3 ms·

Most of the whataboutism in response to this idea boils down to some form of "But but muh feelings" and I think really shows how little people know about both h

Most of the whataboutism in response to this idea boils down to some form of "But but muh feelings" and I think really shows how little people know about both history and life outside the developed world. The other thing I find unusual is the number of people who think that optimists are saying "We have no problems whatsoever" -- and I can't for the life of me find where the article, other optimists, or myself have ever said such a thing. Weird.

jopsen 8y ago
I think optimism is not be best word. Optimism is to expect the more favorable outcome. Steven seems much more like a realist who with a basis in fact predicts that things will be okay, if we keep working on the problems..
adventured 8y ago
> The other thing I find unusual is the number of people who think that optimists are saying "We have no problems whatsoever" That happens in two instances. In the first case, few people are capable of properly using logic, reasoning through any sort of discussion. Richard Dawkins has some great talks on this subject (and he runs into it constantly on Twitter). And I'm not speaking of advanced logic use, rather, extremely simplistic logic use. They can't control their emotions properly and can't control for their own bias at all. It's merely my opinion, however I'd say it's a single digit minority that doesn't fall into this irrational/emotionalism camp in common discussion. You see it universally even among the supposed most intelligent forums online. It makes routine discussion and debate extremely obnoxious, as you have to constantly pre-emptively point out that just because you say X you're not also proclaiming or supporting Y (eg if I say I dislike Hillary, that doesn't mean I support Trump; it's impossible to get away from this basic logic failure). If you don't pre-empt in that manner, you'll spend vast amounts of your time trying to correct people who can't use logic properly. The second case, is where it's intentional. That's also very common. In this scenario the sole debasing option critics have left to attack something they don't like that is factually supported, is to ignore what was actually said. That requires inventing a means to bury the thing they don't like by trying to change what was said and redirect the conversation to a favorable position.

jopsen 8y ago

I think optimism is not be best word. Optimism is to expect the more favorable outcome. Steven seems much more like a realist who with a basis in fact predicts that things will be okay, if we keep working on the problems..

adventured 8y ago

> The other thing I find unusual is the number of people who think that optimists are saying "We have no problems whatsoever" That happens in two instances. In the first case, few people are capable of properly using logic, reasoning through any sort of discussion. Richard Dawkins has some great talks on this subject (and he runs into it constantly on Twitter). And I'm not speaking of advanced logic use, rather, extremely simplistic logic use. They can't control their emotions properly and can't control for their own bias at all. It's merely my opinion, however I'd say it's a single digit minority that doesn't fall into this irrational/emotionalism camp in common discussion. You see it universally even among the supposed most intelligent forums online. It makes routine discussion and debate extremely obnoxious, as you have to constantly pre-emptively point out that just because you say X you're not also proclaiming or supporting Y (eg if I say I dislike Hillary, that doesn't mean I support Trump; it's impossible to get away from this basic logic failure). If you don't pre-empt in that manner, you'll spend vast amounts of your time trying to correct people who can't use logic properly. The second case, is where it's intentional. That's also very common. In this scenario the sole debasing option critics have left to attack something they don't like that is factually supported, is to ignore what was actually said. That requires inventing a means to bury the thing they don't like by trying to change what was said and redirect the conversation to a favorable position.