In an earlier era, people's opinions were shaped by a small number of newspapers and newscasts. Some of these old media were so biased and agenda driven that they caused wars.
Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment.
Democracy has always been fragile, barely functional, easily corrupted, warped by money. The best and only way to defend and nurture it is education. Teach people to think for themselves, critical reading,logic and analysis. This is the best inoculation against totalitarianism.
I have the same inclinations as you. I see there are various kinds of bias from different sources, and that you have to be able to think critically in order to maintain some sort of perspective. I also think that we need a bunch of different perspectives, so in that way it's good there's a lot of people talking.
But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school can't figure out why they should believe in the moon landings, or dinosaurs. How often you do come across a posting from a friend who thinks the virus isn't real? You sat in a room with people like this for over 10 years. Did you think they would someday be able to think for themselves? I had hoped for that.
I'm starting to think that education as the answer might just be a naive point of view, but I'm also not desirous of a world where we tell adults what they're supposed to think.
You think the problem is a lack of education or understanding? I don't think so, it's something else - being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute, incapable of changing the situation no matter how you vote. Then people start breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations, and why would they have solidarity with the mainstream society when it betrayed them? Better to vote in an antagonistic way and muddle the waters because this system is corrupt in their eyes.
>> But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school can't figure out why they should believe in the moon landings, or dinosaurs. How often you do come across a posting from a friend who thinks the virus isn't real? You sat in a room with people like this for over 10 years. Did you think they would someday be able to think for themselves? I had hoped for that.
>> I'm starting to think that education as the answer might just be a naive point of view, but I'm also not desirous of a world where we tell adults what they're supposed to think.
> You think the problem is a lack of education or understanding? I don't think so, it's something else - being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute, incapable of changing the situation no matter how you vote. Then people start breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations, and why would they have solidarity with the mainstream society when it betrayed them? Better to vote in an antagonistic way and muddle the waters because this system is corrupt in their eyes.
I don't think the GP thinks the problem is a lack of "education and understanding," but rather the inadequacy of it.
You both are also right. There's also a problem of people "being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute.... [and] breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations," but a good chunk of them have, in their discontent, allied with some of the very same people who caused them to be left behind in the first place. And they've been cemented to that mainstream faction with a slop of lies, delusional conspiracy theories, and other disinformation.
If you were both wrong, I think the discontents would have allied into something like a new Nonpartisan League [1] to work as factions in both parties to change the polices to help the common man.
Honestly, having studied a bunch of official figures that I « was surprised of », I found there were just blatant lies covered by a scientific stamp (actually someone succeeded to pass a paragraph from Mein Kampf into the same journals, after replacing « Jews » by « Men »). The « scientific evidence » we’re governed with is frequently grossly manipulated, and yet it routinely passes peer review, journal publication and makes its way on TV channels and then into law to « curb this unprecedented situation that disenfranchises [place this politician’s favorite group here] ».
Politicians have very well understood that modern civilization is governed by scientific beliefs rather than religious beliefs, and masquerading science for political gain will give you power for a very efficient cost.
The problem is not Facebook, but that our science is as vulnerable to 51% attacks as Bitcoin.
About the Mein Kampf thing. Were you referring to the grievance studies affair [1]? There is a documentary on it on YouTube [2]. Definitely recommend the watch. Funny too.
Highly qualified experts disagree ALL THE TIME and the scientific industry is very competetive.
Look at Copernicus or Galileo or Barry Marshall or Semmelweis. These scientists bucked all mainstream scientific beliefs even after almost roundly being ostrasized and ended up being correct in the long run.
Many science experiments are measured terms of varying levels of statistical significance not in terms of correct/incorrect.
You can tell someone who is not trained in science when they claim you should 'trust science' or 'just believe in science'.
Science changes constantly and is an ongoing process to discover truth not a static set of true facts.
Science is as open to interpretations, best guesses, and political agendas and all kinds of human frailtys as any other industry.
But ignorant people think because an 'expert' says something is true it has to be true.
> You can tell someone who is not trained in science when they claim you should 'trust science' or 'just believe in science'.
The layperson should trust science. Because the alternative is some QAnon cult bullshit. Don't confuse the scientific process with concrete scientific results.
No one is out there refuting Newton or Einstein. Nuclear bombs still work as good as they did in the 1940s. Every time you use your smartphone you're "trusting" that the capacitive screen still works. It's rather silly to not trust science when the products of science are all around us. Whether it's GPS or the airbags in your car.
The problem is with bullshitters and those (such as the media) that use early scientific papers as final scientific truth. With Gell-Mann amnesia effect, the bullshitters have the upper hand. Twitter is particularly bad about this, where people with high follower count toss out "hot takes" all day in hopes of something sticking. You might follow, say, a Paul Graham type of person that knows their VC stuff. But in between their VC messages they start talking about gravitational wells or something entirely unrelated to their core competence. Twitter is an endlessly flowing vortex of this type of bullshit. It's sort of a trust arbitrage marketplace, where influencers in one market try to gain entry into other markets by relying on their expert status in one field.
As for the media, they have deadlines and revenue targets to meet. They want fresh new stories, and Einstein isn't saying much these days. So they'll reach into the scientific paper wastebasket and pull out some trash and present it as some recent scientific discovery.
> But ignorant people think because an 'expert' says something is true it has to be true.
The crux of this problem is that many years ago we decided that experts shouldn't exist. America, at the very least, has a particularly strong anti-intellectual sentiment running throughout its history. So we decided to do away with experts. Just look at Dr. Drew or Dr. Oz. or Dr. Phil. These are people playing the role of expert but are just the same bullshitters that are on Twitter. With the internet, everyone can be an expert.
