Is Social Media Making Us Hate Each Other? (bostonglobe.com) 312
Nicholas Carr's book The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains was a finalist for the 2011 Pulitzer Prize. Now an anonymous Slashdot reader reports on Carr's newest warning:
It seems obvious: The more we learn about other people, the more we'll come to like them. The assumption underpins our deep-seated belief that communication networks, from the telephone system to Facebook, will help create social harmony. But what if the opposite is true? In a Boston Globe article, Nicholas Carr presents evidence showing that as we get more information about other people, we tend to like them less, not more. Through a phenomenon called "dissimilarity cascades," we place greater stress on personal and cultural differences than on similarities, and the bias strengthens as information accumulates. "Proximity makes differences stand out," he writes. The phenomenon intensifies online, where people are rewarded for sharing endless information about themselves. What the research indicates, warns Carr, is that the spread of social media is more likely to create social strife than social harmony.
The article concludes by opposing the idea that "If we get the engineering right, our better angels will triumph. It's a pleasant thought, but it's a fantasy... Technology is an amplifier. It magnifies our best traits, and it magnifies our worst. What it doesn't do is make us better people. That's a job we can't offload on machines."
The article concludes by opposing the idea that "If we get the engineering right, our better angels will triumph. It's a pleasant thought, but it's a fantasy... Technology is an amplifier. It magnifies our best traits, and it magnifies our worst. What it doesn't do is make us better people. That's a job we can't offload on machines."
What's changed? (Score:5, Interesting)
We always hated each other. Social media just makes it easier to be in other people's circles...
If you hated someone in 1970... you just avoided them. On the internet, short of blocking them on social media, you are confronted with them constantly.
So we haven't changed... social media just brings out some bad things in people. While still doing many good things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no.
I agree with the overall thought we have always been assholes to those who are different, the trick is technology allows us to be assholes to an even bigger audience.
The advantage is that this is a generational thing. As the older generations age and die younger generations will already have that understanding that being an asshole to someone online is exactly like being an asshole to them in person.
It will still happen as people only change slowly. It takes several generations to push through
Re: (Score:2)
SHITCOCK! [knowyourmeme.com]
Re:What's changed? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that social media reduces us to the way we present ourselves. While that certainly is part of who we are, it's not the whole story.
One of the most popular maxims of ancient Greek philosophers was "know thyself", and the reason they considered it important is that it turns out to be a lot harder than it sounds. You think you know yourself, but chances people who spend a lot of time in close physical proximity to you understand you in ways you don't.
But online your identity is mediated by how you present yourself. This is not only inevitably somewhat dishonest (in ways that may be more obvious to others than to yourself), even when you are trying to be honest you at best are presenting who you think you are.
Re:What's changed? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've noticed that on social media people make more assumptions about you than in real life. Seems to be due to them grouping people and then assuming that the group's properties apply to the assumed members.
I get that a lot on Slashdot. People assume all kinds of crazy things about me because they put me in some imaginary "SJW" group.
Re:What's changed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably true, but even as someone who is likely your political polar opposite, I've always found your arguments to be consistent and well thought-out, even if I don't necessarily agree with all your positions or conclusions. For some reason, I think it's easier to remember a single negative moderation or hateful comment rather than a dozen encouraging responses or positive mods.
Unfortunately, many people use the relative anonymity as an excuse for venting their own frustration, intentionally lashing out at others with caustic remarks or outright trolling. I've found that viewing such people with pity rather than frustration helps alleviate the frustration of dealing with rude people. What sort of person feels the need to lash out at others online? It's sort of pitiable, and I tend to think "how crappy is your life that online trolling is how you choose to interact with others?"
I'm not sure there's any solution, other than ignoring the trolls and trying to set a good example yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks. I'm glad someone is paying attention and I'm not just screaming into the void :-)
I've come to the same conclusion as you. No point getting too upset. And honestly, some of them are hilarious. I love watching responses to Sargon's videos on YouTube because you are guaranteed at least one LOL moment. I also find people like him kind of fascinating.
