Before making moral evaluations, it's really useful to look at these situations, and try to automatically reverse the "polarity" of the actors involved. If you see people doing something and you think they're on your side, imagine a similar scenario in which people are taking the same actions for a cause you are violently opposed to, or on behalf of a group you find deplorable. And vice versa. This helps reduce the chances you'll get confused and take a hypocritical position.
or even simpler, stop being on a side, then you don't have to do mental tricks like "reversing the polarity". you can just see things for the way they are, without personal identity invested in the situation. this is exactly what being independent is.
This isn't just partisan "sides." It's also sides of specific legal questions.
I don't think "just stop picking a side regarding abortion, gun ownership, or gay marriage" is a reasonable solution. These are political wedge issues, but they are also legal questions with answers that can affect your daily life. Of course you want it to go a certain way!
no, stop thinking of sides at all, and especially don't start with a side first. start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consistent with those first principles, sides be damned. the only reason you pay attention to sides is identifying with and wanting to defend a side in the first place. don't worry about defending and entrenching. have earnest conversations. if your position is constantly getting barraged with hard-to-argue counterpoints, then consider changing your position. it's not that hard.
Forgive me for my ignorance: why would the constitution be a good start for reasoned first principles? The constitution was written centuries ago by wealthy men who considered women and other men property and its updating process is so onerous that it still has nothing in it that considers women equal to men, despite women's right to vote, pay taxes, own businesses, etc. being established decades ago.
while it's certainly biased by the thinking of the time, that stuff isn't enshrined in the constitution, not to that degree. the wealthy white dude framers knew they weren't perfect, so they allowed for changes by providing an amendment process to patch the rough spots. the constitution is a good start, not the final endpoint.
Like I said, the updating process is so onerous that women aren't considered equals under the constitution decades after women are obligated to pay taxes, have the right to vote, and other such things. I don't understand why it should be considered a good set of first principles because of this, because it would imply that the equalness of people isn't a first principle.
i mean, do you really believe that today, women are not considered equal, even if it's not perfectly spelled out by the constitution? more importantly, does that matter for using the constitution as a starting point? it doesn't have to be the constitution by the way; that was simply a convenient and relevant example of a starting point.
>that it still has nothing in it that considers women equal to men, despite women's right to vote, pay taxes, own businesses, etc. being established decades ago.
Mind pointing out where exactly in the current, live form of the constitution where women are not considered equal to men?
> the only reason you pay attention to sides is identify with and wanting to defend a side in the first place
True! For example, I inherently have a bias towards wanting LGBTQ people to have the right to participate in society through marriage, anti-discrimination laws, etc because I'm LGBTQ. I suspect a lot of black people have a bias towards wanting anti-discrimination legislation so they don't get discriminated against, too.
In a way, yes, that's problematic, because what you're saying is that those people are still not arguing for equal rights for all based on principle: their sole objective is arguing for more rights for themselves, which is still an adversarial position to take and in the long run will do nothing to prevent the tribalistic nature of public discourse.
Aren’t the people arguing against their rights the ones causing a problem? Everyone looking out for themselves is supposed to lead to at least a half-decent outcome - kind of the idea behind the “free market.”
no, why should it? i want those things for disadvantaged groups as well. that doesn't mean that i've chosen a side and will defend it to the death against the bad ol' "others". everyone can be part of the same tribe. no other tribe needed. and it's ok if we don't all agree on the same things at the same time.
(i'm not going to pretend that i'm always cool, calm and collected in real life. far from it, i'm as flawed as the next person. but when it comes to thinking about this stuff, and striving to be more consistent with my own principles, this is the way i think myself out of all the partisanship i see around me.)
Okay, the constitution is as far from “first principles” as you can possibly get. Totally arbitrary. If that’s what you value, that’s fine, but it is not more logical than someone else’s view.
