Why does everyone in the world seem so angry?

[Strife 23]

The world is divided. People are more extreme, everybody hates each other. Globalization is probably the cause for everybody's disdain. Want proof? Look at the United States. You have the living embodiment of anger as the sole leader of the world's super-power. This election caused everyone to move towards polar opposite spectrum of the belief system. It's not even worth having civil discussions anymore, because you're just gonna be called a bigot.

 

?

?

?

Now that I just lied to you, you're gonna realize how dumb the topic question really is.

The world isn't divided, people aren't extreme, and nobody really hates each other. It only seems that way. Why? Because people are idiots.

Note that I said "People."

?

On an individual basis, a person tends to be more moderate in their actions and beliefs, save a few exceptions that will be explained further on. For example, most of you have been to school. How many times have you feared for your lives while sitting in a classroom full of several different people you don't know? What inhibits them from getting up and punching you square in the face?

?

So why is it that people are so polarly opposite that riots break out, wars start, and sports teams are cheered for?

Yep. That third topic can be explained by the exact same reasoning:

People are more predictable and easily manipulated as a group.

?

But wait, how can people all over the world be manipulated if they're not all gathered in the same place?

Re-read my opening paragraph. Why did I start out with that? Were you upset at either me for describing Donald Trump as a misogynistic bigot? Or are you crying because you're liberal scum and probably want to hide in your safe space and cuddle with your participation trophy and your women's study degree?

Now re-read the last two questions and ask yourself why I only gave you those two options and phrased them the way I did.

Who else does this? Where have you seen titles or quotes where words were used as weapons to disengage critical thinking and destroy the foundation of communication? I'll give you 5?reasons why you need to be critically aware. Number 3 will shock you!

?

1. All media is biased.

Whether you read from your favorite news source that was clearly written to inflate your sense of dignity over your beliefs, or if you just heard it from your roommate, you will never get a story that hasn't been altered in some way or form to prevent any opinions from leaking through.?

Now hold on. What if some outside source who truly doesn't have any opinions just documents what happened?

Nope. Bias.

It is literally impossible to tell a story without bias. Go ahead. Try it. Comment below and tell me a story that hasn't been manipulated in some form.

Why is it so hard to do? Because the moment you decide to report on one subject, you'll be leaving another story out. It's simply because you just can't do it all. You're not omniscient nor are you omnipotent, so it's impossible to tell someone everything that happened all at once. The very reason why you decided to tell a story was because you considered it to be important.?

Heck, in this forum post, I'm providing questions that I can easily answer just to make you think that I carefully thought it through from all sides of an argument.

Besides, which would article would you rather read?

"Trump gave speech at convention" with a picture of him waving at the crowd, or

"Trump gave Nazi salute after speech" with a carefully timed picture of him with his arm outstretched?

?

2. Mass audiences are idiots.

Have you ever been to a sports game, a concert, theater, whatever? When people all around you are cheering, do you have the urge to as well? If you don't, you're an idiot. Why are you even there if you aren't gonna participate? You're just gonna look like a loser for abandoning your team.

I mentioned above that people as a group are easy to control. This is why.

This is basically like a hive-mind thinking. You're all predictable because in a crowd, people in general don't like to stand out and do something different.

?

3. Extremism will get you killed.

I told you that everyone has moderate beliefs. And I gave you an example earlier. People aren't committing mass atrocities every day everywhere because of the inherent result at the end: You will die if you're too extreme. There will always be somebody who disagrees with your way of thinking. If you have too much power, someone will rebel in some way. History is full of examples of one person or group that held too much power.

 

In 1305, Pope Clement V was held in France, in the commune of Avignon, coined "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church." If Crusader1307 hadn't already mentioned it already in his History Articles, guess what most historians tend to agree would never have happened if the Papacy wasn't held in France? I'll give you a hint: It happened right after the Middle Ages.

That's right. The Italian Renaissance. Secular beliefs became more prevalent among [wealthy, intelligent] men, and we all know that the Catholic Church had a lot of power, dictating everyone's morals and beliefs. The entire Renaissance, both Italian and Northern, was basically a long time period of a rebellion against the Catholic Church, which couldn't do anything about the Italian Renaissance because they were divided in power for 112 years between the Babylonian Captivity and the Papal Schism.

 

4. Individuals who know point 2 are more likely to take advantage of this.

Which isn't to say that your leader is gonna be Hitler. It just simply means that people who DO want to stand out are the people who lead in the world. This is literally just a separation of leaders and followers. And the most successful leaders are the ones who are capable of manipulating emotion. Emotion is what all media targets because it's an irrational response to what you experience. Because there's no thinking involved, if you can control someone in an allotted time before they begin to question your methods, then you will be extraordinarily successful in selling your idea to the public.