Unfortunately we have an election on in the UK at the moment, so engagement is required. Hopefully my years of study will help me be influential... But it's
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think one of the most fundamental parts of being a good, moral person is not judging people based on first impressions or preconceptions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Being a good moral person involves not acting on judgment to an innocent person's detriment. Judgment of others is simply human instinct.
Re:What's changed? (Score:4, Interesting)
On the internet, short of blocking them on social media, you are confronted with them constantly.
Actually, I think it's the ability to block (or just de-friend) that creates the biggest part of the problem. It creates echo chamber effects, which help ideas morph into their most virulent and effective forms, especially ideas that demonize the holders of opposing ideas -- which, from a memetic evolutionary perspective are really cooperating ideas, not competing at all.
A good, though somewhat annoyingly dumbed down, explanation of this process and effect is this youtube video. [youtube.com] If you haven't watched it, you really should -- and then think about the ideas that you hold and consider the possibility that they have evolved specifically to push your hot buttons in the most effective way possible, and how you can counter that.
Um... dude (Score:2)
I don't think we've changed, but technology let's us record how awful we are and that makes it a lot harder to be that awful. Not impossible, mind you, but harder.
Police deterrent (Score:3)
In the past Policing provided a big deterrent against violence, while today, some people think it is OK to harness others into suicide behind the supposed anonymity of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you hated someone in 1970... you just avoided them.
The statistics for murder and violent crime tend to suggest that in 1970 you were probably more likely to batter or kill them than nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
All the outrage smacks of getting caught in the act of globalisation...the funny thing is it's not just republicans and neo-cons that are dancing in the streets, I very much identified with what is now known as a libertarian...the left completely usurped the term liberal so I had to switch....
Believe me it will be a single term, he represents way too much polarization for "them" to let him win again, whatever facebook, mega corps or power brokers that are around in 2019 with vested interest in american inte
Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Who ever said that? Eventually people get annoying. Except for me.
Re: (Score:3)
"It seems obvious: The more we learn about other people, the more we'll come to like them."
"Familiarity breeds contempt."
Re: (Score:2)
So the "obvious" isn't counter-intuitive, but it assumes some level of communication. What someone shares isn't "communication".
That's the inherent flaw in the premise and logic that follows.
Re: (Score:2)
But, the "OMG, look at what [Trump|Hillary] did today" that is all "social" media contains...
That's what the news media thinks is "news". Slashdot editors think that too.
Re: (Score:2)
"It seems obvious: The more we learn about other people, the more we'll come to like them."
Who ever said that? Eventually people get annoying. Except for me.
Why was this modded "Funny" rather than Insightful?
Some people, "people people" you might call them, do like other people the more they learn about them. That's why politicians, for example, and certain other types of "people people" are always trying to thrust themselves into your life with speeches and handshakes etc - because they think you will like them more for it. However I am more likely to vote for a politician who just publishes a list of his proposed policies and STFU.
Other people, including m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He contends that people became a lot less violent in the 20th century because television and books allowed them to know more about each other. I remember thinking when I read it, "umm what about Northern Ireland, those people knew each other pretty well"
Just because you live next door to someone doesn't mean you know them well.
Social media = clique. (Score:5, Interesting)
And if you know anything about the dynamics of a clique, you know they don't
tend to involve niceness or admiration.
What many forget is that humans are still animals, and that human behavior is
driven by the desire for power or sex. All else is trivial details compared to power
and sex.
A clique is used to exclude more than it is to include. Exclusion is not a friendly
behavioral phenomenon.
I'd have to say Nicholas Carr is not wrong in theorizing that social media may foment
dislike and related behaviors. However, I don't think such a realization is amazing,
because it's pretty obvious if you bother to think for yourself. Facebook is just an electronic
version of a high school clique. Some people will find this useful, while others will find it
distasteful.
Re:Social media = clique. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Most human beings are driven by a desire to protect their families, and in most of the world are educated enough to realise that participation in civil society and being sociable is the best way to achieve that.
What you are describing are sociopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
human behavior is driven by the desire for power or sex
Nonsense. Most human beings are driven by a desire to protect their families
Wow, projecting much?
