A Gallup poll shows that 80 percent of American adults believe the country is divided on the most important values. However, the general public’s belief that there is a major partisan division in this country is a misconception — Americans remain largely unified on most core values. In fact, the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about nine in 10 adults believe that the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law and the right to privacy are essential.

This common ground can also be reached on policy. A YouGov survey identified over 100 current policy proposals with bipartisan support, or over 50 percent approval from both Democrats and Republicans. Notable examples from this list include increasing funding for grants for sustainable farming practices, legalizing abortion in instances of rape or to protect the life of the mother, reducing federal taxes on small businesses and families making less than $100,000 per year and raising the federal hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.

So why do Americans feel so divided? The answer comes back to social media.

While social media can be an excellent platform for genuine political activists to spread awareness and engage in meaningful conversations, its intrinsic purpose to increase engagement often overpowers any productive agenda. When cultivating an online identity, users default to the performative nature of social media, fragmenting themselves and creating a highlight reel. This also applies when users incorporate their political views into their digital identity: like any other aspect of social media, politics can become fragmented and performative.

Performative activism is inherently attention-seeking, as it is used to elicit “rage bait” or seek out praise from mutuals whose beliefs align with those of the user. In this sense, political conversations center around left versus right ideologies, rather than policy and finding common ground. Instead of fostering meaningful dialogue, users target each other’s political identities and the productive political conversation ceases to exist.

This can be seen in the recent online turmoil that was unleashed after the death of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and social media personality.

When I opened Instagram on Sept. 10, my feed was flooded with the news of his murder. Kirk’s “fans” emphasized their grief in their Instagram stories, while those who disliked Kirk took this as an opportunity to comment about a sense of relief, the need for gun control or the irony of the news.

But all these posts accomplished was helping me identify whether the people I follow’s political ideologies leaned left or right — they didn’t provide any substantial commentary on politics. This was their intent, after all: to feed into their digital identity. In cases like these, people can feel a tangible political polarization through their phone screens.

Unlike Instagram, when I opened TikTok, I wasn’t exposed to any of Kirk’s fans. This is because the algorithm has learned that I don’t want to view posts that support right-leaning political ideologies based on my limited interactions with them.

Thus, algorithms are another aspect of social media that creates tension between parties and furthers the perception of extreme polarization. Algorithms learn what users like and dislike by analyzing the time spent on videos and users’ actions such as liking, commenting and sharing.

As discussed in another recent column, the algorithm pushes out content it deems the user will like based on their past interactions. While its goal is to keep users on the app for as long as possible by providing them with this content, it ultimately reinforces their beliefs and confirms their biases, as users are shown content that aligns solely with their existing views and are not presented with differing perspectives. Because of this, when the algorithm occasionally slips up and content from the opposing party pops up on our feed, it can feel like we’re in “enemy territory.”

Over half of the U.S. population gets their news from social media. This news is filtered through algorithms to appeal to users’ own views. This leaves users even more indoctrinated due to misinformation and disinformation, combined with divisively targeted rhetoric.

For example, in 2020, when Donald Trump falsely claimed there was voter fraud, social media amplified his message by turning “Stop the Steal” into a trend. CNN reported that Stop the Steal “swept across inboxes, Facebook pages and Twitter like an out-of-control virus, spreading misinformation and violent rhetoric.”

Another part of this issue lies in the condensed format of social media content. Often, short clips of long videos are taken out of context and circulated throughout social media. People exposed to these videos are not getting the whole story, but they will likely base their opinions upon it.

Moreover, people are more likely to watch the shortened clip than the full video because apps like TikTok started the trend of short-form content. Other apps like Instagram and YouTube then followed with their own versions, “reels” and “shorts.”

Short-form content is the new norm — people want and expect to obtain information quickly. This cultivates a culture where people aren’t giving their attention to full articles, but relying only on headlines for information, which can be just as misleading as a false statement or an out-of-context video clip. Because of this, people are not sufficiently educated on politics to make informed decisions, and this lack of education is primarily attributed to the influence of social media, which fosters political illiteracy.

