I so want to send this to my parents who believe all the bullshit when far righters scream their freedom of speech is being impended. Or at least that flow chart he did.
I so want to send this to my parents who believe all the bullshit when far righters scream their freedom of speech is being impended. Or at least that flow chart he did.
I think the problem here is that a lot of disgenius people act like they are just wanting to discuss nuance and when you entertain them you realize you let them slip in to try to put their poison...
I think the problem here is that a lot of disgenius people act like they are just wanting to discuss nuance and when you entertain them you realize you let them slip in to try to put their poison out there.
It's hard to tell these days when some one geniunely wants to discuss something and when some one is being disgenius and just has an agenda they are trying to slip through. I'm on a forum that is very left and I think they go overboard many times but at the same time I can see where they are coming from, why they are overly strict in what they allow being discussed. In past history it almost always ends up being some fuckwit that just wanted to fly under the radar for a bit and say some awful things while making the appearance of looking reasonable. But yes, I've also seen them shut down people that I feel is unfair who geniunely wanted to just discuss nuance too. In the end I think they do go overboard and I do think it is wrong but I forgive them cause I understand why they do. It's better than the alternative where the fuckwits end up chasing people away with their intolerance (the whole paradox that you can't be tolerant of intolerance cause it allows intolerance). I've been on a forum where the guy went the other way and wanted to allow all discussion (including people who were really hating on gays). It had a mix of left and right but I knew of gay people who left cause of the intolerant people (one outright said he thought gay people should die). I'd much prefer overly strict to that (and the guy eventually realized he was going to have to put his foot down on that stuff cause he didn't want to chase people away, he honestly wasn't one of those hiding under free speech cause he condoned that kind of attitude. He just geniunely at first believed in allowing all speech until he saw what happened).
And yes, when you have poisonous thoughts that are harmful to people who are just minding their own business, I am going to applaud when some one doesn't want to entertain your shit. Speech can harm people and it can chase other people away and shut down their expression (would you want to stay in a forum where people were wishing your death?). As one of my examples I've seen it happen.
I think it's a shame that we're at a point where this is so hyperpolarized that even mundane topics are sometimes banned due to causing too many flame wars in a forum. Something as simple as a...
It's hard to tell these days when some one geniunely wants to discuss something and when some one is being disgenius and just has an agenda they are trying to slip through.
I think it's a shame that we're at a point where this is so hyperpolarized that even mundane topics are sometimes banned due to causing too many flame wars in a forum. Something as simple as a media "shipping" (where a fan believes character A and B should be together and are rooting for them. If you remember twilight, you might recall the whole "team Jacob" vs "team Edward" debates) can turn into these raging wars over something that changes nothing in the grand scheme of things.
If that can cause such ire the reasonable people will simply leave, so tribalism increases and nuance dies, particularly for any new people on a subject that suddenly steps on a land mine.
I don't really have an answer for it, just noting a phenomenon I've seen amongst multiple topics over the decades, be it important or mundane.
Speech can harm people and it can chase other people away and shut down their expression (would you want to stay in a forum where people were wishing your death?).
I think the part that makes me ambivalent is that no-platorming doesn't quash dangerous speech. It used to be sufficient, but the world is more connected these days and a consequence is that it allows even the most absurd, objectively false stances (e.g. flat earthers) to group together and spread. The most unfortunate thing is that you don't really need THAT many people together to cause havoc amongst the conversation, just enough dozen determined people who are active enough to keep repeating the same points constantly.
I think it's interesting that this blog was made in 2016 given how that year would end for the U.S., a year where a now literal criminal who'd make Nixon's corruption look tame was elected. There are definitely some elements out of any one individual's power (e.g. gerrymandering), but it should be clear now that sweeping the problem under the rug no longer solves the issue, simply allows it to fester.