> The layperson should trust science. Because the alternative is some QAnon cult bullshit.
This is an extremely black and white view. I think the gros of human knowledge isn't even formalized in science.
Some of that knowledge might be bullshit or false assumptions and we might use science as the tool that it is to catch our mistakes.
But a proven mistake is to delegate thinking to authority when you become an adult.
The problem with bullshitters is that they are given air. No, Alex Jones isn't the downfall of western civilization if you let him preach. And please do not feed him, he will only get fatter. Yet, we have elevated to be the largest threats of online interaction.
Very true, especially on side topics science is extremely vulnerable. You have no counter study and peer review is a lot of work, so some works might just stay uncontested for a very long time.
Meanwhile, a lot of proved studies are dismissed for political reasons. Sometimes that is good, sometimes not. But it is safe to say that it would indeed not be prudent to derive policy impetus from a lot of sciences without a public debate.
And if Facebook reduces the friction to those attacks? Isn't it then back to being the problem? I think the friction was part of the design/major benefits of older forms of media
The friction of those media prevents people from criticizing blatantly false scientific studies which have made their way to television and into laws. For example the layman has been told women are paid 73 cents for a dollar for the same work, and people constantly vote to raise women’s salaries based on the assumption it is true, because TV said so. Yet programmers who use spaces instead of tabs are paid 20% more, showing that even the slimmest external variable can double one’s salary, not even talking about internal variables.
Having entire sewers of points of views pouring in Facebook is a then great scientific education that there is no one truth, which _some_ people believe a bit too much. And sewers are immensely better than downright falsehoods taught on TV at wide scale with a confident voice and a suit.
What’s next, do people believe Biden is president?
> For example the layman has been told women are paid 73 cents for a dollar for the same work, and people constantly vote to raise women’s salaries based on the assumption it is true, because TV said so. Yet programmers who use spaces instead of tabs are paid 20% more, showing that even the slimmest external variable can double one’s salary, not even talking about internal variables.
It's worse than that, because the media keeps saying "73 cents per dollar for the same work" when, first, the current number is 79 cents (73 cents is out of date), and second, it's not for the same work, it's overall across all jobs. For the same work it's around 95 cents, which is within the margin of error.
You need more than just education. If people feel their standard of living is deteriorating due to no fault of their own then they become much more susceptible to disinformation. If they have to work 12 hours a day just to keep their home and feed their family then there's no room for critical thinking - you just believe whatever makes you feel better. Democracies have always struggled when the standard of living of the population has decreased - either in absolute terms or relative to their peers. And this is one of the main reasons in the US: The growing divergence in economic outlook for people living in the rich coastal cities versus the people in the "flyover states".
How many of the people that think the virus isn’t real are critical thinkers though (meaning Occam’s razor, the scientific method, etc)? It’s not just education per se that we need, but education in critical thinking, and also history.
I'd love to see logic taught in schools. Like philosophy of argument style courses. Of course this won't fix all the problems, since it depends on the acceptance and practice of the knowledge presented (US grades and high school graduation rates aren't great). But maybe it would give us a chance at being a little better.
I think citizenship tests should be extended to all via school curriculum. If we require people who immigrate to know our laws and how the system is supposed to work, then I don't see why the people already here shouldn't also be required to know this basic info.
Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention some level of command of the English language (my wife teaches citizenship courses to immigrants). I, myself, am a naturalized citizen, from Canada, and I had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, forbear allegiance to foreign powers etc.
It's a ritual, but rituals have meaning and power. It would be nice to see more native-born Americans with a strong grounding in democracy and electoral politics.
When we had a mandatory military draft, at that time most able bodied young men were required to put on a uniform, salute the U.S. flag, march to patriotic music, etc.
Today this sounds trite and even anti-democracy -- weren't we indoctrinating generations of gullible young people to just blindly follow the leader?
Yet, today, many young people including college graduates are hardly patriotic at all, and are mind-numbingly ignorant of even the most basic facts, as illustrated by man-in-the-street interviews posted on Youtube by wags like Ami Horowitz and Mark Dice, getting college students to admit that the triceratops (an extinct dinosaur) is endangered and trophy hunting of this poor beast should be banned, and similar ridiculous notions.
Even during the Vietnam War, one survey in about 1970 found that 25% of Americans thought Vietnam was in South America.
Education is the key, and by that I believe you and I both agree that indoctrination in particular directions is not the same thing. My kid in high school... well, I could tell you stories, but I'd better stop :)
I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test.
I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated citizenry.
My concern with gating for votes in America is that America specifically has a very long history of gating voting in order to disenfranchise minorities from voting. We cannot trust our institutions not to use any restrictions to vote in a racist way. Without this, I can easily imagine a world where our existing disenfranchisement of minorities makes them uniquely vulnerable to being unable to acquire the education necessary to pass to citizenship test- and that this vulnerability is taken advantage of to cut them out of democracy altogether.
The problem with this argument is that racists historically used every system in order to be racist. Should we eliminate public schools, because we still to this day provide less funding for schools in black neighborhoods? What about the Post Office, which was still segregated as recently as the 20th century? If we can't trust politicians not to implement policies in a racist fashion, don't we then have to eliminate the entire government?
Or we could strive not to implement good policies in a bad way.
The property tax system of funding schools is not a good system, but it's also not truly racist. Yes, there are urban schools which are underfunded and disproportionately affect minorities, but there are also rural schools in predominately white areas that are also underfunded. Look to much of Appalachia and some of the south as examples. So in my opinion, property tax funding of schools would fit more with the "rich get richer" paradigm.
