[flagged]
Gonna stay out of gab, thanks: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYr3HYCWAAE6A6T?format=jpg&name=...
Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
11–20 of 94 posts
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#12Before making moral evaluations, it's really useful to look at these situations, and try to automatically reverse the "polarity" of the actors involved. If you see people doing something and you think they're on your side, imagine a similar scenario in which people are taking the same actions for a cause you are violently opposed to, or on behalf of a group you find deplorable. And vice versa. This helps reduce the c…
or even simpler, stop being on a side, then you don't have to do mental tricks like "reversing the polarity". you can just see things for the way they are, without personal identity invested in the situation. this is exactly what being independent is.
I think of the abortion issue as like a necker cube. You can view the optical illusion as extending inward or outward. But it is difficult to see it both ways. You could easily see it as flat, but then you aren't really seeing it at all.
Partisans may object "but in the abortion case it is objectively extending inward and the other perspective is the optical illusion". But that objectivity is a moral illusion.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#13Before making moral evaluations, it's really useful to look at these situations, and try to automatically reverse the "polarity" of the actors involved. If you see people doing something and you think they're on your side, imagine a similar scenario in which people are taking the same actions for a cause you are violently opposed to, or on behalf of a group you find deplorable. And vice versa. This helps reduce the c…
or even simpler, stop being on a side, then you don't have to do mental tricks like "reversing the polarity". you can just see things for the way they are, without personal identity invested in the situation. this is exactly what being independent is.
If you've got an opinion on some issue, especially a strong one, then you're on a side, and there is an 'other'. Be careful not to conflate a sense of your own independence with a sense of your own lack of biases or immunity to human irrationality.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#14[flagged]
Looks like you've been filter bubbled.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#15Before making moral evaluations, it's really useful to look at these situations, and try to automatically reverse the "polarity" of the actors involved. If you see people doing something and you think they're on your side, imagine a similar scenario in which people are taking the same actions for a cause you are violently opposed to, or on behalf of a group you find deplorable. And vice versa. This helps reduce the c…
or even simpler, stop being on a side, then you don't have to do mental tricks like "reversing the polarity". you can just see things for the way they are, without personal identity invested in the situation. this is exactly what being independent is.
This isn't just partisan "sides." It's also sides of specific legal questions.
I don't think "just stop picking a side regarding abortion, gun ownership, or gay marriage" is a reasonable solution. These are political wedge issues, but they are also legal questions with answers that can affect your daily life. Of course you want it to go a certain way!
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#16[flagged]
No post body was provided.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#17[flagged]
No post body was provided.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (aside from being poorly named) is that it seems to posit that the lack of a word for a thing, prevents you from perceiving that thing (as for example not having fifty words for snow means you cannot perceive different kinds of snow). This is pretty clearly incorrect, since it is the very lack of a word for a thing that you perceive (and want to talk about) that lea…
I thought the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis only predicted that the difficulty in understanding certain things would be language dependent, not that it would be impossible per se. To make an apt analogy, some languages force you to declare a whole bunch of factory methods and boilerplate bloat before you can express a program that prints "hello world", others simply let you write print("hello world").
It's a bit tricky to say what the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" predicts, since apparently neither Sapir nor Whorf exactly formulated a clearly stated hypothesis on this topic. This means people write about "strong" or "weak" versions of it.
I think, to use your analogy, any language that lets you write new libraries which can be imported, will tend to become pretty decent at anything which people programming in that language do a lot. Whatever problems there are in the language itself, tend to become ameliorated (though probably not entirely eliminated) by focused work, for example spinning up a neural net or scraping a website gets much easier once a lot of people have done it in your language of choice, and they have released a library that they use to do it.
So, a language may not be good for speaking about a topic which the speakers of that language don't have much experience with, but if they come to have much experience with it, the language will quickly evolve to get better at it.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#19[flagged]
Let's have a look at the front page of poal.co, part of your daily reading to get outside the 'standard' filter bubble.
OGRellik88
jewspiracy • 10h ago
ANN NSFW Graphic How the ADL started. [652x844 - 142KB] (pic8.co)
MrPotatoNigger
askpoal • 5h ago
How do we stop faggots from fucking monkeys? First it was HIV/AIDS and now
Monkeypox... and it only affects one group. Clearly faggots fuck monkeys and
they need to be stopped.
Ex-Redditor
history • 2h ago
Kill the messanger. - ‘JFK-Destiny Betrayed’, Leaves No Doubt That JFK Was
Assassinated As Part Of A CIA Coup. (rielpolitik.com)
Poop
videos • 6h ago
Testing the Pipe Gun That Killed the Japanese Prime Minister [12:49] (youtu.be)
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
or even simpler, stop being on a side, then you don't have to do mental tricks like "reversing the polarity". you can just see things for the way they are, without personal identity invested in the situation. this is exactly what being independent is.
This isn't just partisan "sides." It's also sides of specific legal questions. I don't think "just stop picking a side regarding abortion, gun ownership, or gay marriage" is a reasonable solution. These are political wedge issues, but they are also legal questions with answers that can affect your daily life. Of course you want it to go a certain way!
no, stop thinking of sides at all, and especially don't start with a side first. start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consistent with those first principles, sides be damned. the only reason you pay attention to sides is identifying with and wanting to defend a side in the first place. don't worry about defending and entrenching. have earnest conversations. if your position is constantly getting barraged with hard-to-argue counterpoints, then consider changing your position. it's not that hard.