4 ms·

This seems like an argument from 'my opponent believes something that could possibly be used to justify something bad'. People are not equipped to understand wh

This seems like an argument from 'my opponent believes something that could possibly be used to justify something bad'. People are not equipped to understand what is reasonable. No one is. 90% of being reasonable is just following with the herd because the world is really really hard to understand. That is an argument against democracy, and also every other form of government involving people at any level. Such is life, at least until some kind of weird technical solution pops up.

munk-a 6y ago
To reinforce this point we agree[1] that some experiences can be so extreme as to cause long term psychological damage. PTSD is a really extreme example of not being able to cope with what reality was (due to generally experiencing an extremely bad portion of reality) - so I wanted to reinforce that at the extremes information can be damaging and different people do have different tolerances of how they cope with such information. I'm not saying that reading a news article is equivalent to PTSD but it's a spectrum and we all sort of need to accept that different people have different abilities and tolerances when it comes to being exposed to extremism and propaganda - heck we'd all probably pride ourselves here as being able to see through the BS of most advertising but we also need to acknowledge that advertising is effective on a lot of folks. 1. As a society in general, I hope you'll allow.