The constant tension between the left and right on social media makes it seem like we are more divided than ever. Social media gives people a platform to spread misinformation, validate users’ preconceived beliefs and sensationalize extremists. When division is the trend and social media is our life, perceived division becomes intertwined with reality.

Natalie Pappalardo is a junior majoring in English. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

But individualism is only positive to a certain extent. It ultimately breeds and festers in America as we know it — an isolated, noncommunicative and un-empathetic society, especially in terms of gender relations.

To understand the fundamentals of individualism, we need to go back to 1793, when George Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality essentially established that the United States wouldn’t interfere in foreign affairs. This independence is historically embedded in American culture, or at least the idea of it. In today’s America, these values have been upheld and are stronger than ever, evident in the imposition of tariffs on imports from about 90 nations by the Trump administration to focus on domestic manufacturing.

Individualism transcends political agendas because it is deeply rooted in the nation’s economic system, contaminating the lives of every American. While individualism has become integral to the ideals of free market enterprise, prompting competition and innovation, we should not be quick to write off these qualities as inherently valuable; competition inherently pits people against each other and considers individual accomplishment as desirable for its own sake. It is every man for himself.

In a capitalist system, there is a hierarchy — those at the top who hold the power (the bourgeoisie) and those at the bottom working for the rich (the proletariat). The “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality promises those at the bottom that they can rise to the top through the illusory and individualistic belief that everyone has equal opportunity despite inherent inequality. Since everyone is competing to get to the top, and for there to be people at the top, there must be people exploited at the bottom — you need to make sure it’s not you.

Almost everything, from the educational system to the media, indoctrinates Americans with these values and ultimately skews their perception of the world, despite these values having potentially disastrous effects in other facets of life outside economic mentality.

Take the establishment of gender roles — toxic masculinity, a strict set of traditional male gender roles expected of, pushed onto and overcompensated for by men, is congruent with the concept of individualism. In one regard, toxic masculinity only deems men as worthy if they hold power, putting pressure on them to obtain money, influence and status. This is the same stress-for-success mentality that American individualism produces, ultimately corroding our ability to connect authentically with other people.

Toxic masculinity mimics capitalism as it has a social hierarchy of its own, with the end goal to become the manliest man — the “alpha male.” Alphas are powerful men who possess hypermasculine traits — they are depicted as the ideal male with money, strength, success and access to women. “Alpha males” are the top dogs, the successful leaders of society, then come “beta” and “delta” males, who are just average, and finally the inferior “gamma” and “omega” males at the bottom.

Just like in a capitalistic system, being perceived as an alpha male is increasingly alluring. In the world of toxic masculinity, traditional male roles are validated in the social hierarchy and men who don’t align with these expectations are targeted, discrediting their manhood and blaming their failures on their lack of it.

As toxic masculinity relies on tired stereotypes that men are (supposed to be) strong, aggressive and dominant to align with what it means to “be a man,” which is damning itself, individualistic tendencies make it more difficult to break from these unethical systems. According to the traditional division of labor in households, men are the providers and protectors. The job as the “man of the house” is to do physically demanding labor and protect their families, while the often disproportionate division of labor across chores, emotional support, childrearing, etc., continues to be overshadowed by individualistic principles.

Hyper-masculine social media personality Andrew Tate, a self-proclaimed alpha male who has 10.7 million followers on X and is popular among young men, upholds the belief that men should be strong. “I believe that all men have the duty to mould their bodies into the strongest most resilient and most capable version of themselves,” he said.

In recent years, gym memberships have increased, reaching about 68.9 million in the United States in 2024. While Tate is not the sole indicator in this uptick of gym-goers, the rise in the hyper-masculine ideology he promotes has a large influence, and more people going to the gym is not a coincidence.

With respect to weightlifting and bodybuilding, which most men participate in to achieve the “manly look” of large defined muscles, every individual in the gym competes with themself. Self-competition and self-reliance are the very aspects of the progressive overload that facilitate muscle growth. So, not only does the gym demand discipline and hard work that aids in individual goal achievement and reinforces the concept of American Individualism, but it also breeds competition in the gym community.