If you really do start from first principles (I think “utilitarianism” might be a better example of something that would be a first principle), and you find out that one side of an issue is good and the other is evil, or even if you find out that one political party is a good bit morally better than the other, you’re now back to picking sides. Because picking the right side of a morally important issue is a moral imperative to most people.
here's another point i forgot to bring up earlier that i'm just gonna hang off of here...
getting caught up in a side means you can't pick and choose from the whole menu of ideas out in the world. it means that if you're against abortion, you must be for guns (or vice versa), lest you suffer cognitive dissonance and social anxiety. that's exactly how political parties, pundits, the media, and partisans of all stripes get twisted up into contradictory positions, but can never extricate themselves, because they'd have to acknowledge a modicum of reasonableness coming from "the other side". it's pretty silly to get so tied up in a tribal affiliation that you shut down your own thinking that way.
this is actually the topic of the linked paper (i.e., culturally motivated reasoning), which was hardly discussed at all in these comments.
I like actually thinking about things, but does that address the problem where you’re more likely to see people who disagree with your (well-reasoned) opinion as violent?
it takes some mental fortitude to maintain this position, but you have to understand that 99.99% of the time, those other people think of themselves as good and reasonable too. and the feeling of violence is a direct result of identifying with your chosen "side", thus feeling personally affronted. rather, you can create space between who you are and what you believe, and in this way, someone can attack those beliefs without it affecting who you think you are. you don't feel it's violent against you because of that separation. you can similarly project that separation onto other people, so that you're not attacking them personally, but just discussing their ideas and beliefs.
this is true, but that's even moreso why we need to have such conversations openly, especially with people different from us, to elucidate our blind spots.
and that's the crux of why diversity can be powerful. it's not about diversity of demographics, but diversity of perspective and thinking that strengthens societies (and companies and teams).
>start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consistent with those first principles, sides be damned.
How do you come up with first principles? Consequentialism vs deontology has been around for centuries and it's obvious which one is the the correct one.
that's a false dichotomy for the rhetoricians. it's both, and more, and more complicated than that.
we spend the first 18 years or so of our lives empirically deriving those first principles together, along with the derivations of our ancestors in the form of documents like the constitution. since none of us are intrinsically perfect, we have a whole running population who nonlinearly superpositions our perspectives to create a common, if dynamic and imperfect, consensus of what's reasonable in a social context, and what's not.
Read old document written in specific political tradition.
^ That’s where you jumped the shark.
Less biased philosophy might be Camus, or Freire. Camus if you’re feeling cheeky, Freire if you’re feeling academic.
Freire describes forced import of culture and solutions to problems by financiers on people far away. It is far more objective look at freedom than the Constitutions goal of agency capture people far away.
Camus snarks about the absurdity in the belief we can ever truly understand one another given lack of direct access to each other’s bodily states and memory.
Both push back against the idea of allowing external influence to guide us in different ways. The Constitution is an aristocratic doctrine of acceptable forms and limits of state coercion which are routinely ignored. It’s scripture to hold up as an appeal to imagined authority Freire and Camus don’t believe exists.
ok, so you've criticized the constitution for the acts of unspecified people who later misappropriated it. can we only misappropriate the constitution, or perhaps, some people can take the same document, flawed or not, and derive a reasoned, even egalitarian and/or benevolent, position from it? do you see how that doesn't invalidate the document's principles, or its potential use as a starting point of reasoning?
By saying it can be interpreted correctly or incorrectly and you’re on … the side… of those who interpret it correctly is another violation of your simple philosophy.
You are one of seven billion in an aimless universe with no higher purpose. Your preferred political philosophy is not a universal constant everyone values. Continuing to lean on it does not make your perspective more valid. It just proves changing one’s mind in the face of pushback and new evidence is harder than you cavalierly put it.
but i didn't make a qualitative judgment nor take a side. i said you can base a reasonable position on the constitution, as one of many potential starting points.
negative qualitative judgments like yours don't really add to the discussion, because the apparent objective is to tear down rather than build. why not try reasoning to a positive position instead?
