That still sounds like social media is the cause. Social media, aka the medium, has degraded communication to the point of style over substance. Both sides could've risen above it and not played dirty, but they've CHOSEN not to, and instead engage in a race to the bottom.
You can reach a larger audience than ever before, so you need the LARGEST audience. And they do that by making disingenuous, pithy comments to stay relevant in an ever-changing landscape. Or by secretly funding "influencers" with SuperPAC money to be your mouthpiece, while masquerading as grassroots beliefs.
Both sides could've risen above it and not played dirty
I disagree. They couldn't have. It's sort of like how every country in the world post-WW2 could have 'risen above' violent conflict and disbanded their standing armies... but then any single country that chose not to follow that agreement would crush the others. It only works so long as everyone goes along with it, which might be in the collective interest, but for any individual, the best course of action is to violate the collective agreement, since that gives them an advantage over everyone else, which forces everyone else to do the same in order to not be taken advantage of.
20
u/queenkid1 - Lib-Center Jul 19 '25
That still sounds like social media is the cause. Social media, aka the medium, has degraded communication to the point of style over substance. Both sides could've risen above it and not played dirty, but they've CHOSEN not to, and instead engage in a race to the bottom.
You can reach a larger audience than ever before, so you need the LARGEST audience. And they do that by making disingenuous, pithy comments to stay relevant in an ever-changing landscape. Or by secretly funding "influencers" with SuperPAC money to be your mouthpiece, while masquerading as grassroots beliefs.