Sometimes the models of humanity we hold are the overgeneralization of our own reflection. When it's ourselves we are looking at we can fail to see the reality of the other.
Personally I think humans are driven by the need to get a +5 insightful or funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Read The Selfish Gene. It explains all this stuff. Almost all instinctive behaviour had evolved to ensure the survival of the individual's genes. Sex is only a small part of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what "cliques" made me think of: high school.
Cliques form - and people get mean to each other - when individuals become saturated with friends. You only have enough energy / empathy / extroversion to maintain friendship with a certain number of people. If you have more people swirling around you than that, then you start to push some away.
That's what the internet is. It's too many people. Immerse yourself in it too deeply and you'll exceed your capacity for friendly interaction, and start rejecti
Re: (Score:2)
Theodore Kaczynski covers over socialization quite a bit in his crazy manifesto. I dislike giving that terrorist fuck any attention but he's not wrong on this subject.
Tech (or Web 2.0) is herding us into clusters (Score:4, Insightful)
... of similar people with similar backgrounds, professions, ages, political and cultural outlooks. Sometimes these are called "tribes".
And like street gangs facing off in big cities, members of different tribes tend not to like each other much.
Absolutely not ... (Score:2)
Everybody loves us ... and we hate everyone.
Stop calling it social media (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not "social media".
It is a "gossip platform".
It is a social ill.
It has transformed society into a bunch of bored. blue haired old women and 15 year old mean girls. We are giving megaphones to mean spirited idiots, and the less responsible they are, the more free time they have to spout stupidity and bile.
It's time to kill it with fire.
Re:Stop calling it social media (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just not participate. If you don't sign up or log in, you're not part of the problem.
Trying to destroy it makes it stronger. Let it die on its own when the next generation refutes it.
Re: (Score:3)
It has transformed society into a bunch of bored. blue haired old women and 15 year old mean girls.
Don't forget the drunk guy at the end of the bar who is pissed because he has the solution to all the world's problems, but nobody listens.
Facilitator (Score:2)
People hate each other more (Score:5, Insightful)
Because large segments of society -- including "thought leaders" -- that used to be nominally against hate are now cheerleading for it.
The election was a good example, with one candidate bad-mouthing Mexicans and Muslims (in a way described by some as hateful) and the other directly calling Americans in the other party "enemies" and identifying a broad class of Americans as "irredeemable" and/or "deplorable".
If we don't want more hate, let's stop encouraging it.
Re:People hate each other more (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody called it "hate" when Jimmy Carter forbid immigration from Iran. It's "hate" now just because it comes from Trump.
Re:People hate each other more (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it's hard to understand what makes a 90-day travel ban from a few places like Yemen, Iran, and Somalia "hate". (Especially when Iraq was dropped from the list of countries after working out vetting of travelers with the State Department.) Normally hatred isn't scheduled to expire after 3 months.
Re:People hate each other more (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that this cheerleading of hate from the establishment and overall atmosphere of divisiveness is very deliberate.
It looks like a classic "divide and rule" strategy to keep the people at each others' throats and continually blaming each other for the state of affairs instead of having everybody looking toward their governments, politicians, and "thought leaders". Those in power are making a killing on the current state of affairs and are getting wealthier every day. They don't want this gravy train to stop rolling.
Re:People hate each other more (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no problem with hating racists.
Lots of haters have no problem hating whoever, because [reasons]. They should all stop being haters. Including you.
There's no point in singing kumbaya when half the country cheers ethnic "cleansing", meaning mass deportation and police-state harassment regular people.
If you're talking about the US, there's no "ethnic cleansing " in the US. Perhaps some of this hatred is because people like you make up or repeat false stories like this? There's also no "mass deportation" of "regular people".
Unfortunately, there is government harassment -- which is one reason why I support a smaller government with less power over people.
mexican invaders (Score:2, Interesting)
In 1960, the USA was 96% black or white. Today, there are now more hispanics than black people. That is the power of illegal aliens and anchor babies. That is why racism in the USA has been primarily about black people. The Mexicans didn't have to go through slavery or Jim Crow. They were first class citizens in Mexico.