You could say the same thing about literacy requirements. That's kind of the point.
> Yes, there are urban schools which are underfunded and disproportionately affect minorities, but there are also rural schools in predominately white areas that are also underfunded.
You could presumably also find some instances of so-called "white trash" being disenfranchised by aggressive voter eligibility requirements.
> So in my opinion, property tax funding of schools would fit more with the "rich get richer" paradigm.
All of racism fits into that paradigm. Racism is a system for causing poor black folks and poor white folks to fight against each other instead of fighting with each other against the systems oppressing both of them.
"All of racism fits into that paradigm. Racism is a system for causing poor black folks and poor white folks to fight against each other instead of fighting with each other against the systems oppressing both of them."
Your statement contradicts itself. If in fact the oppressors are targeting both white and black people to maintain power, then they are by definition not targeting only one race and would instead be classist/elitist.
Also, not all racism is about people getting richer. Some of it was done on their (misguided) principles without financial benefit, or even to their detriment as the civil rights movement grew.
I fail to see how the citizenship test would lead to the rich getting richer.
> Your statement contradicts itself. If in fact the oppressors are targeting both white and black people to maintain power, then they are by definition not targeting only one race and would instead be classist/elitist.
Elites don't promote racism because they're racists, they promote racism because it's a mechanism of control.
Racism as a theory is pseudoscience bullshit. There is no scientific basis for race even existing. We're all humans. The only people who believe otherwise are the victims of propaganda.
> I fail to see how the citizenship test would lead to the rich getting richer.
It could benefit them if the subset of people it prevents from voting would vote for things they wouldn't like.
Also, some policies are nothing but collateral damage. Elites get the proles fighting each other and each coalition starts demanding aversarial policies that harm the outgroup and neither hurt nor help the elites, but keep everyone distracted and fighting each other. The elites don't care which policy like that is implemented as long as it keeps people too busy fighting each other over it to pay attention to certain other things.
It benefits the rich because the proponent-victims spend their political capital to implement the policy and then the opponent-victims spend their political capital to repeal it instead of either of them spending that political capital to do anything that benefits the poor at the expense of the rich.
"Elites don't promote racism because they're racists, they promote racism because it's a mechanism of control."
That may be true, but the policy we were discussing (property tax funding education as an example of 'every policy being racist') affects large portions of both whites and minorities, and thus does not make it a racist.
"Elites get the proles fighting each other and each coalition starts demanding aversarial policies that harm the outgroup and neither hurt nor help the elites, but keep everyone distracted and fighting each other."
If that's your premise, then your position is moot. This is happening already.
> That may be true, but the policy we were discussing (property tax funding education as an example of 'every policy being racist') affects large portions of both whites and minorities, and thus does not make it a racist.
Affecting large portions of both whites and minorities hasn't generally prevented anything from being labeled racist, if they affect minorities differently than white people (as a whole, not a specific subset).
And voter literacy requirements continue to be of the same kind. You can argue that neither is bad because neither is really racist, but then you can have voter literacy requirements. You can argue that both are bad because both are racist, but then you can't have public schools funded by property tax, or even public schools at all, because after all we're talking about avoiding things over their historical implementations even if other implementations are possible.
What I haven't seen is a consistent case that you can have one and can't have the other.
> If that's your premise, then your position is moot. This is happening already.
Are you implying that it happening has had nothing to do with the inflammation of racial tensions by elites and media organizations?
"...we're talking about avoiding things over their historical implementations even if other implementations are possible."
Well that's not at all what has been discussed. If that's what you think this thread is about, then you are very off-topic. If we are truly doing that, then we need to avoid all institutions and policies since they all have some bigoted background, and there's no path forward because everyone can just unsupportively call anything racist.
"Are you implying that it happening has had nothing to do with the inflammation of racial tensions by elites and media organizations?"
You have been stating that subjecting everyone to the citizen test is racist and said that we shouldn't do it because the racist policy will lead to parties fighting each other so the elites are left alone.
I'm saying that's already happening, so you don't have any premise for why not to do this. And quite frankly, you have derailed the actual topic of thread and failed to provide any logical reasoning for your stances (paraphrased, because all past policies have been racist this one must be racist and shouldn't be implemented).
> If we are truly doing that, then we need to avoid all institutions and policies since they all have some bigoted background, and there's no path forward because everyone can just unsupportively call anything racist.
I believe this was my original point. Go back and read it again.
Would you rather play basketball with Shaquille O'Neal or
Neil deGrasse Tyson on your team? They're both humans. They're also both "black", so what's your point?
Your comparison is moot. If I were to select a squad of long distance endurance athletes, I would look to those of Kenyan stock before I’d look to Icelandic.
We are animals, it may not be politically correct but animal husbandry (science) applies.
If we can't trust our institutions, then what is the solution?
There doesn't have to be much education to pass this test. A small book with the material could be mailed to each person on request with no charge. Crafting a strong ammendment with protections like this could address those concerns.
This I don't particularly mind if a small book with the material is provided to each person on request with no charge, potentially even at the point of voting. The point after all is to ensure that maximum numbers of people participating are aware of the systems, not as a gating mechanism.
I'm merely protesting the use of a gating mechanism in isolation. If the gating mechanism came with an educational booklet then my concerns evaporate.
Yeah, I think any law creating restrictions should also provide protections so it's not abused.
For an example on another topic, gun rights groups want a punishment in the new red flag laws for people who file false red flag claims against others so that it can't be "weaponized", as restraining orders have increasingly been used as a "standard" part of divorce proceedings by some lawyers (in cases without any abuse). Seems to make sense, but like most laws it doesn't seem to get any legitimate debate because both sides are just passing laws on mostly partisan lines instead of investigating possible tweaks that would make both sides accepting (no empathy or devil's advocate).
