Where's all this intolerance coming from??

[Trenchfriend]

When you would ask me, which difference exists between the 90s and the 2010s, I would promptly know, which to mention!

Intolerance.

My theory is, that the reason is the highspeed-internet. I think, this caused a total psychological change in the people.
Maybe, the people just "unlearn" to deal with each other. I don't know really, but this upcoming worldwide peer-grouping must had it's effect.

I was a kid and a teen, in the 90s and I remember this decade very well! There was a total relaxed, (for kids) even up to boring atmosphere, in Germany. No one made a fuss about something. Liberal living, enjoying, having fun.

 

[Fading Fast]

@Trenchfriend - here's one take I read on it:

https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/

 

[Seb Lucas]

Hmmm. Things are more relaxed today than in the 1990's. All this depends on your subjective situation and how much you believe the bullshit you read in the media. If you were in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990's you may well have experienced war and mass murder and extreme intolerance.

 

[3fingers]

The idea that we can no longer disagree on any subject and still be civil to each other is the driving force behind the breakdown of society. This attitude crosses all political, religious and social beliefs. My personal beliefs are a grab bag from a broad spectrum, as I believe the majority of people's are.
Turn off the TV or computer and live your life. You aren't going to change anybody's mind on anything because you simply can't discuss any subject with a lot of people without being attacked if you don't agree with their view.
The world isn't nearly as depressing and awful if you quit listening to people who get paid to convince you that it is.

 

[Frunobulax]

What we see and hear from our media and pop culture reflections of our society is not reflected in day-to-day life, in my experience. I don't see this intolerance up close, so much as I see it on the macro scale. I think, like other subjects which "divide" us, more is made of it than it is.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I second Bro. 3Fingers -- the internet is a toxic cesspool, and it's only going to get worse: because there's money in selling hostility. Nobody ever got rich being nice. (Mister Rogers was born rich, which was the only way he could afford to be as nice as he was.) This was already going on in the USA by the mid-90s or so once modern talk radio took off, and the Internet just offered a new, more penetrative venue for it. This is a good time to be a paid comment shill/professional internet troll.

Not that any past era was any better -- I collect fringe political literature of the Era, and some of the stuff I've come across, grubby little mimeographed pamphlets and the like, would make you sick to your stomach. But at least those people were "true believers" in whatever poison they were trying to spread -- a pretty significant number of those purveying such things today are simply doing it either for the bucks or the lulz, and I don't know which is worse. It's like the whole world is professional wrestling, and nobody will break kayfabe.

 

[GHT]

You can blame the internet for such intolerance today, but is going on line really to blame for not letting the motorist who is signalling to cross the oncoming traffic, free passage? Today it seems that anarchy rules, tolerance, patience and goodwill are a thing of the past.

If you have ever had to use public transport, chances are that you have witnessed the tongue clicking, the impatient sigh and the unfriendly glare at the less fortunate trying to board the bus or train. Being old, infirm or lame today will get you exasperation where it once got sympathy.

My own interpretation is that the J.I.T. concept, that's just in time, has loaded society with such unachievable levels that it's causing the stresses we endure on a daily basis. In case you are unfamiliar with Just In Time:
"The just-in-time (JIT) inventory system is a management strategy that aligns raw-material orders from suppliers directly with production schedules. Companies employ this inventory strategy to increase efficiency and decrease waste by receiving goods only as they need them for the production process, which reduces inventory costs. This method requires producers to forecast demand accurately.
The JIT inventory system contrasts with just-in-case strategies, wherein producers hold sufficient inventories to have enough product to absorb maximum market demand."

Just in Time is at the heart of everything that we order or do. It's why there's popular lines missing on supermarket shelves, why your favourite restaurant doesn't have any sea bass/prime beef or whatever your choice is. Just in Time is a concept design to reduce capacity, costs and workforce. The minute there's a spanner in the works the whole point of just in time collapses, putting enormous strains on those left to pick up the pieces. That's why they are so stressed, why they don't give way on the roads and why society has become so intollerable.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Intolerance ? I won't tolerate it !

