4 ms·

“To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. [....] The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed th

by ein0p 2y ago

“To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. [....] The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter.” — Aleister Crowley

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
unraveller 2y ago
On the other hand he wanted "no law beyond Do what thou wilt" - so he's also the prophet of amoral fame seeking and small mindedness ala tiktok.
9dev 2y ago
I don’t think that’s a universal law. Reading the news to develop an understanding for politics or economics isn’t for naught, I would argue. The less people take time to educate themselves on the political situation, the less they can participate in democracy, until they opt to vote for a lunatic, pathologically lying convict, because he tells them an age-old hero trope. The only Defense against manipulation like that is having read different view points on complex societal concerns, shaping your own opinion. I don’t see how that would be possible without reading the news, and I seriously doubt a 19th century occultist is the best bearer of advice on the subject.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > The only Defense against manipulation like that is having read different view points on complex societal concerns, shaping your own opinion. I don’t see how that would be possible without reading the news I see this meme repeated all the time, but I have my doubts. First of all, approximately no one does it anyway - one would have to take effort finding out sources from opposite ends of political spectrum (vs. "opposite" but really just the same), and then force themselves to read all of them (vs. just the most enjoyable one or two). It's possible as a form of study It's definitely not what's happening when you see people reading the news with their coffee or on the bus. Secondly, opinions aren't like waves that cancel out. You read a thing in source A and then the opposite of it in source B, it's not like you're left with enlightened lack of opinion. You just expended twice the energy to read twice the amount of lies. Lies which will stay with you and pop into your consciousness when thinking or talking about the topic they pertain to. Human mind has no problem remembering mutually exclusive thoughts, or believing them individually. This recommendation feels like saying, you need to consume a balanced variety of poisoned foods, so the poisons cancel each other out. How about not touching any of that in the first place?
  - 9dev 2y ago
    > First of all, approximately no one does it anyway - one would have to take effort finding out sources from opposite ends of political spectrum It's enough to just read a proper newspaper regularly. There will be content written by a variety of people, so you'll automatically be exposed to different opinions, It doesn't need to be the full spectrum, even. > You just expended twice the energy to read twice the amount of lies Are you claiming that all news sources publish lies exclusively here…? Other than that, opinions don't need to cancel each other out. You just need to be aware of a different view on things to even consider that some other viewpoint might resonate with you more. If you only ever heard, say, abortion opponents, their arguments may seem reasonable and sound to you, so much that you don't question their claim to be right; but the moment you get exposed to critical voices, you're in the position to even decide which side's arguments convince you. If, instead, you opt to just blindfold yourself, you stop participating in democratic processes—which is a civic duty—and let other people decide for you. Every human has beliefs, compassion, morals, a sense of what's right and wrong. If we don't fight (intellectually) for those, we can equally well just drop them altogether.
DontchaKnowit 2y ago
Hilarious coming from one of the most prolific producers of absolute garbage nonesense writing ever.
- ein0p 2y ago
  Broken clock is right twice a day. You can’t deny that he’s right in this case.
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  I don't know, those intellectually dishonest [flagged] [dead] posts you recently wrote defending White Supremacists were "absolute garbage nonesense writing" (sic), too. Even if you bothered to use a spelling corrector, what you wrote is still absolute garbage nonsense writing, just as bad as anything Aleister Crowley ever wrote. But at least he can spell and proofread, though.
  - DontchaKnowit 2y ago
    I must have really bothered you huh? Your sniping my old comments now?
    - DonHopkins 2y ago
      Hey, you're the one defending White Supremacists, dude. That's a lot worse than anything I've ever done. If you don't want people to know that about you, then you shouldn't have done it. PS: Roger Stone is 71 years old, not a teenage boy. And teenage boys can be racist, too. Stop acting like one.

by ein0p 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

unraveller 2y ago

On the other hand he wanted "no law beyond Do what thou wilt" - so he's also the prophet of amoral fame seeking and small mindedness ala tiktok.

9dev 2y ago

I don’t think that’s a universal law. Reading the news to develop an understanding for politics or economics isn’t for naught, I would argue. The less people take time to educate themselves on the political situation, the less they can participate in democracy, until they opt to vote for a lunatic, pathologically lying convict, because he tells them an age-old hero trope. The only Defense against manipulation like that is having read different view points on complex societal concerns, shaping your own opinion. I don’t see how that would be possible without reading the news, and I seriously doubt a 19th century occultist is the best bearer of advice on the subject.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> The only Defense against manipulation like that is having read different view points on complex societal concerns, shaping your own opinion. I don’t see how that would be possible without reading the news I see this meme repeated all the time, but I have my doubts. First of all, approximately no one does it anyway - one would have to take effort finding out sources from opposite ends of political spectrum (vs. "opposite" but really just the same), and then force themselves to read all of them (vs. just the most enjoyable one or two). It's possible as a form of study It's definitely not what's happening when you see people reading the news with their coffee or on the bus. Secondly, opinions aren't like waves that cancel out. You read a thing in source A and then the opposite of it in source B, it's not like you're left with enlightened lack of opinion. You just expended twice the energy to read twice the amount of lies. Lies which will stay with you and pop into your consciousness when thinking or talking about the topic they pertain to. Human mind has no problem remembering mutually exclusive thoughts, or believing them individually. This recommendation feels like saying, you need to consume a balanced variety of poisoned foods, so the poisons cancel each other out. How about not touching any of that in the first place?
- 9dev 2y ago
  > First of all, approximately no one does it anyway - one would have to take effort finding out sources from opposite ends of political spectrum It's enough to just read a proper newspaper regularly. There will be content written by a variety of people, so you'll automatically be exposed to different opinions, It doesn't need to be the full spectrum, even. > You just expended twice the energy to read twice the amount of lies Are you claiming that all news sources publish lies exclusively here…? Other than that, opinions don't need to cancel each other out. You just need to be aware of a different view on things to even consider that some other viewpoint might resonate with you more. If you only ever heard, say, abortion opponents, their arguments may seem reasonable and sound to you, so much that you don't question their claim to be right; but the moment you get exposed to critical voices, you're in the position to even decide which side's arguments convince you. If, instead, you opt to just blindfold yourself, you stop participating in democratic processes—which is a civic duty—and let other people decide for you. Every human has beliefs, compassion, morals, a sense of what's right and wrong. If we don't fight (intellectually) for those, we can equally well just drop them altogether.

DontchaKnowit 2y ago

Hilarious coming from one of the most prolific producers of absolute garbage nonesense writing ever.

ein0p 2y ago
Broken clock is right twice a day. You can’t deny that he’s right in this case.
DonHopkins 2y ago
I don't know, those intellectually dishonest [flagged] [dead] posts you recently wrote defending White Supremacists were "absolute garbage nonesense writing" (sic), too. Even if you bothered to use a spelling corrector, what you wrote is still absolute garbage nonsense writing, just as bad as anything Aleister Crowley ever wrote. But at least he can spell and proofread, though.
- DontchaKnowit 2y ago
  I must have really bothered you huh? Your sniping my old comments now?
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    Hey, you're the one defending White Supremacists, dude. That's a lot worse than anything I've ever done. If you don't want people to know that about you, then you shouldn't have done it. PS: Roger Stone is 71 years old, not a teenage boy. And teenage boys can be racist, too. Stop acting like one.