Maybe? (Score:3)
I already hated humanity pretty much. Social media just reinforces my belief that 95% of humans are dull uninteresting creatures I want nothing to do with.
Clickbait (Score:4, Interesting)
Controversy generates clicks. Clicks generate ad revenue. Everyone (who is exchanging money) is happy when we're all miserable.
Reminds me of the climax of Jedi: Luke is thrashing away at Vader, full of hate and anger. Meanwhile the emperor is laughing with glee. Dance, monkey boy! Dance!
Re: (Score:2)
In other words... (Score:3)
..."how I've grown to hate my wife."
Confirmation Bias (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Confirmation Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a couple of friends who were wonderful people in real life, but posted a steady stream of toxic sludge that I didn't want to block because I wanted to "be open to other viewpoints."
This seems more like some mad right wing conception of how "liberals" think than reality.
Hint: past a certain purely theoretical point, the correct response to Fascism is to crush it to death, not blindly accept what its proponents are claiming.
Re: (Score:3)
I can think of two people I know on social media. One is very academic/intelligent (specialty pediatrician) and very left wing, one is very practical/intelligent but extremely right wing.
But I find myself turned off by both. Despite the former's reasonableness, they come off snide and elitist. The latter just comes off dumbed-down, parroting a lot of right wing nonsense.
What's kind of fascinating to me is that it's less their *ideas* that bother me. I agree with the pediatrician some of the time. I agr
I think we naturally hate each other (Score:2)
Human nature is to distrust everyone and assumes evil as an explanation for any one that does not help you.
All the internet does is reveal our true selves to the universe, mainly by pretending to offer anonymity.
No (Score:3)
Linux is making us hate each other.
seriously? (Score:2)
That depends entirely on the people and what they believe. I actually ended up liking some people and groups better after getting to know them better, and other people and groups less.
I guess the biggest general trend was that a lot of facades of success come crumbling down when you get to know people better, while quiet unassuming types often are more solid. And what I really dislike is if people make bad decisions and
Re: (Score:2)
Amen. It's the people that don't know anybody that hate the most. In rural Louisiana, it's the stone cold racists who never go to New Orleans who'll tell you it's not safe. They would be relatively safe, compared to the black kid from the city coming out to their town.
It's the good folks of Missoula Montana who've probably seen a couple of Muslims their whole lives who feel the need to take action to prevent Sharia Law from taking hold in their city.
It's the folks who've fled to lily white suburbs who are
Re:seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's kind of pitiful to watch somebody criticizing people who stereotype, do so much stereotyping themself. 'folks who've fled to lily white suburbs'? 'stone cold racists'???
You live in a comic book universe, dude. Them villains are sure nasty!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These are people I know. White Americans who live and work among Latinos typically don't hate on "The Mexicans". Those that do hate are usually too scared to get too close. Of course, not every suburbanite is a bigot.
The 'Stone Cold Racists" are real individuals, not stereotypes. Maybe not every stone cold racist will eschew New Orleans, I haven't met them all, so I might be stereotyping stone cold racists as afraid of the cities.
Missoula being afraid of Sharia is specific, true, and totally insane.
Re: (Score:3)
The only "action" the good folks of Missoula Montana are likely to ever take against Sharia law is at the ballot box.
Riots, looting, and violent political actions are overwhelmingly carried out by leftists (and I include fascists in that), not by conservatives or libertarians.
Re: (Score:2)
... carried out by leftists (and I include fascists in that), ...
Oh man, can we do that? I never knew. Can you add any group into any group or are there limits? I mean, when I talk about Mexicans can I include the Dutch or is it just political groupings? Can we mix groupings? When I say libertarians can I include the khmer rouge, smurfs and the beaker people of ancient Europe.
This is an awesome development and will really save a lot of time and effort. You sir, are a genius.
Re: (Score:2)
You can only do it if the two groups are actually historically and ideologically closely related. But I understand your confusion: I used to believe in a strict left/right division as well, until I actually read a lot more 19th and 20th century history.