 

[tonyb]

You can blame the internet for such intolerance today, but is going on line really to blame for not letting the motorist who is signalling to cross the oncoming traffic, free passage? Today it seems that anarchy rules, tolerance, patience and goodwill are a thing of the past.

If you have ever had to use public transport, chances are that you have witnessed the tongue clicking, the impatient sigh and the unfriendly glare at the less fortunate trying to board the bus or train. Being old, infirm or lame today will get you exasperation where it once got sympathy.

My own interpretation is that the J.I.T. concept, that's just in time, has loaded society with such unachievable levels that it's causing the stresses we endure on a daily basis. In case you are unfamiliar with Just In Time:
"The just-in-time (JIT) inventory system is a management strategy that aligns raw-material orders from suppliers directly with production schedules. Companies employ this inventory strategy to increase efficiency and decrease waste by receiving goods only as they need them for the production process, which reduces inventory costs. This method requires producers to forecast demand accurately.
The JIT inventory system contrasts with just-in-case strategies, wherein producers hold sufficient inventories to have enough product to absorb maximum market demand."

Just in Time is at the heart of everything that we order or do. It's why there's popular lines missing on supermarket shelves, why your favourite restaurant doesn't have any sea bass/prime beef or whatever your choice is. Just in Time is a concept design to reduce capacity, costs and workforce. The minute there's a spanner in the works the whole point of just in time collapses, putting enormous strains on those left to pick up the pieces. That's why they are so stressed, why they don't give way on the roads and why society has become so intollerable.

Can’t say that I’m read up on all of that, but I am acquainted with people whose modus operandi could be summed up as “everything will work out fine provided everything works out fine.” Little if any room for error or the unforeseen.

I can still enjoy the company of people who operate that way, but I know not to rely on them for anything important.

 

[tonyb]

Intolerance ? I won't tolerate it !

In five words, that pretty well exposes the inherent flaw in the “tolerance” model.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

In five words, that pretty well exposes the inherent flaw in the “tolerance” model.

Oh no it doesn't.

 

[Edward]

There's a popular notion around nowadays which claims that not tolerating intolerance is itself intolerant - usually, in my experience, pushed by some rather unpleasant types (open racists and the like) who also scream "freedom of speech" when challenged, the aim of both claims being, in the last instance, an attempt to avoid accountability for what they have said or promoted by attempting to delegitimise criticism. Of course, as the rest of us realise, freedom of speech does not equate in any way, shape or form to a right to express onesself in the vilest of ways and then be shielded from any consequences thereof (the latter often being legitimate free speech in themselves).

The internet certainly makes it easier for people to fly off the handle and say nasty things without thinking; I know several people who are, socially, very pleasant to be around and with whom one can have considered, intelligent discussions on even contentious politics in person, but as soon as they're on the internet they'll turn very nasty indeed at the merest hint of disagreement. I don't think it's the web that is the problem on that level, so much as it would be the same with any form of communication at a distance whereby the 'other' can be easily dehumanised and dismissed, and politeness is not necessary. The internet has not invented this - long before the web, I saw many instances where "the other" was castigated as this or that by people whose best friend was often one of "the others". Roman Catholics, Black folks, whatever - they were "all" this or that as a group, but an individual from that group once known as a friend was seen as a friend. Often the person expressing these things would actually be blind to their pal's "otherness", spouting prejudice about the group, but if challenged they'd look confused, and inevitably say "no ,but he's different, because.... eh....". Some of them never evolved to the point where they grasped that this was a basic fear of the unknown, but there you are. THe web certainly has enhanced these issues into new problems, but it didn't invent intolerance.

 

[tonyb]

I’d take tolerance over outright hostility, but that doesn’t render the model any less flawed. There’s gotta be a better approach, one that acknowledges and respects the variety of human experience without the inherent contradiction in not tolerating intolerance.

We need look no further than recent entries in this thread for evidence of why we’re seeing so many hard feelings. People implying the worst about other people’s perspectives and motives, people making sarcastic comments (which they mistake for witticisms) while hiding behind screen names.

Perhaps we’d go some ways toward building a better world if we didn’t expect better than we’re willing to give, eh? Perhaps if we didn’t treat everything as a competition. Perhaps if instead of “tolerance” we concerned ourselves with fairness.

