[flagged]
Quoted post unavailable.
Republicans are the party of the rich.
Democrats are the party of pretending not to be the party of the rich.
Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
71–80 of 94 posts
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#72This is why it's so important to deliberately escape any filter bubbles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble) you may be in.
Pre-2015 reddit's r/all was a reasonable, if lazy way to do this. After their free speech bait & switch it became mostly useless for anything but entertainment and establishment/Democrat propaganda.
Here's a subset of my "daily" bookmark folder that at least attempts to do this for me when combined with honestly too heavy reddit/facebook usage:
* http://news.ycombinator.com/
* https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
Are some of them controversial? Of course, but that's the point. The wildly authoritarian left leaning sites that comprise big tech as a whole represent a single filter bubble. Staying in any particular bubble (right wing ones exist too) is a great way to turn yourself into a useful idiot/cultists/NPC.
Because the difficulty of tuning into a site that only leans in one direction isn't that you'll get biased news coverage, but whole entire stories are completely left out if they're bad for that side, and stories that are eventually found to be wildly incorrect, or even completely false issue only the quietest of correction edits while the untrue memes repeat ad infinite, but sites that lean the other way will ruthlessly correct their opponents.
The most important things to be reading are the things that are never talked about in your bias-confirming sources of infotainment.
tl;dr: filter bubbles bad, they'll turn you into a cultist
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#73[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 st…
No post body was provided.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rationalists should strive to cultivate a deep suspicion of any statement that appeals to their emotions, especially self-satisfaction or outrage.
I've never heard of the rationalists, is this a line from their creed or something?
No I just mean someone who strives to be rational.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gonna stay out of gab, thanks: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYr3HYCWAAE6A6T?format=jpg&name=...
And Gab's rivals use their megaphones to say less-than-flattering things about white people, men, etc. You're not going to escape bias or vitriol by sticking to one echo chamber. Not in this cultural climate, at least.
OK, show me when Twitter official retweeted something calling for white genocide.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 defendi…
Don’t pick sides.
Read old document written in specific political tradition.
^ That’s where you jumped the shark.
Less biased philosophy might be Camus, or Freire. Camus if you’re feeling cheeky, Freire if you’re feeling academic.
Freire describes forced import of culture and solutions to problems by financiers on people far away. It is far more objective look at freedom than the Constitutions goal of agency capture people far away.
Camus snarks about the absurdity in the belief we can ever truly understand one another given lack of direct access to each other’s bodily states and memory.
Both push back against the idea of allowing external influence to guide us in different ways. The Constitution is an aristocratic doctrine of acceptable forms and limits of state coercion which are routinely ignored. It’s scripture to hold up as an appeal to imagined authority Freire and Camus don’t believe exists.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
frederick douglass espoused exactly the type of cross-racial and cross-ideological dialogue i'm bringing up here. if he can do it, being the subject of real subjugation and hatred, we can do it too sitting alone together in front of our little glass screens. please don't simply "think of the children". think both openly and critically.
Frederick Douglass very clearly seen slaveholders as enemies and talk about slavery as such. He was not seeking compromise at all, he was seeking abolition full stop. When young, he literally physically fought with his owner. He housed John Brown prior his final raid. He refused participation in Harpers ferry raid, because he seen it as suicidal. Not because he would had issue with taking on arms. He was not as viole…
do you really think that two selected quotes represent the totality of a person's thinking, and how they lived their complete lives? provocative writing is a rhetorical device to bring attention to a grave issue. it's like cursing. it says "i'm serious here!".
through experience douglass realized violence doesn't work, something many of us have to learn for ourselves as we grow up. he ultimately realized that to achieve abolition, he needed to outreason the slavers, not outgun them, which is what he's principally known for--his reasoned positions on (anti-)slavery.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 defendi…
Don’t pick sides. Read old document written in specific political tradition. ^ That’s where you jumped the shark. Less biased philosophy might be Camus, or Freire. Camus if you’re feeling cheeky, Freire if you’re feeling academic. Freire describes forced import of culture and solutions to problems by financiers on people far away. It is far more objective look at freedom than the Constitutions goal of agency capture…
ok, so you've criticized the constitution for the acts of unspecified people who later misappropriated it. can we only misappropriate the constitution, or perhaps, some people can take the same document, flawed or not, and derive a reasoned, even egalitarian and/or benevolent, position from it? do you see how that doesn't invalidate the document's principles, or its potential use as a starting point of reasoning?
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 defendi…
here's another point i forgot to bring up earlier that i'm just gonna hang off of here...
getting caught up in a side means you can't pick and choose from the whole menu of ideas out in the world. it means that if you're against abortion, you must be for guns (or vice versa), lest you suffer cognitive dissonance and social anxiety. that's exactly how political parties, pundits, the media, and partisans of all stripes get twisted up into contradictory positions, but can never extricate themselves, because they'd have to acknowledge a modicum of reasonableness coming from "the other side". it's pretty silly to get so tied up in a tribal affiliation that you shut down your own thinking that way.
this is actually the topic of the linked paper (i.e., culturally motivated reasoning), which was hardly discussed at all in these comments.
Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reproduction is not a state concern But population growth rate (or decline) is absolutely a concern of the state, and reproduction is a significant contributor to that. In fact, one could argue that if a state has an interest in providing health care (including things like contraception) then it must have an interest in reproduction too.
no, it absolutely is not, for a democratic republic like the US. the US is designed to have a minimal federal government that doesn't interfere in the individual life and liberty of its residents. this is very unlike governments that came before it and even peer governments now, like the social democracies of europe. our federal government was not meant to be a central planner, but rather simply an interstate and int…
Providing free (at the point of use) health care, and making sure children don't go hungry, and even providing tax benefits to couples who raise children, are all perfectly constitutional policies that don't encroach on civil liberties.
All of those policies can be motivated by a state/federal desire to grow the population. In fact, some people believe that the federal government has a legitimate interest in providing a free (or discounted) service for healthy women to abort healthy children at any stage of their pregnancy, so if the government has an interest in preventing children then surely it can have an interest in producing them.