3 ms·

So concludes the "Fairness Foundation", no doubt completely objective on this subject.

• ggm 2y ago
  Isn't this literally ad hom? Not one substantive rebuttal of the lines of reasoning, just rejection because of one source. But that's not the only source. It's from an interdisciplinary study group, including King's college department of war studies. It's about the social cohesion risks implicit in the hollowing out of society. I'm less inclined to disbelieve it.
  • baggy_trough 2y ago
    I mean, do you seriously think the "Fairness Foundation" is going to come to any other conclusion? I think we can avoid wasting our time on this.
    • piva00 2y ago
      Without reading it you cannot assert at all if their bias is unfounded. Their naming and mission shouldn't detract from at least a basic analysis of what's said. I guess Byung-Chul Han is right about how digital/online discourse being just a swarm of shitstorming by anonymous narcissists, you showcased how without even a cursory look you let your reactive side out without even a question of how this behaviour doesn't fit the space. You just wanted to shout, and shout you did...
      • baggy_trough 2y ago
        > Without reading it you cannot assert at all if their bias is unfounded. You're simply wrong about that. I can assert it based on a heuristic, one that has significant predictive power in my experience.
        • piva00 2y ago
          As I expected this exchange would end with a thought-terminating cliché. Sad.