It's not a simple problem and there's no simple solution, but I can propose 2 small solutions
You don't necessarily need to mimic the radical's actions, especially in a democracy. If you believe the right action is the majority, simply encourage everyone to vote. If a radical idea has a true support of 20%, that radical platform needs to either convert 40% of the opposing voter base (40% of 80% is 32%, and now the result is 52/48), or discourage 75% of the opposing voters to do nothing (75% of 80% is 20%, now it's a close race). usually a combination of both. In this case, a bipartisan opinion of "just vote no matter what" supports the majority (hopefully good) opinion more than the radical opinion. This is why there's so much voter suppression occuring amonst US conservatives.
A harder proposal, but if you have the power: encourage local community. If you have an internet community, encourage participation there. If you have access to local facilities, arrange meetups in your area on something you're interested in. Keep bringing people together.
There's less and less third places and the world is getting lonlier as a result. This sort of lonliness is the exact thing radicals prey on. Because if you really have no friends and you just need to "believe the earth is flat" (even if you genuinely don't) to be among people you otherwise mesh with... well, you see the rabbit hole. they invade spaces where a lot of young lonely people are, be one of the regulars, and then branch them out to other interests. And next thing you know you're listening to Jordan Peterson after seeing it recommended in your feed while you were watching an anime review.
You can't save everyone and some don't want to be saved no matter what. But if some people just need a friend, try to be that friend.
I'd say nuance and critical evaluation, weighing of ideas and points, has dropped dramatically in the past couple of decades except for how things really always have been pretty groupthink....
I'd say nuance and critical evaluation, weighing of ideas and points, has dropped dramatically in the past couple of decades except for how things really always have been pretty groupthink. Hivemind. Not just online, where there is usually a very, very, very small chance of nuance ever being allowed to flourish and affect any "discussion", but amongst in-person discourse as well.
All that's really changed recently is with the speed of disagreement, and how widely it can spread in a given set of time. Meaning, within hours the entire world can be piling on.
Humans don't want discussion. They want agreement. Which is sameness. Agreement is familiar, comfortable, and soothing. Disagreement is not. It's alien, alarming, and requires effort to process and evaluate. People reject these things and embrace the easier path of agreement. And while doing so, they rarely separate the person from the idea. Being the first to speak up, when the group disagrees, paints you as a target for rejection and expulsion.
One might feel the need to jump up and point to academic or scientific circles as bastions of truly free exchange of information and ideas, where discussion is welcomed and lauded ... except that history is replete with the originators of innovative ideas being not just shunned, but outright punished for daring to not toe the line of consensus. New is scary. Change is terrifying. People fear it, and embrace sameness as a respite.
Including within and amongst the interpersonal connections and exchanges between humans.
It's not just fan arguments, like shipping or the merits of one series/property being obviously superior in many varied and vast ways to any other. Or the traditional "hot button" topics such as religion or politics. It's almost everything. Tax laws. Medical practices. Legality of activities. Ford vs Chevy. Salad toppings. To fence or not to fence a property line. Favorite colors.
Almost anything where a human can form an opinion, other humans will not be inclined to take the "agree to disagree" reaction. They're inclined to think poorly of you when you raise a point they don't agree with. And not just in their own heads. They do so in ways that cause them to reject you. Not your opinion, or your decision; but you as a person. You as an entity. The whole you. They don't want you around, they don't want you to participate. They want you gone.
All because you didn't agree.
If asked, most people will say something to the effect of the disagreement would be a distraction. It requires effort to host differing positions, and it's easier to not. So that phrase is just them attempting to use tact in an effort to be polite. And as Cordelia once said in Buffy "Tact is just saying not true stuff."
I didn't often agree with much of anything Cordelia had to say, but I agreed with that. And with her follow-up. Which was simple. "Pass." Cordelia, for all her faults and flaws, had a point. We say pithy things like "honesty is the best policy" ... but that's bullshit.
Greed, with all the supposedly negative values and outcomes that come with it, is a survival trait. It's an advantage when properly leveraged. You end up with more. And more is often "better" than less. You have more power, more food, more influence.
