Space Alien Cat
@mdhughes Being clear: I've no qualms about cancelling Nazis, fascists, and in generally, those who preach intolerance.
But I'm also tolerant of a wide set of viewpoints that are _not_ intrinsically intolerant.
I'm also aware that a lot of cancel culture is far more a #PunchingOut than a #PunchingDown, even when it's massively misguided. I advise strongly against it (and occasionally block). I understand the viewpoint & history.
I believe in #PunchingUp
@dredmorbius A bit overcomplicated, but not wrong… but only works with people who learned debate before 2000 or so.
Current debate process is simpler:
1. Make statement of feeling; research beyond Wikipedia is not necessary or wanted.
2. If Wikipedia does not support your view, edit it.
3. Anyone who disagrees is an Unperson who must be Cancelled.
@mdhughes And cancel culture _at least in some regards_ strikes me as most unfortunate.
Natalie Wynn / Contrapoints has expressed that very well, both on her YouTube channel and a week or so back at On The Media:
@mdhughes There's a very strong tendency to lead with and lean on feeling and emotion. That's useful in heat-of-the-moment action. Intelligent discourse, not so much.
(Insults and personal attacks, I ... read on Wikipedia yesterday ... were specifically excluded from classic debate rules, for much this purpose. The phrase "My good friend claims..." exists Because Reasons.)
I've also seen people, including supposed academics, react negatively against citations or references, which boggles me.
I've come close to or reached that point on many topics myself.
It is bone-wearingly tired to say again and again and again what seems clear or obvious to me, and have others respond in ways that indicate a complete lack of comprehension (or disregard of meaning). I may try another time or two. Often I'll simply treat the encounter as utterly futile.
Unfortunately for myself, I'm doing that increasingly often. Getting older seems to mean getting tireder. Maybe it's also understanding more.
"You don't have to attend every fight you're invited to", as a good friend once said.
I'm also aware that the topics that interest me and which I pursue can strike others similarly. I'll insist I'm asking or suggesting in good faith, virtually always. That doesn't mean the process can't be tiring or just simply emotionally overwhelming. You don't have to apologise for that.
(I'd prefer you not attack me for it either, but can also understand that even as I dislike it greatly.)
@mdhughes Largely agreed. I'm just getting to that.
So obviously obvious facts first: this is A Thing an Engineer Would Love.
The chart also presumes some level of good faith. Having discussion based on fundamentally different ground truths and values is difficult enough. Throw in bad faith and ... well, that's Kind of Hard.
Mind, IF you can have those discussions, they can be tremendously illuminating. This is ... rare.
And the process is exhausting. I'll beg off many discussions simply because they're too tiring for what they deliver.
@azure Much of the conservative/liberal divide is one of simple vs. complex.
It's rooted in the need for conservatives (typically: wealthy oligarchs) within any democratic / small-r republican governement to expand their voting base.
That base is generally a mass public who is intimidated or challenged by complexity, with professions and expertise among that realm. The fact that there's often more familiarity w/ those than with the extremely wealthy plays too.
An Algorithm for Finding Common Ground
Included in Trey Harris's "Gaslighting" post.
And my then-thoughts on Trey's experience.
This carries over to much of the discussion / dispute on the Fediverse over the use of CWs (which as a general rule I oppose, other than for clearly egregious content).
Trey Harris: I’m a troll, and I didn’t even know it. Or am I being gaslighted? (2018)
...I was told there wasn’t a written rule—yet—about “doubling down” because they couldn’t figure out the wording, but there would be, and in the meantime I must not do it now I’d been warned — and no, they couldn’t tell me what it was because like they said, there was still a dispute on the wording....
[T]he most efficient way to make money is to change the rules governing how that money can be made.
-- Alexis C. Madrigal
The Dumb Fact of Google Money (2017)
A Beltway scandal that calls into question the independence of a Google-backed think tank strengthens the argument that tech has too much money.
"Pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures -- for good reason."
- Alma Whitten, former Director of Privacy, Product and Engineering, Google
@natecull And How!
Space Alien Cat
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!