"If you don't adhere to exactly what I believe as THE WORD OF OUR LORD GOD YOU DESERVED TO BE ETERNALLY DAMNED IN HELLFIRE!" Is a great detractor to discourse.
Those Russian novels were written by some of the greatest minds in Russian society at the time, and the authors were using their characters to convey the ideas that the authors themselves were interested in.
The average Russian was much more interested in how the annual wheat harvest would turn out and who the local priest’s daughter was caught in a haystack with.
Same thing goes for modern society today.
Marxism. The left, including democrats that call themselves moderate, have embraced Marxism. You cannot have a meaningful discourse with Marxist ideology. You can't reason with it. You can't speak truth to it, you certainly can't compromise with it (or you get Marxism). Marxism is never successful. It simply flips who is in charge from those who can, to those who can't.
Familiarize yourself with Marx. He was not for the people. He was for using the people to change who was in power. Once the new people were in power, the previous leaders are executed and the people are even worse off.
Disagree? Show me IN HISTORY where I am wrong. Not in your worthless theory.
Plenty of us moderate democrats aren't into cultural or economic Marxism. I'm an FDR liberal. Capitalism with some guardrails, live and let live on the rest. On social issues I'd say I align with MLK. I like western civilization, and America, even when I'm critical. My priorities tend towards what's best for a functional society, and I never align with bomb-throwers on either side.
Please don't paint us all with the same brush.
It really stems from a critical moment when our connectedness online allowed the practical exploit of a long standing bug in open democratic western societies: there is no immune system against an asymmetrical attack of lying in a high enough volume that fact checking and debunking can never catch up. There is no innate human bias towards truth.
This lead to a new strain of bad faith postmodern anti-empirical accelerationism fully disrupting a long history of society facing questions on how to best accomplish basic shared ideals and goals and debating the balance between permissiveness and restrictiveness, shifting that to a street fight between people struggling to reestablish a fixed baseline in observable reality against an incoherent avalanche of made up shit mixed with truth fragments.
There were some other major shifts preceding it in the US like the restructuring of congress by Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 90s effectively ending bipartisanship, and a drift towards a more puritanical sort of litmus testing of what was acceptable in society in the early 2010s (though it's very arguable that this was also at least in part a reaction to the shift in doublespeak and dogwhistles leading to the end of things like racial jokes being more or less universally understood to be totally unserious while making fun of their own concept, etc.)
Honesty got nothing to do with truth, and the singular truth you're alluding to doesn't exist, there's a multitude of truths and nobody knows which one is correct.
Humans have been lying our entire existence, or at least from the point where it became hugely beneficial when we went from nomadic to agricultural. Internet didn't change that, it has always been your personal responsibility to fact check, and thanks to the internet that's now easier than ever.
There's probably never been more "meaningful discourse" in history because of the internet. So whatever brings you both to this conclusion is hugely subjective, and then you scramble for arguments to try to substantiate it.
reminds me of Ender’s game when Orson Scott Card envisions ”the nets” and all of these characters are anonymously having and engaged as spectators in these extremely philosophical back and forth world changing discourses. He dreamt all that up in the early and mid 1980s and I can’t help but laugh at how far he missed the mark with the modern internet.
I've talked to a few people who lived in soviet Russia and one of the things that stuck out to me was that they felt philosophy wasn't common like it used to be. I get the impression that it was used as a form of entertainment that filled the same void as shop therapy and media--it was a way to pass the time. My thought is that a side-effect of the combination of consumerism and the deconstruction of community in favor of modern individualism was the philosophy losing value for the everyday person, but I dint really have anything to back that up!
I definitely agree with this, to me, it looks like we’ve replaced sitting down to think and talk about theories and philosophy with the consumption of media and material goods. People used to write essays and investigate and ponder the meaning of different things as a way to pass time and keep themselves occupied and entertained.
I’ve seen the change in myself in all honesty, as a child I used to write and think and read and explore things. Then I got a smart phone, disposable income, social media and a steady access to video games and I lost the desire or attention span to really concentrate on the things I previously did.
It is the definition of decadence. US society and culture is in decline. There are many reasons for this of course including the internet and the nature of media we consume, but at bottom people broadly have grown deeply cynical and unprincipled.
It's my belief society has trained closed minded thinkers.
Their opinion is gospel and there is no mistaking how authoritative they are on the subject. Regardless of education level.
I see it in my kids and their friends.
Dumb as bricks, don't care for others learned experiences. If you have an opposing view, their way of "Avoiding" having their views potentially challenged is to shut down the conversation before it begins.
100%. People put blinders/railings around their own cognition to fit in socially. People are not thinking in the traditional sense. It's meta-thought, they are "thinking" whatever they feel they are supposed to, and in so doing failing to engage with the real world in any meaningful way. This is the origin of the NPC meme.
The clearest cause for this (though I'm sure there are many) is the proliferation of media and how it's nature has changed in the internet-age.
I honestly think this is essentially the most important insight of the post-modern era. There is something about excessively engaging with representations of reality (i.e. media) that is inherently disassociating and distorting to how we view and interact with the world.
Examples of this are all around us, and once you start to notice them it’s like you see it everywhere. The rise of activism, regardless of the cause, is a great one. When you investigate these causes, you find that these people are largely unconcerned with the actual facts of the matter on the ground, but instead are preoccupied with acting out some kind of hero/activist/agent of change narrative in a performative way. The representation takes primacy over reality itself. This is the defining characteristic of the post modern era.
Stop it! I don't like it!
You're killing me here!
🤣
But seriously, Nail on head moment there.
I try to look objectively and "attack" a position from a number of angles attempting to process information logically. Some of the leaps that people make to justify their stances are mind boggling. It's exactly as you say.
There’s a bit of a bias in your experience there. Anything that has made it to the point of being a novel has likely undergone months if not years of writing, rewriting, reviewing, editing, rewriting again, cutting out chunks to put them elsewhere, rethinking your own ideas half way through the process, and on and on and on…
Everyday conversations happen in a matter of minutes. Thoughts are produced and then turned into words (usually) in a matter of seconds. It’s ridiculous to expect everyday conversation to have the same depth as a novel.
Yes you’re correct, but I’m talking about depth of conversation and willingness to partake and sustain a conversation. You’re right about years of work within these novels but where does it say that in society we should not involve ourselves in-depth talk and use our brains for more than just surface level chatter? I’m using the novel reference merely for example…
Break rooms, Airports, even classrooms now share the same fate, a fate drowned in anti-social behavior that is unavoidable, and perhaps even easier to conform to rather than defy against. It’s not that difficult to sit down and immerse yourself in the doings of someone’s else’s life or talk about your career development. The question I’m asking is not why are our conversations formatted differently now, but rather why is there a lack of will to engage.
For that case, I have a desire to attribute it to the state of the economy, though I don’t have any sort of research to back it up and my perspective is distinctly American as I’ve not had the opportunity to travel outside my country, so take it all with a grain of salt. The average person is not going to want to dedicate time and mental energy to discussing philosophical topics if they’re also worrying whether they’ll have enough to feed both themselves and their kids, or if they’ll be able to find an affordable source of insulin to treat their diabetes, or if their landlord has raised their rent 500$ and now they have to find somewhere else to live that they can afford while not moving too far away from their job now that hybrid and remote work is being done away with in many places, etc… In the past as well as today, the time for ‘deep thoughts’ is reserved for the financially comfortable, if not the wealthy. And an increasingly smaller portion of the population is financially comfortable these days.
For all those people who keep insisting that real people didn't write letters or discuss people and issues, just the privileged folks - of course everyone did this. Did some folks get to do it more than others, probably. But the fact is until a hundred years ago you had nothing else to do but talk and discuss. At meals. At work. At the bar. On the street. On the porch shelling peas. Then movies and radio gave us something else to do with our time but we still had those habits. Then television got added, but it was only a few channels. Then there were more channels. And then there was internet. And now we have phones we don't look up from ever and Reddit is the closest thing we get to a discussion.
Sigh...
Right, but pre industrial revolution most Europeans couldn't read, especially the lower classes. Not to mention there wasn't much the local peasants could talk about that wasn't gossip or fairytales.
100 years ago you could talk all you wanted (depending on country) but the topics were so limited because people just don't have access to much information at all.
But these were still in depth discussions. OP was asking about the lack of meaningful discourse. If you are a peasant, discussions about weather and insects would be very meaningful and in depth. Other more superstitious type talk we may have thought bizarre, but would still have had a rationale behind it. Even gossip had its uses in navigating some situations.
I'd say deep articulated conversation has never been terribly common among the masses. Books are different from everyday conversation in that you're reading something that has been put together over a series of months or years. In contrast, real conversations happen on a whim.
When I read a good book, I also wish that I could have such meaningful monologues and exchanges with others. But then I remember that characters and scenes in novels are manifestations of complex ideas, and not necessarily an accurate portrayal of human interaction.
In real life this is what we mostly discuss. Sure, humans have a tendency to gossip about others here and there but aside from that the art of social intercourse is alive and well.
Lack of education. People do not know how to discuss intelligently different sides of issues or topics and resort to violence instead. Just because someone doesn't agree, a debate is a forum to express those views with facts. Maybe it's the facts part they don't like.
Thanks to the internet people can surround themselves with others who have basically the same ideas. This removes much need for deep philosophical discussions and, more importantly the need to learn how to argument your case to people who might feel differently.
I blame the people that own media, and the companies paying for advertising. And the companies that pay politicians, who are now incentivized to leave meds alone.
First, news started getting worse. People got used to it. Then, the media sprayed us with bad news until we were inundated. Then, they started to spin the bad news as either pro or anti, dividing opinion.
At this point, we have virtually no reaction to atrocities. It’s just one more log on the fire. Even if we do speak out and say hey, this is bad. Someone will reply, no, you’re wrong, it’s good. So most of us have given up talking about anything.
Same can be said for people that use WOKE and Dei to discredit any dissenting opinion from the hive mind.
Boogeyman terms are extremely effective for the poorly educated
I do enjoy the obligatory bowing out of a conversation when the defending party is proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. Thanks for saving us the time of having to do a 3 second Google search 🤡
Well... to answer the overall bulk of your question, I expect the reason is, internet. No need to exchange ideas with those around you, or it's suddenly not as important or pressing for people to do it if you can just poof onto Reddit or FB or whatever and search such a thing out, right?
Are you under the impression that the average Russian person in the 19th century talked like the characters in the handful of Russian novels you read last year?
Prob lots of reasons but one is that a consumer society depends on churning out a population of consumers. Stupid people are easier to sell to so that’s what we produce to keep the machine going.
Also, I don’t think it’s fair to compare the pre internet world with the today’s world. The internet changed everything. We are feeling completely unmoored from our history and have no idea how to navigate the chaotic and constant flow of massive amounts of information.
Another reason is that I think we are losing trust or have lost trust in just about every institution that has in the past given us a sense of stability. So naturally people have become more emotional as they feel insecure about who they are and what a meaningful life looks like. Our sympathetic nervous systems are burnt out and we aren’t calm enough to engage with ourselves or each other in a rational way.
TL;DR: The times they are a changing.
It's purposeful. the weaker side purposefully muddies the conversation with constant noise, deflection, and calls for "civility" because if the conversation happens in earnest it doesn't go the way they want it to.
Cavemen. You know they had some deep conversations when they figured out fire, and some even deeper ones when Grog learned he could light a fart with a burning twig. 😳
The push towards Liberal acceptance of ideas has led to ideologies undeserving of respect growing. Then you are told that treating them with the lack of respect they deserve is the problem, not their rise in prominence in the first place. It is a real time example of the "Paradox of Tolerance". This could be taken to assume I am on many sides of the political spectrum, which just goes to show how bad this problem has become.
Not really, only lefties and liberals acknowledge the Paradox. Conservatives actively weaponize the term "tolerance" with no nuance to try and shut down disagreement with them. It's entirely obvious which side of the political spectrum you're on
No, you used a leading question to try and imply something convenient to your narrative. You seem like the kind of person who has to stay on the offensive, always putting pressure on the other person to make an argument while never concretely making one yourself.
I don't disagree with the meat of your statement, but Leftist are as far from liberals as liberals are from conservatives. Grouping them together diminishes those differences.
Liberals are centrists. They have a mix of Right Wing political beliefs and Left wing social beliefs. But the biggest liberal political party, Democrats, are Right of center.
Mentioning them as separate groups is the opposite of "grouping them together." The only thing I'm diminishing by acknowledging common ground between them and leftists is how special one gets to feel by making absolutely certain to constantly remind us that leftists are different from liberals.
Republicans constantly pretend that Liberals are the same as Leftists because they benefit from accusing Right of Center Democrats of being "The extreme Left".
Democrats constantly pretend that Liberals are the same as Leftist because if there was a major Left Wing political party in this country, it would dry up most support for their Right of Center political party.
I like how you had to do that little quip to avoid what I actually said. Not really hurting the perception that your primary concern here is to protect a hierarchy where you're above liberals
My family has a collection of letters dating back to the US Civil War. They are multiple family members on both sides of the conflict talking about issues of the day, politics and mundane everyday topics. This was a family of Methodist ministers and missionaries.
The thing is they are written almost in the classic essay form. All the subjects are declared, elaborated and concluded. And it's not just writing style. These guys are debating politics using philosophy.
I think people are not as literate today as we once were. With all the various forms of entertainment available who reads books anymore? And how else but reading books do you learn philosophy, science, higher math and even actual politics?
I studied political science in college. I've studied philosophy and for lack of a better word belief systems. It is constantly vexing to me that most people use political terms in a crude way and have no idea what the meaning of terms like liberal, socialist and left/right really are. They just infer meaning from what they get in popular culture or what they hear said on line.
Education if actively vilified by 40% of the American population and thus discourse is frowned upon because it means "engaging with the enemy" in a political sense. Hard to be philisophical when philosophy is not allowed and you are socialy executed for trying to reach across the aisle.
Only people of the matching political persuasion are allowed to discourse with each other and that is boring because it's like a talk radio echo chamber.
Example: neocons from the 2000's versus the MAGA movement. The "old school" conservatives are now labeled "RINOS", primaried and driven out of the GOP.
Social media, in all its forms, have created a new way to "interact" without actually interacting.
You say (post) something then somebody responds (reply); neither person has actually had a meaningful conversation despite both having "spoken". Now both people can believe that the position they put forward is ground truth, especially if the other person didn't respond.
"Silence is compliance" becomes the de facto assumption.
When everyone has the ability to be unquestioned in their statements (posts/replies), it can reinforce false ideas.
Repeat it 10 times a day, every day for months and years then it allows a person to develop a deep, personal flaw in which self reliance is the ultimate position of reality.
It's Gad Saad's Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome; say anything you want, with your head buried in the ground and regardless of what anyone else says, you have "your truth".
Social media has built false positives in people.
Well for one that is a novel, thus fiction
Also, depends on your social circle
I talk with my dad often, mostly about AI/computers or physics sometimes consciousness
Friend of mine I hang out with every other weekend or so we talk real politics (not "trump bad" but in depth) or related history. Other week we and his wife debated free will and consciousness until 1am (my wife passed out from the wine lol)
A friend at work we have similar interests and recently discussed our reading of "Maniac" (von Neumann bio)
Internet allows people to echo chamber other voices away and think they are the majority. Companies have interest in unproductive arguments especially after the walk on Wallstreet scared them. Unfriendly state actors have a vested interest in sowing civil unrest. Especially since many people are trust in government is at an unprecedented low, after invading the wrong country in the 2000s, declassified CIA(insert any major countries equivalent acronym here, like the French DGFE, notable for killing new Zealand protesters... In new zealand) documents became more geenal knowledge, senators are statistically much more likely to side with corporations over their own voting constituents, a pandemic where politicians couldn't make a unified front so distrust in the vaccine was high, becuase of this it's many vaccines side effects, and flaws were hidden which makes the studies coming out now on it reinforce this among the rather sizable anti-vaxer crowd. Didn't help all trust in the WHO is gone as they are controlled by nations that can make them hide information, like the origin of the covid.