The gym is one example where insecurity perpetuated by the male social hierarchy takes shape. Just like the false promise of upward mobility in capitalism, toxic masculinity gives men in the gym the false hope that if they work toward their goal physique, they are guaranteed to achieve it. There are the “alpha males” at the top with “peak physiques,” and then there are the men with lower status who compete with the alphas, pressured to get bigger and stronger if they want to succeed in life.

However, those who have the “best” body composition have unique genetics that assist in their aesthetic look, the resources and time to commit to the gym and a variety of other factors. This means the ideal look is not achievable for everyone.

Thus, in this community, people are comparing themselves with others and when they can not work their way to the top, they are discouraged and self-critical. Men are insecure about their manhood because of what toxic masculinity expects, so they go to the gym to work on themselves, and there they become even more insecure.

Through capitalist ideals, American individualism has fostered a surge in toxic masculinity, bringing back outdated, destructive norms that regress gender equality.

Natalie Pappalardo is a sophomore majoring in English. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

Scrolling on Binghamton’s YikYak page, I noticed a post by a student saying they don’t know how they used to write essays without using ChatGPT. Since ChatGPT’s launch, some students consider themselves incapable of writing on their own and that a few years of A.I. has undone years of humanities education. My peers have even advised me to use ChatGPT, assuring me they’ve used it to write entire papers undetected.

This trend is not only something I’ve noticed in my personal life. Turnitin reports that out of 200 million papers, over 22 million have at least 20 percent of A.I. writing and over six million have 80 percent present only as of the past couple of years. Unfortunately, it’s likely the numbers are higher than reported because A.I. detectors aren’t reliable. Students can get around the detectors by editing what A.I. spits out and revising it to be more like their own writing or using A.I.-humanizing technology. While cheating on assignments isn’t a new thing, the ease of pasting a prompt into a chatbot and immediately being given a fully formed essay has strengthened the temptation.

In the cases that it is undetectable and an A can be achieved without hours of mental gymnastics, why wouldn’t students use A.I.? Institutions have reinforced the importance of good grades, instilling students with stress and dread, so an A is an A, isn’t it? While this rationale isn’t necessarily misguided, it is inaccurate for reasons beyond mere academic dishonesty. Think about it for a second: what is an A? It’s a letter grade, sure. But think more critically about what that is, what it represents, what it signifies, what it does and why it’s needed. Now that you’ve thought about it, I’ll give my answer: It is a measure of success, representing a student’s hard work, signifying their exceptional ideas and writing skills and giving them esteem and recognition — that is, if they obtain the A themselves.

If the student uses AI to write the paper, the A truly becomes just that: a letter grade, losing all meaning, and, then, what is the point of all of this anyway?

There is a certain satisfaction, too, in obtaining the A through one’s genuine work. After hours or even days of research, deliberation, typing, deleting, weaving in new or abstract ideas, fitting in the quotes like puzzle pieces, searching for synonyms of overused words, rewriting and rewriting, then finally putting the last period into place, there is a feeling of relief. This relief is followed by the feeling of satisfaction after reading back the cohesive argument you’ve just created. And upon receiving the well-deserved A, a feeling of accomplishment and confidence in yourself.

Despite the self-worth gained through doing honest work, we are always looking for innovative technology and gadgets to alleviate work, and this will be our ultimate demise. Take, for instance, the task of baking a cake. There is a revocation in satisfaction with the utilization of a KitchenAid mixer instead of a bowl and whisk. Even though the latter is more energy-efficient and simple, we delegate the boring and tedious mixing to a machine, making the process easier and quicker for us. Let the technology do the heavy lifting so that we just have to be responsible for the ingredients and decorating.

In the end, a cake was made, but of course, without the hand-mixing, standing around, muscle soreness, sweat and tears — without the hard work. A reduction in hard work means a reduction in satisfaction. However, maybe you don’t need the satisfaction, and you just want the tasty cake. Well, unfortunately, a cake is a cake just as much as an A is an A — the substance of the result is dependent on the work put into it. For instance, the sloppy work of a KitchenAid increases the likelihood of overmixing the batter — this leads to a denser and drier cake because the gluten in the flour forms “elastic gluten strands.”

