General > General Technical Chat
Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website
fourfathom:
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 06:52:48 am ---This is what's happening in society on a macro level when individuals with a social media megaphone constantly question sensitive topics. It about sending a message and not really a question at all.
That's what I meant when I said, "Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X."
--- End quote ---
Then rephrase your statement.
And do you really think that we should just shut up when sensitive topics affect us (or those around us)? Here in the USA, in the elementary and high school grades we are seeing advanced placement, and even some basic courses being eliminated or dumbed-down because of "equity". This is an extremely sensitive topic, but people are vigorously questioning these policies. Others vigorously defend them. People's children and grandchildren are being affected -- should the parents just quietly accept it?
PlainName:
--- Quote ---Back to Adams, he said today that he's had more invites on shows than ever. So apart from his syndication financial "cancelling", he's doing phenomenally well. The tide turned very quickly on that one by the looks of it.
--- End quote ---
Gosh, wish I could be cancelled like that! Who do I have to piss off? 8)
Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: vk6zgo on March 11, 2023, 04:49:47 am ---Ohh, I'm so terrified! ;D
--- End quote ---
Maybe you have fuck-you money. I don't. It isn't fun to find out a fuckwit has blacklisted you just to gain brownie points from the silly activist group.
Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 04:49:56 am ---What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.
--- End quote ---
I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth. Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it. Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability, is at the very core of the scientific method. We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties. (I myself recommend Popperian falsifiability approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego. I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs. We got here by questioning. If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.
coppice:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 11, 2023, 02:22:43 pm ---
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 04:49:56 am ---What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.
--- End quote ---
I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth. Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it. Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability, is at the very core of the scientific method. We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties. (I myself recommend Popperian falsifiability approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego. I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs. We got here by questioning. If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.
--- End quote ---
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
John Stuart Mill
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version