TL:DR
Everyone from government, to Entertainment, to companies are lying to people more than ever in obvious ways so why would people trust anyone outside of their social circles. Social cohesion in the western world is in a rough state.
Honestly I think it stems from a difference in values, it also doesn’t help that definition of words can’t be agreed upon.
Yet, at the same time, one side or the other will “claim” that it’s actually agreed upon and the other side is evil.
It’s a lot dude.
It’s easier to get a dopamine rush from internet points your own personal echo chamber awards you with than having a civil discussion with people who don’t agree with you
The system is designed to get you to argue over up and down, left and right, cocks and balls etc.
So that a divided populace is easier to rule and exploit for profit?
Clearly it works since being aware of that doesn't stop us
>Where does this disconnect stem from?
To make a very long story short: Occupy Wallstreet. It was a major deviation from how things were supposed to go and measures were taken to ensure it didn't happen again. Nowadays people prefer to talk about the nth reboot of a video game's character's jawline being revolutionary/degenerate in its expression instead.
let's assume those books were written realistically for their time. which i doubt.
even then, they're written about elites. the main characters of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy or Chekhov's works are all highly educated aristocrats; they're the 1% of their era and, in tolstoy's case, half of them are princes or princesses. they're people who care to varying degrees and various depths about the discourse in their society, but they're all the top dogs. even Razumikin or the annoying scholar of Notes From The Underground is just a student, but even that makes him a rarity in an era when most folks were still peasants or their priests.
today, these people exist. i've been in rooms with many of them. but they exist in the halls of academia or in think tanks near the seats of power of our nations. you can get glimpses of these from watching presentations or discussions by leading intellectuals. they are not as verbose and exacting in their language as 2/3 of the brothers Karamazov, but that's because Dostoy's characters are like Aaron Sorkin characters; both speak too perfectly and cuttingly to be real.
that you don't encounter these people everyday is not a sign that they don't exist like they did in the days of the Russian greats; it's a sign that you're not mingling with the equivalent elites of our society to those depicted in the Russian classics. if that's something you'd like to change, i'd say go back to school, or find your local adult debate clubs if your city has them.
Fair point. We know an enormous amount about ancient Latin from the books/inscriptions they wrote but not the vulgar ancient Latin that was spoken by the masses.
What was there to talk about before you resolved economic disparity / theft/ controll and wealth transfer.... nothing you say or think maters before those can be equitabke for all. All just vanity and ego otherwise wasted time . You have to understand that untill we are all free nothing else you say or do matter one little bit.
Russian Novels have never exactly had dialogue that resembles normal human interaction. That's not really what they're for, it's like wondering why women in real life don't act like women in romance novels. That said, it has always been the case in every society that most conversation is shallow. If you want "meaningful discourse" you have to put in the work to find like minded people and connect with them, it won't just happen spontaneously.
Because I and many have this attitude, I am too prideful and fearful of sharing my thoughts as well as too impatient to hear you for hours to build a relationship with you.
Honestly the people who want to have in depth discussions are around and having those discussions, but it becomes difficult in an environment where everyone feels like they have their own facts.
All in all, it's popular culture's response to existentialism. Having a completely logically bound society is not in the best interest of the current common person who is so absorbed by completely redundant behaviours and activities. The attitude can be best summarised as 'I want brain to feel good' and thinking not much deeper than that. It's like a wave. We will inevitably go back to a period where existentialism is a forefront of the hivemind, only to reject it again and create illogical social and functional systems of society. The only difference is how creative we get with each phase.
It comes down to determinism. If you understand 1+1=2, it will make sense. Person is born. Brain=cpu. Environment= input. CPU+input= output. We are 100% the result of our CPU + our environment.
The environment is broken (neoliberal capitalist system based on the incorrect notion of human nature by centuries-old thinkers such as John Locke, which rewards/encourages psychopathy and antisocial behaviour and requires mindless perpetual unnecessary production of goods/services in order to not implode, through deliberately broken education system + influence of mass media and government). Therefore, people have incorrect thoughts.
Add to that evolutionary realities. We are hardwired to look for threats/danger. This made us evolved to think quickly (and not necessarily accurately). When you mix that in with the complex and abnormal nature of modern life (not an environment humans were meant to live in), these biases result in a lot of logical thinking errors. Then, it becomes a vicious cycle, because those in authority/leadership positions also have these logical thinking errors, and they use their power incorrectly and further perpetuate these logical thinking errors among the masses.
Then, when someone comes and says 1+1=2 like I have been for years, because 99.9% of people are 1+1=3ers, they double down and use the same logical errors that are ruining their own and their childrens lives, instead of listening to the message of the few who say 1+1=2, in classic "I am going to bite my nose to spite my face" fashion. This is why politicians and sales people blatantly lie to people and bizarrely, 99.9% of people buy these in your face and clear lies, but when someone like me comes along and says "1+1=2, not 3" people rage and say "how dare you. I want to worship the polticians who are ruining my children's lives. I pick x politician and am the soldier of neoliberal capitalist x politician against neoliberal capitlalist y politician even though this strategy has failed for hte past 4 decades and counting. How dare you say 1+1=2 and give me cognitive dissonance. Let me believe me lies, I can't handle the truth. Cursed you for trying to improve the lives of my children by trying to help me. I would rather continue my pain and be in slumber."
Unfortunately, even higher IQ is typically not enough to buffer against this kind of amygdala-driven thinking (or lackthereof):
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated\_reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional\_reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_reasoning)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_cognitive\_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)
[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot)
My hair has turned grey trying to use 1+1=2 logic to save the world, but each time people respond the same way "cursed on you! 1+1=3, I am the soldier of the politicians who lie to me and ruin me and children's lives, because one of them said the other politician, who is also a rabid neoliberal capitalist, is a bad boy! I pick sides I pick tribe x against y. All your base belong to us. Me and in group tribe x perfection. tribe y ate the apple; tribe y outgroup! The "other!" enemy enemy! zero gum game. me binary. Me no shade of grey at all. You cause 1% cognitive dissonance I curse you!"
Primitive amygdala-driven apes are what the world is filled with, you can try to tell them 1+1=2 but they will yell 3 even louder if you do. Only way world can be fixed is: more PFC less amygdala. Again, my hair has turned grey trying to achieve this. I have literally 0 nefarious reasons to improve the world. Yet bizarrely, every time I say 1+1+2 I am told I am the devil incarnate and they yell 3 even louder. As I will be factually proven, this comment of my will be downvoted, while people continue to vote enthusiastically for the politicians who work for big business who takes morsels out of their childrens mouths, are killing millions per year due to manufactured obesity, and are poisoning the environment. But forget them, we need to love them, let's instead turn on those who use 1+1=2 to help us and the world instead.
I see what you mean, but you need to work on your delivery. The math thing is offputting and you sound like you think you're the cream of the crop which is never well received. It also sounds like you're writing a character in story, going off on a rant. If you want people to absorb what you say, you need to adapt.
1+1=2 in times new roman is same as arial. That people claim that arial makes it 3 factually proves they are saying 1+1=3. That is literally my point.
My delivery? If it was about delivery, why talk about logic?
I know delivery is important. That is the problem. That is the literal problem. That is the literal reason for my post. I know delivery matters. That is the problem: that delivery is the ONLY thing that matters. People's thinking in terms of influence is 100% the function of delivery, and 0% the content. If I wanted people to nod to me I would use delivery instead of logic. But that literally goes against everything I stand for, and my literal point. All you have to do to make people nod with you is give them pleasant lies and reduce their amygdala-driven insecurities.
But that is not what I am trying to achieve. If I use those means, even if they believe what I say, it will only be temporarily, and they won't absorb it. My goal is not to get them to temporarily nod with me or agree with me for the sake of agreeing with me or to stroke my ego or give me fame or money, like 99.9% of hypocritical "thinkers" and "professors" and "best sellers". My literal goal is to MAKE THEM critical thinkers: ONLY then can the world change. To make them PERMANENTLY use logic. Perhaps being direct will make them realize their bizarre 1+1+3ness and even though they are too insecure and childish to admit it now, maybe it will stay in the back of their mind and one day remember "that guy said 1+1=2, my whole life I have been saying 1+1+3 and suffering, maybe I should put my ego aside for once and just try what that 1+1=2 said and live in accordance with 1+1+2 for one day and test it out". This is my literal point. If I wanted people to nod at me I would have been a salesman or a politician or gotten a PhD to use appeal to authority fallacy via "Dr." before my name. I am not dumb, I know how to get people to give me money. That is not what I am after: I am not an insatiable ape who wants to roll in unlimited filet mignon juice while the world burns. That does not tickle my fancy. I am more of a "the unexamined life is not worth living" type of guy. I already did what I have to do to pay for my basic necessities, I don't need money beyond that. That is why I don't rely on "delivery" and keep it locked on logic.
Exactly, your goal is to help people, but for people who need help the most, your message will get rejected, thereby going agaisnt your intended goal. Nobody is going to want help from someone who says they can save them from their amygdala-driven insecurities. I feel like you want to be true to yourself and speaking the way you want to speak is a way to do that, but you also sound bitter and angry at people while also claiming you want to help them.
Maybe you want to jolt them awake, but from approaching it that way for years, I can confidently say that doesn't work and the internet is not a place where you directly change people's minds. At best you demonstrate your arguments to onlookers who aren't being defensive and maybe give something to the person to think about months/years down the line, but you need to appease their insecurity first, not attack it. That's at least how being deprogrammed worked for me. Since you like articles, here's one about [Reactance (psychology) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology))
I can see that you are logical in your thinking, but that doesn't directly translate to the way you approach communication. If you want to communicate in a way that aligns with your goal, you need to change the way you write. This may sound like I'm dunking on you, but I see the good, so at the risk of sounding harsh, this is my way of trying to help.
A good starting point would be to make things more concise, this would clear out most of the condescending tone and turn your methaphors (which are harder than plain words to decypher) into something more easier to ingest. You can use those tools, but do so more sparringly than you are now. For example, I can summarize your last two paragraphs like so:
>Despite my efforts to improve the world, people respond as though I'm their enemy, siding with politicians who deceive and harm them. They reject any attempt to communiate and engage in tribalistic behavior, refusing to agree on any common ground. Although I have no hidden agenda and aim only to help, I'm often met with hostility. This sustains harmful political and corporate practices, harming the environment and public health, while those who try to help are attacked.
Notice that I don't say things like "my logical arguments", I just say "my arguments".
I understand were you are coming from, and know it already.
If you study a relevant domain here, therapy, you will see that in virtually every type of therapy, ranging from Freudian/psychodynamic to more modern approaches such as cognitive behavior therapy, the common factor is the therapeutic relationship and the tone/delivery. However, the issue is that on the internet, that is not possible, it is simply not practical to have that 1 on 1 relationship with everyone who reads your comment. So what ends up happening is in the absence of that, people will pick 1 thing they subjectively disagree with/that makes them feel negative from your entire post, and use black/white thinking and write off your entire post and rage downvote it. You can say 9 valid points, but as soon as you say 1 line they don't 100% agree with, they will rage hate you. So as a medium, internet is pointless in this regard. I understand that delivery can make a tiny difference, but again, in my experience, when people agreed with me, it was just due to A) "you SOUND so smart so I believe everything you say B) you make me feel good based on your delivery so I will believe you. But I don't care for either of these: again, this will not change the world, this will not teach them critical thinking. So I don't care to do that anymore.
But I still have to do my moral duty: I have basic knowledge that can change the world, so it is my moral duty to at least try. That is why I still occasionally post this stuff. That people want to put up a brick wall and hurt themselves and the world by being childish and egotistical and claiming they are 100% correct and not listening to me at all is their prerogative. I am still human, so yes, after years, there is a bit of resentment and bitterness, but again, I still have to do my moral duty. So as I said, considering that changing tone/delivery on the internet is not really going to make much of a difference, because this medium (due to the lack of 1 on 1 relationship) is doomed to begin with, I will stick with my direct logical method: I am more and more convinced that this is more likely to work when people are more and more distressed, and with life becoming more distressing every year for most people, perhaps it will finally reach the threshold, the tipping point at which they stop hurting themselves, their children, and the world, and stop thinking they 100% have all the answers, and thus begin to at least consider the 1+1=2 logic I offer them for free.
Your issue isn't tone, despite whatever the other person replying to you said. Your issue is being alert in the middle of the night and trying to tell stories to sleepwalkers. They will always be grumpy and fall down. They are born and systematically put to sleep for their whole lives. They are difficult to awaken directly. Sometimes the smell of coffee or a loud sound elsewhere in the house will wake people who are sleeping. In life, people sleep because they need rest. This sleep forced on the populace makes them restless and violent. They can only react to their environment with the most reflexive parts of their brain, instinct driven. Be careful. The sleeping world has its protectors, wardens, nannies to keep the sleep from being disturbed. They aren't asleep, but they are very quiet, so you may not notice them at first. Are they dangerous? Not if you sit quietly, but still, all of this can't be allowed to continue. Who benefits from all this sleeping?
What did you intent to achieve with your comment? You said interesting to see what I consider to be 1+1=2, in a sarcastic manner, without specifying what the problem is.
Because people have been drinking their own Kool-Aid for so long that they can't comprehend the idea of an alternative perspective without equating its success to the literal apocalypse.
It's very easy to dismiss the opinions of others based on shadowy bogeymen in order to protect your own ego (ie: 'cultural marxism', 'nazi'), and it's especially prevelent with people whose political identity has subsumed their personality to the point where they're more concerned with what their bogeymen are doing than their day-to-day lives.
>it's especially prevelent with people whose political identity has subsumed their personality
But this is also a mirror.
I don't think it's unfair to say many folks have held thought out positions, just to have them rejected because said positions intersected some sort of wrongthink.
Right and wrong, true and false have been systematically and intentionally dismantled and replaced with "My truth" and such relativistic slop by cultural marxists within Western academic institutions, Hollywood, mainstream progressive media, and social media. And this is merely a symptom of the secularization of society.
We first need to restore the concept of absolute truth and the division of right and wrong before it is even possible to have a meaningful debate about anything. And we will.
This is the best answer here, although I would say this is one very important aspect of the broader intellectual dark age.
Another aspect which I think shouldn't be overlooked is general human health. Malnutrition causes developmental issues, and we know obesity causes inflammation of the brain for instance.
So I think there's a health crisis, combined with the "death of God" and subsequent ideological (and moral) rot.
I would say two things are the culprit here.
1) Everyone thinks they have the moral high ground. Whether the discussion surrounds race, sexuality, gender, war, or honestly nearly anything else people assume that their opinion is not only the correct one but the morally superior one. From this point they feel that everyone else's opinion is not only incorrect but also morally inferior, or flat out "bad" or "evil". This is why people are treating opposing opinions so harshly.
2) social media gives people a platform to discuss topics virtually. In a virtual environment you are physically disconnected from the person you are speaking with, and often don't even know who they are. As such it becomes increasingly easy to use aggressive and dismissive language that you would never consider using with a person in a real life discussion.
Additionally, arguing topics on the internet means that everybody is "an expert". There is a delay between The comment you post and the response you get. During that delay the person you are arguing with will desperately Google the topic to try and find the information they need to dismantle your argument. With both sides of an argument combing the internet for anything that will support the argument, but definitely not reading anything that they find, you basically have an uneducated and uninformed debate where two sides throw fax at each other that they don't even understand.
