4 ms·

To be clear, the people who believe speech standards should be determined by public opinion are as incorrect as, say, flat earthers. I don't have a huge proble

To be clear, the people who believe speech standards should be determined by public opinion are as incorrect as, say, flat earthers. I don't have a huge problem with community notes per se. I do have a huge problem with blatantly unequal standards just because large parts of the public have morally rotten views.

PathOfEclipse 2y ago
[flagged]
- sunshowers 2y ago
  Centralized and diffused power are each vulnerable in their own ways -- diffused power to cults in particular. You'd generally expect people with more training to make better decisions than people with less training. Regardless, morality in general is quite objective. In particular, it is objectively the case that letting some groups of people be called mentally ill while other similarly situated groups not is bad. > Fact checking organizations proved themselves wildly left-biased Meh. The only thing that matters is whether they're reflecting objective reality (including objective moral reality). There's no a priori reason to believe that each political tendency is equally attached to reality.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bandofthehawk 2y ago
    When the grandparent post said: > Fact checking organizations proved themselves wildly left-biased I think they implied that this bias also ran counter to objective reality. When someone calls out something that is objectively false, it's not usually considered bias.
    - sunshowers 2y ago
      > I think they implied that this bias also ran counter to objective reality. But did it actually? > When someone calls out something that is objectively false, it's not usually considered bias. I wish what you were saying were true. In reality, motivated actors will call anything that shows them wrong biased. The whole point of having a scientific mindset is to try and ascertain what's true by building the best models one can. This often means a lot of inherent complexity, since the world is quite complex (map-territory relation). But humans prefer simpler models over more complex ones, which leads to bad outcomes.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - PathOfEclipse 2y ago
    > Centralized and diffused power are each vulnerable in their own ways. Of course that's true. But one of them is worse. > You'd generally expect people with more training to make better decisions than people with less training. When it comes to politics, morality, and judgement, we cannot defer to an expert class. It's everyone's responsibility to be "trained" and make good decisions. > There's no a priori reason to believe that each political tendency is equally attached to reality. That's certainly true. For instance, post-modernism, the foundational religion of the far left, rejects truth, objectivity, and the scientific method: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3463968/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3463968/ I 100% believe that one side is far less grounded in reality than the other. I still would prefer a diffused speech enforcement system to one that allowed a few "experts" to elevate my opinion and suppress the opinion of those I disagree with.
    - sunshowers 2y ago
      Postmodernism is not the foundational religion of the far left, whatever that means. To the extent that any philosophy is that, it is Marxism, a kind of modernism. Postmodernism is explicitly and inherently anti-Marxist. I think postmodernism and post-structuralism have useful things to say around map-territory relationships, but the extreme "there is no objective reality" form of postmodernism is plainly false. And I share your concern about public perception of GMOs being wrong. I'd recommend checking out Simulacra and Simulation by Baudrillard. There are deep insights there about how society has replaced ground-level (i.e. objective) truths with symbols and signs, and there's a lot of discussion about map-territory relationships in there. You might enjoy it!
      - PathOfEclipse 2y ago
        > To the extent that any philosophy is that, it is Marxism I actually don't think that's the case at all. Post-modernism is far more prevalent today than Marxism and even more dangerous. > Postmodernism is explicitly and inherently anti-Marxist. Some post-modernists may claim that, but I don't think it's true in practice or even in theory. If anything, post-modernism is, in some ways or facets, an evolution of Marxism beyond economics: https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/postmodernism_does_it_have_marxist_or_historicist_origins https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/postmodernism_does_it_have...

PathOfEclipse 2y ago

[flagged]

sunshowers 2y ago
Centralized and diffused power are each vulnerable in their own ways -- diffused power to cults in particular. You'd generally expect people with more training to make better decisions than people with less training. Regardless, morality in general is quite objective. In particular, it is objectively the case that letting some groups of people be called mentally ill while other similarly situated groups not is bad. > Fact checking organizations proved themselves wildly left-biased Meh. The only thing that matters is whether they're reflecting objective reality (including objective moral reality). There's no a priori reason to believe that each political tendency is equally attached to reality.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bandofthehawk 2y ago
  When the grandparent post said: > Fact checking organizations proved themselves wildly left-biased I think they implied that this bias also ran counter to objective reality. When someone calls out something that is objectively false, it's not usually considered bias.
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    > I think they implied that this bias also ran counter to objective reality. But did it actually? > When someone calls out something that is objectively false, it's not usually considered bias. I wish what you were saying were true. In reality, motivated actors will call anything that shows them wrong biased. The whole point of having a scientific mindset is to try and ascertain what's true by building the best models one can. This often means a lot of inherent complexity, since the world is quite complex (map-territory relation). But humans prefer simpler models over more complex ones, which leads to bad outcomes.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- PathOfEclipse 2y ago
  > Centralized and diffused power are each vulnerable in their own ways. Of course that's true. But one of them is worse. > You'd generally expect people with more training to make better decisions than people with less training. When it comes to politics, morality, and judgement, we cannot defer to an expert class. It's everyone's responsibility to be "trained" and make good decisions. > There's no a priori reason to believe that each political tendency is equally attached to reality. That's certainly true. For instance, post-modernism, the foundational religion of the far left, rejects truth, objectivity, and the scientific method: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3463968/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3463968/ I 100% believe that one side is far less grounded in reality than the other. I still would prefer a diffused speech enforcement system to one that allowed a few "experts" to elevate my opinion and suppress the opinion of those I disagree with.
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    Postmodernism is not the foundational religion of the far left, whatever that means. To the extent that any philosophy is that, it is Marxism, a kind of modernism. Postmodernism is explicitly and inherently anti-Marxist. I think postmodernism and post-structuralism have useful things to say around map-territory relationships, but the extreme "there is no objective reality" form of postmodernism is plainly false. And I share your concern about public perception of GMOs being wrong. I'd recommend checking out Simulacra and Simulation by Baudrillard. There are deep insights there about how society has replaced ground-level (i.e. objective) truths with symbols and signs, and there's a lot of discussion about map-territory relationships in there. You might enjoy it!
    - PathOfEclipse 2y ago
      > To the extent that any philosophy is that, it is Marxism I actually don't think that's the case at all. Post-modernism is far more prevalent today than Marxism and even more dangerous. > Postmodernism is explicitly and inherently anti-Marxist. Some post-modernists may claim that, but I don't think it's true in practice or even in theory. If anything, post-modernism is, in some ways or facets, an evolution of Marxism beyond economics: https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/postmodernism_does_it_have_marxist_or_historicist_origins https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/postmodernism_does_it_have...