If we apply this logic to writing assignments, students let A.I. do the bulk of the assignment and all they have to do is put the prompt (ingredients) in and edit (decorate) the paper. And the end result is a dry paper, lacking a genuine feeling and personality (deliciousness) because all it is an algorithm’s flattened regurgitation of plagiarized material from across the web. Using A.I. to do work for us is a form of cognitive offloading in that, “when individuals delegate cognitive tasks to external aids, reducing their engagement in deep, reflective thinking,” creativity dies and we lose a distinguishing aspect of selfhood.

A.I. is a major problem for critical thinking: the process of skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing and/or evaluating information. Writing academic papers allows students to practice and develop these skills by synthesizing their unique ideas and research to defend an argument. They are essential for uncovering misinformation, checking biases and making informed decisions. This is especially important today with how quickly false information spreads on social media platforms and news outlets. These skills do not exist in a vacuum as A.I. may deceptively portray — they are fostered in the classroom for outside use.

Moreover, critical thinking skills are important for almost all jobs. Yet many students are actively avoiding practicing the very skills they need to lead a life of their own volition, being complicit in the epidemic that is the dependence on AI. The importance of critical thinking and the advancement of A.I. do not complement each other. A study of 666 people found that the critical thinking abilities of people who relied on A.I. were worse than people who didn’t.

This erosion of creativity and critical thinking stemming from a lack of motivation leads to an erosion of the self. In its simplest form, writing is a type of communication, taking thoughts and putting them on paper to share with others. Whether writing an imaginative fiction book or a rhetorical analysis, the writer uses their own unique thinking to form ideas and develop the writing accordingly. No two people could write identically because our thoughts are driven by factors like our independent personal experiences and brain chemistry. Thus, our conscious thoughts are an aspect of our identity. When we allow AI to think and make decisions for us, we have lost autonomy and A.I. has really taken over.

Natalie Pappalardo is a sophomore majoring in English. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

Because America’s three-branch government has maintained its promise to ensure no sector grows too powerful and protects against antidemocratic practices for over 200 years, it may be easy to denounce threats of dictatorship. While the United States does have a strong democratic foundation and is unlikely to unleash the atrocities seen in pronounced dictatorships, fallen democracies are proof that no government is immortal.

Dictatorship is a scary word, carrying undertones of governmental abuse and human rights violations. But despite these connotations and histories, we must stop our pride from blinding our judgment. By analyzing the current status of America in relation to global dictatorships, we gain the skills to be critical of our government and fight back against looming dictatorships. The exploitation of social unrest and minority groups combined with the spread of propaganda during Trump’s campaign and presidency are linked with the rise of dictatorship and are cause for concern.

Since the shift to dictatorship involves the overthrow of our democratic government, many people would think this to be a violent transition. And since Trump was duly elected, you may believe we’re safe from it. However, this assumption is wrong, as a coup is not the only way for this drastic change to take place, and exploiting legal avenues is a possibility.

What would be more likely to happen in the United States is an autocoup — an elected official seizing power and suppressing normal civil liberties through a state of emergency. This occurred in German history with the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Adolf Hitler, who led the second-largest party in 1930 and was appointed chancellor in 1933. Once in power, Hitler took over Germany using the Enabling Act, allowing for the issuing of laws outside the Weimar Constitution and without parliamentary support, marking the tipping point of his dictatorship. While Hitler and Trump are not comparable as leaders, Hitler’s rise to power through the parliamentary system is notable because it shows how a dictatorship can emerge within democratic borders such as our own.

This style of government takeover relies on social instability. In times of economic depression and political chaos, rising dictators will create an image of themselves as saviors. After World War I, economic turmoil was unleashed and Germany was humiliated. Hitler exploited this hardship by promising to restore dignity, pride and grandeur.

This tactic has also been used by Viktor Orbán, the current authoritarian ruler of Hungary, in his rise to power. Orbán gave a career-launching speech in 1989 in Budapest’s Heroes’ Square advocating for the withdrawal of Soviet troops and free elections to those commemorating victims of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. An inspiring speaker, he was elected prime minister in 1998. After being ousted, he returned to power in 2010, exploiting the global financial crisis, and once in office, he took every measure necessary to ensure he stayed there as an emerging dictator: changing the constitution, implementing new legal codes and more.

