FEATURED How Do You Feel About Kamala's Policy Proposals For Black Men?

[Swabbie]

Real question, why do people always act like shit seen on social media only exists on social media?

I get that not everything on the internet is real, but ya'lll really be acting like aliens use social media and that the people that post this shit and the thousands of people that like and comment on it don't really exist on Earth.

Because the active users who regularly post on the internet are a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of the population. 100,000 likes, retweets, and quotes is 0.0294117647% of the U.S. population, 0.00125% of the global population. Studies show people who hold controversial and contrarian views are more likely to engage, and continue to engage, with certain subjects, and the algorithms these sites use often encourage that behavior.

So no, the internet is still not real life. In these cases, it's a concentrated source of the hot takes a small portion of society has.

 

[BlackRain]

Because the active users who regularly post on the internet are a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of the population. 100,000 likes, retweets, and quotes is 0.0294117647% of the U.S. population, 0.00125% of the global population. People who hold controversial and contrarian views are more likely to engage and continue to engage with certain subjects and the algorithms these sites use often encourage that behavior.

So no, the internet is still not real life.

It does reflect certain aspects of society. The majority? No. But it is a loud enough portion that actually has been proven to affect peoples world views and has led to actual tangible results and consequences in the real world. It's very much real life

 

[ThaManMythLegnd]

It does reflect certain aspects of society. The majority? No. But it is a loud enough portion that actually has been proven to affect peoples world views and has led to actual tangible results and consequences in the real world. It's very much real life

Twitter is not real. Anyone can find something on it to complain about, that doesn't represent the other 95% of people.

Peopel who use social media as a source, almost always have no real argument of substance.

 

[Swabbie]

It does reflect certain aspects of society. The majority? No. But it is a loud enough portion that actually has been proven to affect peoples world views and has led to actual tangible results and consequences in the real world. It's very much real life

Real life in the sense that it mirrors society, which it does not. The internet is a land of extremes, as this is what drives engagement. People are rather milquetoast. The number of people who actively participate in the internet world is incredibly small (as you yourself have affirmed in a previous post IIRC) and those people are more often than not a certain type of person.

 

[TheNightKing]

Twitter is not real. Anyone can find something on it to complain about, that doesn't represent the other 95% of people.

Peopel who use social media as a source, almost always have no real argument of substance.

Especially when they use posts from random people or those with a small platform to say they represent how a majority of a certain demographic feels, which happens here all the time.

 

[BlackRain]

Twitter is not real. Anyone can find something on it to complain about, that doesn't represent the other 95% of people.

Peopel who use social media as a source, almost always have no real argument of substance.

It's real because folks real lives have actually been affected because of social media. People have made empires and entire careers from it. It's very much real. Now whether or not it affects you is different. But that doesn't negate the reality for the people for whom it does. Even if let's say we go with your 95%...that still leaves 5% which means it's real

 

[BlackRain]

Real life in the sense that it mirrors society, which it does not. The internet is a land of extremes, as this is what drives engagement. People are rather milquetoast. The number of people who actively participate in the internet world is incredibly small (as you yourself have affirmed in a previous post IIRC) and those people are more often than not a certain type of person.

Im not denying that it's not the majority especially when it comes to the negative shit. But it does represent some folks povs and it's very much real. That report i posted was about social media accounts that traffic solely in toxicity and negativity. Overall though most folks who engage in social media use it for it's intended purpose. And that's why it's thrived the way it has

 

[AP3.0]

Peopel who use social media as a source, almost always have no real argument of substance.

Then this is the issue

Not that the Internet isn't real

 

[Swabbie]

Im not denying that it's not the majority especially when it comes to the negative shit. But it does represent some folks povs and it's very much real. That report i posted was about social media accounts that traffic solely in toxicity and negativity. Overall though most folks who engage in social media use it for it's intended purpose. And that's why it's thrived the way it has

So you agree with me but at this point it seems you are arguing semantics, no? Because the post I made that started this conversation was my confusion that something weird said by some weird niggas was being held up as consensus, which is unreality. Most people, the vast majority, don't actually post on the internet, they browse.

It does not mirror reality. If you take issue with the phrasing, that is fine, but the point remains that it does not reflect reality (reality being the consensus of a populace-at-large) and should not be used as a measuring stick for the opinions of any demographic.

 

[Swabbie]

Not that the Internet isn't real

I assumed we all understood that no one thought the internet wasn't actually a real thing in existence, just that the phrase meant that it didn't reflect offline reality i.e., things prevalent on the internet are not as prevalent IRL.

 

[BlackRain]

So you agree with me but at this point it seems you are arguing semantics, no? Because the post I made that started this conversation was my confusion that something weird said by some weird niggas was being held up as consensus, which is unreality. Most people, the vast majority, don't actually post on the internet, they browse.

It does not mirror reality. If you take issue with the phrasing, that is fine, but the point remains that it does not reflect reality (reality being the consensus of a populace-at-large) and should not be used as a measuring stick for the opinions of any demographic.

The bold is the issue. Just because it's not something on my radar doesn't mean it doesn't exist and/or affect others. I'm not even saying to pay attention to them. But denying they exist ie saying it's not real just isn't accurate. Because the internet has led to real world consequences and results for people both good and bad.

 

[Swabbie]

Just because it's not something on my radar doesn't mean it doesn't exist and/or affect others. I'm not even saying to pay attention to them. But denying they exist ie saying it's not real just isn't accurate. Because the internet has led to real world consequences and results for people both good and bad.

If you believe that is what I have said, I suggest reading my statements again.

 

[BlackRain]

If you believe that is what I have said, I suggest reading my statements again.

