5 ms·

"Politics and corruption" is exactly what is complex about society, and it is absolutely intristic to society. That's why we have laws in the first place. > be

"Politics and corruption" is exactly what is complex about society, and it is absolutely intristic to society. That's why we have laws in the first place. > because the public wouldn't support many things in the status quo if they understood the workings of them Personally, I've observed the opposite more often: somebody feeds the public a clickbait-ey and manipulative "explanation" of how things work, and public becomes enraged without any real understanding of complexities and trade-offs of the system, as well as unintended consequences of proposed "fixes". It is the main reason why socialism is a thing.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> "Politics and corruption" is exactly what is complex about society, and it is absolutely intristic to society. That's why we have laws in the first place. The reason we have laws is to facilitate corruption? That seems like something we ought not to want. > Personally, I've observed the opposite more often: somebody feeds the public a clickbait-ey and manipulative "explanation" of how things work, and public becomes enraged without any real understanding of complexities and trade-offs of the system, as well as unintended consequences of proposed "fixes". That's the media. The government over-complicates things. The media over-simplifies things. It has the same cause. People tune out when something becomes so complicated they can't understand it. So if they want people to pay attention to them, they over-simplify things. If they want people to ignore what they're doing, they over-complicate things.
- golergka 2y ago
  > The reason we have laws is to facilitate corruption? That seems like something we ought not to want. No, the reason we have laws is because politics and corruption and crime is intristic to society. They are the reality of human condition which can't go away and we can't ignore, so we have to deal with it. > That's the media. The government over-complicates things. The media over-simplifies things. I had in mind the part of the "media" which "rebels against the media", Noam Chomskies and Michael Moores of the world.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > No, the reason we have laws is because politics and corruption and crime is intristic to society. They are the reality of human condition which can't go away and we can't ignore, so we have to deal with it. Public corruption is intrinsic to government action, but the way you constrain it isn't by passing laws that limit the public, it's by limiting what laws can be passed by the government. > I had in mind the part of the "media" which "rebels against the media", Noam Chomskies and Michael Moores of the world. Chomsky probably isn't a great example of over-simplifying things. Many of his criticisms are legitimate. But having a legitimate criticism of the status quo is a different thing than having a viable solution.
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  > The media over-simplifies things. There are a lot of cases (to the point where I expect your average person sees dozens of them every day) where the media isn't just "over-simplifying"; they're presenting things that are specifically crafted to both - Be factually correct - Make the reader leave with an false understanding of the situation This exact same thing happens with political campaigns.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Oh of course, but that's a different thing. Over-simplifications are false. They don't even meet the bar of being factually correct, whether because the proponent is willfully leaving something out or because they're ignorant themselves. It's not impossible for it to happen innocently, because people selling simplistic narratives often build a following even when they're true believers. The thing you're talking about is selection bias. It's the thing assholes do when they want to lie to people but don't want to get sued for defamation. Whenever you discover someone using this modus operandi, delete them from your feed.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> "Politics and corruption" is exactly what is complex about society, and it is absolutely intristic to society. That's why we have laws in the first place. The reason we have laws is to facilitate corruption? That seems like something we ought not to want. > Personally, I've observed the opposite more often: somebody feeds the public a clickbait-ey and manipulative "explanation" of how things work, and public becomes enraged without any real understanding of complexities and trade-offs of the system, as well as unintended consequences of proposed "fixes". That's the media. The government over-complicates things. The media over-simplifies things. It has the same cause. People tune out when something becomes so complicated they can't understand it. So if they want people to pay attention to them, they over-simplify things. If they want people to ignore what they're doing, they over-complicate things.

golergka 2y ago
> The reason we have laws is to facilitate corruption? That seems like something we ought not to want. No, the reason we have laws is because politics and corruption and crime is intristic to society. They are the reality of human condition which can't go away and we can't ignore, so we have to deal with it. > That's the media. The government over-complicates things. The media over-simplifies things. I had in mind the part of the "media" which "rebels against the media", Noam Chomskies and Michael Moores of the world.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > No, the reason we have laws is because politics and corruption and crime is intristic to society. They are the reality of human condition which can't go away and we can't ignore, so we have to deal with it. Public corruption is intrinsic to government action, but the way you constrain it isn't by passing laws that limit the public, it's by limiting what laws can be passed by the government. > I had in mind the part of the "media" which "rebels against the media", Noam Chomskies and Michael Moores of the world. Chomsky probably isn't a great example of over-simplifying things. Many of his criticisms are legitimate. But having a legitimate criticism of the status quo is a different thing than having a viable solution.
RHSeeger 2y ago
> The media over-simplifies things. There are a lot of cases (to the point where I expect your average person sees dozens of them every day) where the media isn't just "over-simplifying"; they're presenting things that are specifically crafted to both - Be factually correct - Make the reader leave with an false understanding of the situation This exact same thing happens with political campaigns.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Oh of course, but that's a different thing. Over-simplifications are false. They don't even meet the bar of being factually correct, whether because the proponent is willfully leaving something out or because they're ignorant themselves. It's not impossible for it to happen innocently, because people selling simplistic narratives often build a following even when they're true believers. The thing you're talking about is selection bias. It's the thing assholes do when they want to lie to people but don't want to get sued for defamation. Whenever you discover someone using this modus operandi, delete them from your feed.