Tribalism exists in many social groups- political, cultural, class/ caste, etc. The members of these social groups quite often actively seek to recruit and maintain members, and will likewise participate in "influence wars" to attempt to garner more support, strengthen the disposition of their current member base, and/or persuade members of opposing social groups to abandon their tribes altogether. By "influence wars", what I'm referring to is the free exchange of information only for the purpose of strengthening one's own social group or weakening another's. The exchange of information applies to both the media itself, whether real or fake, and the manner/ context in which the media is delivered, whether constructive or destructive. If there's one thing the internet does best, it is facilitating the free exchange of information.
The Internet has so vastly bolstered the speed at which we share information that small social groups have been able to gather large numbers of members, and thus a large amount of influence, in a relatively short period of time. In the pre-internet era (read as: The Boring Times), our society wouldn't have received much influence from social groups in India, the Middle East, or Japan, and those from native (American) social groups that joined any facets of the aforementioned social groups were very unlikely to have the influence expand that social group. The Internet was the solution to this problem, giving Americans wider access to additional social groups like anime and pop culture. As these myriad smaller groups gain more influence, there are members of other social groups that may have a lot in common with members of other social groups, and a campaign to merge the groups may form, which often leads to contention from both groups.
The last sentence is what I'm curious about. But first,
TL;DR: The internet is a huge platform for our social groups. We duke it out on the internet with strangers that don't belong to our social group, and sometimes persuade them to join our group instead. Sometimes we attempt to blur the lines between groups to confuse plebs.
Where do you see tribalism controlling the discourse the most? How do you see tribalism affecting the future of our social groups via the internet? Do you think the internet will be negatively or positively affected by tribalism?
I'm just wondering if there's any meaning to all the fighting and what the endgame is.
The Internet has so vastly bolstered the speed at which we share information that small social groups have been able to gather large numbers of members, and thus a large amount of influence, in a relatively short period of time. In the pre-internet era (read as: The Boring Times), our society wouldn't have received much influence from social groups in India, the Middle East, or Japan, and those from native (American) social groups that joined any facets of the aforementioned social groups were very unlikely to have the influence expand that social group. The Internet was the solution to this problem, giving Americans wider access to additional social groups like anime and pop culture. As these myriad smaller groups gain more influence, there are members of other social groups that may have a lot in common with members of other social groups, and a campaign to merge the groups may form, which often leads to contention from both groups.
The last sentence is what I'm curious about. But first,
TL;DR: The internet is a huge platform for our social groups. We duke it out on the internet with strangers that don't belong to our social group, and sometimes persuade them to join our group instead. Sometimes we attempt to blur the lines between groups to confuse plebs.
Where do you see tribalism controlling the discourse the most? How do you see tribalism affecting the future of our social groups via the internet? Do you think the internet will be negatively or positively affected by tribalism?
I'm just wondering if there's any meaning to all the fighting and what the endgame is.
.
