3 ms·

You have to admit that that would be a lot easier if the people you are disagreeing with were making reasonable level-headed arguments, but somehow we are livin

You have to admit that that would be a lot easier if the people you are disagreeing with were making reasonable level-headed arguments, but somehow we are living in an era where large swaths of the population are convinced that there is no difference between what is true and what they feel is true and, consequently, they reject rationality and with it the concept of objective reality. I know I'm on the record as saying that rationality, which is to say empirical philosophy, is incomplete. Let me clarify that by saying that it isn't the same thing as rejecting it outright anymore than rejecting Newtonian mechanics outright is the same thing as admitting it is incomplete.

bondarchuk 6y ago
Yes, large swaths of the population are wrong (from your viewpoint) and not open to rational argument and there's nothing you can do to change it, except totalitarian control of public discourse. My point is that it's vastly preferable to just let them be wrong on the internet and deal with it like an adult.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  That has lead us to a point where people who, in spite of failed court cases, lack of evidence, expert opinion, and even disagreement among people who align with their political ideology, have insisted that a democratic election was stolen and believe it strongly enough to attempt to invade a government building with the expressed intent of executing politicians. That anyone can believe that simply "letting them be wrong on the internet" is a viable course of action at this point is utterly baffling. I sincerely hope there is an alternative to totalitarian control of public discourse, but I am becoming increasingly worried that there is not.