Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Being irritated at something dumb is thoughtful. You're pointing out the dumb, which is an insistence on higher thought. An insistence on logic over emoting.

Would you say Lewis black is emoting in his routine? No. The frustration is not personal. The frustration is general, at a lack of competent, rational thinking.

I am not above emoting, but that's limited to things like our pernicious justice system. There, at the unfairness of that shitshow, yes I get offended. But again, it's not personal. You'll never hear me say, "That upsets me," or "that makes me feel [insert]" without offering a valid factual basis for the reaction. Without that, who cares how I feel? If I don't have a concrete critique of that to which I'm responding, I've nothing to say. If all I have is to say "That upsets me," I see no reason to speak.

Being emotional does not preclude being thoughtful. In your world, when people with whom you disagree (and invariably to your left) say they are offended about something, you say they are emotional in a way that means they are incapable of rational thought, and that gives you license to disregarded whatever they are saying. When you disagree with someone, you are emotional about it, but of course you are always capable of rational thought, definitionally it would seem. When someone to you right with whom you disagree says something, emotional or otherwise, you describe them as stupid, and so it doesn't matter whether they are emotional or not.

All sorts of people get emotional, but when people to your left do it, that's when you call it out, as a way to avoid engaging with their views.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Being emotional does not preclude being thoughtful. In your world, when people with whom you disagree (and invariably to your left) say they are offended about something, you say they are emotional in a way that means they are incapable of rational thought, and that gives you license to disregarded whatever they are saying. When you disagree with someone, you are emotional about it, but of course you are always capable of rational thought, definitionally it would seem. When someone to you right with whom you disagree says something, emotional or otherwise, you describe them as stupid, and so it doesn't matter whether they are emotional or not.

All sorts of people get emotional, but when people to your left do it, that's when you call it out, as a way to avoid engaging with their views.

Their views are rarely rooted in circumspect thought. Often, they are driven by and entirely derive from feelings.

Feelings are fine for relationships. But one's feelings, which are inherently subjective and frequently not tested via rigorous application of logic and assessment of whether such feelings should be foist upon society at large, are not the stuff on which sane, sober policy decisions should be made.

And this is not aimed at the left. The right is every bit as emotive. They've been whining about "losing their country and culture" for years now. And it's simply not true. Things change. That's constant. Their culture is a throwback. And historically the country was and has always been more a melting pot than a lily white Mayberry.

Their feelings made them gullible targets for Trump who then ran the country in complete unreality for four years and split the damn place down the middle. All based on myths, on feelings.

ETA: I suspect you would assert that we can stop people from being rubes, being slaves to their feelings, by moderating the content to which they are exposed on places like Twitter. That is a facially credible solution. It’s also authoritarianism lite. That is manipulation of the crowd.

Of course, certain actors (states, corps, etc.) have manipulated the crowd for as long as there have been crowds to manipulate. But to advocate for it so nakedly as is being done today is both scary and counterproductive. It is scary because it is an arrogant and dystopian concept. It is counterproductive because, as we can see, the people sought to be manipulated will simply lose trust in the platforms and instead follow even more aggressively the messages of people like Trump.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Their views are rarely rooted in circumspect thought. Often, they are driven by and entirely derive from feelings.

Feelings are fine for relationships. But one's feelings, which are inherently subjective and frequently not tested via rigorous application of logic and assessment of whether such feelings should be foist upon society at large, are not the stuff on which sane, sober policy decisions should be made.

And this is not aimed at the left. The right is every bit as emotive. They've been whining about "losing their country and culture" for years now. And it's simply not true. Things change. That's constant. Their culture is a throwback. And historically the country was and has always been more a melting pot than a lily white Mayberry.

Their feelings made them gullible targets for Trump who then ran the country in complete unreality for four years and split the damn place down the middle. All based on myths, on feelings.

ETA: I suspect you would assert that we can stop people from being rubes, being slaves to their feelings, by moderating the content to which they are exposed on places like Twitter. That is a facially credible solution. It’s also authoritarianism lite. That is manipulation of the crowd.

