The Social Contagion of Rage

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Social Contagion of Rage

I’m afraid that cable news, Washington politics, talk radio, and the internet have all contributed to a social contagion of rage and entitlement that has become the new normal.

It is pretty remarkable that we now live in a culture where national news anchors don’t report news but rage against those who they don’t like or agree with on various topics. It is amazing that politicians vote as a block just to stymie their colleagues from a different political party without concern about the common good. It is shocking that people write with such vitriol in the comment section of online news reports. Why is everyone so mad? And in their anger there is a sense of entitlement that seems to suggest that only a complete idiot could possibly have a point of view different from their own.

Whatever happened to the notion that reasonable people can disagree about things but do so in a thoughtful, reasoned, polite, and cool-headed manner?

Wow! Things are so ugly out there that some news outlets are starting to disable the comment section of their online reports. Even the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) had to do this just the other week. Yikes, if the Catholics can’t even discuss current events with reason and politeness how can others do so?

Social contagion might be a helpful theory to understand how this state of affairs got started and is supported. Once popular cable news shows, such as Fox News, started to engage in this kind of behavior on a regular basis and people turned in to watch, others followed suit. Once aggressive politicians behaved this way and were reinforced for doing so by winning elections, others followed suit. Once the culture habituates to this style of interacting and behavior it becomes acceptable and even expected. It is the new normal for sure.

I wonder why there is so little push back or corrective feedback that this type of behvaior is offensive and shouldn't be tolerated? After all, if a pre-school child has a temper tantrum don't we give them corrective feedback and a time out? We certainly don't reinforce their behavior, reward it, encourage it, and even give them a microphone to continue. Yet this is what we are doing with so many adults today.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201402/the-social-contagion-rage

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

This is at the heart of many arguments. Just based on your political alignment here will determine if someone will even listen to you...

[Pooky 3,781]

This is at the heart of many arguments. Just based on your political alignment here will determine if someone will even listen to you...

It also tramples discussion on issues that aren't partisan "hot button" issues, by warping those discussions into something that is just another partisan b1tchfest.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

It also tramples discussion on issues that aren't partisan "hot button" issues, by warping those discussions into something that is just another partisan b1tchfest.

Exactly.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Like the idea of 'conservative' cities, or 'liberal' states? It's damaging in the long run. It serves the community no good at all to reject completely anything that doesn't reflect your own prejudices and demonize anyone who supports ideas that do not conform with your own point of view. The best of worlds is normally a compromise, take the best features of moderate ideologies and use that as your platform to create practical solutions to every day problems.

[GandD 5,966]

I think about this very subject a lot. I usually attribute it to the rise of talk radio/TV as well. But that's not entirely true. If you look at the presidential campaign and preceding/subsequent politics the John Adams/Thomas Jefferson presidential election. Even back then, these guys took to the media outlets, news papers of course, to completely inflame the issues and destroy the character of their opponent. Jefferson actually called Adams a hermaphrodite.

John Adams, a hermaphrodite who is secretly trying to marry the American Presidency to the British Crown? Thomas Jefferson, an atheist and anarchist who supports incest? These are just some of the attacks hurled in the election of 1800. You didn't think the early republic was some golden age of political decorum, did you?

http://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2012/03/10/adams-jefferson_ii_getting_nastier_7.html

[Karee 4,190]

I think about this very subject a lot. I usually attribute it to the rise of talk radio/TV as well. But that's not entirely true. If you look at the presidential campaign and preceding/subsequent politics the John Adams/Thomas Jefferson presidential election. Even back then, these guys took to the media outlets, news papers of course, to completely inflame the issues and destroy the character of their opponent. Jefferson actually called Adams a hermaphrodite.

http://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2012/03/10/adams-jefferson_ii_getting_nastier_7.html

Back then voters probably didn't hear about personal political attacks. Now in they're in your face 24/7 via TV, Radio, and the internet.

[Curmudgeon 227]

I do think it's true that it's not entirely new, but I also think it's true that it is much more difficult to get a factually based report of political affairs. I don't think it matters too much if politicians banter with each other, even negatively. if policy proposals are available to the population without the spin. I have rarely seen a policy proposal in the US that exposes the bare bones and facts. I know why of course, but it does make it incredibly difficult to vote based on anything other than personality which is quite hopeless.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I do think it's true that it's not entirely new, but I also think it's true that it is much more difficult to get a factually based report of political affairs. I don't think it matters too much if politicians banter with each other, even negatively. if policy proposals are available to the population without the spin. I have rarely seen a policy proposal in the US that exposes the bare bones and facts. I know why of course, but it does make it incredibly difficult to vote based on anything other than personality which is quite hopeless.

Well we know that the Presidential election is more of a personality contest than it is about policies.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Back then voters probably didn't hear about personal political attacks. Now in they're in your face 24/7 via TV, Radio, and the internet.

And it must be working because otherwise these stupid political ads would not exist. Everyone complains about these ads and yet they seem to move the needle just enough for campaigns to throw millions of dollars into them. They wouldn't do this if it wasn't effective.

[GBCW 397]

Like the idea of 'conservative' cities, or 'liberal' states? It's damaging in the long run. It serves the community no good at all to reject completely anything that doesn't reflect your own prejudices and demonize anyone who supports ideas that do not conform with your own point of view. The best of worlds is normally a compromise, take the best features of moderate ideologies and use that as your platform to create practical solutions to every day problems.

Had you (or anyone other than myself) actually read the thread on "conservative cities", you would have seen that these so-called conservative cities embrace many left wing ideas and tactics.

Well we know that the Presidential election is more of a personality contest than it is about policies.

Obviously. The President isn't a Parliamentarian. He's the Chief Executive and Commander of the Armed Forces. His job is mostly about judgment in times of crisis. Leave the policy statements to the people who want to run for House and Senate.

Edited September 22, 2014 by intheshadows

[Curmudgeon 227]

Had you (or anyone other than myself) actually read the thread on "conservative cities", you would have seen that these so-called conservative cities embrace many left wing ideas and tactics.

Obviously. The President isn't a Parliamentarian. He's the Chief Executive and Commander of the Armed Forces. His job is mostly about judgment in times of crisis. Leave the policy statements to the people who want to run for House and Senate.

So, if that's true, what does it being a 'conservative city' mean, exactly? It means precisely nothing to me, which is why I said what I said.

[GBCW 397]

So, if that's true, what does it being a 'conservative city' mean, exactly? It means precisely nothing to me, which is why I said what I said.

There are aspects of those cities that make them markedly different from cities run by Democrats.

[Curmudgeon 227]

There are aspects of those cities that make them markedly different from cities run by Democrats.

So they should say 'a city council run by xxx' not a conservative city. Then they should back up that claim by showing cities that are run by Democrats in an alternate manner and what the pitfalls are, not just make these silly labels that run the risk of alienating the population by more division where none is necessary. There are 'conservative' principals that make sense and Democratic principals that do not and vice versa. A pragmatic solution will utilize the best ideas, no matter what ideology they come out of.