3 ms·

nothing really, i guess "off the internet" was a bit harsh. But it seems promoting this kind of nonsense is a bad idea. show it to enough people and a bunch wil

nothing really, i guess "off the internet" was a bit harsh. But it seems promoting this kind of nonsense is a bad idea. show it to enough people and a bunch will believe it. this is also why I oppose promotion of anti-vaxxing ideas, homotherapy, religion and other such obvious nonsense that tend to be convincing but detrimental to portions of the population. I do think "that's just facebook" is a fair thing to say. it's a platform that promotes content, they have the right to choose what content they promote, and maybe this shouldn't be on that list.

jstewartmobile 8y ago
Truth is a very difficult thing to pin down. Anyone who can justify their own truth is probably going to welcome dissenting argument; it's a perfect opportunity to put the case forward and spread the news. I think people who aim to suppress dissent are doing it primarily out of an inability to establish their own arguments. It is purely an act of will and an expression of power. Saying, "look at all my degrees" is not an argument. Saying, "look at all of this data I did Excel voodoo on" is also not an argument--especially when, in some disciplines, half of their most-cited research fails to reproduce. Even in stricter disciplines like medicine/biology/chemistry, there is still a huge problem with sponsored research that either cherry-picks supporting data, or attempts to drown-out the inconvenient findings of other researchers. And when it comes to the "you peasants are too stupid to assess the validity of statements" angle, that judgement can gradually be broadened to include everyone who runs afoul of the party line.
- amarant 8y ago
  >Truth is a very difficult thing to pin down. indeed, but obvious over-the-top nonsensical bullcrap is fortunately much easier. the default is to allow it on all platforms, so pinning down the truth is not what we're doing. we're filtering the shittiest forms of bull. >you peasants are too stupid to assess the validity of statements some people do require help. Failure to help them is what happened in Germany in the beginning of last century, when a certain very charismatic leader fooled an entire nation with false-but-tempting ideas. this is probably also an argument you're tired of, but i'm sure you get the idea, and can formulate it to better fit your tastes by yourself ;)
  - jstewartmobile 8y ago
    One piece of history, hardly even contested, is that Hitler came to power when "moderates" were trying to "stem the tide" of "extremism" from the left and the right. von Papen--along with other industrialists, nobles, and political elites--wrote a letter to Hindenburg asking him to appoint Hitler as chancellor, then Hindenburg complied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_to_power Now we're going after far-left like Greenwald and TruthDig, and far-right like Cernovich and InfoWars. People just need to grow a pair and trust the process. Teutonic authoritarianism didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.

jstewartmobile 8y ago

Truth is a very difficult thing to pin down. Anyone who can justify their own truth is probably going to welcome dissenting argument; it's a perfect opportunity to put the case forward and spread the news. I think people who aim to suppress dissent are doing it primarily out of an inability to establish their own arguments. It is purely an act of will and an expression of power. Saying, "look at all my degrees" is not an argument. Saying, "look at all of this data I did Excel voodoo on" is also not an argument--especially when, in some disciplines, half of their most-cited research fails to reproduce. Even in stricter disciplines like medicine/biology/chemistry, there is still a huge problem with sponsored research that either cherry-picks supporting data, or attempts to drown-out the inconvenient findings of other researchers. And when it comes to the "you peasants are too stupid to assess the validity of statements" angle, that judgement can gradually be broadened to include everyone who runs afoul of the party line.

amarant 8y ago
>Truth is a very difficult thing to pin down. indeed, but obvious over-the-top nonsensical bullcrap is fortunately much easier. the default is to allow it on all platforms, so pinning down the truth is not what we're doing. we're filtering the shittiest forms of bull. >you peasants are too stupid to assess the validity of statements some people do require help. Failure to help them is what happened in Germany in the beginning of last century, when a certain very charismatic leader fooled an entire nation with false-but-tempting ideas. this is probably also an argument you're tired of, but i'm sure you get the idea, and can formulate it to better fit your tastes by yourself ;)
- jstewartmobile 8y ago
  One piece of history, hardly even contested, is that Hitler came to power when "moderates" were trying to "stem the tide" of "extremism" from the left and the right. von Papen--along with other industrialists, nobles, and political elites--wrote a letter to Hindenburg asking him to appoint Hitler as chancellor, then Hindenburg complied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_to_power Now we're going after far-left like Greenwald and TruthDig, and far-right like Cernovich and InfoWars. People just need to grow a pair and trust the process. Teutonic authoritarianism didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.