recentpopularlog in


« earlier   
The New Reading Environment
n+1 über neue Verhältnisse zwischen Online-Schreiber und Leser, Kommentaren und Social Media und wie die Gesellschaft heute vor allem aus Meinungsstückschreibern (aka Bloggern) besteht.

The intimacy between online writers and readers determines how we read and write. As late as the 1990s, despite the lurid fan pages and dank chat rooms of the early internet, there was presumed to be a gulf between these two constituencies. Even with Fox News ascendant and internet news ever more dominant, mass media institutions remained monolithic enough to manufacture consent. The first decade of the 21st century was a transitional one in terms of reader-writer relations, its habits now as foreign as those of Edward R. Murrow’s America. Gone are the happy days when we dialed up to submit a comment to, only to be abused by Glenn Greenwald or destroyed — respectfully — by the academics at Crooked Timber. Back then, we could not have imagined feeling nostalgic for the blogosphere, a term we mocked for years until we found it charming and utopian. Blogs felt like gatherings of the like-minded, or at least the not completely random. Even those who stridently disagreed shared some basic premises and context — why else would they be spending time in the comments section of a blog that looked like 1996? Today’s internet, by contrast, is arbitrary and charmless. On social media, criticism once confined to the comments now comes as free-range abuse directed at other readers. Readers can address all parties instantaneously — writers, editors, publishers, and the world. And so writers who publish online peer into the fishbowl of readerly reception. Drop in some flakes and watch the fish swarm. [...]

Twitter has helped turn the internet into an engine for producing op-eds, for turning writers into op-ed writers, and for turning readers into people on the hunt for an op-ed. The system will not be satisfied until it has made op-ed writers of us all.
ncn  ncpin  DGNI  DasGeileNeueInternet  Writing  Journalism 
3 days ago by walt74
Does Our Cultural Obsession With Safety Spell the Downfall of Democracy?
Die NYTimes reviewt neue Bücher von Jonathan Haidt und William Egginton über die Schattenseiten der Identitätspolitik:

If it feels as though we no longer know how to speak or listen in good faith to one another, it’s because we don’t. This is the kind of controversy that might have seemed overblown as recently as the start of the Obama administration. Today it arrives with frequency and fervor — a marker of the country’s rapidly shifting mores, which are the product of new generations increasingly fluent in, in thrall to and in fear of the hyperspecialized language and norms of academia. Whether you even find the above exchange intelligible reveals a great deal more than merely your political bent, touching on aspects of age, education and geography — not to mention distinctions of race and class.
IdentityPolitics  DGNI  DasGeileNeueInternet  Books  Politics  ncn  ncpin 
3 days ago by walt74
Francis Fukuyama: Against Identity Politics
Auszug aus Francis Fukuyamas neuem Buch über Identitätspolitik.

Democratic societies are fracturing into segments based on ever-narrower identities, threatening the possibility of deliberation and collective action by society as a whole. This is a road that leads only to state breakdown and, ultimately, failure. Unless such liberal democracies can work their way back to more universal understandings of human dignity, they will doom themselves—and the world—to continuing conflict.
IdentityPolitics  DGNI  DasGeileNeueInternet  Politics  ncpin  ncn 
3 days ago by walt74
John Oliver - Facebook

John Oliver zersägt Facebooks Emo-Commercials und beleuchtet einmal mehr die Tatsache, dass die Vorwürfe, für die sich Facebook angeblich entschuldigt (Clickbait, Manipulation, FakeNews), erst durch Facebooks Geschäftsmodell entstanden.
ncpin  ncv  DasGeileNeueInternet  Facebook  Advertising  BigData  Commercial  VideoEssays 
7 weeks ago by walt74
Postmodernism vs. The Pomoid Cluster
“Postmodernism” is used by its critics as a label for a set of ideas and attitudes which bear a family resemblance both to each other and to postmodernism proper. Its use is strikingly similar to that of other bogeymen-words like, “patriarchy” and “capitalism,” in that it is not one big phenomenon, but many small ones in a trenchcoat.