Successful greedy people are those who've learned how to leverage their greed in ways that are acceptable, that are less open and obvious. They don't just walk up and take fourteen out of the twenty slices of pizza; they find ways to manipulate the situation so that they just end up with more pizza.
Any study of "great" people throughout history often reveals they were good at, wait for it, manipulating their fellow humans. Of course, manipulation is a word most find to be negative in this context. But at its core, when it comes to new needing to replace the old, a fair amount of manipulation of the status quo inevitably has to take place to shift from there to here. We call it things like influencing or educating in an effort to smooth it over and sound more genteel, but it's still manipulation.
There are countless people who proposed something new and were shouted down, shunned, and banished for doing so. Only for that same new whatever to be brought up by people better versed in manipulating their fellows who were successful in voicing and then shepherding the newness into soothing sameness. Most of us aren't good enough at being greedy for our new positions to be accepted, so we tread upon very dangerous waters indeed to upset the groupthink apple cart of humanity.
The difference is the human factor. Tact, to echo Cordelia. Manipulators are good at the human factor. They're sometimes good at other things too, but they're never single-discipline people unless that sole area of advantage is dealing with their fellow humans.
It's never what you know. It's not even ever what you can prove. It's how good you are at saying it in ways that come across as charming, appealing, non-threatening. Technology, politics, religion, the merits of ice cream flavors. At the end of the day, it still comes down to that human manipulation skill. People who are good at it can say things that don't get them rejected. Most of us aren't, and can't dare to do anything except voice that which is already obvious for fear of drawing a target upon ourselves.
Most of this will raise argument, because it's not comfortable group think. It rejects what most people expect and find as "the way things work in groups." Whether that group is two or two billion is irrelevant, the dynamics are pretty much the same. People like things to be nice and predictable, and disagreement is anything but. So they cast it out, and having that pointed out is another example of unpredictability that damages their calm. Away with thee, harbinger of discord, and so the cycle goes.
Things like this are why it took humanity millions of years to go from squatting in dark caves waiting for the rain to stop to today's modern marvel of the "information age." Except, as we see every single day, all this era of instantaneous information transfer has brought us is an ever broader set of opportunities to be upset that people don't agree with us.
As Terminator said in T2: Judgment Day, "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." Humanity could be amazing if only we'd ever get just a little more out of our own way than we traditionally are. Which is to say, we're always by far our biggest problem.
I so want to send this to my parents who believe all the bullshit when far righters scream their freedom of speech is being impended. Or at least that flow chart he did.
I think the problem here is that a lot of disgenius people act like they are just wanting to discuss nuance and when you entertain them you realize you let them slip in to try to put their poison out there.
It's hard to tell these days when some one geniunely wants to discuss something and when some one is being disgenius and just has an agenda they are trying to slip through. I'm on a forum that is very left and I think they go overboard many times but at the same time I can see where they are coming from, why they are overly strict in what they allow being discussed. In past history it almost always ends up being some fuckwit that just wanted to fly under the radar for a bit and say some awful things while making the appearance of looking reasonable. But yes, I've also seen them shut down people that I feel is unfair who geniunely wanted to just discuss nuance too. In the end I think they do go overboard and I do think it is wrong but I forgive them cause I understand why they do. It's better than the alternative where the fuckwits end up chasing people away with their intolerance (the whole paradox that you can't be tolerant of intolerance cause it allows intolerance). I've been on a forum where the guy went the other way and wanted to allow all discussion (including people who were really hating on gays). It had a mix of left and right but I knew of gay people who left cause of the intolerant people (one outright said he thought gay people should die). I'd much prefer overly strict to that (and the guy eventually realized he was going to have to put his foot down on that stuff cause he didn't want to chase people away, he honestly wasn't one of those hiding under free speech cause he condoned that kind of attitude. He just geniunely at first believed in allowing all speech until he saw what happened).