I agree uninterested citizenry is a bigger problem than uneducated, but what about a citizenship test (which is absolutely, without a doubt, going to be immediately used as a disenfranchisement tool by a particular political party) is going to get people interested?
It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't.
In fact, I'd prefer to see things go radically in the opposite direction. I think it's unjust to prevent non-citizens from voting. If you live in place x, you should have a say in how place x is run.
We can do it that way. You just end up with many of the same issues we see today being exacerbated further, like rule of law not being followed and a lack of understanding about the legal structure.
The point of citizenship distinction is part of organizing a democratic government and maintaining cohesion. It tests a person on the basic form and laws of the government and their allegiance to the tribe. The point here is that you have a group off like-minded people allowing other like-minded people into the group. This creates a cohesive group that agrees on basic principles and can function well. Think about trying to conduct a system architecture design meeting with the non-technical users weighing in through a democratic vote on each suggestion - are you excited to do your job in that scenario? Do you end up with lemmings following the best salesman without understanding what is going on? (Different opinions are fine as long as they are legitimate and don't violate the common principles)
Letting anyone in makes the knowledgeable people feel disenfranchised by mob rule, not to mention making the organization susceptible to subversion. There's anecdotal evidence (probably statistical evidence if we look around) to support that citizenship that is earned results in a population that is more involved (look at voter turnout in places that never before had free elections).
So while I agree that people in a given location should have say over their government, I also believe that in being a part of that democratic government they have the responsibility to learn the basics by which the government functions. This minimum requirement at least shows a good faith effort on the part of the individual to be a diligent member of society.
You make good points, though I'm sympathetic to the parent's point too.
In the very layered federal system we have in the US, it might be possible for us to have it both ways. Non-U.S.-citizens could be given a vote in local/municipal/county matters, but still not for national representation. (And some states might want to try out different levels of statewide enfranchisement.)
The problem with this is that you find yourself in a position where you're adding educational access as a means to manipulate the voting base. Want to disenfranchise people (as an example) from rural areas in your state over the long run? Funnel education funding away from school buses and into schools that offer wide varieties of academic programs (that can only be offered in large schools).
Before you say "that would never happen", the US has a long history of using literacy tests to disenfranchise voters, including many cases where those tests were applied unevenly or administered in ways that were openly discriminatory. [0]
All you really to do to fix that is have the ammendment require the test study material (small book) be provided via mail upon request. Or some other means. If you have an ammendment that requires this, anyone targeted by manipulation can sue for their constitutional rights. Most of the past manipulations are attacks on older laws that were less specific and required judicial interpretation to determine applicability.
Getting the study material in the mail doesn't help if your education system isn't equipped to teach people how to read (much less study the government).
You might or might not have noticed, but the politically and economically disenfranchised are not well-known for their access to legal recourse.
If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play. Not to mention, do we really want people like that voting? After all, that would make one ineligible to perform other duties which require basic english proficiency required of citizens (military drafts, jury). Rights come with responsibilities.
Lawyers would love to take a clear cut case on a contingent basis.
> If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play.
There are bigger issues at play [0]. Largely the echoing effects of white flight on second-tier cities, and politically motivated defunding of urban education. As with most of the other forms of systematic discrimination in our lives, there is always just enough plausible deniability to avoid judicial ramifications.
I'm all for doing everything we can to ensure the people voting in our elections are educated enough to make informed decisions. I just don't think we should be doing that by depriving people of the fundamental right (in our system) to elect their representatives.
That group is using a 5th grade reading level to indicate literacy. The citizenship test doesn't even require that level of literacy. Incorrect grammar and spelling are considered passing so long as the person can read and write well enough to communicate. A good gauge of that could be whether or not they can study from a book. I would be interested to see what percentage of illiterate people are voting now anyways.
The part of your comment that is a bit twisted is saying that we would be taking away someone's fundamental right under the current system. I'm not suggesting we take away anyone's current rights, but institute a new policy for future children to require the test for them. Under our current system the right to vote is only a right for citizens. As we wouldn't be removing anyone's citizenship, we wouldn't be stripping anyone of that right. Not to mention that the current test is allows some immigrants to vote and others not, due to literacy constraints. So why not extend that paradigm to people who are born here.
Finally, it seems the most important part of what I have said is consistently ignored - citizens have duties and to be a citizen one should be capable of performing those duties. That's a fundamental principle of democracy, as the people are the government. If being illiterate prevents one from being able to perform those duties, then they have have no reason to be afforded the privileges and specific rights from which they are derived (basic human rights would be intact).
If one can have all the rights and privileges of being a citizen without the responsibilities, why would they even want to be a citizen? What would being a citizen even mean at that point?
I can see where I was confusing. I meant that voting is a fundamental right in our system, not that our current system takes away that right.
In any case, I would consider a policy that removes the right to vote from a class of people to be taking away a right, whether or not you grandfather people in. In the long term, it's a regressive policy.
You still didn't get it. It's only a fundamental right in our system for citizens. There is no right for non-citizens. Nor have you provided any logic for why it makes sense to allow non-citizen voting.
It's not a regressive policy. That would mean we go back to the method of only land owners voting or excluding classes of minorities. This is simply validating that citizens meet the minimum requirements to be good citizens, something we already do for immigrants. This also does not discriminate against any class of people - the requirements would be the same for all and are easily achievable. This would actual make the granting of citizenship more equitable by making the process the same for everyone instead of the current process that differentiates between those born here and those not.
I'm also still waiting for your answers to my previous two questions.