In any case, my reason for "including fascists" among "the left" above isn't because of their historical connections, it's because of what the modern American left
If I didn't hate my fellow man (Score:3)
/ or at least consider most of them to be fucking idiots
Making? No. (Score:2)
And, quite honestly, the idea that everyone should always love one another, regardless of difference is as naive as it is crazy.
No, the internet does not make me hate people (Score:2)
What we learn about other people (Score:4, Interesting)
"The more we learn about other people, the more we'll come to like them."
We're not learning about other people, we're only observing a tiny facet of them when they decide to write something online. All of the context is cut out. We only get a very superficial understanding of that person. Like stereotypes. When I meet with someone IRL I get all of the context, at least a much fuller picture, not the edited version.
Online people want to only show what they feel is their best side, and others may feel the need to match or exceed that, and at least the busy vocal part seems to be competing in a one-up contest.
Personally I am more reserved and tend not to write that much online, I don't really want to get involved in most of this and prefer to socialize IRL, perhaps there are others like me. Perhaps some keep their conversations hidden as well, and those are not indexed and processed. So perhaps what we see online is a very slim edited version, and maybe this is what we don't like.
Demonization rules the day (Score:4, Insightful)
It just makes the trolls more obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
These people are sadists (the prototypical troll) and people that hate about everything for other reasons, often because they are pathetic themselves. Because they somehow think that social media is not a social situation, they believe they do not need to control their urges.
There is nothing that can be done about this. Censorship and punishment for voicing opinions (repulsive as they may be) are only compatible with a totalitarian state and those cause orders of magnitude more pain and suffering than the trolls ever could. It is just one more thing that people need to learn when growing up: There are people out there that are not nice in any way and the best way to deal with them on social media is to ignore them. This is actually a pretty important thing to understand for other situations as well.
Students in distant relationships feel love more (Score:2)
Seeing a lover every day spoils the illusion.
(From the book)
Note there's almost no evidence presented that social media makes people dislike each other more. Oversharing leads to being disliked but we don't follow those we dislike.
My guess is that living in a social (media) bubble may nevertheless make us less tolerant of dissenting views.
VCS (Score:2)
"Familiarity breeds contempt" (Score:2)
Imagine that! Who woulda thunk it?
Just like the Babel Fish. (Score:2)
Social media can destroy relationships (Score:3, Insightful)
No. (Score:2)
I hated all of you before social media.
social harmony (Score:2)
social harmony comes from shared experiences, realizing that someone else's differences work just as well as your own. It doesn't come from academic learning about them from reading.
Orwell was right... (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you expect when activists organize 2 minute hates every 2 minutes?
I mean, that's like half of the "news" any more. Let's dig up some rumors about someone who says that someone said something and see how many people we can convince that they're thoroughly despicable.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's dig up some rumors about someone who says that someone said something and see how many people we can convince that they're thoroughly despicable.
You don't need the news for that. I get that here all the time on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Orwell was right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice. Point proven right at the top. People are so focused on dumb petty political bullshit and are at each other's throats over it. In person, most don't talk about political shit non-stop since there are a million other things to talk about and do that don't bring up conflict between the person you're with.
Re:Orwell was right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice. Point proven right at the top. People are so focused on dumb petty political bullshit and are at each other's throats over it. In person, most don't talk about political shit non-stop since there are a million other things to talk about and do that don't bring up conflict between the person you're with.
You've hit it right on the head, and add to this that the level of politeness in on-line discourse is orders of magnitude less than it is in most in-person interaction. I still have some trouble with the incredible incivility on /. and many other on-line fora and social media sites. Almost none of the mean stuff that gets said on line would be said face to face, except by the worst sociopaths.
Re: (Score:3)
You've hit it right on the head, and add to this that the level of politeness in on-line discourse is orders of magnitude less than it is in most in-person interaction. I still have some trouble with the incredible incivility on /. and many other on-line fora and social media sites. Almost none of the mean stuff that gets said on line would be said face to face, except by the worst sociopaths.
I have encountered exactly two places online I would describe as good places with zero toxicity and lots of helpful people who just want to get along. 1. The Elite Dangerous facebook group and, 2. The Ninja Gaiden 2 gameFAQS board. In the whole of the internet, that's it.