I suggest we all ask ourselves: How would I react to being on the receiving end of what I just dished out? Am I really contributing anything of value?

 

[Edward]

I guess a lot depends on how we define intolerance. - i.e. political disagreement when two people see the best way to benefit us all as being via different policies is one thing; racism or religious bigotry another.

 

[Bushman]

A lot of what @Edward says is true. In particular about certain types who try to push the boundaries of and weaponize the concept of "free speech" for their own twisted political ends. People oft need be reminded that, in the United States at least, "freedom of speech" protects you from incarceration for what you say (and even that has its limits, i.e. yelling "bomb" on an airplane), but just as you have the right to spew hatred, I have the right to tell you screw off, you're a racist old ba***rd.

In my experience, yes the concept of the world wide web is amazing. I've been in chat rooms where I was speaking with colleagues from Germany, Hong Kong, Canada, and LA all at the same time. That kind of communication would never have been possible 40 years ago. But at the same time, it affords people a certain amount of anonymity that allows people to create personas, or simply allows people to show their true colors. When you go to a social media page that has few or no rules, you see how the worst of humanity quickly flocks there. Under the guise of a screen name, people will show you how they act when they have no fear of repercussion. And this can and does, unfortunately, leak out into people's offline behavior.

Quite simply, people are forgetting what it's like to be punched in the mouth for the things they say and do, and it's showing.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^
It isn’t to advocate physical assault to acknowledge that you have a point.

The words escaping the mouth (and smartphone) of one all-too-familiar name often have me thinking, dang, that guy sure didn’t grow up in my neighborhood (if he indeed grew up at all). That boy never got thumped. And it shows.

 

[MissMittens]

When you would ask me, which difference exists between the 90s and the 2010s, I would promptly know, which to mention!

Intolerance.

My theory is, that the reason is the highspeed-internet. I think, this caused a total psychological change in the people.
Maybe, the people just "unlearn" to deal with each other. I don't know really, but this upcoming worldwide peer-grouping must had it's effect.

I was a kid and a teen, in the 90s and I remember this decade very well! There was a total relaxed, (for kids) even up to boring atmosphere, in Germany. No one made a fuss about something. Liberal living, enjoying, having fun.

I think it can be summed up as people like to be around others with the same hobbies, passtimes, ideologies, etc. While that's great when it happens in a positive way, like FL, for example. When it comes to people with bad ideas on any side of the political spectrum or at any point in between, it tends to mean that they form in-group echo chambers which reinforce problematic viewpoints, resulting in when they face a challenge from someone in an out-group, instead of weighing the facts, that challenge is treated with immediate disregard and disdain, and anything contrary to their solidly-held beliefs, is considered to be fake or inauthentic.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the biggest structural problem with the internet is that it gives people with no control of their impulses -- or their mouths -- an outlet with no checks on it at all. It's one thing when Roy The Neighborhood Racist Asshole is popping off down at the corner bar, but when persons of global prominence are randomly free-associating every incoherent thought that comes out of their head on Twitter, it does tend to shade the discourse.

World leaders with a tendency to run their mouths inadvisedly are not peculiar to the current era -- if Twitter had been around in 1948, Harry Truman would be remembered quite differently by history. But the availability of such outlets has brought out the worst in just about every person of note who uses them. And it plays to a society that's been trained over the last thirty years to think only in cheap soundbites -- the combination is lethal.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Let's face it, everyone is intolerant of other people & other people's opinions, some just happen to be better at masking it than others. This thread is a good example of it, under the guise of denouncing intolerance, a few posters have, albeit unwittingly, unmasked their own intolerance. Even if the human race started from scratch I'm sure it would end up where we are today, only my counterpart would be better looking than the current model.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We had a concert a few years back featuring a band that included a shofar -- an instrument of Jewish religious significance -- and the band member who played it took a moment to explain that significance to the audience. One member of the audience yelled an anti-Semitic comment in response.

I threw that person out.

Was I intolerant?

We had another concert featuring an opening act made up of two young women. A young man in the audience shouted out a suggestion that these young women should perform a certain act upon a part of his person.

I threw him out.

Was I intolerant?