I can't definitively prove it, but I haven't really seen any other hypothesis that is even remotely close in likelihood. But again, I realize this is maybe not a particularly convincing argument 😉
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Its plausible. To contradict myself it's maybe even probable social media has an impact. I find it unlikely that it is able to do so except by highlighting or playing on real issues. You're the wealthiest country in the world yet 13% live in poverty, theres massive wealth inequality etc.
My theory of the case is basically that social media reinforces things that make people angry, while being so decentralized that there are very few moderating (or factchecking) forces. What's happening now is that there are real issues which were always there, which are being (ab)used.
So I remain unconvinced of how much of this affect is due to social media and how much is due to people real life situations. But I don't particularly object to this framing, what I object to about Stancils posts is the "you've never had it so good, there's nothing to complain about" framing.
I'm sort of conflicted? Because on the one hand, everything sucks and people are right to be mad. On the other hand, I think Stancil is correct that at least in terms of material wealth, most Americans objectively never had it so good.
On material wealth you're probably right, covid data artifacts and generally cautiousness make me hesitant to commit... Anyway this has been a pleasant disagreement!
And because I don't want to be accusing of arguing just about semantics this obviously has a direct impact on how you address these problems. Do you say "what we did works, we'll continue with that" or do you say "we did a lot in terrible conditions but theres so much more to do".
Comments