This is why people seem to be on opposing ends of the political or belief spectra. Leaders band them together to promote their own ideas to further their agenda. Mostly for profit.

 

5. Anonymity makes everything so much easier.

So I mentioned earlier that nobody's going to commit mass atrocities every day because of extremism. That's part of it. The other part is because they're afraid of punishment. Read Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince. In it, and I paraphrase, he mentioned that a ruler must exhibit some sort of cruelty and vigilance, because if he's too kind, no one will take his laws seriously. But if he publicly demonstrates what would happen if someone disobeyed his rulings, then everyone else will fall into line. I'm aware that The Prince?was written primarily as an observation of the time rather than as a guide. But the example still holds water.

But guess what happens when you throw people from all over the world into the internet, where they're capable of communicating? Ever had road rage? Exact same thing. You're more likely to be angry at an inanimate object than you are at another face. Because the internet is generally faceless, even on Facebook you're not communicating with another tangible face, you're more likely to treat everyone as if they aren't real. This is why there are trolls.

And how often do you rationally think when you're angry?

 

If you want to manipulate a large audience, prioritize the preceding points in this order:

5, 1, 3, 2, 4

Which isn't to say that any of these points are significantly less important than another.

 

Ultimately, the entire post can be summed up as this:

TL;DR: Groups of people are less resilient to manipulation than individuals.

The divide and conquer trick has been applied in order to cause people to perceive that the world is ending. But don't fret. It's happened before, it's happening now, and it will continue to happen, but the world is still standing. Humans are creative and adaptive, which is the result of our cognitive abilities.

[Crusader1307 298]

Actually well written Political opinion, Strife. History has shown that the vast majority of people will simply sit back and allow all things happen (war, elections, injustices and so forth). The other faction of people react AFTER the fact.

As I have watched Television today for a 2nd day in a row, Americans are acting like idiots. They complain and protest over an Election ?they didn't "like", but they put no effort into Gun Control, Homelessness and a myriad of issues that should not exist in this Country.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of the newly elected Political Head of Government. But, I sadly agree with his Policy of securing America's Borders. America (as other European Countries, that have been attacked), can ill afford another 9-11. Should such "securement" be as radical as has been "promised"? Don't know.

 

As an "Old Soldier" blessed to have lived all over the World, I have learned that the best course of action is to be proactive, honest and do one's best to maintain a dialogue with people.

 

It will be an interesting next 4 years that any future Historians will no doubt write volumes on.

 

Again, we'll done Strife!

[EaglePrince 230]

Nicely said, Strife.

 

Unfortunately, being from a country which used to be isolated for a while from the rest of the world, I just have feeling that there is no way to correct this issue. It seems sadly that masses will always be controlled. Back in 90's few people had internet, and people knew only those stuff which they were told to justify some bad things done by the government (or somebody who wasn't in the government, but that's not relevant right now). People had their opinions only based on what they were told by medias. I'm not saying that in those sad times one part was a bad guy, and the other is a good guy, it was far from being black and while, it was a process that couldn't be stopped that moment.

 

Some time later one would think that it is should be better today because we have internet and we have access to information from the rest of the world, but it still doesn't work like that. They can still just bash those foreign media how they have agenda to justify what they want (e.g. to justify supporting rebels in Syria against their government, to justify attack on Libya, etc.), though at least partly that's what people in the Western countries think too (BBC for example).

 

I mean, we simply may not have the correct information about some events, and when that is the case: from false information one could deduce anything.

 

The only way for people to find out something else is when their country starts to get bombed, :( or when their incomes become smaller, etc.

 

 

Oh, and more importantly, we in Serbia don't have a long democratic tradition, so I was expecting that elections should work better in countries where that is not the case, but it turned out that I was wrong there two. In South Park they joked a little about the elections in the USA, and they were saying how Americans choose for their president from Giant Douche (Trump) and Turd Sandwich (Hillary). When I was younger thought Americans wouldn't come in that situation like us. Each several years we choose between some Giant Douche and some Turd Sandwich, and for 15 years we're looking at those same faces. But yet, it seems that even in the USA it doesn't matter who is better than who, but who will promote themselves more in the media. This paragraph may seem a little bit off topic, but I just give that as one more example of influence by media...

[Mathew Steel 151]

Not everybody that voted for Trump are bigots, but all the bigots voted for Trump.

Not everybody that voted Hillary are feminists, but all the feminists voted for Hillary.

 

Let's be honest, neither candidates were great, or even decent options. On one hand you have people voting Trump because he promises all these huge changes, whilst a lot of them are unlikely to ever be made, and on the other hand, you have people voting for Hillary simply because she's a woman and this apparently equals "progression" (because we live in such patriarchal societies, right?).?