Unpatriotic college grad here, I think you're missing the "most basic fact", that the government obviously doesn't work for you and me. What's the point of getting involved with all this political junk, spending my time on it, when they're all in it for themselves, for their donors? That's a real question that's totally legitimate for most people. They're busy, the issue isn't education, it's a totally corrupt system that works for the wealthy.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about non-electoral politics? I've found that sort of engagement is much easier to get traction for from normal people. It's easy to see the effects of your actions.
That disinterest is part of what drives the issue of poor electoral choices. The most radical candidates can draw the most support in primaries since the voter turnout is so low.
I also feel the disenfranchisement that you talk about. I think non-electoral civic engagement is also an important part. I try to write my representatives on some issues. It seems largely futile, but often times you get a more detailed response from them than you see I'm the media. I also try to right the wrongs I encounter in my community. For example, a police department was wrongly stating that a specific summary offense was a misdemeanor and I was able to correct that. I also encountered a state trooper that was doing things that violate civil rights, like lying to a judge. I filed a complaint and he was counseled (should have been fired but the investigator covered for him - only so far up the chain you can chase corruption before your life/safety becomes a concern).
But the government is supposed to work for you and me, at least indirectly. Mind you, if you get stopped for speeding and you say to the cop "Do you realize I'm paying your salary?" he's going to find 10 things wrong with your vehicle that you didn't know existed (a cop friend told me this years ago). But getting back to the main point, it is our government and we can take it back. It takes hard work and dedicated involvement, though.
Years ago, a bunch of reform minded Boomers moved into a dying neighborhood in north Boston (a city known for its corruption over many decades). They were well educated, affluent, and politically active. They banded together, went to meetings, made their voices heard, and after a time, city politicos became more responsive to them. They showed how democracy can work, if one puts in the time.
Once you own some property and raise a family, you will probably find that you need to become involved in local government to get what you need from it, as have millions of others.
What critical thinking is involved in believing the virus is real? Apart from those who made some independent study I would say there is little critical thinking at all... Just faith in the institution of government and press.
That you've made this point is part of the problem.
I'm judging that the virus is real and a problem based on having had it, knowing people who died from it, knowing other people who had severe symptoms, from knowing (via other acquaintances) what the hospitals in my area were like, and from seeing freezer trucks full of dead bodies in the streets. OTOH, I'm from an area that got crushed by the virus early.
I can't say for sure that if I were in an area that hadn't had much contact with the virus my "Critical thinking" hat wouldn't be saying, "wait, what if they're just telling us there's a virus outside to keep us locked up".
It's not an appeal to authority to tell you to trust in doctors that have been studying and fighting infectious diseases their whole life; for me, however, the fact that so many countries have independently developed their own testing methodologies; that certain quantitative elements of the virus - e.g. transmissibility, CFR - are relatively consistent, with outliers and anomalies having additional evidence to justify their uniqueness; and the unfortunate human toll of this is undeniable.
Believing that the virus is real means considering the possibility that the virus might be fake (manufacfured, overblown, non-existent, etc) and then discarding them based on critical thinking. I don't have to believe the US government to see how North Korea was one of the first countries to completely block Chinese people from entering the border. We could all see how quick New Zealand was to implement travel and tourist restrictions. One has to stop and think about why all these nations are doing things that are actively harmful to their bottom line. To actively look away from these facts is what gets you away from critical thinking. Listening to the government does not equal sheeplike blind acceptance despite what the conspiracy theorists might have you believe.
My only proof from personal experience was when my wife got it, and lost her smell. Never having heard of that symptom for flu before, that was my personal proof.
Until a colleague told me he lost his smell 2 years ago after a serious flu.
I still do believe the virus exists, but not having the equipment to look at it myself how can I be absolutely certain?
The problem is not everyone are the same. For example, regarding covid, for some people they think the risk is low, for some people they think the risk are high.
Some think the lockdown are worth it, some think the lockdown are not worth it.
Both are correct，it highly depends on your personal preference.
This will always cause conflict.
This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner.
Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.
> This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner.
> Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.
The problem is, for the most part, there's harm to democracy if no compromise is ever reached, and the "fight" on every issue becomes constant and intractable.
For instance, the fight around the response to COVID has pretty thoroughly undermined the response to it. You have people refusing to wear masks for the most part to just to say "fuck you" to the other side.
This kind of over-the-top fractiousness is a clear propaganda win for authoritarianism. China, for instance, is pretty effectively using it (and their corresponding success) to reduce the appeal of democracy among its people.
I think The fight is inevitable. Eventually winner will emerge, democracy doesn't care who the winners is and how it get there as long as both side still allowed to fight.
Even to reach compromise, fight may still be necessary.
>You have people refusing to wear masks for the most mart to just to say "fuck you" to the other side.
Mask has real downside (for some people), you can't just dismissed that (not just to say fuck you), although there is of course people like that.
Similarly, You have to acknowledge there also people who want to force other to wear mask to just to say "fuck you" to the otherside.
>>> One. Wearing Mask can be uncomfortable, and it is real downside (at least for me)
>> I'm sorry. Grow up. I wear a mask 8 hours a day. Surgeons do for longer. Is it really that much to ask? I honestly don't understand this mindset.
> Its fine for you doesn't mean its fine for other. Not everyone the same. Whether its too much or not can be different for different people. Its not hard to understand right?
Some people aren't fine having a DD or getting a taxi after a night out, and would rather drive themselves home drunk. Those people have a far greater likelihood of getting into a crash that kills themselves or others.
Your decisions and actions can have real consequences for others, it's not just about your personal preferences. Reflect on that and take the GGP's advice.