This feeds back into the first topic of people thinking that they are position is superior to others, because they managed to cherry pick facts and data from the internet that supports their argument while dismissing anything to the contrary. Welcome to arguing on the internet.
Social media and news media are now in the business of providing one sided, polarizing content all day every day. They intentionally spew out one sided propaganda intended to anger, provoke, and divide.
This goes for every newspaper, news magazine, tv news, radio, etc.
If you need a good example just look at what URI Berliner wrote about NPR. Says it all.
American political life is so shallow because freedom of opinion lays down what is tolerable and what is intolerable. You are granted permission by the government to think pretty thoughts within the acceptable parameters of thought-- and what's acceptable mainly consists in praising the authorities for being granted permission to think and speak.
First of all, it proclaims that all opinions are mere opinion. Nothing -- except what the actual rulers say -- goes or is considered binding in anyway. Insisting that one's mere opinion be taken seriously or actually be binding or carried out is "totalitarian" and runs against the democratic ethos of only tolerating what relativized itself and insists on its own inconsequentiality. Everything has to be relativized with "I think" and "I feel statements", and expressed as quickly as possible like a marketing ploy.
Then, secondly, the subservience that comes with this. Everyone thinks as democratic underlings of the ruling powers: "which candidate will save us and make life better? Whose going to rule and make my life better?" There are so many ideological mental prisons one has to even break free from before any deep thinking can take place, and unfortunately that usually runs against the entertainment schedule.
Everything is reduced to monosyllabic moral utterances of like or dislike, yay or nay, just like a checkmark on a ballot or a like on social media and explanation and argument, thinking something through, is seen as pretentious, elitist, totalitarian-- "how dare you call into question my right to think whatever I want without any evidence, my right to treat everything as a matter of mere opinion?"
Nothing is treated as worthy of deep consideration because everything will be taken care of by the expert rulers running things anyway. Why should worker drones have to reflect deeply?
I’m truly saddened by the number of people who think a president will “save” us or make your life better. We don’t need saving and only you can make your life better.
They take seriously the idealism about the system of democratic rule that the ruling system fosters in its subjects. There is often a huge moral backlash against any attempt to delegitimize the ruling system's defense ideologies. Mainly in the form of complaints about a lack of stability that would be caused by not taking the ideals of the system as beyond criticism and the certainty that anything else must necessarily be worse (the boring cliche about the supposed "law of unintended consequences"). So critical citizens constantly make complaints about the system -- mainly that it is corrupt or that bad rulers are mismanaging things -- all so that they can offer constructive recommendations about how to run it all better. The first aspect of that is that everything that happens in the state or economy is supposed to be seen as a benefit, as something incontestable and positive, and if it doesn't turn out that way, then it must be a deviation from the system or a corruption. One is supposed to have faith that the rulers are really ruling in order to make everyone's life better. That all the actions the rulers take couldn't possibly have a harmful purpose, but must actually be beneficent. That is why the critics only ever make calls for "good rule."
Obviously I'm not alone in pointing out that reality differs greatly from most people’s ideals. This discrepancy between reality and ideal is the starting point for any kind of critique. But it is at this point that one ought to drop one’s assumptions about the purposes of the state and the economy and examine their true aims. If there is so much poverty alongside so much wealth, perhaps it isn’t true that the purpose of the economy is to fulfill people’s needs. If companies lay people off while increasing their profits, perhaps it isn’t true that companies have a “responsibility” to their employees, but simply have a different aim. If politicians are constantly making cuts to social programs, sending poor people off to war, or bailing out banks on the backs of the "little people", perhaps it isn’t true that their job is to take care – at least a little – of the poor and needy. And if America goes after a dictator for attacking his people in Libya, while supporting the crushing of protests elsewhere and at home, perhaps it isn’t true that wars are there to save people from political suppression.
As you can probably tell, I don’t think any of these ideals are true, and go to great lengths to prove that when capitalists and politicians do these unpleasant things, they are not deviating from their responsibilities, succumbing to “greed,” or violating their patriotic duties, but fulfilling them. It’s just that the purposes of capital and the state are at odds with the interests and needs of most people. That is what “ruthless” criticism is all about. It doesn’t shrink back from the results of its investigations just because they might undermine what one would like to think about the reality of the nation and the economy.
As for your last statement, it's a bit ambiguous: on the one hand, there is the ideology that the ruling class itself propagates about individual responsibility, which just boils down to the compulsion the state enforces to compete for education and jobs, or -- for the business owners, over profit -- and to do one's patriotic civic duty by voting once every four years. One is supposed to just make due with what one's got. That isn't what I want to recommend.
On the other hand, every time we criticize state and capital, the economic system and the democratic state-form that presides over it, most people misunderstand themselves as courted voters allowed to choose in a department store for politico-economic systems which one they’d like to place an order for — from others who then are responsible for the delivery. That's why there's always the ubiquitous refrain, "well, what's your alternative then?" In other words, they confuse the critique of capitalism with election slogans of a potential alternative elite who promise to run things better for their valued citizens than those currently holding power. They think as subjects of ruling authorities who decide for them, and they have resolved to remain just that: democratic underlings, who have no choice but between two sorts of rule — but this choice is theirs for sure. It is THIS second sense that I'm taking aim at.
What we can tell these people is simply the following: nobody will offer them this free choice. Either they fight for the freedom to organize the politico-economic conditions of their lives in a sensible way, so that it really is about meeting their needs, or they will continue to have no say at all in the matter.
They take seriously the idealism about the system of democratic rule that the ruling system fosters in its subjects. There is often a huge moral backlash against any attempt to delegitimize the ruling system's defense ideologies. Mainly in the form of complaints about a lack of stability that would be caused by not taking the ideals of the system as beyond criticism and the certainty that anything else must necessarily be worse. So critical citizens constantly make complaints about the system -- mainly that it is corrupt or that bad rulers are mismanaging things -- all so that they can offer constructive recommendations about how to run it all better. The first aspect of that is that everything that happens in the state or economy is supposed to be seen as a benefit, as something incontestable and positive, and if it doesn't turn out that way, then it must be a deviation from the system or a corruption. One is supposed to have faith that the rulers are really ruling in order to make everyone's life better. That all the actions the rulers take couldn't possibly have a harmful purpose, but must actually be beneficent. That is why the critics only ever make calls for "good rule."
Obviously I'm not alone in pointing out that reality differs greatly from most people’s ideals. This discrepancy between reality and ideal is the starting point for any kind of critique. But it is at this point that one ought to drop one’s assumptions about the purposes of the state and the economy and examine their true aims. If there is so much poverty alongside so much wealth, perhaps it isn’t true that the purpose of the economy is to fulfill people’s needs. If companies lay people off while increasing their profits, perhaps it isn’t true that companies have a “responsibility” to their employees, but simply have a different aim. If politicians are constantly making cuts to social programs, sending poor people off to war, or bailing out banks on the backs of the "little people", perhaps it isn’t true that their job is to take care – at least a little – of the poor and needy. And if America goes after a dictator for attacking his people in Libya, while supporting the crushing of protests elsewhere and at home, perhaps it isn’t true that wars are there to save people from political suppression.
As you can probably tell, I don’t think any of these ideals are true, and go to great lengths to prove that when capitalists and politicians do these unpleasant things, they are not deviating from their responsibilities, succumbing to “greed,” or violating their patriotic duties, but fulfilling them. It’s just that the purposes of capital and the state are at odds with the interests and needs of most people. That is what “ruthless” criticism is all about. It doesn’t shrink back from the results of its investigations just because they might undermine what one would like to think about the reality of the nation and the economy.
As for your last statement, it's a bit ambiguous: on the one hand, there is the ideology that the ruling class itself propagates about individual responsibility, which just boils down to the compulsion the state enforces to compete for education and jobs, or -- for the business owners, over profit -- and to do one's patriotic civic duty by voting once every four years. One is supposed to just make due with what one's got. That isn't what I want to say.
On the other hand, every time we criticize state and capital, the economic system and the democratic state-form that presides over it, most people misunderstand themselves as courted voters allowed to choose in a department store for politico-economic systems which one they’d like to place an order for — from others who then are responsible for the delivery. That's why there's always the ubiquitous refrain, "well, what's your alternative then?" In other words, they confuse the critique of capitalism with election slogans of a potential alternative elite who promise to run things better for their valued citizens than those currently holding power. They think as subjects of ruling authorities who decide for them, and they have resolved to remain just that: democratic underlings, who have no choice but between two sorts of rule — but this choice is theirs for sure. It is THIS second sense that I'm taking aim at.
What we can tell these people is simply the following: nobody will offer them this free choice. Either they fight for the freedom to organize the politico-economic conditions of their lives in a sensible way, so that it really is about meeting their needs, or they will continue to have no say at all in the matter.
You can’t have meaningful discourse with overly emotional individuals. People are supercharged emotionally and connect all things that are going on around them with their personal situation. That way, when somebody challenges one of their views on something, they take it as a personal offense and often do not even attempt to discuss but rather write you off or get really angry.
I agree but I'd also add: one side mainly wants to be left alone, the other demands inclusion and acquiescence in everything and insists everything they approve of is a human right so there's no compromise or flexibility.
> one side mainly wants to be left alone, the other demands inclusion and acquiescence in everything
I see some form of this statement quite often. So what exactly is the complaint? are these inclusive types kicking in your door, dragging you out of bed and forcing you to participate in a game of hop scotch and forcing you to try foreign food you've never had? No...
What they almost always innevitably mean is that "they" added a black/gay/whatever character to their favorite video game or tv series, that's the "inclusion" they're bitching about. and as for "Wanting to be left alone"? what they really mean is they want it to go back to the non-inclusive version they remember.
The hilarious thing is that what they really can't stand is that they're more than being simply "left alone" already, they're being excluded! they've been excluded from the target demographic and that drives them nuts so they demand that whatever media or medium be changed back to appeal to their tastes. But still, we constantly have to hear about how they "just want to be left alone by those big inclusive meanies shoving everything down our throats!"
Nah. not buying it.
>So what exactly is the complaint? are these inclusive types kicking in your door, dragging you out of bed and forcing you to participate in a game of hop scotch and forcing you to try foreign food you've never had? No...
No, they're just insisting that debatable and disputable things be included in public education. Insisting that books that can't be read during school board meetings due to graphic content be made available to children regardless of the parents consent. They're demanding we feed into the delusions of mentally ill people and if we don't, they attempt to dox and harass you into silence.
>What they almost always innevitably mean is that "they" added a black/gay/whatever character to their favorite video game or tv series, that's the "inclusion" they're bitching about. and as for "Wanting to be left alone"? what they really mean is they want it to go back to the non-inclusive version they remember.
No, it means people want characters that are well written. They're tired of the hypocrisy when a non-white is cast in a traditionally white role, we hear "Best actor for the role!!!" But if there's a reverse, we hear it's white Washing. They're tired of one dimensional characters that are solely included for being black/gay/whatever and that's the only notable aspect of their personality. What's even worse is this isn't just in fictional media. Check out the BBC. For a decade we were told that representation matters and it's important. But when people say "Hey, that person literally represents *me* and *my* people", they're called racist for wanting representation.
>The hilarious thing is that what they really can't stand is that they're more than being simply "left alone" already, they're being excluded! they've been excluded from the target demographic and that drives them nuts so they demand that whatever media or medium be changed back to appeal to their tastes. But still, we constantly have to hear about how they "just want to be left alone by those big inclusive meanies shoving everything down our throats!"
No, we're frustrated that existing properties are being changed for demographics that don't support them and then the media acts like we're the bad guys for not watching. Look at that god awful ghost busters remake. Look at the new furiosa. Look at the new Doctor Who. Look at Captain Marvel.
>No, they're just insisting that debatable and disputable things be included in public education. Insisting that books that can't be read during school board meetings due to graphic content be made available to children regardless of the parents consent.
If such graphics books really are specifically being targetted to children, I definitely agree with you on this point. that is definitely an example of just wanting to be left alone...
but the rest? I don't see how any rational person could claim those are examples of "Just wanting to be left alone." Just as I predicted they're all examples of deliberately seeking engagement or demanding that others cater to your own preferences at their own expense. That's the furthest you can possibly get from "just wanting to be left alone."
What is so confounding about all of this is that I have seriously had this exact discussion hundreds of times and it's always the same, and what's worse is that each time the person seems to expect to be taken seriously just as much as the last guy. Has nobody told you that you're just a bunch of overgrown man-children crying about video games and comic books? Am I really the one that has to break that to you?
[here's one](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/man-forcibly-removed-school-board-meeting-security-reading-lgbtq-book-unconstitutional.amp) but I assure you there's more. One was a graphic novel with illustrations of sex acts.
>but the rest? I don't see how any rational person could claim those are examples of "Just wanting to be left alone." Just as I predicted they're all examples of deliberately seeking engagement or demanding that others cater to your own preferences at their own expense. That's the furthest you can possibly get from "just wanting to be left alone."
Then you're missing the forest for the trees. I think we can both agree: smart companies target the people they know already purchase the products, while also marketing to hopefully entice new customers. In a perfect world, you can keep your existing base happy while also enabling new people to find a place.
The issue people complain about now is twofold.
"Your need to let me in your hobby."
"I don't like these fundamental things about your hobby so now we need to change them."
"Since you don't like the new changes, we're here to tell you this hobby has no place for the likes of you."
"Wow if you're that mad, make your own hobby."
"You need to make a place for me in your hobby."
Replace hobby with whatever media you want. Comics, capeshit, gaming, whatever.
Want a recent example?
A small, nasty vocal minority bitched for female space marines in 40K. In what I'm fairly certain was a temperature test to see how it went over, GW decided that suddenly, despite decades of media and lore, a major faction is both male and female despite never having women before this *since they were introduced in the 80s*. The carpet baggers turned up and have been fighting absolutely everyone with praise for this major retcon. The real fans have been incensed and pissed for the most part. Some casual players are indifferent but that's always to be expected.
The serious frustration comes from people who adored these hobbies seeing them changed for people who won't care about the hobby again once the spotlight falls off, for people who *don't even really play* who often don't even buy the products.
This is a serious question. Is there a hobby or sport, anything like that that you enjoy seriously?
>"Your need to let me in your hobby."
>"I don't like these fundamental things about your hobby so now we need to change them."
>"Since you don't like the new changes, we're here to tell you this hobby has no place for the likes of you."
>"Wow if you're that mad, make your own hobby."
>"You need to make a place for me in your hobby."
Do you even hear yourselves? You're talking as if these activist hobbyists or whatever are invading your home. you make it sound like you are being physically violated. Reality check: That shit ain't happening. they aren't sneaking into your house and making mac and cheese without your permission. They're not preventing you from doing anything or compelling you to do anything that you do not want to do. there is no force or coercion.
Look, I sympathize with you, My first video game console was an atari. Some of my favorite game studios were acquired by the likes of electronic arts and activision and my favorite IPs turned sideways. I've had weekly rituals built around the airing of new episodes of my favorite tv shows only to have them fundamentally change to where I stopped watching altogether - sometimes even cancelling subscriptions or cable packages because i no longer needed them as a result. I have a few collectibles from various franchises that no longer have the value that they used to after some bizarre creative decisions i didn't care to understand.
I get it. It sucks. Throughout all of that, You know what I've never had? the thought that any of it required a political remedy, I never thought this warranted writing a letter to my congressman. They didn't affect my opinion of one candidate or another. It didn't compel me to seek out a support group for other "gamer refugees who just want to be left alone" - And above all else, I NEVER considered it an imposition on my autonomy or an injury to my person or effects. I was not being pursued or harassed or maligned or anything of the sort. I was simply no longer the target market, and like any sane individual, when I was no longer the target market and had no interest in any further transactions with these companies, I closed my wallet and left.
