751–760 of 882 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This tends to be my gut reaction too. Maybe because I live in a very conservative area and come from a very conservative background. In my filter bubble I consistently see people saying really horrible, legitimately and unapologetically racist and mysoginist things and not being called out or cancelled in any meaningful way but actually encouraged. That makes it hard to take complaints about cancel culture seriously.…
There's a subtype he doesn't mention but I think deserves notice and is especially pertinent to today's environment. That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded. People like this come across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine. They hardily embrace the newfound doctrine and denounce others as havin…
I don't share many of the views in Paul's essay, but there was one point he made with which I emphatically agree: like Paul, I too believe anyone who disagrees with me is just too small-minded to understand my argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turns out that we aren't electing a counsel composed of the liberals most active on twitter. Lets look at the situation clearly. I don't think JK Rowling is a bigot and yet and the internet hate machine is sure going full steam but her detractors are a smaller group than her fans and the woman is worth almost a billion dollars. She could burn dollar bills for warmth in her house for warmth for the rest of her life if…
"A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life. Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues." Not true at all. It's not about her money, it's about her ability to speak and to have a public opinion, and therefore a relationship with us - not about her 'personal wealth'. She has specific views on gender, which she should be allowed to have and which I don't think are objectively 'anti trans…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your argument makes sense. It fits well with my experiences with "MAGAers" and "SJWs". I also think this style of politics is here to stay, as it is the dominate strategy. America has a fracturing hegemony: there is no longer a single universally shared set of basic beliefs. Because we no longer share the same basic beliefs, disagreements are now less likely to be due to logical validity and more likely due t…
At some point ideology meets reality and that's when things begin to crumble. If we construct society and organizations as if merit is not a highly important parameter in achievement, wealth, and success - and instead rely on cosmetics, as if this were inconsequential, then we'll see erosion in all factors which deem a nation or organization successful.
My belief in there being some major cultural influence on people's reasoning of the connection of their ideology to reality is what gives me some sympathy and belief in arguments from people I almost always disagree with, namely proponents of fixes to systemic * ism. I typically disagree with them on the definition of systemic * ism and the correct fix to the systemic * ism. I believe (with some evidence) the inputs to the system produce the disparity to a much larger extent than the individual components of the system being * ist and as such I believe we should work to correct the inputs rather than altering the components. And when people do propose changing components of the system, I find it does often come at the cost of beneficial things like merit. I think that the people proposing these ideas don't necessarily dislike the ideas the system is based on, but rather than have a dislike of some transitively caused property of the system, propose the most obvious fix to it, and then fail to consider further than first order effects of their change (ex: removing merit resulting in lower quality output). And this is why I consider myself a skeptical progressive: I think the cause of fixing systemic * ism is good, but I think the currently proposed solutions are damaging.
I think people who believe everyone who disagrees with them are deplorable would be surprised at the results of sitting down and talking with them. Perhaps the internet is just a bad medium for this.
This article follows the same very old and tired pattern, and it's a shame, because I really enjoy most of Paul Graham's essays.
Has anyone ever seen an attempt to define these terms in an objective, data-driven way? Real data on this might be quite interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes. It's really hard to convey my feeling of alarm to people here though. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, I guess. Doesn't help that the conformists have been allowed to frame the narrative as 'either you agree with us, or you're literally Hitler/Stalin' depending on…
I find it bizarre that comments like these seem to think the main battle ground for free speech is young people like myself "cancelling" people on twitter, when at the same time protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US. Like there is an authoritarian government right there for you to criticise, but you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like "can white people make rice, or is it cultural appro…
Multiple people are telling you they have personally lived through similar things, and they are scared because these things did not end well. These people are aware of the events you believe pose the greater threat, and they disagree with you.
> I find it bizarre that comments like these seem to think the main battle ground for free speech is young people like myself "cancelling" people on twitter
I truly don't mean to be patronizing, but I will say the following because I believe there is a lot at stake and I'm trying to get you to see the other side of this. If you find this view "bizarre", maybe there is something important you are missing. Is there something these people see that you are missing?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_p...
For many years, writers of all political persuasions have divided people into the "independent-thinkers" and the "sheep". Of course, people who think like they do are the independent-thinkers and the others are the sheep. This article follows the same very old and tired pattern, and it's a shame, because I really enjoy most of Paul Graham's essays. Has anyone ever seen an attempt to define these terms in an objective…
For many years, writers of all political persuasions have divided people into the "independent-thinkers" and the "sheep". Of course, people who think like they do are the independent-thinkers and the others are the sheep. This article follows the same very old and tired pattern, and it's a shame, because I really enjoy most of Paul Graham's essays. Has anyone ever seen an attempt to define these terms in an objective…
And of course, there's that relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/610/
For many years, writers of all political persuasions have divided people into the "independent-thinkers" and the "sheep". Of course, people who think like they do are the independent-thinkers and the others are the sheep. This article follows the same very old and tired pattern, and it's a shame, because I really enjoy most of Paul Graham's essays. Has anyone ever seen an attempt to define these terms in an objective…
Broadly, yes.
The Five Factor Model includes axes for openness (what Graham divides has as "conventional-minded" to "independent-minded") and agreeableness (Graham's "aggressive" to "passive"). The FFM is well supported by various lines of evidence.
Graham's model however overlooks three other axes: conscientiousness, extraversion-introversion and neuroticism. Plus it doesn't allow for any nuance, based on a binary classification when in fact the spectra of human behaviour are incredibly wide and nuanced.
The characterisation of folks as "tattletales", "sheep", "dreamy" and "naughty" doesn't suggest an attempt at good-faith discussion.