General > General Technical Chat

Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

<< < (126/222) > >>

vk6zgo:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 11, 2023, 02:09:10 pm ---
--- 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.

--- End quote ---

I was "Taking the piss" at your over the top "fear in the majority" comment.
Huge numbers of people are not incensed at every little thing, & hence do not feel fear of "speaking out" over some silly comment made by a self-described celebrity, because they have a lot more important things to worry about.

Kim Christensen:

--- 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 ---

I'm not talking about testing in the scientific sense at all. I agree with you there. (Scientific method)
Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is someone with a huge audience and power casting doubt on the very scientific method that you and I advocate for. It's a classic tactic of trying to make an unqualified, uninformed, & unscientific opinion (Trump's) equal to that of real scientific researchers. That's the kind of testing and questioning that I'm against.
And yes, scientists have opinions on a topics that are not yet fully resolved. But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.




coppice:

--- Quote from: vk6zgo on March 11, 2023, 04:49:47 am ---
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 11, 2023, 02:06:22 am ---
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 11, 2023, 01:51:12 am ---I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here?
--- End quote ---
I honestly thought we discussed this already.

The majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not risk anything because of something that does not impact their personal lives.

The true effect of cancellation or shunning is not that the target loses their livelihood, it is the fear it induces in the majority.  It is that fear that makes the majority keep quiet, not rock the boat.

--- End quote ---

Ohh, I'm so terrified! ;D

--- End quote ---
Of course you are. You are Australian. Every Australian I've talked with about free speech agrees they aren't really free to express themselves while they are in Australia. I'm not saying that isn't also true for people from many other nations, but I've found Australians particularly bothered by this.

Karel:

--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 04:08:38 am ---I've noticed there are some people in this world that see everything in binary, black & white, right and wrong and struggle with nuance, and thus it could make sense that questioning something would be interpreted the same as saying that it's wrong since it can't be anything in between. Perhaps you are one of those? I don't know.

--- End quote ---

Yes, many people suffer from this simplistic way of thinking:

"I mean well, therefore I do good, therefore I am good.
If you oppose me, you do not mean well & cannot be good."

The road to hell is paved with the best intentions.

PlainName:

--- Quote ---Huge numbers of people are not incensed at every little thing, & hence do not feel fear of "speaking out" over some silly comment made by a self-described celebrity, because they have a lot more important things to worry about.
--- End quote ---

Does it have to be huge numbers? Here on this forum I often don't make a comment (and often do, but...) because I know that will associate me with a particular view even if that isn't my view. It is very common for someone querying some point to be assumed to be 'that' side merely by raising that issue. And that's on this forum with mostly rational and intelligent members.

Being one of the crowd is important to us, apparently. And, perhaps more important, is not being outside the crowd. That's how influencers get to be celebs with huge numbers of followers and likes. And how cancelling works: just a couple of influencing people (whether they be tiktok celebs or experts with a contrary view that panders to one's own desires) can carry a crowd that's big enough to... well, cancel. The lack of a similar anti-cancel crowd just magnifies it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod