Otter's Journal: Why political discussion has gotten so nasty

An interesting thought that, if you follow the links back, originated from the launch of the Slashdot Politics section:

Someone on some comment thread a few months ago (I don't have a link for this; it just stuck in my mind) advanced the idea that much of the Michael Moore-ish rabidness of liberal politics these days comes from techie nerds who are just starting to participate in mainstream politics. They made lots of money in the 90s, got laid off in the bust, and now have time on their hands, so they jump into politics. But they are very ignorant. But they are rich techie nerds so they don't know they are ignorant, and they are full of opinions and ready to inflict them on everyone. And they increase the flamishness of political discourse because that's how they are used to talking anyway.

I think there are some interlocking issues here -- the rise of the Internet makes techies more central and gives them more leverage, plus the online media platforms promote obnoxiousness simply through their nature, especially the anonymity and distance. And it all feeds back on itself.

Meanwhile, I know I keep saying this but it just strikes me as hilarious -- in the first 24 hours of Slashdot Politics, they jump on the Bush documents story purely as dirt, instead of noting it as either a) a watershed moment in distributed journalism and fact checking or b) at least another opportunity for Microsoft bashing! (The forgery debate was well underway when the first story was posted here.) Oh, well. At least the color is far better than the schemes for the other new sections.

Heh

[robslimo]

I agree on the color.

On the topic of rabidness (plus a steadfast refusal to cede to a decent counterargument), this fellow [slashdot.org] takes the cake. In that thread he just won't drop the totally unsupported idea that those DDoS jockies were unemployed, broke, starving and almost homeless.

In other threads he continues in the vein that 'the man' (mainly businesses and government) are out to screw you over any way possible.

That's not to say he doesn't make some interesting points at times, he's just way overboard.

Gingrinch?

[Shadow Wrought]

Personally I noticed that the tone of the debate took a downturn during the fracass between the Clintons and the Newt Gingrinch Republicans. It took on a "for us or against us" tone that has been carried on into the current debate. I remember after 9/11 that anyone who questioned the Patriot aAct or anything else related to Bush's initiatives was considered by many to be unpatriotic. Now that some of the panic has worn off I think a lot of folks are kinda upset about the state of our country as a result.

Re:Gingrinch?

[Cokelee]

I remember after 9/11 that anyone who questioned the Patriot aAct or anything else related to Bush's initiatives was considered by many to be unpatriotic.

Many people against the President's viewpoints say this, but I have never heard it backed up with any incidents of such things occurring. Perhaps they have happened, but I have heard this repeated so many times with absolutely no follow-up statements to it that it seems simply partisan.

On another note: "us against them" will exist as long as two posi

Re:Gingrinch?

[maeka]

I know that anecdotal evidence is not what you are asking for, but I felt a huge rise in tensions at the office during "water cooler" conversations.
More times than I can count people who were unaware of my military service just could not get it through their head that there was a difference between being against Bush's wars and being against the troops. Never before 9/11 have I experienced so much anger posing as patriotism. I know many people who were for the war "goddamn it!" but didn't have the slighte

Re:Gingrinch?

[Shadow Wrought]

I have never heard it backed up with any incidents of such things occurring. Perhaps they have happened, but I have heard this repeated so many times with absolutely no follow-up statements to it that it seems simply partisan.

I cannot give you cites to people being beat up after the war for being against Bush's policy, or of Bush calling people disloyal for not supporting him. If that is what you are after, than I agree there is a dearth of material to go by. What I'm talking about is a general atmosphe

Re:Gingrinch?

[DesScorp]

Uhhh, I don't know how old you are, but I'm in my mid thirties, and I can assure you, this all started before Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich. Nastiness in modern politics can trace it's genesis to the Democratic Party's all-out campaign against SCOTUS nominee Robert Bork. Never before had a President's nominee for the court been so vicously attacked. The Dem's all but accused him of being a Nazi. The GOP never forgot that. When Democrats complain about the Republican Congress' stonewalling of Clinton's judi

Re:Gingrinch?

[Shadow Wrought]

Well, I am just a bit younger than you but I do remember Bork. Although what I remember (and keep in my this was my impression as a high-schooler) is that Bork had some pretty scary ideas about the law. So, from my recollection, the Bork thing was not so much about partisanship as protecting the Court from an extremist. That being said, I will try and read up on it and see how well my high school persepective meshes with my current one. Ought to be interesting if nothing else;-)