Because I’ve already walked the path you laid out 20 years ago. I’ve read the letters of the Founders too. That you insist it be used as a basis is a bias I can build things without.
Paraphrasing Jefferson, we should bin the Constitution every 19 years. But Madison felt the future owed the past, so we teach our kids to abide a dead man’s idea of a proper political framework. Paraphrasing Jefferson again; the dead do not rule the living. Paraphrasing Hume then; commit the Constitution to the flames.
From my reference frame you need me to import a specific philosophy when understanding of physical laws are all that’s needed to build.
I’m not being qualitative; there is no theory of science, no quantity of evidence the Constitution is responsible for engineering anything. Plenty of evidence people built together before it existed. From my reference frame you’re demanding more work than necessary to solve human problems.
You’re qualifying my behavior as negative because you’re not getting what you want, but the Constitution does not include a provision to provide you that. shrug
let me put it plainly then: you're being evasive because you don't want to be vulnerable. the nihilism you've thrown up is a shield you wield to avoid taking a stance on anything, lest you be attacked for it.
but it doesn't work, see? so might as well stand for something, rather than nothing, if that strategy doesn't make you invulnerable anyway.
Nihilism to me is using conformity to a philosophy as excuse to defer real effort.
We put American tradition for profit making before the distribution of insulin; oh well if people can’t afford it <- there, see; nihilism in your system. Indifference to action because your philosophy would not allow it. A convenient scapegoat.
Your unwavering devotion to a specific form of parliamentary procedure hurts people in need.
From the start I suggest alternatives, you deflect exploring them, and repeat what you showed up with; I don’t think I’m the inflexible mind stuck in one modal. Such a patronizing ass; sorry child, none of those alternatives will do, come let me explain the Bill of Rights again.
I’m plenty vulnerable with friends and family. I’m not about to take the pop psych view of an air gapped stranger to heart; reads like you just pulled that out of a glossary of psych terms and do not understand there is an entire diagnostic criteria required to make such a conclusion. Par for the course on social media.
If you've got an opinion on some issue, especially a strong one, then you're on a side, and there is an 'other'. Be careful not to conflate a sense of your own independence with a sense of your own lack of biases or immunity to human irrationality.
no, you don't have to think in sides. you can have a position and discuss your position with others. you don't have to think of them as your enemy, but rather your conversation partner, someone who can help you expand your perspective and perhaps even change your mind.
At the end of the day, all those discussions still result in actual decisions. In some cases, those decisions affect people in a very negative way. Given that, why shouldn't one see someone advocating for decisions that will negatively affect them as an enemy?
Someone being an enemy or not is a matter of degree of conflicting interests. Acknowledging that someone really is the enemy when they're actively trying to hurt you is just common sense. Whether you choose to fight them or not is a different question.
But practically, this is simply not true and the more important debate the less it is true.
Simple historical example: slaveholder says Frederic Dougles should be slave. Douglas does not want to be whipped nor slave again. They are enemies, full stop. Not partners. Same examples exist with any other country history.
Simple current example: Take the model abortion legislative currently proposed. It literally says that raped 10 years old must give birth regardless of threat to her health.
These people are not partners. They are in fact threats and if they win, actual raped kids will he harmed.
frederick douglass espoused exactly the type of cross-racial and cross-ideological dialogue i'm bringing up here. if he can do it, being the subject of real subjugation and hatred, we can do it too sitting alone together in front of our little glass screens.
please don't simply "think of the children". think both openly and critically.
Frederick Douglass very clearly seen slaveholders as enemies and talk about slavery as such. He was not seeking compromise at all, he was seeking abolition full stop. When young, he literally physically fought with his owner. He housed John Brown prior his final raid. He refused participation in Harpers ferry raid, because he seen it as suicidal. Not because he would had issue with taking on arms. He was not as violent or impulsive as John Brown.
