4 ms·

Have you ever considered the possibility that people just don’t think what you’re saying makes sense?

by epgui 5y ago

hunterb123 5y ago
If it "didn't make sense" they wouldn't have to ban it. They ban simple questions when people are looking for answers. They banned the Hunter laptop story even when the emails were DKIM verified and his business partner came out against him. Look who they protect through these bans. They protect Biden, China, the establishment party. Do they ever try to protect YOU? No.
- epgui 5y ago
  The premise that good ideas that make sense end up winning is unfortunately false. Many bad ideas tend to have a remarkably long half-life, and generally they can exhibit much greater virality at the network level.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can make the right choices? At that moment, let's just keep everyone in a jail cell so they don't hurt themselves. Who is the arbiter of truth? The government? You?
    - epgui 5y ago
      > You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. This is a flawed model. At some point, there is so much information that nobody can conceivably consume it all. A better mental model for this dynamic is that of pollution: can you fight pollution by making more "stuff", or at some point does it make sense to try and clean out the junk? > Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can make the right choices? Yes, to some degree. I think we need to be cautious here, and I acknowledge that there are a lot of examples of how this can go wrong. But yes, yes indeed. If people were smarter, propaganda would not work. Alas propaganda works, and it works frighteningly well. There are also plenty of examples of this in both the modern world and in History. > At that moment, let's just keep everyone in a jail cell so they don't hurt themselves. Now you're being a little hysterical. > Who is the arbiter of truth? The government? You? This might shock you, but no, and we don't need an "arbiter". Getting to the "truth" is to a large extent a decentralized process that should involve many people and communities. I would suggest that a good place to start is with the scientific consensus. For everything else, it certainly becomes a lot more complicated.
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        > But yes, yes indeed. If people were smarter, propaganda would not work. Okay, so you think you know better and the government knows better. We're done here. You're the useful idiot (not an insult, a historical term) for the powers who want to censor. The propaganda is this event, you are the person they convinced. You are advocating censorship on their behalf for them. You are going against you and your people's inalienable rights of freedom of speech. I support your freedom to speak this nonsense, you should support other people's speech, but you prefer to be a tool. Shame on you.
        epgui 5y ago
        I hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are, sir.
      - cheeseomlit 5y ago
        >This might shock you, but no, and we don't need an "arbiter". Getting to the "truth" is to a large extent a decentralized process that should involve many people and communities. Right, a "decentralized process". Which is entirely at odds with having authority figures censoring all unpopular opinions and dissent. You say we don't need an arbiter yet you argue in favor of creating one, intentionally or not.
        epgui 5y ago
        I'm saying there doesn't need to be a single arbiter centralized in one place, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a process to regulate obviously-wrong harmful nonsense. It's a failure of the imagination to not see the difference.
mandmandam 5y ago
Well, fuck those people. The lab-leak theory always made sense, and censoring it before the facts were in was criminal. Taking away people's ability to discuss the issue on FB and Twitter effectively stifled hope for a timely independent investigation of the origins of the virus. This was done on the basis of really shitty science, from people with extreme conflict of interest. The fact that Facebook deleted millions of lab leak related posts is obscene, and seeing people defend it is just so, so disheartening. What the fuck.
hogFeast 5y ago
Have you ever considered the possibility that sense is not objective? If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that masks didn't work. If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that a lab leak was impossible. If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that a vaccine wouldn't come for years. On and on. Sense is inherently subjective. You are subject to the same flaws of logic and reasoning as anyone else. People believe that everyone else is an irrational fool, and their view is correct (and yes, this is the only thing that has changed recently...as people have become more exposed to people who aren't like them, they have retreated into their shell). Btw, you should also consider whether your own view here has any "sense". Part of living in a society with other people is the right to disagree with others (isn't it odd that you use this right when considering the views of others but don't believe they have the same right? That their views just make no sense and can be ignored...irony). It is unfortunate that fewer and fewer people today understand the principles on which their freedom is built.
- epgui 5y ago
  The way I used the word "sense" was in relation to "rationality" and not "feelings". With that definition of "sense", it can certainly be said to be objective.
  - hogFeast 5y ago
    It isn't. Thinking that it is objective is an example of non-rational thinking.
    - epgui 5y ago
      This disagreement results from your inability to accept a definition to work from (ie.: the premise).
      - hogFeast 5y ago
        I gave you a definition (once again, you are starting from the viewpoint that my view is invalid because I refuse a definition...a pattern is appearing). The actual epistemic logic is more complex but, for the purposes of this discussion, the point is that you can define these things as things that reasonable people can disagree about because: there is no clear evidence, and people will weigh that evidence differently. It makes no sense to say that these things should be removed from the internet because they are "irrational"...Galileo was regarded as "irrational" too, the nature of new information is that it breaks down existing systems of thought. To be clear too, believing in rational universalism is an example of irrational thinking. No "rationalist" philosopher ever believed in universalism. Theories like logical positivism were explicitly non-universal in regarding some things as unknowable. The only real application of universalism has, typically, been in German fascist political philosophy with ideas like the Volk...it is in an inherently political/cultural concept...again, the irony of this is a bit much but the precise reason why these theories exist is because they are people who think that we just need to shut discussion down.