And yes, when you have poisonous thoughts that are harmful to people who are just minding their own business, I am going to applaud when some one doesn't want to entertain your shit. Speech can harm people and it can chase other people away and shut down their expression (would you want to stay in a forum where people were wishing your death?). As one of my examples I've seen it happen.
I think it's a shame that we're at a point where this is so hyperpolarized that even mundane topics are sometimes banned due to causing too many flame wars in a forum. Something as simple as a media "shipping" (where a fan believes character A and B should be together and are rooting for them. If you remember twilight, you might recall the whole "team Jacob" vs "team Edward" debates) can turn into these raging wars over something that changes nothing in the grand scheme of things.
If that can cause such ire the reasonable people will simply leave, so tribalism increases and nuance dies, particularly for any new people on a subject that suddenly steps on a land mine.
I don't really have an answer for it, just noting a phenomenon I've seen amongst multiple topics over the decades, be it important or mundane.
I think the part that makes me ambivalent is that no-platorming doesn't quash dangerous speech. It used to be sufficient, but the world is more connected these days and a consequence is that it allows even the most absurd, objectively false stances (e.g. flat earthers) to group together and spread. The most unfortunate thing is that you don't really need THAT many people together to cause havoc amongst the conversation, just enough dozen determined people who are active enough to keep repeating the same points constantly.
I think it's interesting that this blog was made in 2016 given how that year would end for the U.S., a year where a now literal criminal who'd make Nixon's corruption look tame was elected. There are definitely some elements out of any one individual's power (e.g. gerrymandering), but it should be clear now that sweeping the problem under the rug no longer solves the issue, simply allows it to fester.
It's not a simple problem and there's no simple solution, but I can propose 2 small solutions
You don't necessarily need to mimic the radical's actions, especially in a democracy. If you believe the right action is the majority, simply encourage everyone to vote. If a radical idea has a true support of 20%, that radical platform needs to either convert 40% of the opposing voter base (40% of 80% is 32%, and now the result is 52/48), or discourage 75% of the opposing voters to do nothing (75% of 80% is 20%, now it's a close race). usually a combination of both. In this case, a bipartisan opinion of "just vote no matter what" supports the majority (hopefully good) opinion more than the radical opinion. This is why there's so much voter suppression occuring amonst US conservatives.
A harder proposal, but if you have the power: encourage local community. If you have an internet community, encourage participation there. If you have access to local facilities, arrange meetups in your area on something you're interested in. Keep bringing people together.
There's less and less third places and the world is getting lonlier as a result. This sort of lonliness is the exact thing radicals prey on. Because if you really have no friends and you just need to "believe the earth is flat" (even if you genuinely don't) to be among people you otherwise mesh with... well, you see the rabbit hole. they invade spaces where a lot of young lonely people are, be one of the regulars, and then branch them out to other interests. And next thing you know you're listening to Jordan Peterson after seeing it recommended in your feed while you were watching an anime review.
You can't save everyone and some don't want to be saved no matter what. But if some people just need a friend, try to be that friend.
I'd say nuance and critical evaluation, weighing of ideas and points, has dropped dramatically in the past couple of decades except for how things really always have been pretty groupthink. Hivemind. Not just online, where there is usually a very, very, very small chance of nuance ever being allowed to flourish and affect any "discussion", but amongst in-person discourse as well.
All that's really changed recently is with the speed of disagreement, and how widely it can spread in a given set of time. Meaning, within hours the entire world can be piling on.
Humans don't want discussion. They want agreement. Which is sameness. Agreement is familiar, comfortable, and soothing. Disagreement is not. It's alien, alarming, and requires effort to process and evaluate. People reject these things and embrace the easier path of agreement. And while doing so, they rarely separate the person from the idea. Being the first to speak up, when the group disagrees, paints you as a target for rejection and expulsion.
One might feel the need to jump up and point to academic or scientific circles as bastions of truly free exchange of information and ideas, where discussion is welcomed and lauded ... except that history is replete with the originators of innovative ideas being not just shunned, but outright punished for daring to not toe the line of consensus. New is scary. Change is terrifying. People fear it, and embrace sameness as a respite.