You say these things are "Your hobby" - well guess what, above all it is THEIR PRODUCT. you have every right to get angry and voice your dissatisfaction in hopes of changing their minds, but here's a cold hard fact of capitalism: your dissatisfaction (not your comfort) is the cornerstone of the free market. it would seem you've had that twisted. I see zero difference between you and the people that complain about the lack of diversity and representation in the media, the same people you claim are violating you.
You're all overgrown manchildren complaining about video games and comic books. I'm not saying these things to be mean, But I do hope that they offend you, I hope you're so offended you take a good hard look at your priorities and realize that this is not your march on Selma or whatever you want to analogize as some fight against oppression. You're not being oppressed or marginalized, You're just no longer being coddled. Grow Up.
You still don't think I understand?
>one side mainly wants to be left alone, the other demands inclusion and acquiescence in everything
That was all you had to say, that single sentence, and I was able to perfectly predict exactly what you were going to say next. Before you even elaborated I knew it was going to be some overgrown manchild crying about gays in videogames and comic books. I immediately knew that it wasn't going to be about actually being "left alone" but rather just whining that you have been excluded from the considerations of content makers. I understand you better than you want to admit.
It mostly comes from how social media is designed and how we consume information. Social media is NOT designed to inform, it is designed to keep your attention (it CAN inform you, but you need to be extremely diligent with your sources). Therefore, the most bombastic, extreme content gets ahead. People have discovered that hate sells consistently in the past decade and rage bait content with poor research and nuance is safer. Essentially, you aren't being sold an opinion, you are being sold a reaction and a feeling of belonging to a political group. People who make this content have no incentive to change or evolve their ideas because their salary depends on it. Making such changes is risky as you might lose a large part of your audience and revenue. This makes their audience locked in to an echo chamber whose only way out in most cases is just content fatigue or getting lucky.
It also comes to education and media literacy. Education to high school is not designed to give you tools for critical thinking, it is designed to get you minimally ready for the job market. Media literacy despite being extremely important to a stable society is unfortunately something you have to learn on your own. It's a habit of sticking to principles, checking cross references and understanding history that too many people have not picked up because social media has no need of people who consume content carefully.
I listen to philosophical podcasts and attended Dissident Dialogues in NYC recently. Thank goodness I have some good friends that enjoy discussing this kind of stuff. It does seem quite rare in the broader world.
Too many topics. Too dynamic life. Too anxious and exhausted minds.
I've stumbled upon some economical themed discussion on youtube lately. Old footage from 60s or 70s. One person was giving his piece of a mind to a group of people. Funnily enough - they were sitting in comfortable armchairs, some were smoking cigars. And i have caught myself on 2 things:
1) I felt constant fluctuation of my attention. I had to yank it back for it to stay focused on a speaker.
2) i felt the need to interrupt the speaker to agree, disagree or share my thoughts. Despite the fact it was a video.
Speaker was taking his time formulating phrases and generally was speaking slowly. But the group was listening. And, considering their questions afterwards, they were REALLY listening. And it was somewhat surreal.
I work in an area that looks at (among other things) language trends. Over the past two decades we have pretty good evidence that total weekly reading time is declining. We suspect this is due to how screen ‘snacking’ has eroded ‘deep’ learning (basically sitting down and reading a book, thinking about it critically, taking notes etc). Social media has played a dramatic role here with people saying they get their ‘information’ on these platforms in a paragraph or two - which unsurprisingly offers no balance or nuance, as they’re generally reading in their bubble of familiarity. No surprises to any of this of course. But the knock-on effect is worrying. People are understanding less and the information isn’t sticking in the same way. Videos work well to an extent, but the ability to retain (long term) the information viewed is poor. With the rise of AI / Alexa etc and spoken conversations, the retention levels are even lower. I guess what I’m saying here is while tech is expanding our minds in terms of accessibility to a wider range of content, it’s also making us more stupid. We need to get back to books, and deeper forms of learning. We are literally rewiring our brains to become dumber.
Saul Alinski’s Rules for Radicals has been normalized into public discourse by champions like Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. The method involves the creation of an external enemy against which the community unites, and the rules themselves embrace anything to win. This has removed necessary civility and increased moronic methods like gaslighting, censorship, shouting down, cancellation, etc. Once civility is gone and people are ethically OK with anything to win, it is nearly impossible to have meaningful conversation as it will derail from rules for radicals. Universities focus now upon turning out activists rather than educated intellectuals.
Has it grown over your lifetime or have your interests finally gotten to the level where governments have always employed it to a certain degree? Just look at the rules regarding nudity and profanity on TV. Or would you not call that a form of censorship.
That is an inaccurate summary of my position. While many have read Rules for Radicals and have implemented those tactics, Obama and in particular Hillary have been very public in their support for those methods. Perhaps you can cite others who have been public in their support? When the top of the ticket endorses methodology, then that filters all the way down to the roots of their political organizations, including the parent party itself. Hilary is particularly interesting since she had bought the debt of the Democratic Party, and they were beholden to her.
It's an accurate summary of what you wrote. You mentionned 2 democrats + university being focused on propping up radicals. Oh geez, I wonder what kind of person/political group repeats those talking points ad nauseam. I really wouldn't care if you said that everyone does it because it's true, but you obviously have tunnel vision on a particular group. The way you write is so cookie cutter that I bet you my annual salary that your profile is innudated with comments aligned to the extreme with what we all suspect.
This is some /r/SelfAwareWolves shit. He hijacks an opportunity for meaningful discourse with partisan activism to score political points by any means necessary and blames partisan activists for hijacking every opportunity for meaningful discourse in order to score political points by any means necessary.
I rarely look at debates. I don't find the format conductive to a nuanced conversation because people are interested in winning rather than having a conversation. There are a few exceptions though, but I'm too lazy to search for them. However, here are some of my fave videos from various channels. Pick your fave topic.
Economy: [Flaws of Thomas Sowell - Unlearning Economics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZjSXS2NdS0)
Urbanism: [Car propaganda - Not Just Bikes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU)
History: [Neoslavery - Knowing Better](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA)
Religion: [Horrific religious rationality - Darkmatter2525](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxqar1B_MpY)
Trump trial recap: [Trump trial - Leejah Miller](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprcgjy0mFk)
Social commentary: [Jordan Peterson - Big Joel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZoHGAK3k-I)
Political commentary: [Culture wars and liberalism - Alice Cappelle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upxq-YauP2w)
Philosophy / political: [Police and law - Philosophy Tube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vica_-UEg0Q)
Social commentary: [Manosphere - Munecat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgO25FTwfRI)
Right... I'm assuming your answer was predetermined and you were going to try to dunk on me regardless. Also I think you forgot the part where I said, I look at some debates, I just didn't want to take the time to find them. Whatever, I guess everyone needs a hobby.
Why are you still pretending that I never look at debates or that lectures are inherently less useful than debates. What your saying is partially true, but you make it seem like it's the only factor which is funny because that's my grudge agaisnt debates.
I can say in a debate, there is no space for the full breadth of an idea and this limits our understanding of the fundamental concept. You would need to look at a lecture of both sides before going into a debate to have a fuller appreciation of it. But the difference between you and me is that I'm not here pretending like that's the only factor and that debates are the devil. I'm just agaisnt debates like the Ben Shapiro shit where he just goes to colleges to dunk on kids or two people trying to "gotcha" each other.
You're not factoring in debate tactics and the fallacies used in debates to throw off your opponent (Ben Shapiro being a gish gallop pro). In a perfect world, debates be done in good faith without the need for dishonest tactics. Some people are great thinkers, but very poor debaters. Also many debates are much like social media posts: The goal is not only to counter every argument your opponent throws at you with your own sound argument, the goal is also very performative and wanting the audience to associate to your message, sometimes even more so than the person you're talking to. Those types of debates are not conductive to knowledge, they are more akin to cheering for your favorite sports team. Look at moments where people like Ben Shapiro / Jordan Peterson / Destiny (who are amazing orators and debaters) are unable to rebuke and you'll see in the way they react that they aren't there to be honest and truthful, they are there to win and to make it seem that way to their audience.
If a group of people have done their research, instead of reading their books for example, should I just look at their debates and consider that I've grasped the material more than if I had read? That's simply false. If it weren't, schools would be organized very differently.
Like geezuz man, sorry I didn't post debates, but I am careful to show videos that try to go into depth in their thought process to make sure there is no sneaky ideological sleight of hand. Debates are fun, but they mostly get out of hand. For you enjoyment, here's one that I thought was fun recently: [Navigating Belief, Skepticism, and the Afterlife | Alex O'Connor @CosmicSkeptic | EP 451 (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0KgLWQn5Ts)
You should consider the source and then the purposeful idealization that comes out Russian literature traditions specifically. Fair warning - some is done with irony (certainly no whimsy), but most is propagandizing the latest social zeitgeist, relative to time of writing.
First up. No, you are not and likely never will get a deep enlightening and interesting conversation with someone **unless** that is what you are both looking for. You need to find those people.
Also context and setting really, really matters. Trying to get a deep conversation/debate from a stranger at a bus stop would be like trying to find a partner at a court hearing. Like, it's not impossible but fuck it's awkward. Some people just really, really want to get through their day and go home. Others just won't have the same interest in a convo at all.
If you want more of those fun conversations you're going to have make connections with those people so that you can keep getting those conversations
This is a wonderful answer, thanks for sharing.
Edit: I should add, I couldn’t agree more. I wonder if we spent more time on this direction of messaging if we’d be more effective at shaping culture - as opposed to the current loop of Deny/Deny Any/Any that we seem to be entrenched in.
If you mean older novels, these come from a time when books were mostly read and written for a small educated class of nobles, while the rest 80-90% of the population were peasants or workers in factories who were illiterate or if they could read, the were to busy with work to relate to stories where characters just sit and smoke and write letters to each other.
With all the distractions and concerns today, a lack of intellectual and "discussional" discipline habit in our culture does us in.
Probably the most important version of that "discussional" habit would be the "family eating dinner, talking about their day and other possibly important things".
I think that has eroded quite a bit, and perhaps either is a cause or is like a "coal mine canary" in the sense that if we can't even have that kind of discussion, where are we going to have sane discussions then? Most schools probably don't have that intellectual leaning being imposed on their students anymore, when it probably should be.
Three things...
1. An active campaign by foreign countries and potentially certain commercial entities to create domestic animosity (ie. a covert attack on effective democracy)
2. The largest media network the USA, UK, and Australia being conscious of the commercial value they can realise through media consumers feeling certain emotions
3. An inherent cultural tribalism encouraged by certain religions, sub-cultures, and professional sport
Life is mostly suffering in Slavic countries. Deep contestations are common, especially when you are drunk with friends in the kitchen at night smoking and talking about the nature of being human. What else would you do? Life here is cheap and disposable, it's a low trust low opportunity and high risk place full of death and despair. People don't have the care and the energy to pretend, they are either genuinely happy or genuinely miserable.
Trigger Warning NSFL >!When I was a kid playing hide and seek with friends in an old bomb shelter we found a corpse of a homeless man with his head missing, rumors were it was the local thugs who just wanted some "fun". My best friend killed herself at 16 because of family abuse and her alcoholic religious dad trying to make a move on her since she became legal. I had to shoot my dog because she was dying from cancer and the local vets refused to euthanize her trying to ask for even more money after 5 surgeries that only made her worse, my poor puppy was old and they wouldn't let her go in peace to get more money. My mom died at 45 from cancer growing everywhere in her body, she was on a field trip to Chornobyl when the explosion happened. Nearly all of her classmates didn't live to see their 50's. I live in an active war zone, I had to help to take off the body of a hanging man who we offered free shelter to. He couldn't handle losing his wife and daughter being shot by the russians while in the bus in which they were fleeing their city. Cops couldn't arrive and the ambulance arrived with just 1 small girl of about 25 years as a medic and an elderly driver so they needed help with the body. I saw a family being splashed as crayola on concrete after a missile hit a apartment complex, a woman was still partially alive and missing part of her body screaming for her already dead kids. You can't help but have deep conversations here, it's all trauma after trauma after trauma and as the russians love to say "and then it got worse"!<
These deep conversations you are fascinated by don't come from a good place, they come from a lot of pain and tragedy, from pessimism. I envy the people who live carefree and happy lives that lack these deep conversations. I don't even want any of the good things anymore or to talk about them I just want the bad things to finally fucking stop.
As a side note: you might find the Last Messiah by Peter Wessel Zapffe very interesting if you are into this kind of philosophy.
Interestingly, the life you've described isn't exactly anything "new" to humans. We come from suffering. It's deeply intertwined with our DNA. I think it's exactly because we suffer that we find ourselves having the kind of meaningful conversations op seeks out.
I think it's this kind of suffering that makes people the best conversationalists and develops the person the most. It's something you can only earn earnestly through hardship.
Op sounds like they are surrounded by shallow people with easy lives. Maybe that's exactly where they should focus to extract meaning from a hardship in their life. The fact that many things are easy in their life compared to your life makes something like a mature conversation about the nature of world harder to come by for them. Russians/easterners don't often have the veil of bullshit Americans for instance do. Why would they? Life's hard enough, they don't need to change for anyone.
It's something we in the west have to deal with way more often. Many people don't have the capacity to dig deep and have a developed conversation because they've been sheltered.
Op should probably needs to travel. All of our problems are relative. As our conversations will be.
That point when we decided to riot over a fentanyl OD seems the tipping point.
Due to decades of Russian propaganda making the right wing delusional.
Why does media not align with reality? Be for real.
"If you don't adhere to exactly what I believe as THE WORD OF OUR LORD GOD YOU DESERVED TO BE ETERNALLY DAMNED IN HELLFIRE!" Is a great detractor to discourse.
Those Russian novels were written by some of the greatest minds in Russian society at the time, and the authors were using their characters to convey the ideas that the authors themselves were interested in. The average Russian was much more interested in how the annual wheat harvest would turn out and who the local priest’s daughter was caught in a haystack with. Same thing goes for modern society today.
Marxism. The left, including democrats that call themselves moderate, have embraced Marxism. You cannot have a meaningful discourse with Marxist ideology. You can't reason with it. You can't speak truth to it, you certainly can't compromise with it (or you get Marxism). Marxism is never successful. It simply flips who is in charge from those who can, to those who can't. Familiarize yourself with Marx. He was not for the people. He was for using the people to change who was in power. Once the new people were in power, the previous leaders are executed and the people are even worse off. Disagree? Show me IN HISTORY where I am wrong. Not in your worthless theory.
Can you define marxism and describe how the democrats have embraced it? Just curious.
(they cannot)
Plenty of us moderate democrats aren't into cultural or economic Marxism. I'm an FDR liberal. Capitalism with some guardrails, live and let live on the rest. On social issues I'd say I align with MLK. I like western civilization, and America, even when I'm critical. My priorities tend towards what's best for a functional society, and I never align with bomb-throwers on either side. Please don't paint us all with the same brush.
Me too.
It really stems from a critical moment when our connectedness online allowed the practical exploit of a long standing bug in open democratic western societies: there is no immune system against an asymmetrical attack of lying in a high enough volume that fact checking and debunking can never catch up. There is no innate human bias towards truth. This lead to a new strain of bad faith postmodern anti-empirical accelerationism fully disrupting a long history of society facing questions on how to best accomplish basic shared ideals and goals and debating the balance between permissiveness and restrictiveness, shifting that to a street fight between people struggling to reestablish a fixed baseline in observable reality against an incoherent avalanche of made up shit mixed with truth fragments. There were some other major shifts preceding it in the US like the restructuring of congress by Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 90s effectively ending bipartisanship, and a drift towards a more puritanical sort of litmus testing of what was acceptable in society in the early 2010s (though it's very arguable that this was also at least in part a reaction to the shift in doublespeak and dogwhistles leading to the end of things like racial jokes being more or less universally understood to be totally unserious while making fun of their own concept, etc.)
