“We might speculate, then, that unrest is most likely to occur and spread when there is an abuse that affects a large number of people; there is a generally shared understanding of the nature of the abuse; there are effective local activists capable of arousing the indignation of the rank-and-file; there are accessible communication vehicles permitting the spreading of messages of dissent; the population has a tradition of activism; and the state’s managers are ineffectual in damping down the occurrences of protest. These conditions appear most favorable for the dissemination of unrest.”

Kevin, I believe you’re referring to George Orwell’s essay on “Politics and the English Language“. Daniel Little, again, has more to say on the matter:

“These examples make it credible that there are in fact alternative conceptual beginnings from which we can analyze the social world. What does not seem to be true, however, is the idea that these beginnings are incommensurable. Instead, it seems persuasive that ideas and statements that originate in an ontology of social wholes can be effectively restated in an ontology that originates in a world of individuals; likewise, materialist and ideological approaches to the social world seem compatible and mutually constructive rather than contradictory and incommensurable. The dichotomies considered here are not exclusive or incompatible. In fact, any adequate explanation of a social process or outcome is likely to need to refer to both sets of categories. And this implies something very similar to the position Strawson and Davidson arrive at: the idea of inter-translatability and mutual comprehension across these large conceptual divides.”

With regard to the former, while silence in society might be “peaceful” I certainly do not think that that is a good thing. I rather cherish the opportunity to debate and argue, and what I mean by dangerous is when the war of words spill over into violence, as opposed to verbal debates. No doubt civility is hard to observe in conflict but I would think it is certainly preferable to physical tussles or worse still outright war.

As to differences in opinion being bad, I cant beg to differ more. As much as I may appear to have authoritarian tendencies, I am one who would prefer differences in opinion be voiced out and debated rather than suffer in silence and hence create the impression that there is no different in opinion. I do believe in the diversity of opinions and I hope it can be done as much as possible in less-dangerous ways.

I believe meaningful arguments online are usually balanced and not so extreme. For those who are becoming more extreme thanks to clustering of people with the same ideas – shame on their pathetic denial of the other poles in nature…

“Chang quotes Cass Sunstein of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for his view that people who “interact with others who share the same views… tend to become more extreme”. Of course, “the opposite is also true”, but at least looking at some of the incidents Chang has had to cover for The Straits Times, it appears as if the former applies more than the latter.”

As you have mentioned – the internet offers multiple viewpoints on a particular issue – but people tend to (un)consciously look out for viewpoints that correspond with what they feel should be the case. In so doing, they tend to form “closed communities” trading ideas of the same political slant.

I disagree, however, that it ends there – given the openness of the internet – you’ll notice more arguments (like yourself) outside the common ones that dominate theonlinecitizen, or temasek review. Two particular examples: yawningbread and cherian george?

That being said – I don’t think of polarity as necessarily bad – with time, people who argue for a particular stand might improve in their rigour in spotting arguments in their favour (dexterity of thought?) and hence become more “extreme” in identifying situations (however trivial) that are symptoms of bias in society. Bad arguments will, (hopefully) with time, become known for their lack of rigour and discarded.

I dislike your partition between online and “real” society though. We must not always expect debate and reason to always appear in the “civilised” fashion we’ll like it to be. That the internet is viewed as “dangerous”, while silence in society is viewed as “peaceful” is myopic in nature.