> Forcing other to wear mask has its consequences too.
As you've said before, people like you would be forced to wear something you think is uncomfortable. I'd even be forced to play the world's smallest violin for you.
The thing is, you have to weigh those consequences (ideally non selfishly), not just assert they exist.
So, one the one hand, you have minor inconvenience and intolerable oppression of having to think of others for even a second. On the other hand, you have hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths and the economic toll of a poorly-managed pandemic.
> You dismissed my concern as "minor inconvenience". I acknowledge that for you its minor but for me its major inconvenience.
I did, because your concern is something that should be dismissed. The hypothetical drunk driver I mentioned earlier almost certainly has similar rationalizations for his irresponsible behavior, too. But no one is swayed by his insistence that not driving drunk would have caused "major inconvenience" to him.
Refusing to wear a mask in this environment is like deciding to drive drunk. Don't be like a drunk driver, be a responsible person.
Covid related death is a highly inflated number, i mean it include people who die and happen to be tested positive for covid, not just die due to covid.
Okay. So, according to [0], about 6% of the covid related deaths have only covid as a cause.
According to [1], there have been 291,522 covid related deaths since Jan 21 of this year, and according to [2], there were 2,977 fatalities in 9/11.
All numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number. EDIT: Except for the 6% and final results, for obvious reasons.
291,522 * .06 = 17,491 deaths with no related comorbidity. This number happens to be still ~1.7 times the number of drunk driving related deaths in 2017.
Finally...
17,491 / 2,977 = 6 times the number of people who were killed by 9/11 with no comorbidities.
---
Now, lets do the math for this past week.
16,308 * .06 = 978.48 deaths with no comorbidities.
2,977 / 978 = 3 -- So last week was equivalent to one third of 9/11 for deaths with no comorbidities.
As deaths are expected to climb, we can expect to have at least the equivalent of 9/11 every three weeks for a while.
And none of this math includes those who were mostly fine, but happened to have a small condition that was lumped in, causing them to not be counted in the 6%.
So by your number, only 978 death last week ? Even if its true that is still such a low number and probably skewed towards old people.
With this number you want to have shutdown business, restrict business, prevent gathering, implement all those silly safety theatre for the rest of population? Yeah very very not worth it.
978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it.
Edit: And again, this number is with absolutely no comorbidities. Had diabetes for your whole life? not counted. Broke your arm? not counted. High blood pressure? not counted.
Plenty of people who would've lived decades more are not included in this number.
> With this number you want to have...
> shutdown business
Nope. I want masks and social distancing.
I recognize that businesses need to be open. Heck, I'm still working.
> restrict business
Depending on your point of view, yes.
Meaning that I think social distancing should be practised at all businesses, and people should decide themselves not to go to businesses that they don't have to. Note, this is "Free market" restriction, not government mandated.
> prevent gathering
Not precisely. I would say don't gather with people from outside of your region, and social distance when you do gather with people inside your region.
> safety theatre
Still waiting on a source for this, assuming you are talking about masks.
I haven't said anything about any measures other than the above, and masks to point.
>978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it.
Its still such a low number. There is no conclusive evidence that mask will reduce the death and even if wearing mask will avoid those 978 death, it still not worth it.
Don't get me wrong, reducing death is good and I will support it but not if it require forced mask/lockdown.
That being said, I can support voluntary mask recommendation though.
> no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.
Still need a source. I wasn't asking for a source on if they protect the wearer, I was asking for a source for "whether mask actually help with the pandemic"
I don't at all mind wearing a mask when I go out, and the risk of causing harm is higher now, but wouldn't "I would rather risk killing someone than having this piece of cloth on my face for a few hours" apply in December of 2019 for example? I think this is what makes the perceived seriousness of the virus such a central point of conflict, as it determines what people see as the appropriate level of response.
> I think this is what makes the perceived seriousness of the virus such a central point of conflict, as it determines what people see as the appropriate level of response.
I have to agree there. The hospitals in my hometown are getting to the breaking point, and people are dying. It seems reasonable to expect some sort of response under the circumstances.
> Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate.
I agree. I could also understand not being able to afford a mask.
Somehow I suspect that's not the case.
> You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask.
Disagree. Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?"
> Very much Yes
I have no words for this. You are either the best troll I've seen in a while, or are -- imho -- a ridiculously childish fool who is both weak, and hardhearted.
>Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?"
For some people, including me, its major discomfort and they never asked for protection.
You are trying to force your interest againts other people in interest, yes that is selfish too.
How is it a troll? It is true i find mask inconvenience and uncomfortable. Risk of seriously sick from covid ? very very low. Not sure what else to say.
It would be wonderful if epistemology was taught in schools and universities. But it would need to be embedded into every subject and focused on practical exercises. Whenever I've seen this sort of thing taught, the students learn about good reasoning methods, but they don't really internalise them.
Yes there ARE people that believe the virus isn't real, the same way there's people that believe the world is flat, but ironically I find your viewpoint about all the "stupid" virus doubters to be what's actually the real problem.
You'll say that Trump called the virus a hoax, or push narratives that imply there's actually any significant percentage of people that think the virus doesn't actually exist. You treat it in black and white, and ignore all the shades of gray and all of the extra dimensions to the issue. It's either "you're with me and everything I believe about every aspect of the issue" or "you're an evil stupid virus denier".
There's so much more to the issue than that, and 99% of the people you think believe the virus isn't real DO believe it's real, they just don't agree with you on how severe it is and how it should be responded to.
>But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school can't figure out why they should believe in the moon landings, or dinosaurs.