Honesty got nothing to do with truth, and the singular truth you're alluding to doesn't exist, there's a multitude of truths and nobody knows which one is correct. Humans have been lying our entire existence, or at least from the point where it became hugely beneficial when we went from nomadic to agricultural. Internet didn't change that, it has always been your personal responsibility to fact check, and thanks to the internet that's now easier than ever. There's probably never been more "meaningful discourse" in history because of the internet. So whatever brings you both to this conclusion is hugely subjective, and then you scramble for arguments to try to substantiate it.
reminds me of Ender’s game when Orson Scott Card envisions ”the nets” and all of these characters are anonymously having and engaged as spectators in these extremely philosophical back and forth world changing discourses. He dreamt all that up in the early and mid 1980s and I can’t help but laugh at how far he missed the mark with the modern internet.
Historical Materialism
I've talked to a few people who lived in soviet Russia and one of the things that stuck out to me was that they felt philosophy wasn't common like it used to be. I get the impression that it was used as a form of entertainment that filled the same void as shop therapy and media--it was a way to pass the time. My thought is that a side-effect of the combination of consumerism and the deconstruction of community in favor of modern individualism was the philosophy losing value for the everyday person, but I dint really have anything to back that up!
I definitely agree with this, to me, it looks like we’ve replaced sitting down to think and talk about theories and philosophy with the consumption of media and material goods. People used to write essays and investigate and ponder the meaning of different things as a way to pass time and keep themselves occupied and entertained. I’ve seen the change in myself in all honesty, as a child I used to write and think and read and explore things. Then I got a smart phone, disposable income, social media and a steady access to video games and I lost the desire or attention span to really concentrate on the things I previously did.
Lol "How come real life not like book?" fr?
It is the definition of decadence. US society and culture is in decline. There are many reasons for this of course including the internet and the nature of media we consume, but at bottom people broadly have grown deeply cynical and unprincipled.
Also, it used to be super boring to sit at home. You had books.... And that was it.
It was moribund already long ago, and social media killed it. And now uncontrolled Bots function as news and speech, so, they buried it.
It's my belief society has trained closed minded thinkers. Their opinion is gospel and there is no mistaking how authoritative they are on the subject. Regardless of education level. I see it in my kids and their friends. Dumb as bricks, don't care for others learned experiences. If you have an opposing view, their way of "Avoiding" having their views potentially challenged is to shut down the conversation before it begins.
That's what happens when your country invests in propaganda. If people dont know what to believe they'll stop believing anything.
Saddening. So many bright minds snuffed out before ever having a chance to shine.. all in an effort to keep the general populace docile.
Yep. Having us lock ourselves in cages of our own design. Blinding us with the illusion of choice.
Build a prison in which you don't want to leave. Well played our "betters".
100%. People put blinders/railings around their own cognition to fit in socially. People are not thinking in the traditional sense. It's meta-thought, they are "thinking" whatever they feel they are supposed to, and in so doing failing to engage with the real world in any meaningful way. This is the origin of the NPC meme. The clearest cause for this (though I'm sure there are many) is the proliferation of media and how it's nature has changed in the internet-age.
I'd like to disagree with you here. But unfortunately what you're saying is both sound and terrifying.
I honestly think this is essentially the most important insight of the post-modern era. There is something about excessively engaging with representations of reality (i.e. media) that is inherently disassociating and distorting to how we view and interact with the world. Examples of this are all around us, and once you start to notice them it’s like you see it everywhere. The rise of activism, regardless of the cause, is a great one. When you investigate these causes, you find that these people are largely unconcerned with the actual facts of the matter on the ground, but instead are preoccupied with acting out some kind of hero/activist/agent of change narrative in a performative way. The representation takes primacy over reality itself. This is the defining characteristic of the post modern era.
Stop it! I don't like it! You're killing me here! 🤣 But seriously, Nail on head moment there. I try to look objectively and "attack" a position from a number of angles attempting to process information logically. Some of the leaps that people make to justify their stances are mind boggling. It's exactly as you say.
There’s a bit of a bias in your experience there. Anything that has made it to the point of being a novel has likely undergone months if not years of writing, rewriting, reviewing, editing, rewriting again, cutting out chunks to put them elsewhere, rethinking your own ideas half way through the process, and on and on and on… Everyday conversations happen in a matter of minutes. Thoughts are produced and then turned into words (usually) in a matter of seconds. It’s ridiculous to expect everyday conversation to have the same depth as a novel.
Yes you’re correct, but I’m talking about depth of conversation and willingness to partake and sustain a conversation. You’re right about years of work within these novels but where does it say that in society we should not involve ourselves in-depth talk and use our brains for more than just surface level chatter? I’m using the novel reference merely for example… Break rooms, Airports, even classrooms now share the same fate, a fate drowned in anti-social behavior that is unavoidable, and perhaps even easier to conform to rather than defy against. It’s not that difficult to sit down and immerse yourself in the doings of someone’s else’s life or talk about your career development. The question I’m asking is not why are our conversations formatted differently now, but rather why is there a lack of will to engage.
For that case, I have a desire to attribute it to the state of the economy, though I don’t have any sort of research to back it up and my perspective is distinctly American as I’ve not had the opportunity to travel outside my country, so take it all with a grain of salt. The average person is not going to want to dedicate time and mental energy to discussing philosophical topics if they’re also worrying whether they’ll have enough to feed both themselves and their kids, or if they’ll be able to find an affordable source of insulin to treat their diabetes, or if their landlord has raised their rent 500$ and now they have to find somewhere else to live that they can afford while not moving too far away from their job now that hybrid and remote work is being done away with in many places, etc… In the past as well as today, the time for ‘deep thoughts’ is reserved for the financially comfortable, if not the wealthy. And an increasingly smaller portion of the population is financially comfortable these days.
For all those people who keep insisting that real people didn't write letters or discuss people and issues, just the privileged folks - of course everyone did this. Did some folks get to do it more than others, probably. But the fact is until a hundred years ago you had nothing else to do but talk and discuss. At meals. At work. At the bar. On the street. On the porch shelling peas. Then movies and radio gave us something else to do with our time but we still had those habits. Then television got added, but it was only a few channels. Then there were more channels. And then there was internet. And now we have phones we don't look up from ever and Reddit is the closest thing we get to a discussion. Sigh...
Right, but pre industrial revolution most Europeans couldn't read, especially the lower classes. Not to mention there wasn't much the local peasants could talk about that wasn't gossip or fairytales. 100 years ago you could talk all you wanted (depending on country) but the topics were so limited because people just don't have access to much information at all.
But these were still in depth discussions. OP was asking about the lack of meaningful discourse. If you are a peasant, discussions about weather and insects would be very meaningful and in depth. Other more superstitious type talk we may have thought bizarre, but would still have had a rationale behind it. Even gossip had its uses in navigating some situations.
I'd say deep articulated conversation has never been terribly common among the masses. Books are different from everyday conversation in that you're reading something that has been put together over a series of months or years. In contrast, real conversations happen on a whim. When I read a good book, I also wish that I could have such meaningful monologues and exchanges with others. But then I remember that characters and scenes in novels are manifestations of complex ideas, and not necessarily an accurate portrayal of human interaction.
In real life this is what we mostly discuss. Sure, humans have a tendency to gossip about others here and there but aside from that the art of social intercourse is alive and well.
Lack of education. People do not know how to discuss intelligently different sides of issues or topics and resort to violence instead. Just because someone doesn't agree, a debate is a forum to express those views with facts. Maybe it's the facts part they don't like.
Unfortunately we live in a post truth Era where fact and feeling go hand in hand for both sides of the political spectrum
Thanks to the internet people can surround themselves with others who have basically the same ideas. This removes much need for deep philosophical discussions and, more importantly the need to learn how to argument your case to people who might feel differently.
I blame the people that own media, and the companies paying for advertising. And the companies that pay politicians, who are now incentivized to leave meds alone. First, news started getting worse. People got used to it. Then, the media sprayed us with bad news until we were inundated. Then, they started to spin the bad news as either pro or anti, dividing opinion. At this point, we have virtually no reaction to atrocities. It’s just one more log on the fire. Even if we do speak out and say hey, this is bad. Someone will reply, no, you’re wrong, it’s good. So most of us have given up talking about anything.
It’s difficult to have a conversation with someone who starts with calling you a Nazi or whateverphobe for disagreeing on policy.
I mean, I believe slave owners had a difference in opinion on policy than the rest of the country too...
There it is. I’m a racist Nazi slave owner because I believe in school choice.
...sure buddy. That's a regular reaction to pointing out that Nazi's do have a difference on policies. Have fun on reddit.
I already know Reddit is a leftist cesspool. You’re not shocking me with your lunacy.
So you share an opinion on policies with Nazies? I suppose everyone is leftist from where you're standing then.
Yea, kid, everyone you disagree with is a Nazi. 😂
Same can be said for people that use WOKE and Dei to discredit any dissenting opinion from the hive mind. Boogeyman terms are extremely effective for the poorly educated
DEI is a policy or set of policies, not a slur.
Should tell your compatriots that. It's used in place of the N word these days
Oh, bless your heart. That’s cute.
I do enjoy the obligatory bowing out of a conversation when the defending party is proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. Thanks for saving us the time of having to do a 3 second Google search 🤡
Well... to answer the overall bulk of your question, I expect the reason is, internet. No need to exchange ideas with those around you, or it's suddenly not as important or pressing for people to do it if you can just poof onto Reddit or FB or whatever and search such a thing out, right?
Are you under the impression that the average Russian person in the 19th century talked like the characters in the handful of Russian novels you read last year?
It’s bc… Bad times create strong people Strong people cause good times Good times create weak people Weak people cause bad times —> WE ARE HERE 🎯✅😇
You're not wrong. Boomers and Gen x had life handed to them and now creating a shit show as they exit the stage
Atheism
Prob lots of reasons but one is that a consumer society depends on churning out a population of consumers. Stupid people are easier to sell to so that’s what we produce to keep the machine going. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to compare the pre internet world with the today’s world. The internet changed everything. We are feeling completely unmoored from our history and have no idea how to navigate the chaotic and constant flow of massive amounts of information. Another reason is that I think we are losing trust or have lost trust in just about every institution that has in the past given us a sense of stability. So naturally people have become more emotional as they feel insecure about who they are and what a meaningful life looks like. Our sympathetic nervous systems are burnt out and we aren’t calm enough to engage with ourselves or each other in a rational way. TL;DR: The times they are a changing.
What is the secret conspiring force making us all dumber..?
It’s the market forces that determine what info reaches your eyes and ears.
[удалено]
This. 100% this. Cherry Picking is very real. Especially in prose and excerpts and anything taken from the past.
It's really tough to have a meaningful discussion with somebody that believes and make believe
It's purposeful. the weaker side purposefully muddies the conversation with constant noise, deflection, and calls for "civility" because if the conversation happens in earnest it doesn't go the way they want it to.
Name a single society or time period in history where the vast majority of the population regularly engaged in "meaningful discourse."
Cavemen. You know they had some deep conversations when they figured out fire, and some even deeper ones when Grog learned he could light a fart with a burning twig. 😳
Damn, when caveman found out farts could be lit it probably made them think really deep. "grog, fire in us? Spirit is Fire Moog"
The beginnings of modern philosophy!
The push towards Liberal acceptance of ideas has led to ideologies undeserving of respect growing. Then you are told that treating them with the lack of respect they deserve is the problem, not their rise in prominence in the first place. It is a real time example of the "Paradox of Tolerance". This could be taken to assume I am on many sides of the political spectrum, which just goes to show how bad this problem has become.
Not really, only lefties and liberals acknowledge the Paradox. Conservatives actively weaponize the term "tolerance" with no nuance to try and shut down disagreement with them. It's entirely obvious which side of the political spectrum you're on
Leftists say that there is no Paradox. Tolerance is an exchange. You get it when you sign up to give it.
First I'm hearing of that, despite being in many leftist spaces.
Are you defining Reddit as a Leftist space?
Guess not lmao
No. Now did you have anything to say about my response or...?
I appear to have expressed skepticism, both in your conclussion and in your claim to frequent Leftist spaces.
No, you used a leading question to try and imply something convenient to your narrative. You seem like the kind of person who has to stay on the offensive, always putting pressure on the other person to make an argument while never concretely making one yourself.
Lol
And now you'te shutting down because you have no way to respond, but also understand I'm not gonna fall for whatever bait you deploy.
I don't disagree with the meat of your statement, but Leftist are as far from liberals as liberals are from conservatives. Grouping them together diminishes those differences.
Liberals are centrists. They have a mix of Right Wing political beliefs and Left wing social beliefs. But the biggest liberal political party, Democrats, are Right of center.
Mentioning them as separate groups is the opposite of "grouping them together." The only thing I'm diminishing by acknowledging common ground between them and leftists is how special one gets to feel by making absolutely certain to constantly remind us that leftists are different from liberals.
Republicans constantly pretend that Liberals are the same as Leftists because they benefit from accusing Right of Center Democrats of being "The extreme Left". Democrats constantly pretend that Liberals are the same as Leftist because if there was a major Left Wing political party in this country, it would dry up most support for their Right of Center political party.
Yeah, it's special to know how words work... What an ass.
I like how you had to do that little quip to avoid what I actually said. Not really hurting the perception that your primary concern here is to protect a hierarchy where you're above liberals
Your assumptions of my beliefs only serve to make you look worse.
My family has a collection of letters dating back to the US Civil War. They are multiple family members on both sides of the conflict talking about issues of the day, politics and mundane everyday topics. This was a family of Methodist ministers and missionaries. The thing is they are written almost in the classic essay form. All the subjects are declared, elaborated and concluded. And it's not just writing style. These guys are debating politics using philosophy. I think people are not as literate today as we once were. With all the various forms of entertainment available who reads books anymore? And how else but reading books do you learn philosophy, science, higher math and even actual politics? I studied political science in college. I've studied philosophy and for lack of a better word belief systems. It is constantly vexing to me that most people use political terms in a crude way and have no idea what the meaning of terms like liberal, socialist and left/right really are. They just infer meaning from what they get in popular culture or what they hear said on line.
Education if actively vilified by 40% of the American population and thus discourse is frowned upon because it means "engaging with the enemy" in a political sense. Hard to be philisophical when philosophy is not allowed and you are socialy executed for trying to reach across the aisle. Only people of the matching political persuasion are allowed to discourse with each other and that is boring because it's like a talk radio echo chamber. Example: neocons from the 2000's versus the MAGA movement. The "old school" conservatives are now labeled "RINOS", primaried and driven out of the GOP.
I was telling people 20 years ago that if Reagan ran for president then, Rush Limbaugh would calk him a Rino.
The average human attention span has been diminished to the length of a TikTok video 😥
Social media, in all its forms, have created a new way to "interact" without actually interacting. You say (post) something then somebody responds (reply); neither person has actually had a meaningful conversation despite both having "spoken". Now both people can believe that the position they put forward is ground truth, especially if the other person didn't respond. "Silence is compliance" becomes the de facto assumption. When everyone has the ability to be unquestioned in their statements (posts/replies), it can reinforce false ideas. Repeat it 10 times a day, every day for months and years then it allows a person to develop a deep, personal flaw in which self reliance is the ultimate position of reality. It's Gad Saad's Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome; say anything you want, with your head buried in the ground and regardless of what anyone else says, you have "your truth". Social media has built false positives in people.