Have you ever considered the possibility that people just don’t think what you’re saying makes sense?

by epgui 5y ago

Have you ever considered the possibility that people just don’t think what you’re saying makes sense?

If it "didn't make sense" they wouldn't have to ban it. They ban simple questions when people are looking for answers. They banned the Hunter laptop story even when the emails were DKIM verified and his business partner came out against him. Look who they protect through these bans. They protect Biden, China, the establishment party. Do they ever try to protect YOU? No.

epgui 5y ago
The premise that good ideas that make sense end up winning is unfortunately false. Many bad ideas tend to have a remarkably long half-life, and generally they can exhibit much greater virality at the network level.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can make the right choices? At that moment, let's just keep everyone in a jail cell so they don't hurt themselves. Who is the arbiter of truth? The government? You?
  - epgui 5y ago
    > You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. This is a flawed model. At some point, there is so much information that nobody can conceivably consume it all. A better mental model for this dynamic is that of pollution: can you fight pollution by making more "stuff", or at some point does it make sense to try and clean out the junk? > Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can make the right choices? Yes, to some degree. I think we need to be cautious here, and I acknowledge that there are a lot of examples of how this can go wrong. But yes, yes indeed. If people were smarter, propaganda would not work. Alas propaganda works, and it works frighteningly well. There are also plenty of examples of this in both the modern world and in History. > At that moment, let's just keep everyone in a jail cell so they don't hurt themselves. Now you're being a little hysterical. > Who is the arbiter of truth? The government? You? This might shock you, but no, and we don't need an "arbiter". Getting to the "truth" is to a large extent a decentralized process that should involve many people and communities. I would suggest that a good place to start is with the scientific consensus. For everything else, it certainly becomes a lot more complicated.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      > But yes, yes indeed. If people were smarter, propaganda would not work. Okay, so you think you know better and the government knows better. We're done here. You're the useful idiot (not an insult, a historical term) for the powers who want to censor. The propaganda is this event, you are the person they convinced. You are advocating censorship on their behalf for them. You are going against you and your people's inalienable rights of freedom of speech. I support your freedom to speak this nonsense, you should support other people's speech, but you prefer to be a tool. Shame on you.
      - epgui 5y ago
        I hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are, sir.
    - cheeseomlit 5y ago
      >This might shock you, but no, and we don't need an "arbiter". Getting to the "truth" is to a large extent a decentralized process that should involve many people and communities. Right, a "decentralized process". Which is entirely at odds with having authority figures censoring all unpopular opinions and dissent. You say we don't need an arbiter yet you argue in favor of creating one, intentionally or not.
      - epgui 5y ago
        I'm saying there doesn't need to be a single arbiter centralized in one place, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a process to regulate obviously-wrong harmful nonsense. It's a failure of the imagination to not see the difference.

mandmandam 5y ago

Well, fuck those people. The lab-leak theory always made sense, and censoring it before the facts were in was criminal. Taking away people's ability to discuss the issue on FB and Twitter effectively stifled hope for a timely independent investigation of the origins of the virus. This was done on the basis of really shitty science, from people with extreme conflict of interest. The fact that Facebook deleted millions of lab leak related posts is obscene, and seeing people defend it is just so, so disheartening. What the fuck.

hogFeast 5y ago

Have you ever considered the possibility that sense is not objective? If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that masks didn't work. If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that a lab leak was impossible. If you need reminding, sensible opinion was that a vaccine wouldn't come for years. On and on. Sense is inherently subjective. You are subject to the same flaws of logic and reasoning as anyone else. People believe that everyone else is an irrational fool, and their view is correct (and yes, this is the only thing that has changed recently...as people have become more exposed to people who aren't like them, they have retreated into their shell). Btw, you should also consider whether your own view here has any "sense". Part of living in a society with other people is the right to disagree with others (isn't it odd that you use this right when considering the views of others but don't believe they have the same right? That their views just make no sense and can be ignored...irony). It is unfortunate that fewer and fewer people today understand the principles on which their freedom is built.

epgui 5y ago
The way I used the word "sense" was in relation to "rationality" and not "feelings". With that definition of "sense", it can certainly be said to be objective.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  It isn't. Thinking that it is objective is an example of non-rational thinking.
  - epgui 5y ago
    This disagreement results from your inability to accept a definition to work from (ie.: the premise).
    - hogFeast 5y ago
      I gave you a definition (once again, you are starting from the viewpoint that my view is invalid because I refuse a definition...a pattern is appearing). The actual epistemic logic is more complex but, for the purposes of this discussion, the point is that you can define these things as things that reasonable people can disagree about because: there is no clear evidence, and people will weigh that evidence differently. It makes no sense to say that these things should be removed from the internet because they are "irrational"...Galileo was regarded as "irrational" too, the nature of new information is that it breaks down existing systems of thought. To be clear too, believing in rational universalism is an example of irrational thinking. No "rationalist" philosopher ever believed in universalism. Theories like logical positivism were explicitly non-universal in regarding some things as unknowable. The only real application of universalism has, typically, been in German fascist political philosophy with ideas like the Volk...it is in an inherently political/cultural concept...again, the irony of this is a bit much but the precise reason why these theories exist is because they are people who think that we just need to shut discussion down.