I agree that social media and the Internet can be a double edged sword - it's allowed for people to communicate from around the world and to share and synthesize ideas, but at the same time there is the worrying trend of tailor-made content streams and the development of echo chambers that lead to the crystallization of unpleasant antiquated ideas and the softening of ideas with potential that haven't had the details hammered out through debate and analysis. I think that the continual leftward shift of social positions is in a large part driven by increased ability to communicate with others who are different from you to learn that people of a different color an ocean away are still human like you. I think ultimately future generations will learn to better use the technology and a sort of equilibrium between dealing with the truly hateful while still exposing oneself to contrary ideas will be organically maintained.
I think the phenomenon of people acting with little empathy online is due to them not having true empathy in the first place, only merely pretending to care for others due to fear of social consequences. It is true that the Internet is more impersonal, but all that does is strip people of their pretenses for being kind and reveal who they truly are. I think for future generations for whom the Internet is more viscerally real to, something that has "always been" from their perspective this will not be as much of a problem, though I also hope the underlying problem of a lack of an epistemological basis for empathy will be addressed as well.
I love Slatestarcodex and Popehat, so I'll have to look into your other recommendation as well!
Dang it, had a long reply and then deleted it accidentally <cry>
I've guest taught for the missus at Notre Dame, and I do think that the younger generation will handle it a lot better than we have. Since it's something they've had all of their lives growing up, I think they see it as more of an extension of the real world rather than those of us who grew up pre social media / internet, but then had it come into being during college / adulthood. I think our idea of a representative world is skewed, and that we often think our own online circles are representative, when they're instead heavily self-selected and biased.
Don't get me started on speech - I think you and I share similar thoughts on speech (and how to fight hateful speech) being Popehat readers.
See, maybe I'm just lucky, but even people I know who are self-righteous assholes or dipshits online actually have empathy when confronted in reality.
I'm confused as to what you're talking about wrt purity tests and race. I don't know if I've ever really seen that applied to Sanders.
I've seen criticism of his vote on the 1994 crime bill. But again from the perspective of it being hypocrisy. I've seen observation and critique of the campaign and candidate being unable to attract voters, or the actions of supporters. Posting of pretty paternalistic poster images like the one where the black woman and the Latino couple haven't thought hard enough. But these are typically basically wtf are you doing boggled mind posts.
But I don't really see how any of that constitutes Tea Party like purity tests.
He's poor at intersectional politics. That's not a purity test.
Maybe it's just the circles I run in - but I've seen arguments about how Sanders isn't a "true" progressive because he doesn't do well wrt intersectional politics currently (which, mind you, will probably be vastly different 10 years from now than it is now, but I digress), or that he's not a "real" democrat because he runs as an I (even though him and Clinton have a 93% similar voting record) in the Senate.
I think going after folks who voted for the crime bill as being "racist" or "anti-black" (Sanders, and by extension from her husband, Clinton) - is complete historical revisionist bullshit, and frankly, the "evidence" that the crime bill didn't do anything is Twain-ian "lies, damn lies, and statistics." That smacks of the leftist-y purity test. It seems to be either economic purity tests (blasting Clinton for taking money from Wall Street) or social purity tests (the crime bill, Coates going off on Sanders about not being willing to consider reparations). I don't particularly like it.