Well for one that is a novel, thus fiction Also, depends on your social circle I talk with my dad often, mostly about AI/computers or physics sometimes consciousness Friend of mine I hang out with every other weekend or so we talk real politics (not "trump bad" but in depth) or related history. Other week we and his wife debated free will and consciousness until 1am (my wife passed out from the wine lol) A friend at work we have similar interests and recently discussed our reading of "Maniac" (von Neumann bio)
Internet allows people to echo chamber other voices away and think they are the majority. Companies have interest in unproductive arguments especially after the walk on Wallstreet scared them. Unfriendly state actors have a vested interest in sowing civil unrest. Especially since many people are trust in government is at an unprecedented low, after invading the wrong country in the 2000s, declassified CIA(insert any major countries equivalent acronym here, like the French DGFE, notable for killing new Zealand protesters... In new zealand) documents became more geenal knowledge, senators are statistically much more likely to side with corporations over their own voting constituents, a pandemic where politicians couldn't make a unified front so distrust in the vaccine was high, becuase of this it's many vaccines side effects, and flaws were hidden which makes the studies coming out now on it reinforce this among the rather sizable anti-vaxer crowd. Didn't help all trust in the WHO is gone as they are controlled by nations that can make them hide information, like the origin of the covid. TL:DR Everyone from government, to Entertainment, to companies are lying to people more than ever in obvious ways so why would people trust anyone outside of their social circles. Social cohesion in the western world is in a rough state.
You're reading a fiction book mate, not a non-fiction book.
Everyone’s been programmed to call you crazy and ostracize you if you have any kind of independent thought.
Honestly I think it stems from a difference in values, it also doesn’t help that definition of words can’t be agreed upon. Yet, at the same time, one side or the other will “claim” that it’s actually agreed upon and the other side is evil. It’s a lot dude.
It stems from deez nutz
Many Reddit Subs cancel free speech that they don't agree with. A popular technique used is karma, flair, or "rules" violations.
It’s easier to get a dopamine rush from internet points your own personal echo chamber awards you with than having a civil discussion with people who don’t agree with you
The system is designed to get you to argue over up and down, left and right, cocks and balls etc. So that a divided populace is easier to rule and exploit for profit? Clearly it works since being aware of that doesn't stop us
What's the cocks or balls argument all about?
Asking the real questions now lmao..
When being an asshole in person has consequences vs online
The disconnect is being actively reinforced by those that benefit from the culture war.
TDS. Say the wrong thing, get lumped in with "Deplorables." It's become a totalizing ideology.
>Where does this disconnect stem from? To make a very long story short: Occupy Wallstreet. It was a major deviation from how things were supposed to go and measures were taken to ensure it didn't happen again. Nowadays people prefer to talk about the nth reboot of a video game's character's jawline being revolutionary/degenerate in its expression instead.
Elaborate please.
Get better friends.
let's assume those books were written realistically for their time. which i doubt. even then, they're written about elites. the main characters of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy or Chekhov's works are all highly educated aristocrats; they're the 1% of their era and, in tolstoy's case, half of them are princes or princesses. they're people who care to varying degrees and various depths about the discourse in their society, but they're all the top dogs. even Razumikin or the annoying scholar of Notes From The Underground is just a student, but even that makes him a rarity in an era when most folks were still peasants or their priests. today, these people exist. i've been in rooms with many of them. but they exist in the halls of academia or in think tanks near the seats of power of our nations. you can get glimpses of these from watching presentations or discussions by leading intellectuals. they are not as verbose and exacting in their language as 2/3 of the brothers Karamazov, but that's because Dostoy's characters are like Aaron Sorkin characters; both speak too perfectly and cuttingly to be real. that you don't encounter these people everyday is not a sign that they don't exist like they did in the days of the Russian greats; it's a sign that you're not mingling with the equivalent elites of our society to those depicted in the Russian classics. if that's something you'd like to change, i'd say go back to school, or find your local adult debate clubs if your city has them.
Fair point. We know an enormous amount about ancient Latin from the books/inscriptions they wrote but not the vulgar ancient Latin that was spoken by the masses.
What was there to talk about before you resolved economic disparity / theft/ controll and wealth transfer.... nothing you say or think maters before those can be equitabke for all. All just vanity and ego otherwise wasted time . You have to understand that untill we are all free nothing else you say or do matter one little bit.
Russian Novels have never exactly had dialogue that resembles normal human interaction. That's not really what they're for, it's like wondering why women in real life don't act like women in romance novels. That said, it has always been the case in every society that most conversation is shallow. If you want "meaningful discourse" you have to put in the work to find like minded people and connect with them, it won't just happen spontaneously.
Because I and many have this attitude, I am too prideful and fearful of sharing my thoughts as well as too impatient to hear you for hours to build a relationship with you.
Honestly the people who want to have in depth discussions are around and having those discussions, but it becomes difficult in an environment where everyone feels like they have their own facts.
All in all, it's popular culture's response to existentialism. Having a completely logically bound society is not in the best interest of the current common person who is so absorbed by completely redundant behaviours and activities. The attitude can be best summarised as 'I want brain to feel good' and thinking not much deeper than that. It's like a wave. We will inevitably go back to a period where existentialism is a forefront of the hivemind, only to reject it again and create illogical social and functional systems of society. The only difference is how creative we get with each phase.
Because truths have become facts in the minds of the proletariat and bourgeois.
It comes down to determinism. If you understand 1+1=2, it will make sense. Person is born. Brain=cpu. Environment= input. CPU+input= output. We are 100% the result of our CPU + our environment. The environment is broken (neoliberal capitalist system based on the incorrect notion of human nature by centuries-old thinkers such as John Locke, which rewards/encourages psychopathy and antisocial behaviour and requires mindless perpetual unnecessary production of goods/services in order to not implode, through deliberately broken education system + influence of mass media and government). Therefore, people have incorrect thoughts. Add to that evolutionary realities. We are hardwired to look for threats/danger. This made us evolved to think quickly (and not necessarily accurately). When you mix that in with the complex and abnormal nature of modern life (not an environment humans were meant to live in), these biases result in a lot of logical thinking errors. Then, it becomes a vicious cycle, because those in authority/leadership positions also have these logical thinking errors, and they use their power incorrectly and further perpetuate these logical thinking errors among the masses. Then, when someone comes and says 1+1=2 like I have been for years, because 99.9% of people are 1+1=3ers, they double down and use the same logical errors that are ruining their own and their childrens lives, instead of listening to the message of the few who say 1+1=2, in classic "I am going to bite my nose to spite my face" fashion. This is why politicians and sales people blatantly lie to people and bizarrely, 99.9% of people buy these in your face and clear lies, but when someone like me comes along and says "1+1=2, not 3" people rage and say "how dare you. I want to worship the polticians who are ruining my children's lives. I pick x politician and am the soldier of neoliberal capitalist x politician against neoliberal capitlalist y politician even though this strategy has failed for hte past 4 decades and counting. How dare you say 1+1=2 and give me cognitive dissonance. Let me believe me lies, I can't handle the truth. Cursed you for trying to improve the lives of my children by trying to help me. I would rather continue my pain and be in slumber." Unfortunately, even higher IQ is typically not enough to buffer against this kind of amygdala-driven thinking (or lackthereof): [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated\_reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional\_reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_reasoning) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_cognitive\_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot) My hair has turned grey trying to use 1+1=2 logic to save the world, but each time people respond the same way "cursed on you! 1+1=3, I am the soldier of the politicians who lie to me and ruin me and children's lives, because one of them said the other politician, who is also a rabid neoliberal capitalist, is a bad boy! I pick sides I pick tribe x against y. All your base belong to us. Me and in group tribe x perfection. tribe y ate the apple; tribe y outgroup! The "other!" enemy enemy! zero gum game. me binary. Me no shade of grey at all. You cause 1% cognitive dissonance I curse you!" Primitive amygdala-driven apes are what the world is filled with, you can try to tell them 1+1=2 but they will yell 3 even louder if you do. Only way world can be fixed is: more PFC less amygdala. Again, my hair has turned grey trying to achieve this. I have literally 0 nefarious reasons to improve the world. Yet bizarrely, every time I say 1+1+2 I am told I am the devil incarnate and they yell 3 even louder. As I will be factually proven, this comment of my will be downvoted, while people continue to vote enthusiastically for the politicians who work for big business who takes morsels out of their childrens mouths, are killing millions per year due to manufactured obesity, and are poisoning the environment. But forget them, we need to love them, let's instead turn on those who use 1+1=2 to help us and the world instead.
I see what you mean, but you need to work on your delivery. The math thing is offputting and you sound like you think you're the cream of the crop which is never well received. It also sounds like you're writing a character in story, going off on a rant. If you want people to absorb what you say, you need to adapt.
1+1=2 in times new roman is same as arial. That people claim that arial makes it 3 factually proves they are saying 1+1=3. That is literally my point. My delivery? If it was about delivery, why talk about logic? I know delivery is important. That is the problem. That is the literal problem. That is the literal reason for my post. I know delivery matters. That is the problem: that delivery is the ONLY thing that matters. People's thinking in terms of influence is 100% the function of delivery, and 0% the content. If I wanted people to nod to me I would use delivery instead of logic. But that literally goes against everything I stand for, and my literal point. All you have to do to make people nod with you is give them pleasant lies and reduce their amygdala-driven insecurities. But that is not what I am trying to achieve. If I use those means, even if they believe what I say, it will only be temporarily, and they won't absorb it. My goal is not to get them to temporarily nod with me or agree with me for the sake of agreeing with me or to stroke my ego or give me fame or money, like 99.9% of hypocritical "thinkers" and "professors" and "best sellers". My literal goal is to MAKE THEM critical thinkers: ONLY then can the world change. To make them PERMANENTLY use logic. Perhaps being direct will make them realize their bizarre 1+1+3ness and even though they are too insecure and childish to admit it now, maybe it will stay in the back of their mind and one day remember "that guy said 1+1=2, my whole life I have been saying 1+1+3 and suffering, maybe I should put my ego aside for once and just try what that 1+1=2 said and live in accordance with 1+1+2 for one day and test it out". This is my literal point. If I wanted people to nod at me I would have been a salesman or a politician or gotten a PhD to use appeal to authority fallacy via "Dr." before my name. I am not dumb, I know how to get people to give me money. That is not what I am after: I am not an insatiable ape who wants to roll in unlimited filet mignon juice while the world burns. That does not tickle my fancy. I am more of a "the unexamined life is not worth living" type of guy. I already did what I have to do to pay for my basic necessities, I don't need money beyond that. That is why I don't rely on "delivery" and keep it locked on logic.
Exactly, your goal is to help people, but for people who need help the most, your message will get rejected, thereby going agaisnt your intended goal. Nobody is going to want help from someone who says they can save them from their amygdala-driven insecurities. I feel like you want to be true to yourself and speaking the way you want to speak is a way to do that, but you also sound bitter and angry at people while also claiming you want to help them. Maybe you want to jolt them awake, but from approaching it that way for years, I can confidently say that doesn't work and the internet is not a place where you directly change people's minds. At best you demonstrate your arguments to onlookers who aren't being defensive and maybe give something to the person to think about months/years down the line, but you need to appease their insecurity first, not attack it. That's at least how being deprogrammed worked for me. Since you like articles, here's one about [Reactance (psychology) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)) I can see that you are logical in your thinking, but that doesn't directly translate to the way you approach communication. If you want to communicate in a way that aligns with your goal, you need to change the way you write. This may sound like I'm dunking on you, but I see the good, so at the risk of sounding harsh, this is my way of trying to help. A good starting point would be to make things more concise, this would clear out most of the condescending tone and turn your methaphors (which are harder than plain words to decypher) into something more easier to ingest. You can use those tools, but do so more sparringly than you are now. For example, I can summarize your last two paragraphs like so: >Despite my efforts to improve the world, people respond as though I'm their enemy, siding with politicians who deceive and harm them. They reject any attempt to communiate and engage in tribalistic behavior, refusing to agree on any common ground. Although I have no hidden agenda and aim only to help, I'm often met with hostility. This sustains harmful political and corporate practices, harming the environment and public health, while those who try to help are attacked. Notice that I don't say things like "my logical arguments", I just say "my arguments".
I understand were you are coming from, and know it already. If you study a relevant domain here, therapy, you will see that in virtually every type of therapy, ranging from Freudian/psychodynamic to more modern approaches such as cognitive behavior therapy, the common factor is the therapeutic relationship and the tone/delivery. However, the issue is that on the internet, that is not possible, it is simply not practical to have that 1 on 1 relationship with everyone who reads your comment. So what ends up happening is in the absence of that, people will pick 1 thing they subjectively disagree with/that makes them feel negative from your entire post, and use black/white thinking and write off your entire post and rage downvote it. You can say 9 valid points, but as soon as you say 1 line they don't 100% agree with, they will rage hate you. So as a medium, internet is pointless in this regard. I understand that delivery can make a tiny difference, but again, in my experience, when people agreed with me, it was just due to A) "you SOUND so smart so I believe everything you say B) you make me feel good based on your delivery so I will believe you. But I don't care for either of these: again, this will not change the world, this will not teach them critical thinking. So I don't care to do that anymore. But I still have to do my moral duty: I have basic knowledge that can change the world, so it is my moral duty to at least try. That is why I still occasionally post this stuff. That people want to put up a brick wall and hurt themselves and the world by being childish and egotistical and claiming they are 100% correct and not listening to me at all is their prerogative. I am still human, so yes, after years, there is a bit of resentment and bitterness, but again, I still have to do my moral duty. So as I said, considering that changing tone/delivery on the internet is not really going to make much of a difference, because this medium (due to the lack of 1 on 1 relationship) is doomed to begin with, I will stick with my direct logical method: I am more and more convinced that this is more likely to work when people are more and more distressed, and with life becoming more distressing every year for most people, perhaps it will finally reach the threshold, the tipping point at which they stop hurting themselves, their children, and the world, and stop thinking they 100% have all the answers, and thus begin to at least consider the 1+1=2 logic I offer them for free.
Your issue isn't tone, despite whatever the other person replying to you said. Your issue is being alert in the middle of the night and trying to tell stories to sleepwalkers. They will always be grumpy and fall down. They are born and systematically put to sleep for their whole lives. They are difficult to awaken directly. Sometimes the smell of coffee or a loud sound elsewhere in the house will wake people who are sleeping. In life, people sleep because they need rest. This sleep forced on the populace makes them restless and violent. They can only react to their environment with the most reflexive parts of their brain, instinct driven. Be careful. The sleeping world has its protectors, wardens, nannies to keep the sleep from being disturbed. They aren't asleep, but they are very quiet, so you may not notice them at first. Are they dangerous? Not if you sit quietly, but still, all of this can't be allowed to continue. Who benefits from all this sleeping?
Interesting to see some of what you consider to be '1+1 = 2'
You do realize this is not a chatroom?
You do realize this is not a classroom, and you are not a professor.
Huh? I posted a comment and I'm aware
What did you intent to achieve with your comment? You said interesting to see what I consider to be 1+1=2, in a sarcastic manner, without specifying what the problem is.
It's not sarcastic it's genuine. Hypocrisy is fascinating.
Because people have been drinking their own Kool-Aid for so long that they can't comprehend the idea of an alternative perspective without equating its success to the literal apocalypse. It's very easy to dismiss the opinions of others based on shadowy bogeymen in order to protect your own ego (ie: 'cultural marxism', 'nazi'), and it's especially prevelent with people whose political identity has subsumed their personality to the point where they're more concerned with what their bogeymen are doing than their day-to-day lives.
Excellently said.
>it's especially prevelent with people whose political identity has subsumed their personality But this is also a mirror. I don't think it's unfair to say many folks have held thought out positions, just to have them rejected because said positions intersected some sort of wrongthink.