Of course, certain actors (states, corps, etc.) have manipulated the crowd for as long as there have been crowds to manipulate. But to advocate for it so nakedly as is being done today is both scary and counterproductive. It is scary because it is an arrogant and dystopian concept. It is counterproductive because, as we can see, the people sought to be manipulated will simply lose trust in the platforms and instead follow even more aggressively the messages of people like Trump.

What policy decisions are made on Twitter?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

What policy decisions are made on Twitter?

Most.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Their views are rarely rooted in circumspect thought. Often, they are driven by and entirely derive from feelings.

Feelings are fine for relationships. But one's feelings, which are inherently subjective and frequently not tested via rigorous application of logic and assessment of whether such feelings should be foist upon society at large, are not the stuff on which sane, sober policy decisions should be made.

And this is not aimed at the left. The right is every bit as emotive. They've been whining about "losing their country and culture" for years now. And it's simply not true. Things change. That's constant. Their culture is a throwback. And historically the country was and has always been more a melting pot than a lily white Mayberry.

Their feelings made them gullible targets for Trump who then ran the country in complete unreality for four years and split the damn place down the middle. All based on myths, on feelings.

ETA: I suspect you would assert that we can stop people from being rubes, being slaves to their feelings, by moderating the content to which they are exposed on places like Twitter. That is a facially credible solution. It’s also authoritarianism lite. That is manipulation of the crowd.

Of course, certain actors (states, corps, etc.) have manipulated the crowd for as long as there have been crowds to manipulate. But to advocate for it so nakedly as is being done today is both scary and counterproductive. It is scary because it is an arrogant and dystopian concept. It is counterproductive because, as we can see, the people sought to be manipulated will simply lose trust in the platforms and instead follow even more aggressively the messages of people like Trump.

I was describing the stuff you say, not the stuff other people say. Lots of people have feelings and emotions. Very few people don't. The way you react to them has everything to do with the substance of their political views, relative to yours.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I was describing the stuff you say, not the stuff other people say. Lots of people have feelings and emotions. Very few people don't. The way you react to them has everything to do with the substance of their political views, relative to yours.

I don't have true "political" views. That's the point. I'm about as vanilla a moderate as you can find.

My only view is that people who think they know what's best for me and everyone else really, truly suck. All of we boring folks can sit around and horse trade over policies and reach consensus (give a little here, get a little there). We can be reasonable. But those who complain and those who seek to enforce their rules on the rest of us (and the Venn diagram of those two is nearly a circle... every malcontent assured he's got a law or regulation that'd make things perfect, as he defines it) are, basically, irritants.

Most of the people who really want to enforce what they think is best (their political views) are acting on feelings. Chiefly, arrogance and self-righteousness.

I fully understand the cancer I describe above cannot be extracted. That it is human nature for certain among us to desire power over others and to demand that their grievances be addressed, rather than working on their own to get around the problems that lead to to those grievances. We will never get rid of those who wish to be referee (and therefore should be disqualified from it) or wish to play to the referees. But that doesn't mean the observation shouldn't be made.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Most of the people who really want to enforce what they think is best (their political views) are acting on feelings. Chiefly, arrogance and self-righteousness.

I want you to find a mirror, look at it intently, and read these words slowly and clearly, over and over again.

Thank you! No need to report back! Ta ta!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't have true "political" views. That's the point. I'm about as vanilla a moderate as you can find.

Yes, we've been here before. You like to pretend that everyone else does politics, but what you believe somehow transcends politics. We all understand that's BS.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't have true "political" views. That's the point. I'm about as vanilla a moderate as you can find.

Whether it's liberals believing that today's Wordle was too hard, or conservatives believing that Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of babies, misconceptions abound on both sides. Only I, and other non-partisan centrists like me, can know the real truth on all subjects.

So now we know who is behind the NYT Pitchbot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So now we know who is behind the NYT Pitchbot.

btw, this had me laughing a good laugh.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

btw, this had me laughing a good laugh.

That wordle situation is very distressing.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

btw, this had me laughing a good laugh.

I don’t often 2, but 2.