In my experience, the list of what is being referred to under the name “postmodernism” looks something like this:

- Activist scholarship that’s more concerned with advocacy than knowledge.
- The idea that it’s okay to be as political and biased as you want because everything is political anyway.
- Public debate is a war of ideas and non-rational means are acceptable. Indeed, insisting on rational rules and objective standards is nothing but an attempt to gain the upper hand.
- The attitude that science, rationality, and logic hold no special status as means of inquiry, often backed up by describing them as male, white, and western, in contradiction to their professed universality.
- Identity politics as defined here: i.e. the idea that oppressed groups are owed agreement with their views due to past and present injustices, backed by the notion that effective communication and rational discussion across identity lines are impossible.
- Favoring subjectivity and intuition over objectivity and evidence.
- Favoring ideas over the physical when thinking about what constitutes reality.
- Everything is about power. For example, scientific facts are the outcome of social processes and reflects the biases of the winners, not actual truth.
- The structure of society is not a given and arguments justifying the status quo are simply the ruling groups’ attempts to justify their privileges.
- Things are “socially constructed,” which can mean many things, but usually implies that the categorization/conceptualization of people, events, or contexts creates corresponding behaviors, rather than those behaviors being innate.
- Cultural and ideological forces, not material limitations or human nature, cause social problems.
- There is no “human nature” worth considering.
- Individual wants are mediated by culture to such an extent that they can be viewed as untrustworthy.
- A focus on relationships as more fundamental than entities.
- An unwillingness to pass judgment on cultural practices, often inconsistently applied only to cultures considered oppressed.
- Rigid labeling, especially of people, is illegitimate. It’s desirable to disrupt and destabilize categories, boundaries and roles.
- Subjective interpretations of experiences and communication are always correct. Intent does not determine meaning.
- People’s own view of themselves is more important than their objective characteristics.
- The political and social implications of ideas are more important and interesting than their accuracy or parsimony.
- Image and appearances are more important than substance.
- It’s valid to criticize scientific ideas ideologically, even if you have no particular scientific objections to offer.
- No culture is better than any other. This often includes the hypocritical exception of western civilization, which is bad.
PostModernism  Philosophy  nct  ncpin  JordanPeterson  DasGeileNeueInternet 
7 weeks ago by walt74
Cultural Appropriation and the Children of ‘Shōgun’
During much of the twentieth century, white American authors produced some excellent novels featuring Native American characters. The list includes masterpieces such as Oliver La Farge’s Pulitzer Prize-winning Laughing Boy (1929) and Scott O’Dell’s Newbery Medal-winning Island of the Blue Dolphins (1960). Other prominent titles in the genre include Thomas Berger’s 1964 novel Little Big Man (subsequently adapted into a film starring Dustin Hoffman and Faye Dunaway directed by Arthur Penn), Margaret Craven’s I Heard the Owl Call My Name (1967), and Douglas C. Jones’s A Creek Called Wounded Knee (1978).

But the production of such novels has dwindled markedly over the last 40 years or so. This probably has something to do with what happened to Ruth Beebe Hill after the publication of her 1978 novel Hanta Yo. The early reviews of the book were positive. A reviewer for the Harvard Crimson called Hanta Yo “the best researched novel yet written about an American Indian tribe.” Native American author N. Scott Momaday, author of House Made of Dawn, admired the book. David Wolper, the producer of the landmark TV miniseries Roots purchased the film rights to Hanta Yo and planned to give it the same treatment as Roots. Alas, before Wolper could put his plan into action, the book began drawing criticism from Native American groups contending that it was an inaccurate portrayal of the Sioux. A 1980 article in People magazine summarized the controversy like this:

A $2 million class-action suit, filed on behalf of the Sioux people, claims that Hill’s sweeping novel set at the turn of the eighteenth century is demeaning to the Plains Indians. The litigation seeks further to block production of any TV show based on Hanta Yo. Sioux activists have also tried to force the work out of bookstores and libraries and have picketed the author on the lecture circuit, waving signs like HILL HAS A TONTO COMPLEX.

Hill strongly defended her book against the attacks. The article in People points out that she spent nearly 30 years researching the novel and consulted more 700 Indians during that period. Nonetheless, the damage was done. The TV miniseries was never made and the book soon drifted out of print. Although Hill lived to be 102, she would never write another novel. No other white novelist has published a novel about American Indian life anywhere near as ambitious as Hanta Yo in the years since. No doubt the fear of being publicly shamed for ‘cultural appropriation’ has had something to do with it.

More recently, author Laura Moriarty triggered a firestorm when she included an American Muslim character in her young-adult novel American Heart (2018). Because the book’s main character was a white girl, Moriarty was accused of exploiting a ‘white savior’ narrative. According to Ruth Graham of Slate magazine, even before the book was published, it had…

…already attracted the ire of the fierce group of online YA readers that journalist Kat Rosenfield has referred to as ‘culture cops.’ To them, it was an irredeemable problem that Moriarty’s novel, which was inspired in part by Huckleberry Finn, centers on a white teenager who gradually—too gradually—comes to terms with the racism around her. On Goodreads, the book’s top ‘community review,’ posted in September, begins, “fuck your white savior narratives”; other early commenters on Goodreads accused Moriarty of “profiting off people’s pain” and said “a white writer should not have tackled this story, and neither should a white character be the center of it.”

The outcry surrounding Moriarty’s book was so intense that Kirkus took the unprecedented step of removing a positive review of American Heart from its website, even though the review had been written by a Muslim woman who is an authority on young-adult literature.

In the midst of such a cultural moment, few white writers are likely to undertake the tremendous amount of research required to produce a book like Shōgun or Shanghai or Jade knowing that a hostile reception will almost certainly be awaiting them and their novel when (and if) it finally sees the light of day. If you haven’t yet experienced the joys of exploring ‘The Children of Shogun,’ a great literary pleasure still awaits you. But read slowly and linger over each book. No more than a few dozen excellent examples were ever published. And no new titles are likely to appear in the foreseeable future, if Celeste Ng and her ilk have their way.

CulturalAppropriation  nct  ncpin  DasGeileNeueInternet  Literature 
7 weeks ago by walt74
Conversations with People Who Hate Me Episode 19: Latinx
Latinx is the gender-neutral alternative to the terms Latino and Latina. Kat Lazo is a content creator who made a video explaining why some people use it. Alvaro commented “this chic is annoying” beneath that video. Dylan connects them on the phone.


[audio src=""]
Podcasts  nca  ncpin  DasGeileNeueInternet  Outrage  Feminism  Language 
8 weeks ago by walt74
My Effing First Amendment
Conservative students don't feel like their ideas are welcome on campus. So they're fighting back. We go to Nebraska, where one skirmish spins out of control. 


This extreme political moment is playing out on college campuses, places that are already at the extreme end of politics. Outside groups are getting involved, helping conservatives fight back against angry liberals on campus. Producer Zoe Chace tells Ira about a conference she went to, hosted by Turning Point USA, where students get trained on how to fight these battles.

Reporter Steve Kolowich goes to the University of Nebraska where one new recruit to Turning Point goes out on campus to sign people up for her club. And that one act immediately devolves into a political battle of epic proportions. This story is part of a collaboration with The Chronicle of Higher Education. Read Steve Kolowich’s print version of the story.

The brawl on the mall of the University of Nebraska turns into a fiasco at the state capitol, as legislators try to step in and dictate what should happen at the university.
nca  ncpin  Podcasts  CampusPolitics  DasGeileNeueInternet  IdentityPolitics  IlliberalLeft  Right 
8 weeks ago by walt74
James Gunn fired: The Right Weaponized Social Justice Rules Against the Left

From a screenshot in this clip: „Everything is Gamergate“. I'm tired.
James Gunn was fired based on rules created by the far left. The right, like Mike Cernovich, is wielding moral outrage mobs against the establishment and many people feel it is in bad faith. In many instances the right is actually directing left wing social justice mobs against themselves, its not even just the tactic its actually the left eating its own

But regardless of the intention the rules work. The moral outrage mob will consume anyone for any transgression and it has affected people on both sides. Offensive comedy is not allowed anymore and because of it people like Gunn are fired for saying things online.

So is this really about James Gunn saying the wrong thing? Or is this right wing personalities like Cernovich and Posobiec wielding the left's own rules against itself?
ncpin  ncv  DasGeileNeueInternet  Movies  Outrage  VideoEssays 
8 weeks ago by walt74
Waking Up with Sam Harris: #123 — Identity & Honesty
In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Ezra Klein, Editor-at-Large for Vox Media, about racism, identity politics, intellectual honesty, and the controversy over his podcast with Charles Murray (Waking Up #73). 

nca  ncpin  Podcasts  DasGeileNeueInternet  IdentityPolitics  Debattenkultur 
8 weeks ago by walt74
Waking Up with Sam Harris: #128 — Transformations of Mind
In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Geoffrey Miller about evolutionary psychology. They discuss sexual selection, virtue signaling, social media, public shaming, monogamy and polyamory, taboo topics in science, genetic engineering, gender differences and the “Google memo,” moral psychology, existential risk, AI, and other topics.

Podcasts  MP3  ncpin  nca  EvoPsych  DasGeileNeueInternet  Psychology 
8 weeks ago by walt74
Jungle World: Die Gender-Gang beschützt eine Schwester
Es ist nichts neues, dass sich die Linke intern gerne streitet, aber anscheinend haben das viele der Feminismus-Kritiker vergessen. Hier mal ein Beispiel einer fetten Watsche an den Tribalism der feministischen Elite-Academia. Link:
Der jahrzehntelange Kampf linker Poststrukturalisten gegen alles, was mit Struktur, Vermittlung und Universalität zu tun hat, trägt Früchte. Bei dem voreiligen Beharren auf der Unschuld Ronells gibt es, das wird hier augenfällig, keinen Platz mehr für das vermeintliche Opfer. Mit dem Eintreten für die angegriffene Kollegin, ohne jede Kenntnis der Vorgänge, erklärt ein signifikanter Teil linker Akademiker ihren politischen Bankrott.
ncn  ncpin  DasGeileNeueInternet  Feminism  Left  Crime  Tribalism 
8 weeks ago by walt74
Soziale Kontrolle 4.0? Chinas Social Credit Systems | Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik
bei den chinesischen Scoring-Systemen handelt es sich um eine technologische Überwachung, an der privatwirtschaftliche und staatliche Akteure gleichermaßen beteiligt sind. Zugleich zeichnen sich die SCS – anders als Orwells „Großer Bruder“ – durch partizipativ-spielerische Elemente und damit durch eine weitaus größere Freiwilligkeit und Eingebundenheit seitens der Observierten aus.

Eine Schlüsselrolle kommt dabei der sogenannten Gamification zu, eine Technik, die im Rahmen der Entwicklung von Computerspielen eine wichtige Rolle spielt. Sie verfolgt das Ziel, die Aufmerksamkeit der Spielerinnen und Spieler möglichst lange zu binden und zugleich positive Emotionen gegenüber dem Spiel zu erzeugen. Heute wird Gamification in nahezu allen gesellschaftlichen Bereichen eingesetzt – nicht zuletzt im Militär sowie in der Unternehmensführung und der Werbung.

Zur Motivation gibt es im SCS nicht nur Punktezahlen, sondern auch verschiedene Level und sogenannte Mini-Spiele. Der Punktestand erlaubt es, dass sich alle miteinander vergleichen können, was zugleich dazu anspornt, den eigenen Punktestand fortwährend zu erhöhen. Schon die Aussicht, bei einer geringen Punktezahl kleine Belohnungen zu erhalten, motiviert Menschen zur Teilnahme – wie hierzulande die große Verbreitung des Payback-Bonusprogramms zeigt. […]

Obwohl Formen spielerischer Überwachung keineswegs nur in Fernost, sondern auch im Westen angewandt werden, treffen Berichte über das chinesische SCS hierzulande meist auf großes Befremden. Dies zeigt zum einen, dass es noch immer große Vorurteile gegenüber China gibt, zum anderen aber auch, wie unkritisch Digitalisierungsprozesse in unserem Teil der Welt wahrgenommen werden. […]

Die ständige Vergleichbarkeit und Bewertung führt dabei auch im Westen zur stetigen Auflösung der Privatsphäre sowie einer Kultur der Konformität im privaten und der zunehmenden Risikovermeidung im professionellen Bereich.
nct  ncpin  BigBrother  China  SocialControlSystem  DasGeileNeueInternet  Privacy 
9 weeks ago by walt74
Mark Zuckerberg defends Rights of Holocaust-Deniers
Zuckerberg will Holocaust-Leugnung nicht löschen und offenbart damit eins der Kern-Dilemma der modernen Welt: FB ist eine globale Plattform, die nach lokalen Gesetzen funktioniert und dennoch globalen Impact innehat, die die lokalen Gesetze ad absurdum führen, grade und vor allem bei Publishing/Sprache. Ein Widerspruch in sich, offengelegt am maximal schrecklichsten Beispiel.

For future reference:

I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened.

I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong, but I think-

<em>In the case of the Holocaust deniers, they might be, but go ahead.</em>

It’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I’m sure you do. I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, “We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.” (Update: Mark has clarified these remarks here: “I personally find Holocaust denial deeply offensive, and I absolutely didn’t intend to defend the intent of people who deny that.”)

What we will do is we’ll say, “Okay, you have your page, and if you’re not trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone, then you can put up that content on your page, even if people might disagree with it or find it offensive.” But that doesn’t mean that we have a responsibility to make it widely distributed in News Feed. I think we, actually, to the contrary-

<em>So you move them down? Versus, in Myanmar, where you remove it?</em>


<em>Can I ask you that, specifically about Myanmar? How did you feel about those killings and the blame that some people put on Facebook? Do you feel responsible for those deaths?</em>

I think that we have a responsibility to be doing more there.

<em>I want to know how you felt.</em>

Yes, I think that there’s a terrible situation where there’s underlying sectarian violence and intention. It is clearly the responsibility of all of the players who were involved there. So, the government, civil society, the different folks who were involved, and I think that we have an important role, given the platform, that we play, so we need to make sure that we do what we need to.
nct  ncpin  Nazis  Holocaust  Facebook  FreeSpeech  HateSpeech  DasGeileNeueInternet 
9 weeks ago by walt74
Film Critic Hulk: Don’t feed the trolls, and other hideous lies
Film Critic Hulk über den nicht vorhandenen Unterschied zwischen „Trolling“ aka Viraleffekte einkalkulierender Missbrauch aka die Vorläuferform von Stochastic Terrorism. Hervorhebungen von mir. Ich kenne ein paar Menschen, die sollten diesen Text sehr genau lesen und nur ein paar davon gelten öffentlich als Trolle.

The truth is that all trolling, whether we admit it or not, has a meaning and a target. You are inherently saying, “This subject is worthy of mockery,” which is exactly why John Oliver’s specific brand of trolling stunts have such laser-targeted focus. He takes on bureaucratic institutions, high-powered tyrants, homophobia, and social issues in an approach that embodies the very definition of “punch up” in comedy. It also reveals the core problem of trolling that so much of the online world wants to ignore. It is inherently an act of satire, something that comes with real targets and real responsibility. But the core intent of trolling is the opposite: it’s not just to provoke, but to <b>run away from the responsibility of the joke itself.</b>

A Twitter follower reminded me of a line in the famous parable from Bion of Borysthenes: “Boys throw stones at frogs in fun, but the frogs do not die in fun, but in earnest.” <b>Defenders of trolling insist it’s all just a joke, but if trolling is inherently designed to get a rise out of someone, then that’s what it really is. In many cases, it is designed to look and feel indistinguishable from a genuine attack. Whether you believe what you are saying or not is often immaterial because the impact is the same — and you are responsible for it, regardless of how funny you think it is.</b> It is a lesson kids learn time and time again on the playground, and yet, it is ridiculously difficult for people to accept the same basic notion in online culture, no matter their age. Why is that so? Because those are the social norms that develop when you create a culture where everything is supposed to be a joke.