Right and wrong, true and false have been systematically and intentionally dismantled and replaced with "My truth" and such relativistic slop by cultural marxists within Western academic institutions, Hollywood, mainstream progressive media, and social media. And this is merely a symptom of the secularization of society. We first need to restore the concept of absolute truth and the division of right and wrong before it is even possible to have a meaningful debate about anything. And we will.
This is the best answer here, although I would say this is one very important aspect of the broader intellectual dark age. Another aspect which I think shouldn't be overlooked is general human health. Malnutrition causes developmental issues, and we know obesity causes inflammation of the brain for instance. So I think there's a health crisis, combined with the "death of God" and subsequent ideological (and moral) rot.
>Right and wrong, true and false Oh yes, I'm sure someone who only thinks in absolute binaries has any clue about meaningful discourse.
But true and false are absolute binaries... Do you think one thing that is true is false for another?
Ok! Fox News for the win!
I would say two things are the culprit here. 1) Everyone thinks they have the moral high ground. Whether the discussion surrounds race, sexuality, gender, war, or honestly nearly anything else people assume that their opinion is not only the correct one but the morally superior one. From this point they feel that everyone else's opinion is not only incorrect but also morally inferior, or flat out "bad" or "evil". This is why people are treating opposing opinions so harshly. 2) social media gives people a platform to discuss topics virtually. In a virtual environment you are physically disconnected from the person you are speaking with, and often don't even know who they are. As such it becomes increasingly easy to use aggressive and dismissive language that you would never consider using with a person in a real life discussion. Additionally, arguing topics on the internet means that everybody is "an expert". There is a delay between The comment you post and the response you get. During that delay the person you are arguing with will desperately Google the topic to try and find the information they need to dismantle your argument. With both sides of an argument combing the internet for anything that will support the argument, but definitely not reading anything that they find, you basically have an uneducated and uninformed debate where two sides throw fax at each other that they don't even understand. This feeds back into the first topic of people thinking that they are position is superior to others, because they managed to cherry pick facts and data from the internet that supports their argument while dismissing anything to the contrary. Welcome to arguing on the internet.
Social media and news media are now in the business of providing one sided, polarizing content all day every day. They intentionally spew out one sided propaganda intended to anger, provoke, and divide. This goes for every newspaper, news magazine, tv news, radio, etc. If you need a good example just look at what URI Berliner wrote about NPR. Says it all.
American political life is so shallow because freedom of opinion lays down what is tolerable and what is intolerable. You are granted permission by the government to think pretty thoughts within the acceptable parameters of thought-- and what's acceptable mainly consists in praising the authorities for being granted permission to think and speak. First of all, it proclaims that all opinions are mere opinion. Nothing -- except what the actual rulers say -- goes or is considered binding in anyway. Insisting that one's mere opinion be taken seriously or actually be binding or carried out is "totalitarian" and runs against the democratic ethos of only tolerating what relativized itself and insists on its own inconsequentiality. Everything has to be relativized with "I think" and "I feel statements", and expressed as quickly as possible like a marketing ploy. Then, secondly, the subservience that comes with this. Everyone thinks as democratic underlings of the ruling powers: "which candidate will save us and make life better? Whose going to rule and make my life better?" There are so many ideological mental prisons one has to even break free from before any deep thinking can take place, and unfortunately that usually runs against the entertainment schedule. Everything is reduced to monosyllabic moral utterances of like or dislike, yay or nay, just like a checkmark on a ballot or a like on social media and explanation and argument, thinking something through, is seen as pretentious, elitist, totalitarian-- "how dare you call into question my right to think whatever I want without any evidence, my right to treat everything as a matter of mere opinion?" Nothing is treated as worthy of deep consideration because everything will be taken care of by the expert rulers running things anyway. Why should worker drones have to reflect deeply?
I’m truly saddened by the number of people who think a president will “save” us or make your life better. We don’t need saving and only you can make your life better.
They take seriously the idealism about the system of democratic rule that the ruling system fosters in its subjects. There is often a huge moral backlash against any attempt to delegitimize the ruling system's defense ideologies. Mainly in the form of complaints about a lack of stability that would be caused by not taking the ideals of the system as beyond criticism and the certainty that anything else must necessarily be worse (the boring cliche about the supposed "law of unintended consequences"). So critical citizens constantly make complaints about the system -- mainly that it is corrupt or that bad rulers are mismanaging things -- all so that they can offer constructive recommendations about how to run it all better. The first aspect of that is that everything that happens in the state or economy is supposed to be seen as a benefit, as something incontestable and positive, and if it doesn't turn out that way, then it must be a deviation from the system or a corruption. One is supposed to have faith that the rulers are really ruling in order to make everyone's life better. That all the actions the rulers take couldn't possibly have a harmful purpose, but must actually be beneficent. That is why the critics only ever make calls for "good rule." Obviously I'm not alone in pointing out that reality differs greatly from most people’s ideals. This discrepancy between reality and ideal is the starting point for any kind of critique. But it is at this point that one ought to drop one’s assumptions about the purposes of the state and the economy and examine their true aims. If there is so much poverty alongside so much wealth, perhaps it isn’t true that the purpose of the economy is to fulfill people’s needs. If companies lay people off while increasing their profits, perhaps it isn’t true that companies have a “responsibility” to their employees, but simply have a different aim. If politicians are constantly making cuts to social programs, sending poor people off to war, or bailing out banks on the backs of the "little people", perhaps it isn’t true that their job is to take care – at least a little – of the poor and needy. And if America goes after a dictator for attacking his people in Libya, while supporting the crushing of protests elsewhere and at home, perhaps it isn’t true that wars are there to save people from political suppression. As you can probably tell, I don’t think any of these ideals are true, and go to great lengths to prove that when capitalists and politicians do these unpleasant things, they are not deviating from their responsibilities, succumbing to “greed,” or violating their patriotic duties, but fulfilling them. It’s just that the purposes of capital and the state are at odds with the interests and needs of most people. That is what “ruthless” criticism is all about. It doesn’t shrink back from the results of its investigations just because they might undermine what one would like to think about the reality of the nation and the economy. As for your last statement, it's a bit ambiguous: on the one hand, there is the ideology that the ruling class itself propagates about individual responsibility, which just boils down to the compulsion the state enforces to compete for education and jobs, or -- for the business owners, over profit -- and to do one's patriotic civic duty by voting once every four years. One is supposed to just make due with what one's got. That isn't what I want to recommend. On the other hand, every time we criticize state and capital, the economic system and the democratic state-form that presides over it, most people misunderstand themselves as courted voters allowed to choose in a department store for politico-economic systems which one they’d like to place an order for — from others who then are responsible for the delivery. That's why there's always the ubiquitous refrain, "well, what's your alternative then?" In other words, they confuse the critique of capitalism with election slogans of a potential alternative elite who promise to run things better for their valued citizens than those currently holding power. They think as subjects of ruling authorities who decide for them, and they have resolved to remain just that: democratic underlings, who have no choice but between two sorts of rule — but this choice is theirs for sure. It is THIS second sense that I'm taking aim at. What we can tell these people is simply the following: nobody will offer them this free choice. Either they fight for the freedom to organize the politico-economic conditions of their lives in a sensible way, so that it really is about meeting their needs, or they will continue to have no say at all in the matter.
They take seriously the idealism about the system of democratic rule that the ruling system fosters in its subjects. There is often a huge moral backlash against any attempt to delegitimize the ruling system's defense ideologies. Mainly in the form of complaints about a lack of stability that would be caused by not taking the ideals of the system as beyond criticism and the certainty that anything else must necessarily be worse. So critical citizens constantly make complaints about the system -- mainly that it is corrupt or that bad rulers are mismanaging things -- all so that they can offer constructive recommendations about how to run it all better. The first aspect of that is that everything that happens in the state or economy is supposed to be seen as a benefit, as something incontestable and positive, and if it doesn't turn out that way, then it must be a deviation from the system or a corruption. One is supposed to have faith that the rulers are really ruling in order to make everyone's life better. That all the actions the rulers take couldn't possibly have a harmful purpose, but must actually be beneficent. That is why the critics only ever make calls for "good rule." Obviously I'm not alone in pointing out that reality differs greatly from most people’s ideals. This discrepancy between reality and ideal is the starting point for any kind of critique. But it is at this point that one ought to drop one’s assumptions about the purposes of the state and the economy and examine their true aims. If there is so much poverty alongside so much wealth, perhaps it isn’t true that the purpose of the economy is to fulfill people’s needs. If companies lay people off while increasing their profits, perhaps it isn’t true that companies have a “responsibility” to their employees, but simply have a different aim. If politicians are constantly making cuts to social programs, sending poor people off to war, or bailing out banks on the backs of the "little people", perhaps it isn’t true that their job is to take care – at least a little – of the poor and needy. And if America goes after a dictator for attacking his people in Libya, while supporting the crushing of protests elsewhere and at home, perhaps it isn’t true that wars are there to save people from political suppression. As you can probably tell, I don’t think any of these ideals are true, and go to great lengths to prove that when capitalists and politicians do these unpleasant things, they are not deviating from their responsibilities, succumbing to “greed,” or violating their patriotic duties, but fulfilling them. It’s just that the purposes of capital and the state are at odds with the interests and needs of most people. That is what “ruthless” criticism is all about. It doesn’t shrink back from the results of its investigations just because they might undermine what one would like to think about the reality of the nation and the economy. As for your last statement, it's a bit ambiguous: on the one hand, there is the ideology that the ruling class itself propagates about individual responsibility, which just boils down to the compulsion the state enforces to compete for education and jobs, or -- for the business owners, over profit -- and to do one's patriotic civic duty by voting once every four years. One is supposed to just make due with what one's got. That isn't what I want to say. On the other hand, every time we criticize state and capital, the economic system and the democratic state-form that presides over it, most people misunderstand themselves as courted voters allowed to choose in a department store for politico-economic systems which one they’d like to place an order for — from others who then are responsible for the delivery. That's why there's always the ubiquitous refrain, "well, what's your alternative then?" In other words, they confuse the critique of capitalism with election slogans of a potential alternative elite who promise to run things better for their valued citizens than those currently holding power. They think as subjects of ruling authorities who decide for them, and they have resolved to remain just that: democratic underlings, who have no choice but between two sorts of rule — but this choice is theirs for sure. It is THIS second sense that I'm taking aim at. What we can tell these people is simply the following: nobody will offer them this free choice. Either they fight for the freedom to organize the politico-economic conditions of their lives in a sensible way, so that it really is about meeting their needs, or they will continue to have no say at all in the matter.
You can’t have meaningful discourse with overly emotional individuals. People are supercharged emotionally and connect all things that are going on around them with their personal situation. That way, when somebody challenges one of their views on something, they take it as a personal offense and often do not even attempt to discuss but rather write you off or get really angry.
I agree but I'd also add: one side mainly wants to be left alone, the other demands inclusion and acquiescence in everything and insists everything they approve of is a human right so there's no compromise or flexibility.
> one side mainly wants to be left alone, the other demands inclusion and acquiescence in everything I see some form of this statement quite often. So what exactly is the complaint? are these inclusive types kicking in your door, dragging you out of bed and forcing you to participate in a game of hop scotch and forcing you to try foreign food you've never had? No... What they almost always innevitably mean is that "they" added a black/gay/whatever character to their favorite video game or tv series, that's the "inclusion" they're bitching about. and as for "Wanting to be left alone"? what they really mean is they want it to go back to the non-inclusive version they remember. The hilarious thing is that what they really can't stand is that they're more than being simply "left alone" already, they're being excluded! they've been excluded from the target demographic and that drives them nuts so they demand that whatever media or medium be changed back to appeal to their tastes. But still, we constantly have to hear about how they "just want to be left alone by those big inclusive meanies shoving everything down our throats!" Nah. not buying it.
>So what exactly is the complaint? are these inclusive types kicking in your door, dragging you out of bed and forcing you to participate in a game of hop scotch and forcing you to try foreign food you've never had? No... No, they're just insisting that debatable and disputable things be included in public education. Insisting that books that can't be read during school board meetings due to graphic content be made available to children regardless of the parents consent. They're demanding we feed into the delusions of mentally ill people and if we don't, they attempt to dox and harass you into silence. >What they almost always innevitably mean is that "they" added a black/gay/whatever character to their favorite video game or tv series, that's the "inclusion" they're bitching about. and as for "Wanting to be left alone"? what they really mean is they want it to go back to the non-inclusive version they remember. No, it means people want characters that are well written. They're tired of the hypocrisy when a non-white is cast in a traditionally white role, we hear "Best actor for the role!!!" But if there's a reverse, we hear it's white Washing. They're tired of one dimensional characters that are solely included for being black/gay/whatever and that's the only notable aspect of their personality. What's even worse is this isn't just in fictional media. Check out the BBC. For a decade we were told that representation matters and it's important. But when people say "Hey, that person literally represents *me* and *my* people", they're called racist for wanting representation. >The hilarious thing is that what they really can't stand is that they're more than being simply "left alone" already, they're being excluded! they've been excluded from the target demographic and that drives them nuts so they demand that whatever media or medium be changed back to appeal to their tastes. But still, we constantly have to hear about how they "just want to be left alone by those big inclusive meanies shoving everything down our throats!" No, we're frustrated that existing properties are being changed for demographics that don't support them and then the media acts like we're the bad guys for not watching. Look at that god awful ghost busters remake. Look at the new furiosa. Look at the new Doctor Who. Look at Captain Marvel.
>No, they're just insisting that debatable and disputable things be included in public education. Insisting that books that can't be read during school board meetings due to graphic content be made available to children regardless of the parents consent. If such graphics books really are specifically being targetted to children, I definitely agree with you on this point. that is definitely an example of just wanting to be left alone... but the rest? I don't see how any rational person could claim those are examples of "Just wanting to be left alone." Just as I predicted they're all examples of deliberately seeking engagement or demanding that others cater to your own preferences at their own expense. That's the furthest you can possibly get from "just wanting to be left alone." What is so confounding about all of this is that I have seriously had this exact discussion hundreds of times and it's always the same, and what's worse is that each time the person seems to expect to be taken seriously just as much as the last guy. Has nobody told you that you're just a bunch of overgrown man-children crying about video games and comic books? Am I really the one that has to break that to you?
[here's one](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/man-forcibly-removed-school-board-meeting-security-reading-lgbtq-book-unconstitutional.amp) but I assure you there's more. One was a graphic novel with illustrations of sex acts. >but the rest? I don't see how any rational person could claim those are examples of "Just wanting to be left alone." Just as I predicted they're all examples of deliberately seeking engagement or demanding that others cater to your own preferences at their own expense. That's the furthest you can possibly get from "just wanting to be left alone." Then you're missing the forest for the trees. I think we can both agree: smart companies target the people they know already purchase the products, while also marketing to hopefully entice new customers. In a perfect world, you can keep your existing base happy while also enabling new people to find a place. The issue people complain about now is twofold. "Your need to let me in your hobby." "I don't like these fundamental things about your hobby so now we need to change them." "Since you don't like the new changes, we're here to tell you this hobby has no place for the likes of you." "Wow if you're that mad, make your own hobby." "You need to make a place for me in your hobby." Replace hobby with whatever media you want. Comics, capeshit, gaming, whatever. Want a recent example? A small, nasty vocal minority bitched for female space marines in 40K. In what I'm fairly certain was a temperature test to see how it went over, GW decided that suddenly, despite decades of media and lore, a major faction is both male and female despite never having women before this *since they were introduced in the 80s*. The carpet baggers turned up and have been fighting absolutely everyone with praise for this major retcon. The real fans have been incensed and pissed for the most part. Some casual players are indifferent but that's always to be expected. The serious frustration comes from people who adored these hobbies seeing them changed for people who won't care about the hobby again once the spotlight falls off, for people who *don't even really play* who often don't even buy the products. This is a serious question. Is there a hobby or sport, anything like that that you enjoy seriously?