The problem is that "education" doesn't necessarily train people to think critically. Indeed, the current educational system often does the exact opposite. This becomes more apparent the farther you advance through the system. Success in most post-grad programs is primarily about a student's willingness and ability to absorb established dogma and conform to orthodoxy. Those who are not willing or able to conform (culturally, socially, politically and educationally) will find their academic progress severely inhibited at every turn and eventually find themselves on the outside looking in.
The paradox is that those in power do not (and have never) want a necessarily skeptical, inquisitive and free-thinking population. They want a docile population that is easy to control. A population that uncritically absorbs and believes whatever messages are disseminated by those in power. This system works well when you have a virtual monopoly on information, and all of the people get their information from ABC, CBS or NBC. It stops working so well when a decentralized system of spreading information comes along, whether its referred to as "the internet" or "social media", and suddenly you have a population that has been conditioned for generations to lack skepticism that is blasted with conflicting messages, ads and propaganda from all angles.
Those in power are now left with a problem that has two possible solutions. Either start a massive campaign where every man, woman and child is taught to be necessarily skeptical, to think critically in all things and reject all established orthodoxies, or to try to put the information genie back in the bottle. The former strategy (if successful) would lead to a population that is very difficult to control and govern. A society filled with critical thinkers and those who question and scrutinize every policy and every assertion by those in power (and everyone else). The latter strategy (the one that has been chosen) is to attempt to close down those decentralized systems of spreading information. Regain control over the information narrative through a massive censorship campaign where those who are not actively working to push the establishment narrative are silenced. Unfortunately, its clear which path our benevolent overlords have embarked on. Whether the excuse is, "hate speech" or "disinformation" or "foreign influence", the desired result is the same. Silence dissenting voices, regain the information monopoly, and feed the gullible dullards you have cultivated the diet of information that you wish them to consume. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), its always very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle - which is why we are seeing the battles over free speech, censorship and information control play out before our very eyes.
A lot has changed. If you didn't like a newspaper or a broadcast, you stopped seeing it. They built a reputation that they had to maintain somewhat. You knew most of the time who was behind each piece.
Now? You see content that a lot of people dislike because it generates controversy and engagement and attacks, lies get way more exposure than truths. A lot of publications come from unknown sources, with no reputation, so they can lie without consequences. You don't know who wrote something and the interests they might have.
> The best and only way to defend and nurture it is education. Teach people to think for themselves, critical reading,logic and analysis.
What is more probable, that social media has completely changed the type of content that people see or that education has plummeted in a decade or two?
Education is not the solution: no single person can be educated enough to make informed decisions on all the topics they are exposed to in a single day. We don't even have the time to do that! We need to revert the changes that social media has created in our information diet, that's the solution. And we need to start by forcing social media companies to stop maximizing engagement over everything, show people only the content they explicitly subscribed to (no 'look at this comment someone made on this post of a page you don't follow'), and stop editorializing the priority of that content via algorithms to maximize engagement.
The best thing for the people would be to re-assert control over what we see and how. That means a new level of control over the interface, filters and ranking of our feeds and search results.
Of course that would be the worst thing for Google, FB and Twitter (and their advertising clients) because they desire our attention more than anything.
I think control and availability is the key. People have lost a lot of control over what they say, but how much they see it. The average US adult in 2020 spends 8+ hours consuming TV and web media.
Like a sugar addition, we evolved in an environment where information could mean the difference between life and death, so we are hardwired to seek it out.
It takes a huge amount of self control to turn off the screens, but it is the best, and possibly only path forward.
There is no such thing as news anymore. It is infotainment designed to shock, outrage and be sticky for the sole purpose of selling advertising. Additionally, the FTC and SEC have failed us in letting such enormous consolidation. Just look at something like Parler that got popular for a hot minute but will fade back to obscurity whence it came. We need to start taxing advertising revenue aggressively to make disinformation more costly.
I suspect that Parler along with other alternative social media sites like Gab will be with us for a long time. They fill a need. If you've been banned from Facebook, you have to go somewhere and right now these alternative sites fill that gap. I don't see Parler having a billion users any time soon, though.
A very interesting story about democracy and its evolution is in Estonia's history.
Estonia in the early 20th century had one of the highest literacy rates in the world. When it first won independence around 1920, it formed a parliamentary democracy based on a constitution. A little while later, one party took over, and a new constitution was written that was much more authoritarian. The same leadership a little while later than that wrote another new constitution that was halfway between the first and second constitutions in terms of mix of democracy and authoritarianism.
Then the Soviets invaded, and democracy vanished until the early 1990s. At that time they regained independence and created their present government.
This is a huge oversimplification, but the four separate constitutions and the evolution of the Estonian system is fascinating.
Facebook is also a public forum. Normal folks talk about things they care about, including politics, on social media. Normal folks did not peer-to-peer discuss the sinking of The Maine in the pages of The New York Journal. So there was never the issue of The New York Journal promoting, hiding, or editorializing that peer-to-peer speech.
Filter bubbles existed before, but they were nowhere near as narrow as they are today. Only fifteen years ago it was normal for most people to either watch or at least be aware of the same shows (including nightly news) as their neighbours, work colleagues, and school friends. That is no longer the case at all.
I think a lot more attention needs to be paid to the ML recommenders that companies like Facebook are deploying, and the assumptions going into these algorithms, and the externalities they are creating. In my opinion they are playing a similar role in our social crises as the Gaussian copula played in the financial crisis.
Do you oppose health warnings on cigarettes? Food labels? Independent testing and verification of air and water? Safety testing for appliances and vehicles?
In your informed consumer advocacy, is there any room for shared responsibility?
What chance do individuals have against a corporate juggernaut's finely tuned outrage machine, exquisitely crafted to prey on human fallibility?