It’s no accident that the corners of the internet that subscribe most deeply to this idea are also the most openly miserable. While some clearly use “joking” as a justification for abuse or even violent threats, there’s little larger comprehension or interest among huge swathes of internet culture about how satire, irony, or intent actually function, much less in the distinction between what they consider “trolling” and actual abuse.
ncn  ncpin  DasGeileNeueInternet  Trolls  Violence 
9 weeks ago by walt74
Laurie Penny: Peterson’s Complaint
Ich weiß weder, ob dieser Text von Laurie Penny ein Review von Petersons für mich irrelevantem Lebensratgeber sein soll, oder eine Anleitung zum Peterson-Ignore (wahrscheinlich letzteres). Aber ich finde in dem Text gemessen an seiner Länge bemerkenswert wenige tatsächliche Argumente und am Ende will sie einen Psychologie-Professor mit hunderten akademischen Zitierungen in das Reich der Fiktion verbannen.

Ein paar Punkte hat sie dann zwar doch im Mittelteil (Peterson spricht die Feels „weißer junger Männer“ an und so weiter), doch insgesamt finde ich auch hier keine wirklich valide Kritik und die Reduktion auf einen Carl-Jung-Rezitierer ist sowohl unehrlich als auch journalistisch unethisch. Hatte Laurie Penny besser in Erinnerung. Naja.

nct  ncpin  JordanPeterson  DasGeileNeueInternet  Feminism 
9 weeks ago by walt74
Quillette: I Was the Mob Until the Mob Came for Me

Every time I would call someone racist or sexist, I would get a rush. That rush would then be reaffirmed and sustained by the stars, hearts, and thumbs-up that constitute the nickels and dimes of social media validation. The people giving me these stars, hearts, and thumbs-up were engaging in their own cynical game: A fear of being targeted by the mob induces us to signal publicly that we are part of it.

Just a few years ago, many of my friends and peers who self-identify as liberals or progressives were open fans of provocative standup comedians such as Sarah Silverman, and shows like South Park. Today, such material is seen as deeply “problematic,” or even labeled as hate speech. I went from minding my own business when people told risqué jokes to practically fainting when they used the wrong pronoun or expressed a right-of-center view. I went from making fun of the guy who took edgy jokes too seriously, to becoming that guy.

When my callouts were met with approval and admiration, I was lavished with praise: “Thank you so much for speaking out!” “You’re so brave!” “We need more men like you!”

Then one day, suddenly, I was accused of some of the very transgressions I’d called out in others. I was guilty, of course: There’s no such thing as due process in this world. And once judgment has been rendered against you, the mob starts combing through your past, looking for similar transgressions that might have been missed at the time. I was now told that I’d been creating a toxic environment for years at my workplace; that I’d been making the space around me unsafe through microaggressions and macroaggressions alike.

Social justice is a surveillance culture, a snitch culture.
nct  ncpin  DasGeileNeueInternet  IlliberalLeft 
9 weeks ago by walt74
Debattenkultur: Kühler Mut

Empörung macht alles gleich, das Falsche und das Gefährliche, die Existenzbedrohung und die Geschmacksfrage.

All das führt zu jener Überreizung, die die Grenzen immer mehr ins Irrationale verschiebt. Immer wenn die Empörungswelle abzuebben beginnt, kommt ein neuer Schub, ein neuer Anlass. Wie heißt es so schön: Nur weil ich paranoid bin, bedeutet das noch lange nicht, dass ich nicht verfolgt werde.
Alarm. Alarm.

