261–270 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The real grift has been in echo chambers changing peoples vocabulary Glad others are noticing this, it deserves more attention than it gets and everyone should be aware it's happening.
I'm genuinely interested in some concrete examples of "changing peoples vocabulary." I'm not really in the loop, and I think I do a decent job of avoiding echo chambers.
Unfortunatly for many, HR lives in that "wrong timeframe", so you keep your more sane opinions bottled up.
The real grift has been in echo chambers changing peoples vocabulary such that we can use the same words but talk right past eachother, allowing extremely moderate positions to be reframed as extreme and making what ought to be minor disagreements unresolvable. People making an "I can see both sides" argument are completely missing the point - the issue is that most people can't see both sides, and even when they go…
Can you give an example or two of this conflicting vocabulary?
It starts of with enragment and denailism.
The piece is the polarization.
"Diversify your information" in no way cancels single events and single counter examples.
The idea that ingesting more diversified information will bring back the lives of dead children and delete what people have done and said is ludicrous.
The problem is that a certain kind of "intellectual" does not understand how constantly pivoting or turning to statistical aggregates to avoid the discussion around a single intervention is basically a vector of attack on a system.
To stay sane, one must parse data. Literally attempt to gather data from the government. Literally take notes tracking the incoherence of the media narratives. But then you will find that merely describing reality is enough to trigger certain types of people now into frothing mania.
If you think you are intelligent you MUST realize that social media is going to do importance sampling on the things they find usefull to the business.
The defense against importance sampling is to abandon experiential aggregates entirely and focus on factless truths like incoherent, or single examplars that are enough to prove your point or raise a grievance.
Focus on counter-examples. Focus on definitti style incoherence. Live in the meta.
As a long time proponent of reasonable-ism I disagree with a lot of this. The assumption that a lot of our problems stem from 2 sides just seeing an issue differently is just nonsense in this day and age. The big Problem, is that one side has slid heavily into authoritarianism, and the other side is completely ill-equipped to fight it. On any particular issue, the right will say whatever gets them more Power, and the…
I was thinking about this while reading the article. 15 years ago I prided myself on actively searching out opposing views and engaging with them. I still do that in the small scale, talking with coworkers or friends who have opposing views, but where the fuck can you find any reasonable conservative commentators these days. What are the most prominent voices? People like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder? They don't ha…
Don't listen to Democrat party propaganda either of course, but there's much less of that and it's slightly more aligned with reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking about this while reading the article. 15 years ago I prided myself on actively searching out opposing views and engaging with them. I still do that in the small scale, talking with coworkers or friends who have opposing views, but where the fuck can you find any reasonable conservative commentators these days. What are the most prominent voices? People like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder? They don't ha…
I'm not familiar with Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder but what makes you so sure that their point of view is unreasonable? It seems you agree that their viewpoint is opposing, which likely means their premise are different, so isn't it entirely possible that their conclusion is reasonable and logical when one starts from their position? Also, there isn't one source that can represent the "conservative" viewpoint becaus…
Previously, parasites on society had to compete for resources among themselves. Now they can draw them directly. In other words, the existing system of "checks and balances" has collapsed, and there is no new one yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Jesus is not fictional. There is apparently evidence that there was a Jesus¹ who preached and was crucified for causing a pain for those in power. But the version of Jesus in the bible is likely no more real than the Abraham in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012). -------- [1] or someone going by another name which became Jesus over time, many names in the new testament are suspiciously unlike those likely to be…
Not at all. The bible is famously allegorical which is known by everyone who practices catholicism, but the historical evidence and written records are quite clear - there was this incredibly charismatic guy who grew a following, helped the poor and got crucified.
And the old testament is taken as allegorical when it would be inconvenient for the believers to follow exactly, but taken very literally in specific parts when people want others to live a certain way. Or just ignored completely, like the existence of other gods being specifically mentioned (though IIRC not necessarily as equals) which stands in contradiction to the monotheistic view.
[flagged]
Whatever you read, whatever you listen to, if you do not actually stop to consider it, by taking a long walk without headphones or scribbling in a notebook perhaps, you can’t know what you think.
And I suspect this is what’s happening to a lot of people. It’s easy to perform a psychological DDOS on yourself with doomscrolling or YouTube or podcasts or cable news in a way that’s actually really hard to do with a 500 page book.