That is more to the "internet is not real" pov.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Because the active users who regularly post on the internet are a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of the population. 100,000 likes, retweets, and quotes is 0.0294117647% of the U.S. population, 0.00125% of the global population. Studies show people who hold controversial and contrarian views are more likely to engage, and continue to engage, with certain subjects, and the algorithms these sites use often encourage that behavior.

So no, the internet is still not real life. In these cases, it's a concentrated source of the hot takes a small portion of society has.

But you do understand that you don't have to post or hit the like button or even see a post to be influenced by it right. I mean pretty much everyone in America knows the claim that Haitians are in Springfield eating cats and dogs even if the vast majority of those people never actually saw the original social media posts that started the whole thing.

Sure, people posting on social media are a small minority of the human population, but big trends in society have almost always been pushed by a small minority of people. We're seeing more and more things born on the internet have societal impact, so I don't see how anyone at this point can just dismiss things as being "only on the internet." I'm not on social media at all and I'm constantly bombarded with social media shit because I have friends and family that are on it. That's the case for the majority of the people in the country nowadays.

 

[ThaManMythLegnd]

Then this is the issue

Not that the Internet isn't real

It's the same issue. People will cite random social media posts to make an argument, despite knowing that they referenced a 0.1% viewpoint.

Everytime you see that, you know that person has no real argument.

 

[Bed$tuy🇭🇹]

 

[ZMaKEa]

People that think the internet doesn't sway socio-economic and socio-political beliefs and impacts global worldwide outcomes haven't paid attention to world events the past 15 years. Haven't paid attention to the investment that superpowers have made in controlling what their citizens see and post on the internet.

Majority of the things you see out there that is news these days started on the internet. Majority of the things that public servants respond to in the media is because of the internet.

Does random social media accounts posting stupid shit represent majority opinions on a subject? No, because whatever the subject is, most people don't give a shit because they have better shit to do to think about whatever pet subject you think is important.

Does it represent normal people that largely don't give a shit about being food for the global capitalists that control their world because they are living their life and actually trying to enjoy it instead of arguing with people about shit that really don't matter because they can't affect it? No.

But people that actually care about shit, i.e People that spend their time posting their opinions on the internet...are the people that have influence over other people that care about shit. So whatever the subject is, the opinion represents people that care about that subject.

 

[TheNightKing]

People that think the internet doesn't sway socio-economic and socio-political beliefs and impacts global worldwide outcomes haven't paid attention to world events the past 15 years. Haven't paid attention to the investment that superpowers have made in controlling what their citizens see and post on the internet.

Majority of the things you see out there that is news these days started on the internet. Majority of the things that public servants respond to in the media is because of the internet.

Does random social media accounts posting stupid shit represent majority opinions on a subject? No.

Does it represent normal people that largely don't give a shit about being food for the global capitalists that control their world because they are living their life and actually trying to enjoy it instead of arguing with people about shit that really don't matter because they can't affect it? No.

But people that actually care about shit, i.e People that spend their time posting their opinions on the internet...are the people that have influence over other people that care about shit.

There’s a big difference between posting verifiable facts that are suppressed by media and posting misinformation and opinions presented as facts.

Social media Is definitely at its best for the former, at its worst for the latter. And in my opinion the dangers of the latter greatly outweigh the benefits of the former. At least in its current state.

 

[ZMaKEa]

There’s a big difference between posting verifiable facts that are suppressed by media and posting misinformation and opinions presented as facts.

Social media Is definitely at its best for the former, at its worst for the latter. And in my opinion the dangers of the latter greatly outweigh the benefits of the former. At least in its current state.

Facts don't matter and never did matter.

Expertise don't matter and never did matter.

Only thing that matters is winning. And facts don't win shit and never did. It's narrative, persuasion and charisma.

This civilization long battle over logic, rationality, factuality vs. narrative, persuasion and charisma has been loss a long time ago. Probably when the first human being told the first lie.

People don't care about the indifferent objective truths, they want a narrative that confirms and affirms their experience or makes life seem stranger and grander than what it is because it's otherwise boring as shit.

The truth would things like:

1. Nobody can care about you like you can care about you.
2. Morality isn't real.
3. People that are at the top of any hierarchy would rather sacrifice their first born than be average.

Why would anybody want actual hard facts about the world they live in? What are they gonna do with it? Matter better choices? What choices can they honestly make?

People don't even regularly read the nutritional facts and keep account of the calories they eat. How many people keep a daily journal so they can have an accurate account of their life, so they won't get up in emotional swings and misunderstandings?

Our world clearly is about emotions and narratives. We want rationality and facts when it comes to accounting and flying airplanes. Other than that, we don't care.

 

[TheNightKing]

Facts don't matter and never did matter.

Expertise don't matter and never did matter.

Only thing that matters is winning. And facts don't win shit and never did. It's narrative, persuasion and charisma.

This civilization long battle over logic, rationality, factuality vs. narrative, persuasion and charisma has been loss a long time ago. Probably when the first human being told the first lie.

People don't care about the indifferent objective truths, they want a narrative that confirms and affirms their experience or makes life seem stranger and grander than what it is because it's otherwise boring as shit.

The truth would things like:

1. Nobody can care about you like you can care about you.
2. Morality isn't real.
3. People that are at the top of any hierarchy would rather sacrifice their first born than be average.

Why would anybody want actual hard facts about the world they live in? What are they gonna do with it? Matter better choices? What choices can they honestly make?

People don't even regularly read the nutritional facts and keep account of the calories they eat. How many people keep a daily journal so they can have an accurate account of their life, so they won't get up in emotional swings and misunderstandings?

Our world clearly is about emotions and narratives. We want rationality and facts when it comes to accounting and flying airplanes. Other than that, we don't care.

I guess that’s why I’m an accountant. I agree in general though.