Alle klingeln wie verrückt. Aber wer macht eigentlich die Feuerwehr? […]

Wer entscheiden will, muss Gleichmut leben. Wer richtig handeln will, muss Gelassenheit in sich tragen. „Selbst wenn die zerborstene Welt einstürzt, werden die Trümmer einen Furchtlosen treffen“, schreibt Horaz.

Das ist die Gegenthese zur Wut und zum Widerstand gegen alles, was man nicht leiden kann, der sich heute so wohlfeil in allen politischen Lagern und Lebenslagen aneignen lässt. Wer glaubt, Probleme dadurch lösen zu können, indem er sich – ohne großen Aufwand – zu den moralisch Bessergestellten gesellt und dort dann mit den Wölfen heult, handelt fahrlässig und falsch.

Es ist heute weitaus mutiger, zu den Gelassenen zu gehören als zu den Empörten. Es gehört keine Courage dazu, sich aufzuregen und „Nein!“ zu rufen – und dann nichts mehr zu tun. Furchtlos sind diejenigen, die sagen: Es muss uns was Besseres einfallen. Lasst uns nachdenken. Vor allen Dingen dann, wenn die Alternative, wie heute, keineswegs so klar ist. Nüchterner Optimismus verzagt nicht an der Zukunft.
nct  ncpin  Outrage  DasGeileNeueInternet  Debattenkultur 
9 weeks ago by walt74
Der endlose Shitstorm

Es gibt die Pflicht zur Menschenrettung, zu dieser „praktischen Intelligenz“, von der Böll sprach, aber nicht zu der Politik, die daraus als moralisch alternativlos abgeleitet wird. Man kann es bei Unterstützern, Aktivisten, Shitstormern allerorten lesen: Letztendlich geht es ihnen um eine multikulturelle Gesellschaft nach ihren Vorstellungen, um Postkolonialismus, Grenzenlosigkeit, Ablehnung des Nationalstaats und den Flüchtling als neues revolutionäres Subjekt. Ob die Migranten, Asylsuchenden und Flüchtlinge alle diese Ziele teilen? Oder wollen sie nicht viel lieber in ein wohlhabendes, freies, sicheres Europa, das ihnen und ihren Familien eine Zukunft bietet und kein gesellschaftspolitisches Experiment?

Das aber wirklich Deprimierende in der heutigen Situation ist jedoch nicht so sehr, dass da, wo Moral drauf steht, Politik drin ist – nein, diese Camouflage wird ohnehin keinen Erfolg haben. Das Problem ist, dass da, wo Politik drauf steht, nichts drin ist, gar nichts bislang: kein Masterplan für Afrika, kein Wille zur europäischen Einigung über die Verteilung von Flüchtlingen, keine Initiative und kein Gesetz für legale Wege der Einwanderung. Es würde sicher einen Schub geben, wenn die Shitstormer in Zukunft nicht mehr die moralische Entrüstung als zweckhaften Hebel zur Beendigung von Diskussionen ansetzten, sondern wenn auch sie Vorschläge machten für mehrheitsfähige, also realistische politische Lösungen.
Refugees  Immigration  Journalism  Outrage  OutrageMemetics  DasGeileNeueInternet  Media  nct  ncpin 
9 weeks ago by walt74
Complicating the Narratives: „Complexity is contagious“
Researchers have a name for the kind of divide America is currently experiencing. They call this an “intractable conflict,” as social psychologist Peter T. Coleman describes in his book The Five Percent, and it’s very similar to the kind of wicked feuds that emerge in about one out of every 20 conflicts worldwide. In this dynamic, people’s encounters with the other tribe (political, religious, ethnic, racial or otherwise) become more and more charged. And the brain behaves differently in charged interactions. It’s impossible to feel curious, for example, while also feeling threatened.

In this hypervigilant state, we feel an involuntary need to defend our side and attack the other. That anxiety renders us immune to new information. In other words: no amount of investigative reporting or leaked documents will change our mind, no matter what.

