Political sides

Why do people attach themselves to one group or another?
Everyone differs in belief somewhere.

Attached: connect-with-yourself-mb-ages-7-and-up-30715265.png (500x519, 138K)

Politics and ideology are often tied to identity. Most politics is identity politics.

Humans are inheirently tribalistic.

Tribalism and the two-party system causes this rift. You're either with us or against us and there is no in between. It's purposely played up this way to keep the parties in power and stop any third party from accomplishing anything.

People don't think for themselves so they follow a political group and sometimes religion instead of having their own beliefs. I think it's because people are afraid of introspection. Most people don't even know what comprises their individual integrity.

Retards.
Enlightened intelligence.

I have difficulty "choosing a side" on many issues. When I hear the pros and cons of an issue, usually both sides explain their reasoning well enough, and I see advantages and disadvantages with both and can't decide which I, myself, agree with.

Most things are more complex than "thing bad" or "thing good". I can't think of any major issue that is 100% clear cut. Just pick the side that solves the problem with the least significant downsides.

Is it just me, or has political fighting become much more common on the Internet in the last few years?

Yeah definitely. Its the result of ever growing echo chambers starting to clash. More often than not its people on two extremes of an artificial political dichotomy arguing with each other, idiots talking to idiots. But the internet doesn't help with encouraging civil arguments either.

Nope. Its all about tribalism. This is why politics is getting extreme. A moderate leftist will double down on their position if right wingers disagree. I find Islam very interesting. Despite having a lot in common with right wing thought, they are despised by the right, and cherished by the left.

Its called cognitive dissonance. Political ideology is tied to a persons identity. A person will often have two conflicting beliefs. If you have tied your politics to your identity it becomes even harder. This then ties into tribal dynamics. You identify as a left wing person. There is a conflict in one of your world views. A right winger (member of the tribe you are at war with) tells you that you're stupid for believing one of those things. The leftist then doubles down or does the opposite. Lets say the leftist believed all life on earth should be saved and frequently eats beef. When the rightist tells him eating beef for fags he will either decide to never eat another living creature again or convince himself that eating beef is humane because they would die without human care.

Its tribalism. Me and my side vs the outside.

sure, but a group of 2 with some concessions to the other is twice as strong as a group of one with no concessions

numbers are strength

It's all *sniff* ideology

Attached: MV5BMGY4YTM1YTItYmZhMS00NDg5LWIyOTItYjZhMmJkYTgwOTBiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDkzNTM2ODg@._V1_UY317_CR4,0,214 (214x317, 12K)

The last election dumped as much politics as it could into the Internet.

Nice post, but you replied to baiting faggot. Steer clear next time.

You lack a fundamental life philosophy. You have no values in life. This doesn't make you smarter than everyone else. What may seem like a disadvantage to you is just priorities to others. There are no actions without consequences but consequences aren't necessarily a bad thing by definition.

I live in the UK, so I'm more "distant" from this stuff, but I remember the 2012 American election being a lot less crazy than the 2016 election. The 2012 one just came and went, but the 2016 election drove everyone nuts.

The 2012 wasn't a big deal because everybody knew Obama was going to win again. His first election in 2008 was far more heated but barely any normies used the Internet back then so it was localized almost entirely on news networks. If the 2016 election was Obama vs McCain, everything would be exactly the same.

I must disagree. I believe its the result of commercialization of the internet. Major website people used to go to are no trying to be politically correct. Take youtube as an example. I imagine this sort of thing happened to all forms of communications. You were just lucky enough to witness the internet before it became commercial.

All forms of communication like Radio ect ect start out very innocent. They broadcasted symphonies and it was mostly just a scientific experiment ect ect. Then it became popular. Then commercials showed up. Then news programs. It quickly turned into a tool for propaganda across the globe. The same thing is happening to the internet. Companies and governments realized they can use the internet to spread their agendas.

The only conflicting echo chambers that exist are the commercialized internet and the grass roots internet. Many normies who use the internet will only ever watch music videos with billions of views and youtube shows like buzzfeed. They will only go on the internet to buy things from amazon or search google for answers. They may use it to check up on the newest movies coming out or their celebrity drama. They would never consider spending a full day shitposting on the internet with a bunch of anonymous faggots as entertaining.


People like discussing ideas. Notice that actual politics is never discussed. Only philosophical politics is ever discussed.

Pretty interesting user. You're right, most of where the clash takes place is on highly commercialised platforms nowadays, something I didn't take note of. On the point of governments and companies spreading their agendas, I don't deny that its something that takes place, but I'm unsure of its extent. Other than the whole Facebook issue earlier this year, are there other examples of it taking place? On the corporate side of things it seems to me that its mostly just the pushing of an agenda in order to generate profit

>but I'm unsure of its extent
Several candidates had paid people to idle at news sites and wait until a political article was published, then immediately flood the comments section with extreme bias.

Got sauce on this. I want to read more about it