An article related to a topic I've been thinking about, and may write about when my Thanksgiving trip is over.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Groupthink
I didn't realize how bad it was in congress, it's practically a blueprint for all the worst elements of groupthink.
What a mess.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Banality of Evil
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Free Marketplace of Ideas
And one more thing, regarding the 'Free Marketplace of Ideas'.
There are things that can screw up a marketplace of ideas just as there are things that screw up economic markets.
It goes into that 'persuasion vs. manipulation' distinction. The whole concept of 'spin', of telling your people the 'party line' when it's isn't your true reasoning, means that you don't believe you can win in the marketplace with the ideas you have.
It shows that you don't think you can persuade someone else to share your belief, don't believe you can win the debate in an honest fight.
I get that you may not feel quite able to articulate your reasons, I just stated I have trouble capturing so much of the things that feed into mine. But I also have faith that there are other people, more articulate than me, who could lay out the arguments well.
This ties in with my complaints about gerrymandering, too.
Because if you think you can't win elections otherwise, what you're really saying is that you don't think your arguments are persuasive enough to get the support you need.
And if you believe them, and if you find them persuasive, then why on earth do you think someone else wouldn't? Just about the only 'reasons' I can think of that don't have the potential to persuade other people are the ones that are inherently selfish.
That is, you can't necessarily persuade other people that you deserve a million dollars (though some people apparently succeed at doing so.)
But if you can articulate why you believe x policy is a good idea, you may be able to persuade someone to change their mind. Depending on the person, and the strength of you argument, of course.
Anyways. Point is that attempts to gerrymander, to outright lie about your reasoning, and to manipulate the public into supporting policies you don't think they otherwise would pretty much destroys the free marketplace of ideas.
There are things that can screw up a marketplace of ideas just as there are things that screw up economic markets.
It goes into that 'persuasion vs. manipulation' distinction. The whole concept of 'spin', of telling your people the 'party line' when it's isn't your true reasoning, means that you don't believe you can win in the marketplace with the ideas you have.
It shows that you don't think you can persuade someone else to share your belief, don't believe you can win the debate in an honest fight.
I get that you may not feel quite able to articulate your reasons, I just stated I have trouble capturing so much of the things that feed into mine. But I also have faith that there are other people, more articulate than me, who could lay out the arguments well.
This ties in with my complaints about gerrymandering, too.
Because if you think you can't win elections otherwise, what you're really saying is that you don't think your arguments are persuasive enough to get the support you need.
And if you believe them, and if you find them persuasive, then why on earth do you think someone else wouldn't? Just about the only 'reasons' I can think of that don't have the potential to persuade other people are the ones that are inherently selfish.
That is, you can't necessarily persuade other people that you deserve a million dollars (though some people apparently succeed at doing so.)
But if you can articulate why you believe x policy is a good idea, you may be able to persuade someone to change their mind. Depending on the person, and the strength of you argument, of course.
Anyways. Point is that attempts to gerrymander, to outright lie about your reasoning, and to manipulate the public into supporting policies you don't think they otherwise would pretty much destroys the free marketplace of ideas.
Continuation of Previous Post
Although I sorted through a lot of thoughts in my previous post, I barely touched on a topic I wanted to delve into a little deeper.
It has to do with that concept of 'fear is the mindkiller', and with free speech.
And the concept of a 'marketplace of ideas'.
I understand the need for gatekeepers, I do. Someone has to help the average person sort fact from fiction, figure out who is credible and who isn't. Part of the furor over recent events is that those previous gatekeepers have lost credibility, and now the door is open for all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories. When a significant portion of the population flat out refuses to believe the mainstream media, when the facts themselves seem under dispute, it's hard to tell what's up and what's down.
And yet... and yet the concept of a 'marketplace of ideas', kind of like that ex of mine who bought a Toyota truck, hinges on not being afraid of other people's ideas.
It's the idea that if we take an idea out and really look at it, the best ones will truly win. That we should have the discussions on these topics necessary, that trying to prevent people from speaking (even if they're horrid people, with horrid ideas) is bad.
There's this trend now, tied up with the whole notion of 'don't feed the troll' and 'it's not worth engaging _____' that helps heighten the division and polarization of our time.