Frederick Douglass represented the radical abolitionists of the time, not the mild "lets go listen to slaveholders" kind. Selected quotes from "cross-ideological dialogue" of Frederic Dougles:
> I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land. [...] I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show [...] We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members
> If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning.
do you really think that two selected quotes represent the totality of a person's thinking, and how they lived their complete lives? provocative writing is a rhetorical device to bring attention to a grave issue. it's like cursing. it says "i'm serious here!".
through experience douglass realized violence doesn't work, something many of us have to learn for ourselves as we grow up. he ultimately realized that to achieve abolition, he needed to outreason the slavers, not outgun them, which is what he's principally known for--his reasoned positions on (anti-)slavery.
I read enough about Frederick Dougles, most of it written by himself. Enough to know that yours "espoused exactly the type of cross-racial and cross-ideological dialogue i'm bringing up here" does not describe his stance at all.
He was not merely writing provocatively. He was not provocative in that quote at all. He was trying to radicalize listeners. His distaste toward slaveholders and slavery is clear in his writings, that was his main thing.
> through experience douglass realized violence doesn't work, something many of us have to learn for ourselves as we grow up. he ultimately realized that to achieve abolition, he needed to outreason the slavers, not outgun them
What are you talking about here. He had no issue with Harpers raid
or John Browns previous actions. Instead he had respect toward the man. The civil war followed right after the raid - there was not much time to change opinion such fundamentally.
Also, he wanted black men to fight in civil war, he believed it will give them justification for civil rights and confidence.
Frederic Doughles knew violence works, that was his lifetime experience. Slavery was existing purely because of violence and was kept by violence. That is something Dougles wrote about, talked about repeatedly.
And he did not convinced or outreasoned slaveholders either. They lost the war, they were not convinced. They had too much money in slavery for any convincing to be possible. Plus it feels good to be dominant.
He did however pushed and negotiated with Lincoln. However, he was not pacifist in any shape and form. He was critical of radical abolitionists pacifists (and those were not "cross ideology dialog" kind of people either)
you're entitled to your opinions, but it's really hard to believe your scholarship on the man when you've misspelled his name like 15 different ways. i'm willing to have my mind changed on who douglass was because i know i'm not an expert on his life, but your points haven't provided a coherent, convincing argument, and especially do not provide a coherent and convincing counterargument to mine. it doesn't even attempt to address my line of reasoning at all, but rather simply throws out more disconnected and unsubstantiated assertions.
my basic argument was that douglass tried violence, found it didn't achieve his aims, and decided to use his intelligence and empathy instead, and achieved (some of) his aims by winning over those on the margin, not trying to necessarily win over the extremely prejudiced. this happened over a lifetime (some 80ish years), and who someone is is a totality of those years, not some arbitrary subset of them.
Basically, you know nothing about him and are willing to make up stuff based on own imagination.
> my basic argument was that douglass tried violence, found it didn't achieve his aims, and decided to use his intelligence and empathy instead, and achieved
This is categorically false. You made that up, because you want it to be true (for mysterious reasons).
I write on mobile, I misspell. But, at least I took some interest in that man. And I did not made up whole life philosophy of man I don't know anything about living in social environment I know even less about.
No it's not. Being independent just means your personal identity isn't "My political party is X." There's still your mental image of yourself and it shapes your opinions ("What would do I think the kind of person I want to be would think about an issue like this?"). This is pretty much inescapable.
we're saying the same thing. you're distinguishing biases formed of life experience that can't be avoided (but can be consciously corrected to some extent), which is implicitly acknowledged. the point was not to pile partisan identification on top to further distort things needlessly, this latter part being a conscious choice we can deliberately avoid.
Not having a side is a nice idea until your opponent forces you into a side. Then they complain when you defend yourself or you must give into their side.