--
Sure, we've always had propaganda.
What's new with social media, like with personal computers and smart phones, is the convergence.
Now all the social pathologies (targeted ads, dopamine hits, crowd out authentic speech) are bundled together and monetized, begetting a positive feedback loop.
This is it right here. Most people are comfortable using the Times as a high quality news source, in spite of it's role in manufacturing consent for the Iraq war under false pretenses.
The bad behavior isn't the problem, the problem is that the current power players in media are now having to compete with Hungarian content farms and it's cutting into their market, with the added industry wide damage that the content farmers don't give a damn about covering their bad actions with good PR.
As much as people like to pretend otherwise, the mainstream media is still has reputation to maintain and a history of credibility or lack of credibility.
These are features alternate media outlets don't have concern for. They aren't driven by a subscription model based on whether or not they're generally accurate; they're based on an advertising model utterly detached from the nature of their content.
But that all requires an informed populace. The problem with Facebook (and others, of course) is that it warps all financial incentives for the publishers, while sapping revenue away from them.
Now if you want any revenue at all, which is required for surviving, you need to have clickbaity headlines so you can get traffic to your page. And even that assumes that certain news can find an audience; local news especially tends to fail in that regard because it by definition appeals to a smaller group of people.
Except for the fact with journalism you know who's responsible for the bit they publish. And that the publisher can't hide behind the fact that they're 'not responsible for user generated content'.
In most countries media is regulated, you're not allowed to advertise everywhere or publish lies.
When Facebook says 'free speech' they actually mean 'free enterprise'.
This can be true and still not move the needle. In traditional media, how many people seek out the opinion of the other side? Increasingly fewer. I would guess fewer than 10% of people try to find information disconfirming their beliefs on even an occasional basis.
That's not correct. There were staggering numbers of them. In 1900 there were 15 English language daily newspapers in New York City alone.
The problem with Facebook is monopolization. It's different when you have a ton of places that share information, and some of them are biased in one direction or another, versus when you have just one, and that one actively works to prevent other options from emerging.
There are far more news sources available today than in the 20th century. Not only can I read local newspapers and magazines from all over the world, which wasn’t easy to do before the internet, but also there are tons of new digital-only publications and millions of blogs.
In the 1990s in the US, before the internet took off, most people had access to one local paper (two in some cases), maybe an a few local magazines (include “alternative weekly” newspapers), a few local TV and radio stations, PBS and NPR, the 100 or so cable channels their local provider offered, the hundred or so magazines and newspapers the local Borders or Barnes & Noble sold, and whatever magazines and newspapers their library had in the periodicals section. And a lot of this media was owned by a few big corporations like Time Warner, News Corp, Condé Nast, etc.
> versus when you have just one, and that one actively works to prevent other options from emerging.
How has Facebook tried to prevent news outlets from emerging? They benefit hugely from news outlets, and kind of even depend on them for existence. They need the content for people to post and share. New publications like Vox probably owe some of their success to Facebook, and vice versa.
FB might have a lot of power to amplify traffic to certain publications (kind of like the big retail chains did in the 90s only more so), but that’s very different from actively preventing new news outlets from emerging.
There's both more and less news. Yes, I can now access all sorts of news worldwide which would have been difficult or inaccessible in the print era. But the newspapers in smaller markets are either disappearing or have greatly reduced capacity. It's much easier for me, in Kansas, to read about the current political struggles surrounding Brexit than it is about whatever my rural county is doing. There are rumors of corruption here. Certain decisions which are completely idiotic. But there's no one investigating. No newspaper or television willing to cover it in any detail. It's a black hole.
My situation isn't unique. This is the reality across much of the US. Not just the rural areas. There are many cities where cutbacks mean the local press doesn't cover the cops or the city council as much as they did in past decades.
There is a current federal legal complaint against Facebook with exacting detail about their anti-competitive practices, we don't need to speculate on this one. There are literally hundreds of numbered paragraphs each with a specific allegation of anti-competitive behavior.
That’s more a last 30 years or so phenomenon. Before that most major cities had at least 2 primary newspapers (often split on party lines). Most large cities had many more than that.
How does that compare to the number of daily facebook posters, tweeters, tiktokers, bloggers, youtubers, internet tabloids, and other media sources accessible to a new yorker today?
> The best and only way to defend and nurture it is education. Teach people to think for themselves, critical reading,logic and analysis. This is the best inoculation against totalitarianism.
I agree that education is one of the best ways to combat this problem. I don't necessarily agree it's the best one.
> Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment.
There's no reason why middle grounds don't exist. We can guarantee Free Speech without everyone having access to Instagram, FB, Twitter...
I bet most of the problems could be solved by making these platforms pay to use. Moderation loads would get reduced significantly. Excessive tracking would stop (because now ads are way harder to justify). Accounts would NEED to be somewhat verified by a payment, which makes it harder for trolls/manipulators/abusers of the platform to hide new accounts etc.
The best and only way to defend and nurture it is education.
If one accepts this premise, it's important to pay attention to who is advocating for and making it easier to get an education, vs those who downplay its importance, let it get prohibitively expensive or put up other roadblocks.
I agree but it is important to understand the psychological need to have your biases confirmed and your prejudices reinforced often overrides all logic and reasoning.
"The best and only way to defend and nurture it is education."
This is really the core of the issue. I was going to add "and allow for competitive market", but that's going to be derivative of a truly educated population regardless.
Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment.
Democracy has always been fragile, barely functional, easily corrupted, warped by money. The best and only way to defend and nurture it is education. Teach people to think for themselves, critical reading,logic and analysis. This is the best inoculation against totalitarianism.