Re:yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
No shit. Take this quote from Dostoyevsky:
“The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular. In my dreams, I often make plans for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually face crucifixion if it were suddenly necessary. Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together. I know from experience. As soon as anyone is near me, his personality disturbs me and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I begin to hate the best of men: one because he’s too long over his dinner, another because he has a cold and keeps on blowing his nose. I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more I hate men individually the more I love humanity.”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov z
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us are the opposite, and find most individuals wonderful, but humanity as a whole nearly irredeemable.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it has anything to with Christianity or the lack there-of.
People are just dicks, narcissistic dicks, and social media makes it easier than ever for them to show their true colors.
Re: (Score:2)
You've managed to misunderstand Christ, Christians and people.
Jesus was all about not being a dick to your fellow man especially due to cultural differences, not hanging with individuals you don't like. Compare want he has to say about Samaritans versus trees that bear no fruit.
Re: (Score:2)
basic tennants of Christianity
I think you meant tenets. I also think you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he was thinking of this.
https://hywelsbiglog.wordpress... [wordpress.com]
I know the first time I tasted it I went "Jeeeeesus Christ!!!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After an election pitting "real Americans" versus everyone else, where the biggest cheering was for building The Wall, banning Muslims, and sending the "Mexicans" (they're all Mexicans to Real Americans) back to Mexico?
Who's got a problem with identity politics?
Re:Leftism is causing more division and strife. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Conservatives will climb on the table and look you in the eye while they shit in the punchbowl, then act all sanctimonious and berate you when your trying to sneak out a fart.
Re:Leftism is causing more division and strife. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the fucking Internet, not "leftism". In person, I get along just fine with people on the right and left who don't talk about that shit all the time. On the Internet, for all I know, they could spend a ton of their time arguing on forums like this and Reddit. There are always zealots and college activist types, that is not new and isn't going to change. They likely spend a lot of time pushing their political shit online, like yourself, and get others tied up in it and next thing you know everyone is divided up neatly into 2 political armies and want to annihilate each other. Fucking ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
People are broken down
Anybody remember the Saturday morning cartoon PSA "I am not a label"?
Re: Leftism is causing more division and strife. (Score:4, Interesting)
Leftism = rightism = centrism = authoritarian financialism
Re:Leftism is causing more division and strife. (Score:5, Insightful)
the resurgence of leftist philosophies over the past decade or so
Yeah, Brexit, Trump, Marine Le Pen, the lefties are taking over the world.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Leftism is causing more division and strife. (Score:2)
The Russians are a strange bunch in this matter. On the one hand many of them are right wing religious nuts, on the other hand the very same people glorify the soviet past which was neither. I sort of understand where it is coming from, but it is strange nonetheless.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's sort of like when the Jehovah's Witnesses show up at my front door. I tell them I'll be right back
once I take off all my clothes. For some reason, they are never still standing at the door when I return.
Check your privilege, that only works if you're a MAN.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, though Trump is more centre than right.
The left can't tolerate anyone who thinks differently to them, because their ideology is their identity. To disagree with them is to claim they're wrong, and they can't be wrong, because they're so much smarter than everyone else that they should be The Great Leader telling everyone what to do.
The right can handle diversity of opinion. The left can't. That's why the left always try to censor or murder anyone who disagrees with them.
Re: Its easier to pick sides (Score:4)
Wait and see. The Hispanic community is fairly conservative socially. All those 'Mexicans' you refer to, as they settle into the United States, won't embrace your 'identity politics.' Just the same as the Islamic immigrants, who it has been well shown in places in Europe, bring their stereotypes and hatred with them. Worried about the repression of gay people? Get ready, because 'the Mexicans' and the Islamic immigrants are not going to be tolerant.
Re: (Score:3)
Deporting people who are not citizens is required if they are not properly authorized by our government to be here. This is not just for the benefit of the people who live here, but most importantly it is also for the benefit of the people who are here illegally. Also, it is the law.
If you want illegal immigrants to be legal, change the law. Until then, uphold the law.
It really is that simple, and no malice or hatred is required. Well, except on your part, as a necessity of continuing to support the exp