per cent of the population, and the group furthest to the right, 'devoted conservatives,' contained only six per cent. Combined, however, these two political extremes were much more likely to share political content on social media than the less partisan groups. As  [the social psychologist Jonathan]  Haidt emphasizes, these two groups are also the whitest and richest of those studied, meaning that Twitter’s increasingly heated wrangling is not just far from a considered democratic debate but has truly become a spectacle driven by a narrow and unrepresentative group of élites."

Worse, these extremists know they muffle voices of the moderate majority.

According to Jonathan Haidt, "these two extreme groups are similar in surprising ways. They are the whitest and richest of the seven groups, which suggests that America is being torn apart by a battle between two subsets of the elite who are not representative of the broader society. What’s more, they are the two groups that show the greatest homogeneity in their moral and political attitudes. This uniformity of opinion, the [Hidden Tribes] study’s authors speculate, is likely a result of thought-policing on social media: “Those who express sympathy for the views of opposing groups may experience backlash from their own cohort.” In other words, political extremists don’t just shoot darts at their enemies; they spend a lot of their ammunition targeting dissenters or nuanced thinkers on their own team. In this way, social media makes a political system based on compromise grind to a halt."

Back to Hidden Tribes:  "The filter bubbles and echo chambers of social media restrict people’s exposure to alternative views and elevate the loudest and more extreme voices. This has helped to enforce similar ways of thinking and behaving within the most engaged wing groups, while discouraging others from engaging at all."

"This report has shown that despite America’s profound polarization, the middle is far larger than conventional wisdom suggests, and the strident wings of progressivism and conservatism are far smaller. Progressive Activists are not representative of most liberal Americans, Devoted Conservatives are not representative of most conservative Americans."

"Social media’s empowerment of the far left, the far right, domestic trolls, and foreign agents is creating a system that looks less like democracy and more like rule by the most aggressive."

 

. . .

 

It's all online*, a lot of interesting stuff, particularly how similar these two groups really are, down to their religious (or "religious") zealotry, particularly with regard to whether or not XX lesbians may exclusively date each other?

Each extreme group claims their zealotry comes from different (not at all misogynist?) places, but both come to the same sexist conclusion:  Nope!

While the "devoted conservatives" are still out there believing lesbians are on the highway to hell due to Ye Olde Homophobia (possible detour if the right traditionally religious XYs can "set them straight") . . . 

 . . . many "progressive activists" now insist XX lesbianism is no longer allowed because postmodernism plus porn plus gender theory says nope too.

According to the Apple dictionary "progressive" can mean a group favoring social reform, or a disease or ailment increasing in severity.  Not too long ago we would have used that first definition exclusively, now we're moving more toward the second with every message from category FOUR.

In this context the word "progressive" isn't progressive after all; it's gaslighting propaganda.

Both groups know they can manipulate XX with language:  Be "good, virtuous, moral, reverent, headed to heaven" on the one hand or "progressive, diverse and inclusive" on the other.

Any disagreement with either one is a shameful lack of kindness toward your Lord and you're now on the wrong side of history.

Both groups know if they use this language, most XX are reluctant to object to anything at all that's said next.

 

. . .

 

So that's 8% for the "progressive activists," and 6% for the "devoted conservatives."

But what about everybody else?

So that's everyone in the middle exhausted by how partisan and irrationally tribal American politics have become, the "Exhausted Majority."

That's 86%.

 

. . .

 

So we wrote this about some threats of obscenity?

Yes, that's very dramatic.  However, after thinking deep thoughts after reading Hidden Tribes, we now think all of the shaming, reporting, aggressive boundary stomping, etc. toward lesbians lately is coming from the wings, not that middle 86.  

Probably the majority of Americans** would never imagine lesbotronic "needs to be reported," even if they were actually familiar and they did actually care?

Perhaps we should never have been worried mainstream humans were the ones?

But you'd never know that to read Twitter . . . 

 

 

 

*Hidden Tribes:  website or .pdf

Updates to Hidden Tribes:  website

**The study is mostly American for now, but they're already looking at similar trends in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Greece.

 

 

[LoloKS]

Did you know, the New York Times is actually on the right.  Maybe ‘anti lesbian’ is a red herring, thrown out there to pull  attention away from our dire straits.

[Geekomatic]

"Social media’s empowerment of the far left, the far right, domestic trolls, and foreign agents is creating a system that looks less like democracy and more like rule by the most aggressive."

And here we are, back at a very old adage: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". So true. It's why I rarely post anything online anymore. If I do, it'll likely be a link to an "unbiased" article that uses statistics from reputable & credible sources (shock). Even then, it'll get shot down by the trolls. Doesn't matter, it's up for all to consider. I don't reply to *hecklers/trolls.

*At least not directly. I DO enjoy the occasional barbs at them, delivered via another person's reply. It gives me satisfaction to get back without them getting the direct attention- lol.