The vast majority of people cheering on Iranian protesters don’t know anything about Ian’s oil. The see people in the street protesting their theocratic regime and they cheer them on. To imagine that these voices are all just oil puppets is the stuff of leftist group think.
Your comment wasn’t censored, your fellow readers flagged it because they thought it was bullshit.
If all we do is regulate prices, then there’s still an incentive to despoil the environment if it lowers your costs.
What you want to do is to mandate prices on externalities – the pollution itself. That way people are still free to buy and sell TVs and to innovate new ways of manufacturing them, but the only way to avoid the cost of externalities is to generate fewer externalities - less pollution per TV – which is what we want.
The vast majority of land in the country has been owned by capitalistic profit motivated players since 1776 - individual home owner occupiers.
If you doubt they will lobby to increase their profit, try proposing anything that has a 0.1% risk of their property value going down and see how they react.
Maybe there should be a setting for hiding such short replies or something like "shadow ban", you can write "thanks" or "This." and only person posting it will see their own "thanks".
Downside is that there is still some cost to it, like writing "please" and "thank you" to LLM...
The counterargument is that, if you think a post is idiotic, you could say so but, if you don't articulate why in detail, you'll probably be downvoted or modded. So better to just downvote if you care and move on.
From an evolutionary standpoint, which circumstances should a thinking being prioritize to best ensure its safety and survival? Should it seek out "positive sentiment" and seek to avoid "negative sentiment" (even though this likely doesn't mean evading negative circumstances merely avoiding the sentiment until it is too late)?
Negative bias is probably inevitable in cognition itself.
The tv show Pluribus delves into this a bit. An event (speaking generally to avoid spoilers) causes most people to become extremely happy and positive, and also super ethical, to the point that survival of the human race is in question, and the "most miserable" person on the planet is left to save things.
Careful now - by pointing out fraud you’re inflicting a moral injury on a vulnerable population. Of all the marginalized groups, surely the criminal is the most marginalized and thus the one most worthy and valuable in the progressive stack.
“To save free speech we must stop funding people who theorize in bad faith, endlessly looking for ways to undermine reality so as to put themselves in power.”
No projection going on here, the modern conservative movement is a paragon of unselfish sincerity, as exemplified by the national administration. It may look like they're up to their absolute eyeballs in corruption and double dealing, but just ask them and they'll tell you they're the most honest folk to ever walk the earth, or indeed any other planet.
I thought that universities were about exploring challenging ideas according to the free speech advocates. Are the ideas promoted by critical theorists not merely challenging ideas?
>To save free speech we must stop funding people who theorize in bad faith
To believe this in a meaningful, rational way would require one to constantly call out administrations and propagandists, after months and years of debunking evidences the methods to serially operate in bad faith.
In the absence of any calling out: We can reasonably surmise they are either captured by political cultists and not processing rationally - or that they are simply operating in bad faith.
Granting, however, that some percent of folks simply get off on bad actors and the harm they do to those who never earned that. For them, cruelty brings it's own buzz and that is enough.
The problem is that critical theory at the foundational level (Adorno, Foucault, even Butler) is an extremely useful and coherent way of thinking about power and situated perspective.
Unfortunately the revolutionary praxis that emerged from it is what we typically see in the academy under the label of “critical theory”, which smuggles in a lot of “liberation” ethics under the guise of critique — so it’s no longer “this is how to think about power”, but rather “power is evil and should be destroyed, or even better given to me”. Foucault literally called these people “saviors” and he didn’t mean it nicely.
(It doesn’t help that this praxis is simplistic, ties into friend/enemy emotions, and gives people “something to fight for” in an era where meaning is hard to come by.)
No matter how contaminated the bathwater, though, I think the baby is probably worth saving.
That assumes they would vote in accordance with the future needs of their children. My experience in local politics around housing leads me to believe that most would not do this. Most would happily take the extra votes, but would vote in their self interest even when it conflicted with their children’s future self interest.
Your comment wasn’t censored, your fellow readers flagged it because they thought it was bullshit.
reply