Trump mirrored these dictators in his recent presidential campaign, using economic hardships to his advantage. According to exit polls, the rising price of goods was a driving factor for those who voted for Trump: two-thirds of voters were unhappy with the economy, of which 69 percent voted for Trump. While improving the economy may not sound like the master plan of a dictator, when it is put into the context of the infamous slogan “Make America Great Again,” which is Trump’s call to an illusive prior strength, the pieces begin to fall into place.

Additionally, MAGA aims to scapegoat groups of people — a known sign of future repression. The use of scapegoats can be seen in Sudan. While Omar Al-Bashir didn’t use scapegoats to rise to power — he led a coup — he used them to sustain power, distract from political failures and divide the public. Acts of genocide in Darfur, while historically nuanced, were used as a tool to effectively conceal Sudan’s economic, political and social failure.

To Al-Bashir, the genocide in Darfur was a necessary evil for the prosperity of Sudan and his power. To Trump, immigrants hold America back from being “great.”

Trump has consistently campaigned against immigrants, promising mass deportations. Frustrations against the economy and immigrants among voters were no coincidence as Trump falsely painted immigrants as responsible for the daily hardships of the working class, those arguably most impacted by federal legislation. While there are notable differences between Al-Bashir and Trump’s scapegoating practices, the egregious acts in Darfur should serve as evidence of current practices’ immorality and potential danger.

Trump was able to successfully scapegoat and turn the masses against immigrants through propaganda, which allows dictators to control the narrative, furthering the notion that they’re the savior and ascribing negative news to named enemies. Trump has painted undocumented immigrants as a drain on federal resources, while in reality, they do not qualify for federal benefits like health insurance and Social Security, despite paying nearly $100 billion in taxes a year.

Immigrants have also become Trump’s scapegoats for problems like unemployment when he falsely claims that immigrants take away jobs from citizens despite increases in native-born workers’ employment. Meanwhile, immigrants actually create jobs and boost wages for Americans. He constantly reinforces this enemy narrative by using dehumanizing rhetoric that labels all immigrants as violent criminals. However, a 2024 Stanford University study found that immigrants commit fewer crimes and are 60 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native-born people in the United States.

Despite these inaccuracies, MAGA thrives because it is ultimately an anti-intellectual movement, like most dictatorships, where the dictator remains the sole source of inspiration and truth. By depicting educated groups of people as tricksters and elitists, dictators win over ordinary people and delegitimize opposition from critical thinkers. Along with cracking down on alleged racial discrimination in higher education and limiting access to higher education with DEI, the entire Department of Education workforce is being cut in half, effectively preventing its efforts to provide equal education nationwide and signaling the devaluing of education. Educated individuals with critical thinking skills threaten the spread of Trump’s propaganda and ultimately his rule, while Trump relies on his supporters’ cult-like behaviors to validate false information, hate and fear.

Thus, the spread of this misinformation and the inability of his supporters to see the truth gives Trump a way to extend his executive power, creating an imbalance in our system and increasing legal uncertainty and risks of dictatorship. Backed by his supporters, the president declared immigration a national emergency, allowing him to use the military to carry out immigration policies. The deployment of the military, especially at the detention center on Guantánamo Bay — a “legal black hole on an island in Cuba” according to a request for a court order from a coalition of legal aid groups — to bypass long-held interpretations of federal authority, even the Constitution itself, is alarming.

The weaponization of hate and fear has also been blatant as demonstrated by Trump’s attempt to dismantle the 14th Amendment and end birthright citizenship. This is a direct abuse of power, showing Trump values his rule of law over the foundations of America.

Trump’s exploitation of economic hardship, the spread of misinformation and overreach of presidential power all echo the beginnings of what dictatorship realistically looks like. We can’t be sure what this exactly means for the future of America, but pay attention — this marks the beginning of what could be a dark age for America.

Natalie Pappalardo is a sophomore majoring in English.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.