The extent of my ignorance is such that I cannot timely provide an answer that is relevant to a specific UK-based experience, so for my own country, there was a time during which a somewhat constructive discussion between opposing parties, with radically different ideas, could take place and this conversation extended to their voters to varying extents, too.
It’s not like they didn’t have differences (they actually had more than today), but ultimately it was possible to work on some sort of compromise.
Nowadays, it looks like most have turned into football fans that loathe each other for trivial reasons, like wearing kits of different colors, while disregarding commonalities. All the while the team players are actually part of the same club and only have pretend-matches (pretend-disagreements) when the cameras are rolling, with society taking all the goals and the players all of the money.
At some point, if one was voting some form of conservative force and wasn’t a millionaire already, that person was crassly shooting themselves in the foot.
Then, the progressive stopped being progressive and merely talked progressive …-like, until that was no longer necessary.
Echo chambering is one of the slick mechanisms providing the black/white differentiation in a product that has become integrally homogeneous.
The problem of the US is that, apparently, the choice boiled down to more of the same, which wasn’t working for them, or this guy who was very good at giving the impression of being an outsider to the system, having a real intention to try and throw the rule-book in the fire for the good of the people.
He was able to parade as such, in no small part, thanks to systematized, automatic echo chambering enabled by Facebook. On the other side of the political spectrum, echo chambering also conveniently provides an explanation as to why so many insisted that he couldn’t have possibly won until he won.
I kept telling people in this very thread how I thought Trump had a real shot at winning and, let’s just say it was a lucky guess on my part?, that’s not interesting, it’s a coin flip, right?
The interesting part is how some seemed puzzled, confused, and perhaps even wondered why I, of all people, was saying such things (anybody remembers when I said Obama’s speech made me want punch him in the face?)
The reason, I believe, is that I’m not entirely part of the same echo chamber as those people. To them, some of the time, I may be making sounds right enough, that I may pass for a kindred breed of duck, but ultimately I am not one of them. I am an outsider.
I doubt that you’re referring to me, however the way you’ve cast the net is wide enough, that I do feel like saying that there are massive economic interests involved in the manipulation of the public, in order to make them shooting themselves in the foot, and with lots of gore, too.
The media is a key component of the foot shooting business, as I said above (gosh, hope I haven’t repeated myself too much today).
In some cases, actual conspiracies were uncovered and their agendas lined up incredibly well with what followed, lending some credibility to the idea of an on-going conspiracy, even though a more believable mechanism may have been at work, like convergence or emergence.