Like when someone is arguing that people with your attributes should be killed or should have less rights than other people you don't have a choice in the matter. If you have a coworker yelling about how gay people are inferior to their openly gay coworker, there's no getting out of choosing a side.
that's a strawman. we're talking about how to have dialogue with people who hold cognitively dissonant viewpoints (to you), and sometimes that means the dialogue is context- and time- dependent. if one person is literally attacking another person verbally or physically, well, then you should possibly step in or call for help. but that's not "taking sides" so much as intervening against violence.
I think of the abortion issue as like a necker cube. You can view the optical illusion as extending inward or outward. But it is difficult to see it both ways. You could easily see it as flat, but then you aren't really seeing it at all.
Partisans may object "but in the abortion case it is objectively extending inward and the other perspective is the optical illusion". But that objectivity is a moral illusion.
remember that the abortion issue, as a matter of law, is about the state's interests in the body. it does not litigate religious or social mores, but most of the "debate" is of this latter type.
i personally agree with the recent supreme court ruling that abortion rights shouldn't rest on privacy protections, but rather on a robust reading of the constitution that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right above and beyond states' interests (nation state or US state). i'd extend this to the issues of euthanasia and suicide as well. the state should have a very narrow and rigorously limited set of concerns (foreign relations and interstate disputes, in the case of the US federal govt).
>remember that the abortion issue, as a matter of law, is about the state's interests in the body. it does not litigate religious or social mores, but most of the "debate" is of this latter type.
It seems specious to claim this when the states' interests in the body in this regard (as well as gay marriage and any other rights formerly predicated on the right to privacy asserted in Roe) are based on conservative Christian beliefs and mores.
there's a whole body of political science literature that would heartily debate that stance. at most, political discourse and religious discourse grew up together and influenced each other, but to say one is based on the other is a rhetorical diversion at best.
gay marriage shouldn't be predicated on privacy either. two people want equal protection under the law as any other two people who have enjoined their lives together. that's basically it. certainly the gender/sex of those two people isn't the state's concern, because reproduction is not a state concern, but rather a private matter.
But population growth rate (or decline) is absolutely a concern of the state, and reproduction is a significant contributor to that. In fact, one could argue that if a state has an interest in providing health care (including things like contraception) then it must have an interest in reproduction too.
no, it absolutely is not, for a democratic republic like the US. the US is designed to have a minimal federal government that doesn't interfere in the individual life and liberty of its residents. this is very unlike governments that came before it and even peer governments now, like the social democracies of europe. our federal government was not meant to be a central planner, but rather simply an interstate and international arbiter. therefore, it cannot have any interest in population control in any way. that's up to the will of the people, and only the will of the people. it's not even a state concern because it would encroach our civil liberties, which are inalienable by the constitution.
Providing free (at the point of use) health care, and making sure children don't go hungry, and even providing tax benefits to couples who raise children, are all perfectly constitutional policies that don't encroach on civil liberties.
All of those policies can be motivated by a state/federal desire to grow the population. In fact, some people believe that the federal government has a legitimate interest in providing a free (or discounted) service for healthy women to abort healthy children at any stage of their pregnancy, so if the government has an interest in preventing children then surely it can have an interest in producing them.
All of this assumes that same-sex marriage has some effect on rate of reproduction or population growth, when it doesn't.
Notwithstanding the facts that marriage isn't necessary for sexual procreation and that LGBT people can and do procreate, if the primary interest of the state in regards to marriage was to define it in terms of procreation, then the greater concern by far should be heterosexual marriages which don't produce children and rates of divorce. Yet no one is attempting to argue that heterosexual married couples should be required by law to produce a child within, say, two years.
Also, there is a difference between government providing access to services which citizens can choose to avail themselves of, and government legislating reproduction directly. The government doesn't have "an interest in preventing children" in the case of providing access to abortion clinics, rather the interest there is providing access to medical care. The government isn't forcing anyone to have abortions. So the government banning gay marriage in the interest of "producing children," aside from not making any sense as described earlier, isn't a valid countercase to the government providing abortion access.
> there is a difference between government providing access to services which citizens can choose to avail themselves of, and government legislating reproduction directly.