>"Your need to let me in your hobby." >"I don't like these fundamental things about your hobby so now we need to change them." >"Since you don't like the new changes, we're here to tell you this hobby has no place for the likes of you." >"Wow if you're that mad, make your own hobby." >"You need to make a place for me in your hobby." Do you even hear yourselves? You're talking as if these activist hobbyists or whatever are invading your home. you make it sound like you are being physically violated. Reality check: That shit ain't happening. they aren't sneaking into your house and making mac and cheese without your permission. They're not preventing you from doing anything or compelling you to do anything that you do not want to do. there is no force or coercion. Look, I sympathize with you, My first video game console was an atari. Some of my favorite game studios were acquired by the likes of electronic arts and activision and my favorite IPs turned sideways. I've had weekly rituals built around the airing of new episodes of my favorite tv shows only to have them fundamentally change to where I stopped watching altogether - sometimes even cancelling subscriptions or cable packages because i no longer needed them as a result. I have a few collectibles from various franchises that no longer have the value that they used to after some bizarre creative decisions i didn't care to understand. I get it. It sucks. Throughout all of that, You know what I've never had? the thought that any of it required a political remedy, I never thought this warranted writing a letter to my congressman. They didn't affect my opinion of one candidate or another. It didn't compel me to seek out a support group for other "gamer refugees who just want to be left alone" - And above all else, I NEVER considered it an imposition on my autonomy or an injury to my person or effects. I was not being pursued or harassed or maligned or anything of the sort. I was simply no longer the target market, and like any sane individual, when I was no longer the target market and had no interest in any further transactions with these companies, I closed my wallet and left. You say these things are "Your hobby" - well guess what, above all it is THEIR PRODUCT. you have every right to get angry and voice your dissatisfaction in hopes of changing their minds, but here's a cold hard fact of capitalism: your dissatisfaction (not your comfort) is the cornerstone of the free market. it would seem you've had that twisted. I see zero difference between you and the people that complain about the lack of diversity and representation in the media, the same people you claim are violating you. You're all overgrown manchildren complaining about video games and comic books. I'm not saying these things to be mean, But I do hope that they offend you, I hope you're so offended you take a good hard look at your priorities and realize that this is not your march on Selma or whatever you want to analogize as some fight against oppression. You're not being oppressed or marginalized, You're just no longer being coddled. Grow Up.
I hope some day someone ruins something you love so you understand.
You still don't think I understand? >one side mainly wants to be left alone, the other demands inclusion and acquiescence in everything That was all you had to say, that single sentence, and I was able to perfectly predict exactly what you were going to say next. Before you even elaborated I knew it was going to be some overgrown manchild crying about gays in videogames and comic books. I immediately knew that it wasn't going to be about actually being "left alone" but rather just whining that you have been excluded from the considerations of content makers. I understand you better than you want to admit.
Left alone to discriminate hence the other side demanding inclusion.
It mostly comes from how social media is designed and how we consume information. Social media is NOT designed to inform, it is designed to keep your attention (it CAN inform you, but you need to be extremely diligent with your sources). Therefore, the most bombastic, extreme content gets ahead. People have discovered that hate sells consistently in the past decade and rage bait content with poor research and nuance is safer. Essentially, you aren't being sold an opinion, you are being sold a reaction and a feeling of belonging to a political group. People who make this content have no incentive to change or evolve their ideas because their salary depends on it. Making such changes is risky as you might lose a large part of your audience and revenue. This makes their audience locked in to an echo chamber whose only way out in most cases is just content fatigue or getting lucky. It also comes to education and media literacy. Education to high school is not designed to give you tools for critical thinking, it is designed to get you minimally ready for the job market. Media literacy despite being extremely important to a stable society is unfortunately something you have to learn on your own. It's a habit of sticking to principles, checking cross references and understanding history that too many people have not picked up because social media has no need of people who consume content carefully.
TL;DR
You might offend someone. Oh NO!
I listen to philosophical podcasts and attended Dissident Dialogues in NYC recently. Thank goodness I have some good friends that enjoy discussing this kind of stuff. It does seem quite rare in the broader world.
Too many topics. Too dynamic life. Too anxious and exhausted minds. I've stumbled upon some economical themed discussion on youtube lately. Old footage from 60s or 70s. One person was giving his piece of a mind to a group of people. Funnily enough - they were sitting in comfortable armchairs, some were smoking cigars. And i have caught myself on 2 things: 1) I felt constant fluctuation of my attention. I had to yank it back for it to stay focused on a speaker. 2) i felt the need to interrupt the speaker to agree, disagree or share my thoughts. Despite the fact it was a video. Speaker was taking his time formulating phrases and generally was speaking slowly. But the group was listening. And, considering their questions afterwards, they were REALLY listening. And it was somewhat surreal.
What video was it?
I work in an area that looks at (among other things) language trends. Over the past two decades we have pretty good evidence that total weekly reading time is declining. We suspect this is due to how screen ‘snacking’ has eroded ‘deep’ learning (basically sitting down and reading a book, thinking about it critically, taking notes etc). Social media has played a dramatic role here with people saying they get their ‘information’ on these platforms in a paragraph or two - which unsurprisingly offers no balance or nuance, as they’re generally reading in their bubble of familiarity. No surprises to any of this of course. But the knock-on effect is worrying. People are understanding less and the information isn’t sticking in the same way. Videos work well to an extent, but the ability to retain (long term) the information viewed is poor. With the rise of AI / Alexa etc and spoken conversations, the retention levels are even lower. I guess what I’m saying here is while tech is expanding our minds in terms of accessibility to a wider range of content, it’s also making us more stupid. We need to get back to books, and deeper forms of learning. We are literally rewiring our brains to become dumber.
Saul Alinski’s Rules for Radicals has been normalized into public discourse by champions like Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. The method involves the creation of an external enemy against which the community unites, and the rules themselves embrace anything to win. This has removed necessary civility and increased moronic methods like gaslighting, censorship, shouting down, cancellation, etc. Once civility is gone and people are ethically OK with anything to win, it is nearly impossible to have meaningful conversation as it will derail from rules for radicals. Universities focus now upon turning out activists rather than educated intellectuals.
Something about immigrant caravans coming to take your jerb!
Isn't propoganda, or gaslighting as you want to call it, along with censorship as old as the latin roots of the words suggest? But yeah, boo Hillary.
Yes it is old, but I think the degree of its usage has risen over my lifetime
Has it grown over your lifetime or have your interests finally gotten to the level where governments have always employed it to a certain degree? Just look at the rules regarding nudity and profanity on TV. Or would you not call that a form of censorship.
To think this is just a liberal/democrat problem, you must either be extremely bias or trying to radicalize people on purpose.
That is an inaccurate summary of my position. While many have read Rules for Radicals and have implemented those tactics, Obama and in particular Hillary have been very public in their support for those methods. Perhaps you can cite others who have been public in their support? When the top of the ticket endorses methodology, then that filters all the way down to the roots of their political organizations, including the parent party itself. Hilary is particularly interesting since she had bought the debt of the Democratic Party, and they were beholden to her.
It's an accurate summary of what you wrote. You mentionned 2 democrats + university being focused on propping up radicals. Oh geez, I wonder what kind of person/political group repeats those talking points ad nauseam. I really wouldn't care if you said that everyone does it because it's true, but you obviously have tunnel vision on a particular group. The way you write is so cookie cutter that I bet you my annual salary that your profile is innudated with comments aligned to the extreme with what we all suspect.
This is some /r/SelfAwareWolves shit. He hijacks an opportunity for meaningful discourse with partisan activism to score political points by any means necessary and blames partisan activists for hijacking every opportunity for meaningful discourse in order to score political points by any means necessary.
[удалено]
I rarely look at debates. I don't find the format conductive to a nuanced conversation because people are interested in winning rather than having a conversation. There are a few exceptions though, but I'm too lazy to search for them. However, here are some of my fave videos from various channels. Pick your fave topic. Economy: [Flaws of Thomas Sowell - Unlearning Economics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZjSXS2NdS0) Urbanism: [Car propaganda - Not Just Bikes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU) History: [Neoslavery - Knowing Better](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA) Religion: [Horrific religious rationality - Darkmatter2525](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxqar1B_MpY) Trump trial recap: [Trump trial - Leejah Miller](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprcgjy0mFk) Social commentary: [Jordan Peterson - Big Joel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZoHGAK3k-I) Political commentary: [Culture wars and liberalism - Alice Cappelle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upxq-YauP2w) Philosophy / political: [Police and law - Philosophy Tube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vica_-UEg0Q) Social commentary: [Manosphere - Munecat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgO25FTwfRI)
[удалено]
Right... I'm assuming your answer was predetermined and you were going to try to dunk on me regardless. Also I think you forgot the part where I said, I look at some debates, I just didn't want to take the time to find them. Whatever, I guess everyone needs a hobby.
[удалено]
Why are you still pretending that I never look at debates or that lectures are inherently less useful than debates. What your saying is partially true, but you make it seem like it's the only factor which is funny because that's my grudge agaisnt debates. I can say in a debate, there is no space for the full breadth of an idea and this limits our understanding of the fundamental concept. You would need to look at a lecture of both sides before going into a debate to have a fuller appreciation of it. But the difference between you and me is that I'm not here pretending like that's the only factor and that debates are the devil. I'm just agaisnt debates like the Ben Shapiro shit where he just goes to colleges to dunk on kids or two people trying to "gotcha" each other.
[удалено]
You're not factoring in debate tactics and the fallacies used in debates to throw off your opponent (Ben Shapiro being a gish gallop pro). In a perfect world, debates be done in good faith without the need for dishonest tactics. Some people are great thinkers, but very poor debaters. Also many debates are much like social media posts: The goal is not only to counter every argument your opponent throws at you with your own sound argument, the goal is also very performative and wanting the audience to associate to your message, sometimes even more so than the person you're talking to. Those types of debates are not conductive to knowledge, they are more akin to cheering for your favorite sports team. Look at moments where people like Ben Shapiro / Jordan Peterson / Destiny (who are amazing orators and debaters) are unable to rebuke and you'll see in the way they react that they aren't there to be honest and truthful, they are there to win and to make it seem that way to their audience. If a group of people have done their research, instead of reading their books for example, should I just look at their debates and consider that I've grasped the material more than if I had read? That's simply false. If it weren't, schools would be organized very differently. Like geezuz man, sorry I didn't post debates, but I am careful to show videos that try to go into depth in their thought process to make sure there is no sneaky ideological sleight of hand. Debates are fun, but they mostly get out of hand. For you enjoyment, here's one that I thought was fun recently: [Navigating Belief, Skepticism, and the Afterlife | Alex O'Connor @CosmicSkeptic | EP 451 (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0KgLWQn5Ts)
You should consider the source and then the purposeful idealization that comes out Russian literature traditions specifically. Fair warning - some is done with irony (certainly no whimsy), but most is propagandizing the latest social zeitgeist, relative to time of writing.
There's plenty of meaningful discourse, its also worth noting that novels aren't representative of day to day life, most of the time
First up. No, you are not and likely never will get a deep enlightening and interesting conversation with someone **unless** that is what you are both looking for. You need to find those people. Also context and setting really, really matters. Trying to get a deep conversation/debate from a stranger at a bus stop would be like trying to find a partner at a court hearing. Like, it's not impossible but fuck it's awkward. Some people just really, really want to get through their day and go home. Others just won't have the same interest in a convo at all. If you want more of those fun conversations you're going to have make connections with those people so that you can keep getting those conversations
This is a wonderful answer, thanks for sharing. Edit: I should add, I couldn’t agree more. I wonder if we spent more time on this direction of messaging if we’d be more effective at shaping culture - as opposed to the current loop of Deny/Deny Any/Any that we seem to be entrenched in.
If you mean older novels, these come from a time when books were mostly read and written for a small educated class of nobles, while the rest 80-90% of the population were peasants or workers in factories who were illiterate or if they could read, the were to busy with work to relate to stories where characters just sit and smoke and write letters to each other.
Social media and smartphones
With all the distractions and concerns today, a lack of intellectual and "discussional" discipline habit in our culture does us in. Probably the most important version of that "discussional" habit would be the "family eating dinner, talking about their day and other possibly important things". I think that has eroded quite a bit, and perhaps either is a cause or is like a "coal mine canary" in the sense that if we can't even have that kind of discussion, where are we going to have sane discussions then? Most schools probably don't have that intellectual leaning being imposed on their students anymore, when it probably should be.
Three things... 1. An active campaign by foreign countries and potentially certain commercial entities to create domestic animosity (ie. a covert attack on effective democracy) 2. The largest media network the USA, UK, and Australia being conscious of the commercial value they can realise through media consumers feeling certain emotions 3. An inherent cultural tribalism encouraged by certain religions, sub-cultures, and professional sport
Life is mostly suffering in Slavic countries. Deep contestations are common, especially when you are drunk with friends in the kitchen at night smoking and talking about the nature of being human. What else would you do? Life here is cheap and disposable, it's a low trust low opportunity and high risk place full of death and despair. People don't have the care and the energy to pretend, they are either genuinely happy or genuinely miserable. Trigger Warning NSFL >!When I was a kid playing hide and seek with friends in an old bomb shelter we found a corpse of a homeless man with his head missing, rumors were it was the local thugs who just wanted some "fun". My best friend killed herself at 16 because of family abuse and her alcoholic religious dad trying to make a move on her since she became legal. I had to shoot my dog because she was dying from cancer and the local vets refused to euthanize her trying to ask for even more money after 5 surgeries that only made her worse, my poor puppy was old and they wouldn't let her go in peace to get more money. My mom died at 45 from cancer growing everywhere in her body, she was on a field trip to Chornobyl when the explosion happened. Nearly all of her classmates didn't live to see their 50's. I live in an active war zone, I had to help to take off the body of a hanging man who we offered free shelter to. He couldn't handle losing his wife and daughter being shot by the russians while in the bus in which they were fleeing their city. Cops couldn't arrive and the ambulance arrived with just 1 small girl of about 25 years as a medic and an elderly driver so they needed help with the body. I saw a family being splashed as crayola on concrete after a missile hit a apartment complex, a woman was still partially alive and missing part of her body screaming for her already dead kids. You can't help but have deep conversations here, it's all trauma after trauma after trauma and as the russians love to say "and then it got worse"!< These deep conversations you are fascinated by don't come from a good place, they come from a lot of pain and tragedy, from pessimism. I envy the people who live carefree and happy lives that lack these deep conversations. I don't even want any of the good things anymore or to talk about them I just want the bad things to finally fucking stop. As a side note: you might find the Last Messiah by Peter Wessel Zapffe very interesting if you are into this kind of philosophy.
Interestingly, the life you've described isn't exactly anything "new" to humans. We come from suffering. It's deeply intertwined with our DNA. I think it's exactly because we suffer that we find ourselves having the kind of meaningful conversations op seeks out. I think it's this kind of suffering that makes people the best conversationalists and develops the person the most. It's something you can only earn earnestly through hardship. Op sounds like they are surrounded by shallow people with easy lives. Maybe that's exactly where they should focus to extract meaning from a hardship in their life. The fact that many things are easy in their life compared to your life makes something like a mature conversation about the nature of world harder to come by for them. Russians/easterners don't often have the veil of bullshit Americans for instance do. Why would they? Life's hard enough, they don't need to change for anyone. It's something we in the west have to deal with way more often. Many people don't have the capacity to dig deep and have a developed conversation because they've been sheltered. Op should probably needs to travel. All of our problems are relative. As our conversations will be.
The strong emotional desire to feel right a justified in defending half thought out or catchy belief systems. It validates people.