I understand why we're not supposed to feed trolls, most of them aren't interested in a discussion anyway, and seem to take pleasure in being disruptive, destructive, and hurtful. And yet that refusal to engage, well...
If there's a 'marketplace of ideas', right now it's as though there are two competing guilds of merchants who refuse to trade with each other, creating two entirely separate markets of ideas.
And so I wonder... I know what I believe. I know, for example, that I believe white supremacy is a stupid concept. I do tend to agree with the xkcd comic on free speech, too.
But trying to articulate all the reasons it's a horrifying idea gets tied up with all sorts of other things.
Perhaps a better way of addressing such things would be to have a big debate, the way we do with christianity and atheism. Let them prepare all their arguments, meet, offer up counter-arguments...
Hmmmm. Anyways. I get the need, when people have been facing oppression for a long period of time, to try to prevent them from dealing with it any more than they have to. Like I, personally, would try to respect someone's wishes on how they ask to be called. I may not get it right all the time, and may forget, but I wouldn't say something deliberately hurtful, or deliberately disrespect their stated wishes.
But banning certain types of speech just makes it go underground, and you lose the opportunity for things like this.
Sure, the people who complain about 'political correctness' can come across as... well, spiteful, hateful and disrespectful. Offended that they have to take into account someone else's feelings.
Consider the 'debate' over saying Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays. Now, tbh, I think I say both, at various times, especially if someone said Merry Christmas to me first, or we were talking about Christmas plans, or somesuch.
But I understand why say, a Jewish family might feel alienated and excluded at the constant reminder that they are different. That Christmas is not something they celebrate, and wishing them a Merry Christmas is sort of silly, but it's too tiresome and troublesome to try explaining that to everyone you meet when so many people greet them with "Merry Christmas" come December. That maybe they can shrug it off once or twice, maybe most of them shrug it off, but the sheer pervasiveness becomes an ongoing reminder that they are different. A minority. Not the norm.
And I don't want them to feel that way, don't want them to feel excluded. So yes, I would try to wish people "Happy Holidays", because I don't want people feeling excluded like that. (Even though I sometimes forget.)
The people who vehemently, almost violently, insist that it has to be "Merry Christmas" come across as- well, as some variation of mean, spiteful, or disrespectful. Really, the exact opposite of the Christmas spirit. Because God forbid you be forced to wish someone a "Happy Holidays" instead, as if the good will behind it is somehow different when you change the words. (I know, I know. They're really more offended at having to take the 'Christ' out of Christmas. Except their very insistence seems to take the 'Christ' out more than any 'Happy Holidays' would.)
Anyways. I value free speech, I think we need to shine light on some of the nastier views rather than drive them underground.
And yet I also value respecting others, no matter what their shape, color, religion, sexual identity, etc. You say you don't want to be called something, or do want to be called something else, and I'll make a good faith effort to do so.
When you add in the issues we've been having in social media, and their role in influence campaigns, and it adds yet another layer of complexity.
Should social media ban accounts that are offensive? Is that censoring them, infringing on free speech? Or saving our discourse? Helping stop the internet from degenerating into trolls and the like?
It's so easy for a troll to spew their hate online, and they can have a large impact on the people they target. Can we address that without banning such speech?
I suppose that's part of why I always like the articles showing someone engaging a troll respectfully, doing a sort of mental jutsu that winds up permanently improving things. It happens, though rarely. I actually have trouble finding one of the examples I'm thinking of, because there's so much advice there on dealing with trolls and articles showing responses to trolls, and none of them was quite what I was looking for.
I suppose that says something about us all, though. That the ones who know how to engage in ways that make a true difference are so rare.
Engagement, true engagement. Why is that so hard to find?
It has to do with that concept of 'fear is the mindkiller', and with free speech.
And the concept of a 'marketplace of ideas'.
I understand the need for gatekeepers, I do. Someone has to help the average person sort fact from fiction, figure out who is credible and who isn't. Part of the furor over recent events is that those previous gatekeepers have lost credibility, and now the door is open for all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories. When a significant portion of the population flat out refuses to believe the mainstream media, when the facts themselves seem under dispute, it's hard to tell what's up and what's down.