 

No, the world is not divided, however, to believe we are as united as we once were is plain ignorance. I am with you that people need to stop getting upset over nothing, and yes, I agree that it is the liberals that are the ones getting upset over nothing, although, not all liberals. To say the liberals are the only ones getting offended by nothing, is just as stupid as saying all Trump supporters are racist.

 

 

EDIT: I thought this video might better some relations during this time - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abwc7AAXn3A?

 

Also, everything is going to be fine! Strife, I just realised this seemed like I was calling you out on things, my apologies. I meant all of the above in a "general-speaking" sense! :)

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mathew Steel

[EaglePrince 230]

Hmm, is that you on the video? :D I noticed he has some exact same things which you said now, but of course - that doesn't have to mean anything. And I think that one of us is also named Tom. :)

[Mathew Steel 151]

No that's not me! That's the great Tom Scott! :D

 

My name is also Tom though! :P

[Strife 23]

Globalization is a touchy subject. Before, we've acknowledged that there were people all over the world. However, now, we have to acknowledge that there are people all over the world with differing points of views. And it's difficult to put into perspective what that's like because people tend to have a hard time to understand how to describe a massive system. For example, could you visually picture something 36,000 km away from you to scale? What about 385,000 km?

What most leaders tend to drive at in regards to securing national borders is the return of nationalism, and, almost in a small sense, isolationism. Now, we have historical proof that nationalism was a viable -ism for people to believe in within the last 100 years. But with the advent of the internet, it's so much more difficult to not pay attention to what's going on everywhere else. The world is becoming smaller in that regard, and it's because it's happening so fast that it's hard to keep up.

The media isn't to blame for creating international urgency and a sense of hatred among people, rather I'd say that they just stoked the fire caused by lack of awareness, critical thinking, and communication between people.

 

Matthew Steel, don't worry about avoiding calling me out on something. I wrote the article specifically to evoke a response, depending on how someone would interpret the words I chose. If you find that I'm slandering what you believe in, call it for what it is. I may or may not have done so intentionally.

The world was never as united as much as it is now. That's not to say that we're all together on this. Rather, what I mean is that people can no longer distance themselves from someone with different viewpoints of a subject matter anymore. The fact that countries and borders exist is proof enough to state that the world will always be divided in some way. However, globalization has helped form a greater unity than before. I'm here in the Midwest United States having a civil conversation with all of you, in Serbia, the United Kingdom, and Western US. And we all know what this topic is about. We understand the context. There's a required sense of unity involved in order for people from different parts of the world to know what's going on in a foreign area.

 

None of what I said should be taken as an absolute truth. My expertise doesn't cover history, politics, economics, or public relations (I'm a chemist). Rather, this is merely my interpretation of an observed world based upon what's going on, and how people are responding to everything that I've witnessed.

 

My thoughts trailed off after maybe the first 20-30 minutes writing this, so I may be missing some points I wanted to touch on.

[EaglePrince 230]

I don't know who is Tom Scott, so I had to ask. :D

 

Oh, and Strife, I think that this thing with borders has to be taken seriously. For example, Hungarians have built fences between our border, but that doesn't mean that anybody is going to be isolated. In fact, I can go to Hungary whenever I want, and just a week ago I figured a way how to go to Szeged (a bordering Hungarian city) for only 10 euro. I would only need a passport, and that's all. The issue is about those people who want to pass the border without showing any of their documents. I can't imagine any country imagine to let me in without any papers, cause who knows - I may be a criminal or a psychopath. There are those who fight against those fences in the name of freedom of movement, but that's ridiculous in my opinion. I country shouldn't let anyone in just like I wouldn't let anyone enter my yard.

 

Regarding not wanting to show their papers - they have their reasons. Maybe they hide something, or maybe they simply want to reach Germany or Sweden which are richer countries than Serbia, Hungary, Croatia, etc.

 

Now, I only don't know how it is in the USA, I don't know if that wall between USA and Mexico is necessary, I guess it is not, but what I said above was about refugees from Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.

[Mathew Steel 151]

If you have an interest in the world's history and different wonders or buildings, you'd love his channel. It's very concise and informative :)

 

 

 

I tend to not give my opinions anymore. I study sociology, and hence have to be unbiased (haha ;)). I do agree with a lot of what you said about critical thinking, however, I do feel like some of your points had little substance to them. Although, I don't live in the US, so maybe what I see in the UK is actually quite different to that of the US, even though we have the same sort of values and norms within our societies!

 

That's not to say I don't have an opinion. I just feel it's best to keep that to myself. Or at least here. I'm not sure how thick skinned everyone is, and I've been told I can be quite forward and straight to the point when it comes to something I'm quite passionate about.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mathew Steel