Intractable conflicts feed upon themselves. The more we try to stop the conflict, the worse it gets. These feuds “seem to have a power of their own that is inexplicable and total, driving people and groups to act in ways that go against their best interests and sow the seeds of their ruin,” Coleman writes. “We often think we understand these conflicts and can choose how to react to them, that we have options. We are usually mistaken, however.”

Once we get drawn in, the conflict takes control. Complexity collapses, and the us-versus-them narrative sucks the oxygen from the room. “Over time, people grow increasingly certain of the obvious rightness of their views and increasingly baffled by what seems like unreasonable, malicious, extreme or crazy beliefs and actions of others,” according to training literature from Resetting the Table, an organization that helps people talk across profound differences in the Middle East and the U.S.

The cost of intractable conflict is also predictable. “[E]veryone loses,” writes Resetting the Table’s co-founder Eyal Rabinovitch. “Such conflicts undermine the dignity and integrity of all involved and stand as obstacles to creative thinking and wise solutions.”

There are ways to disrupt an intractable conflict, as history bears out. Over decades of work, in laboratories and on the margins of battlefields, scholars like Coleman, Rabinovitch and others have identified dozens of ways to break out of the trap, some of which are directly relevant to journalists. […]

The Conversation Whisperer

In a hard-to-find windowless room at Columbia University, there is something called a Difficult Conversations Laboratory. Coleman and colleagues use the lab to study real-life conflict in a controlled setting, inspired in part by the Love Lab in Seattle (where psychologists Julie and John Gottman have famously studied thousands of married couples for many years). […]

Over time, the researchers noticed a key difference between the terrible and non-terrible conversations: The better conversations looked like a constellation of feelings and points, rather than a tug of war. They were more complex.

But could that complexity be artificially induced? Was there a way to cultivate better conversations? To find out, the researchers started giving the participants something to read before they met — a short article on another polarizing issue. One version of the article laid out both sides of a given controversy, similar to a traditional news story — arguing the case in favor of gun rights, for example, followed by the case for gun control.

The alternate version contained all the same information — written in a different way. That article emphasized the complexity of the gun debate, rather than describing it as a binary issue. So the author explained many different points of view, with more nuance and compassion. It read less like a lawyer’s opening statement and more like an anthropologist’s field notes.

After reading the article, the two participants met to discuss Middle East peace — or another unrelated controversy. It turns out that the pre-conversation reading mattered: in the difficult conversations that followed, people who had read the more simplistic article tended to get stuck in negativity. But those who had read the more complex articles did not. They asked more questions, proposed higher quality ideas and left the lab more satisfied with their conversations. “They don’t solve the debate,” Coleman says, “but they do have a more nuanced understanding and more willingness to continue the conversation.” Complexity is contagious, it turns out, which is wonderful news for humanity. […]

The idea is to revive complexity in a time of false simplicity. “The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue but that they are incomplete,” novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie says in her mesmerizing TED Talk “A Single Story.” “[I]t’s impossible to engage properly with a place or a person without engaging with all of the stories of that place and that person.”

Usually, reporters do the opposite. We cut the quotes that don’t fit our narrative. Or our editor cuts them for us. We look for coherence, which is tidy — and natural. The problem is that, in a time of high conflict, coherence is bad journalism, bordering on malpractice.

In the midst of conflict, our audiences are profoundly uncomfortable, and they want to feel better. “The natural human tendency is to reduce that tension,” Coleman writes, “by seeking coherence through simplification.” Tidy narratives succumb to this urge to simplify, gently warping reality until one side looks good and the other looks evil. We soothe ourselves with the knowledge that all Republicans are racist rednecks — or all Democrats are precious snowflakes who hate America.

Complexity counters this craving, restoring the cracks and inconsistencies that had been air-brushed out of the picture. It’s less comforting, yes. But it’s also more interesting — and true.
nct  ncpin  Outrage  OutrageMemetics  Complexity  Journalism  Media  Storytelling  DasGeileNeueInternet 
10 weeks ago by walt74

Copy this bookmark:

to read