Including within and amongst the interpersonal connections and exchanges between humans.
It's not just fan arguments, like shipping or the merits of one series/property being obviously superior in many varied and vast ways to any other. Or the traditional "hot button" topics such as religion or politics. It's almost everything. Tax laws. Medical practices. Legality of activities. Ford vs Chevy. Salad toppings. To fence or not to fence a property line. Favorite colors.
Almost anything where a human can form an opinion, other humans will not be inclined to take the "agree to disagree" reaction. They're inclined to think poorly of you when you raise a point they don't agree with. And not just in their own heads. They do so in ways that cause them to reject you. Not your opinion, or your decision; but you as a person. You as an entity. The whole you. They don't want you around, they don't want you to participate. They want you gone.
All because you didn't agree.
If asked, most people will say something to the effect of the disagreement would be a distraction. It requires effort to host differing positions, and it's easier to not. So that phrase is just them attempting to use tact in an effort to be polite. And as Cordelia once said in Buffy "Tact is just saying not true stuff."
I didn't often agree with much of anything Cordelia had to say, but I agreed with that. And with her follow-up. Which was simple. "Pass." Cordelia, for all her faults and flaws, had a point. We say pithy things like "honesty is the best policy" ... but that's bullshit.
Greed, with all the supposedly negative values and outcomes that come with it, is a survival trait. It's an advantage when properly leveraged. You end up with more. And more is often "better" than less. You have more power, more food, more influence.
Successful greedy people are those who've learned how to leverage their greed in ways that are acceptable, that are less open and obvious. They don't just walk up and take fourteen out of the twenty slices of pizza; they find ways to manipulate the situation so that they just end up with more pizza.
Any study of "great" people throughout history often reveals they were good at, wait for it, manipulating their fellow humans. Of course, manipulation is a word most find to be negative in this context. But at its core, when it comes to new needing to replace the old, a fair amount of manipulation of the status quo inevitably has to take place to shift from there to here. We call it things like influencing or educating in an effort to smooth it over and sound more genteel, but it's still manipulation.
There are countless people who proposed something new and were shouted down, shunned, and banished for doing so. Only for that same new whatever to be brought up by people better versed in manipulating their fellows who were successful in voicing and then shepherding the newness into soothing sameness. Most of us aren't good enough at being greedy for our new positions to be accepted, so we tread upon very dangerous waters indeed to upset the groupthink apple cart of humanity.
The difference is the human factor. Tact, to echo Cordelia. Manipulators are good at the human factor. They're sometimes good at other things too, but they're never single-discipline people unless that sole area of advantage is dealing with their fellow humans.
It's never what you know. It's not even ever what you can prove. It's how good you are at saying it in ways that come across as charming, appealing, non-threatening. Technology, politics, religion, the merits of ice cream flavors. At the end of the day, it still comes down to that human manipulation skill. People who are good at it can say things that don't get them rejected. Most of us aren't, and can't dare to do anything except voice that which is already obvious for fear of drawing a target upon ourselves.
Most of this will raise argument, because it's not comfortable group think. It rejects what most people expect and find as "the way things work in groups." Whether that group is two or two billion is irrelevant, the dynamics are pretty much the same. People like things to be nice and predictable, and disagreement is anything but. So they cast it out, and having that pointed out is another example of unpredictability that damages their calm. Away with thee, harbinger of discord, and so the cycle goes.
Things like this are why it took humanity millions of years to go from squatting in dark caves waiting for the rain to stop to today's modern marvel of the "information age." Except, as we see every single day, all this era of instantaneous information transfer has brought us is an ever broader set of opportunities to be upset that people don't agree with us.
As Terminator said in T2: Judgment Day, "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." Humanity could be amazing if only we'd ever get just a little more out of our own way than we traditionally are. Which is to say, we're always by far our biggest problem.
The reason we suck is us.