Yes, and between those two extremes is the more modest approach of the government providing incentives for certain outcomes, while neither mandating nor preventing any particular actions by its citizens.
> the government banning gay marriage in the interest of "producing children,"
I don't know if anyone is suggesting that the government should "ban[] gay marriage", but some people think that the government shouldn't grant extra benefits to same-sex couples who declare themselves married in some ceremony.
As you point out, such a distinction made by a government is a very ineffective way to stimulate the production of children (indirectly through encouraging people into opposite-sex relationships), just as rewarding opposite-sex marriage doesn't guarantee the production of children, but a more rational set of policies (perhaps rewarding couples of any gender combination for cohabiting during the raising of children, whether naturally conceived or adopted) is more complicated to define and balance and integrate into the culture.
In any case, my point is still that governments have a legitimate interest to legislate policies that encourage an increase in the birth rate, even if they haven't found (or aren't even looking for) an optimal way to do that.
no, healthcare and social programs are statutory, not constitutional. and individual and bodily sovereignty (inalienable rights) trumps any such potential claims the state has on population control in that regard.
those ideas are seeping in from social and religious debates, not legal and civic ones.
Adopting the reactionary, revanchist rhetoric which the southern plantation owners used to justify their continued subjugation of others, contrary to the will of the majority, is the opposite of being "independent".
> Subjects of opposing cultural outlooks who were assigned to the same experimental condition (and thus had the same belief about the nature of the protest) disagreed sharply on key “facts” — including whether the protestors obstructed and threatened pedestrians.
That's scary, but it's potentially really helpful in understanding the connections between language and belief.
I know there's some controversy about the validity of the so-called Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, but the idea that language and perception affect political culture was well understood by George Orwell, and I'm not surprised if the idea intersects well with the "ultimate attribution error" phenomenon from social psychology.
I think the problem with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (aside from being poorly named) is that it seems to posit that the lack of a word for a thing, prevents you from perceiving that thing (as for example not having fifty words for snow means you cannot perceive different kinds of snow). This is pretty clearly incorrect, since it is the very lack of a word for a thing that you perceive (and want to talk about) that leads us to invent new words (or repurpose old ones). Thus, English-speaking skiers come up with a new use of the term "powder" to refer to a particular kind of snow, once they have a reason to care about it and want to discuss it with one another.
The more general idea that language and perception affect political culture is not as controversial, although the degree to which the tail wags the dog or vice versa is still debated.
I thought the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis only predicted that the difficulty in understanding certain things would be language dependent, not that it would be impossible per se. To make an apt analogy, some languages force you to declare a whole bunch of factory methods and boilerplate bloat before you can express a program that prints "hello world", others simply let you write print("hello world").
The strong version basically says that a person's worldview is just about completely determined by language.
This was pretty much tossed in the trash bin, partly due to an interesting study into how a language's lexical entries for colors influences perceptions on color closeness and categorization.
Instead of the strong version there's a reasonable consensus that language influenced things but does not wholely determine them.
An interesting example is that speakers of tonal languages are more likely to exhibit perfect pitch.
Source: my increasingly hazy recollections from a post-graduate comp ling program.
It's a bit tricky to say what the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" predicts, since apparently neither Sapir nor Whorf exactly formulated a clearly stated hypothesis on this topic. This means people write about "strong" or "weak" versions of it.
I think, to use your analogy, any language that lets you write new libraries which can be imported, will tend to become pretty decent at anything which people programming in that language do a lot. Whatever problems there are in the language itself, tend to become ameliorated (though probably not entirely eliminated) by focused work, for example spinning up a neural net or scraping a website gets much easier once a lot of people have done it in your language of choice, and they have released a library that they use to do it.
So, a language may not be good for speaking about a topic which the speakers of that language don't have much experience with, but if they come to have much experience with it, the language will quickly evolve to get better at it.