And yet... and yet the concept of a 'marketplace of ideas', kind of like that ex of mine who bought a Toyota truck, hinges on not being afraid of other people's ideas.
It's the idea that if we take an idea out and really look at it, the best ones will truly win. That we should have the discussions on these topics necessary, that trying to prevent people from speaking (even if they're horrid people, with horrid ideas) is bad.
There's this trend now, tied up with the whole notion of 'don't feed the troll' and 'it's not worth engaging _____' that helps heighten the division and polarization of our time.
I understand why we're not supposed to feed trolls, most of them aren't interested in a discussion anyway, and seem to take pleasure in being disruptive, destructive, and hurtful. And yet that refusal to engage, well...
If there's a 'marketplace of ideas', right now it's as though there are two competing guilds of merchants who refuse to trade with each other, creating two entirely separate markets of ideas.
And so I wonder... I know what I believe. I know, for example, that I believe white supremacy is a stupid concept. I do tend to agree with the xkcd comic on free speech, too.
But trying to articulate all the reasons it's a horrifying idea gets tied up with all sorts of other things.
Perhaps a better way of addressing such things would be to have a big debate, the way we do with christianity and atheism. Let them prepare all their arguments, meet, offer up counter-arguments...
Hmmmm. Anyways. I get the need, when people have been facing oppression for a long period of time, to try to prevent them from dealing with it any more than they have to. Like I, personally, would try to respect someone's wishes on how they ask to be called. I may not get it right all the time, and may forget, but I wouldn't say something deliberately hurtful, or deliberately disrespect their stated wishes.
But banning certain types of speech just makes it go underground, and you lose the opportunity for things like this.
Sure, the people who complain about 'political correctness' can come across as... well, spiteful, hateful and disrespectful. Offended that they have to take into account someone else's feelings.
Consider the 'debate' over saying Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays. Now, tbh, I think I say both, at various times, especially if someone said Merry Christmas to me first, or we were talking about Christmas plans, or somesuch.
But I understand why say, a Jewish family might feel alienated and excluded at the constant reminder that they are different. That Christmas is not something they celebrate, and wishing them a Merry Christmas is sort of silly, but it's too tiresome and troublesome to try explaining that to everyone you meet when so many people greet them with "Merry Christmas" come December. That maybe they can shrug it off once or twice, maybe most of them shrug it off, but the sheer pervasiveness becomes an ongoing reminder that they are different. A minority. Not the norm.
And I don't want them to feel that way, don't want them to feel excluded. So yes, I would try to wish people "Happy Holidays", because I don't want people feeling excluded like that. (Even though I sometimes forget.)
The people who vehemently, almost violently, insist that it has to be "Merry Christmas" come across as- well, as some variation of mean, spiteful, or disrespectful. Really, the exact opposite of the Christmas spirit. Because God forbid you be forced to wish someone a "Happy Holidays" instead, as if the good will behind it is somehow different when you change the words. (I know, I know. They're really more offended at having to take the 'Christ' out of Christmas. Except their very insistence seems to take the 'Christ' out more than any 'Happy Holidays' would.)
Anyways. I value free speech, I think we need to shine light on some of the nastier views rather than drive them underground.
And yet I also value respecting others, no matter what their shape, color, religion, sexual identity, etc. You say you don't want to be called something, or do want to be called something else, and I'll make a good faith effort to do so.
When you add in the issues we've been having in social media, and their role in influence campaigns, and it adds yet another layer of complexity.
Should social media ban accounts that are offensive? Is that censoring them, infringing on free speech? Or saving our discourse? Helping stop the internet from degenerating into trolls and the like?
It's so easy for a troll to spew their hate online, and they can have a large impact on the people they target. Can we address that without banning such speech?
I suppose that's part of why I always like the articles showing someone engaging a troll respectfully, doing a sort of mental jutsu that winds up permanently improving things. It happens, though rarely. I actually have trouble finding one of the examples I'm thinking of, because there's so much advice there on dealing with trolls and articles showing responses to trolls, and none of them was quite what I was looking for.
I suppose that says something about us all, though. That the ones who know how to engage in ways that make a true difference are so rare.
Engagement, true engagement. Why is that so hard to find?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)