The authors also give the paper some motivation at the outset by referring to a dispute between Supreme Court justices about what should be obvious to a viewer of a video of a protest. One justice said that the video depicted protected speech activity, while another said that it didn't.
This is why it's so important to deliberately escape any filter bubbles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble) you may be in.
Pre-2015 reddit's r/all was a reasonable, if lazy way to do this. After their free speech bait & switch it became mostly useless for anything but entertainment and establishment/Democrat propaganda.
Here's a subset of my "daily" bookmark folder that at least attempts to do this for me when combined with honestly too heavy reddit/facebook usage:
Are some of them controversial? Of course, but that's the point. The wildly authoritarian left leaning sites that comprise big tech as a whole represent a single filter bubble. Staying in any particular bubble (right wing ones exist too) is a great way to turn yourself into a useful idiot/cultists/NPC.
Because the difficulty of tuning into a site that only leans in one direction isn't that you'll get biased news coverage, but whole entire stories are completely left out if they're bad for that side, and stories that are eventually found to be wildly incorrect, or even completely false issue only the quietest of correction edits while the untrue memes repeat ad infinite, but sites that lean the other way will ruthlessly correct their opponents.
The most important things to be reading are the things that are never talked about in your bias-confirming sources of infotainment.
tl;dr: filter bubbles bad, they'll turn you into a cultist
Let's have a look at the front page of poal.co, part of your daily reading to get outside the 'standard' filter bubble.
OGRellik88
jewspiracy • 10h ago
ANN NSFW Graphic How the ADL started. [652x844 - 142KB] (pic8.co)
MrPotatoNigger
askpoal • 5h ago
How do we stop faggots from fucking monkeys? First it was HIV/AIDS and now
Monkeypox... and it only affects one group. Clearly faggots fuck monkeys and
they need to be stopped.
Ex-Redditor
history • 2h ago
Kill the messanger. - ‘JFK-Destiny Betrayed’, Leaves No Doubt That JFK Was
Assassinated As Part Of A CIA Coup. (rielpolitik.com)
Poop
videos • 6h ago
Testing the Pipe Gun That Killed the Japanese Prime Minister [12:49] (youtu.be)
I'm not shocked by any of this, because I've been studying nazis for a couple of decades and this is shit-tier propaganda. My question is who did you think you were going to convert with this drivel?
Because you've said so. You're advocating people make structured effort to gather information from outside their filter bubble (the current thing, used to be called a 'silo'), a reasonable idea.
But the first example you offer for how you go about doing that to differentiate your inputs from HN is a laughably poor knockoff of /pol/. At least /pol/acks make effortposts on a regular basis, there are vigorous contests of ideas, and much that is funny as well as offensive, or that cleverly combines the two. I can think of many other news/political communities and channels that have a right, far right, or outright fascist bias, but offer substantive content of some kind.
What's anyone going to get from this lowest-common-denominator forum? It's like you asserted the need to develop a strong immune system and followed up by eating food off the sidewalk.
And Gab's rivals use their megaphones to say less-than-flattering things about white people, men, etc. You're not going to escape bias or vitriol by sticking to one echo chamber. Not in this cultural climate, at least.
What he means is that there is vastly more pressure on people to align with the Democratic party than the Republican party. It's hard to imagine that anyone would disagree with this in good faith. It was already true ten years ago, and the amount of pressure has increased by an order of magnitude in the last two years.
Thanks to social media, the effect goes well beyond America, and the Democratic Party of the United States effectively sets the tone for all political discussions in Europe and many in Asia.
It's one thing to say, "Yes this is a seismic shift, and I support it." I'm happy to have that discussion. But it's so surreal to watch people deny it outright. This whole saga has changed my view of history and human nature.
I disagree in good faith. I honestly have no idea what pressure has increased your talking about in the last 10 years. And this
> Thanks to social media, the effect goes well beyond America, and the Democratic Party of the United States effectively sets the tone for all political discussions in Europe and many in Asia.
is bonkers. How does the Democratic party set international "tones"?
