• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Shaneyson

Reds under the bed.

Recommended Posts

Tin foil hat firmly on, after watching the first couple of minutes of this I was minded of some posters I have encountered. This is in light of the number of what may be considered onorthodox issues we are prepared to freely discuss in this forum, and the latest styxenhammer video.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shaneyson said:

Tin foil hat firmly on, after watching the first couple of minutes of this I was minded of some posters I have encountered. This is in light of the number of what may be considered onorthodox issues we are prepared to freely discuss in this forum, and the latest styxenhammer video.

 

 

I don't think it matters how many trolls or bots there are.  I come on here to find like minded people and to share ideas.  If I don't like an idea I simply discard it but if I like an idea I add it to my own.  It really doesn't matter if the idea comes from a bot or a troll or a real person.  I don't care how many trolls or bots disagree with me.  Probably thousands of real people too . . . dgaf.  I am enhancing my own ideas and linking up with the like minded, whatever they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a lot of information or context provided,  but it sounds, like his paper was advocating engaging with online groups like conspiracy theorists..  not to rubbish them, but to question the facts, government motives..  and really more to educate and persuade that there are credible alternatives.  

I would say it is a good thing if governments did do this..  provided they do stick to educating and adding useful insight into online debate.

That is not to say I'm not concerned about governments pushing agendas online that are politically rather than factually driven..   but I'm not sure this clip shows evidence of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Snow bird said:

I don't think it matters how many trolls or bots there are.  I come on here to find like minded people and to share ideas.  If I don't like an idea I simply discard it but if I like an idea I add it to my own.  It really doesn't matter if the idea comes from a bot or a troll or a real person.  I don't care how many trolls or bots disagree with me.  Probably thousands of real people too . . . dgaf.  I am enhancing my own ideas and linking up with the like minded, whatever they are. 

Kay (eyeing the dog): "Is it real?"

Deckard: "I don't know. Ask him." 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Libspero said:

There is not a lot of information or context provided,  but it sounds, like his paper was advocating engaging with online groups like conspiracy theorists..  not to rubbish them, but to question the facts, government motives..  and really more to educate and persuade that there are credible alternatives.  

I would say it is a good thing if governments did do this..  provided they do stick to educating and adding useful insight into online debate.

That is not to say I'm not concerned about governments pushing agendas online that are politically rather than factually driven..   but I'm not sure this clip shows evidence of that.

Perhaps, but I think you have to take the point he's starting from in order to put his language and his own belief system into context. To even be discussing the subject suggests a belief that there are certain viewpoints that are outright "wrong" and that the people with those viewpoints need to be encouraged or assisted to start thinking the "right" way. In my opinion all the damage is done within that belief - anything else, e.g. the paper, the paid trolls and the degree of deliberate opinion shaping etc are merely symptoms of the belief itself.

As far as I can tell, there is no good reason to suppress the opinions of anybody because common sense and consensus will usually win the day. The only people who would seek to suppress opinions of others must IMO surely be working to an agenda in which they pursue either what is best for their own interests, or what they believe to be best for everybody else's. And anyone who believes they know what is best for everybody else is, in my opinion, usually deluded and highly unlikely to bring about what actually is best for the species, race, or whatever as a whole.

On that basis, I'm not sure we need to be worrying about evil agendas so much as well meaning idiots in a range of different guises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fully Detached said:

Perhaps, but I think you have to take the point he's starting from in order to put his language and his own belief system into context. To even be discussing the subject suggests a belief that there are certain viewpoints that are outright "wrong" and that the people with those viewpoints need to be encouraged or assisted to start thinking the "right" way. In my opinion all the damage is done within that belief - anything else, e.g. the paper, the paid trolls and the degree of deliberate opinion shaping etc are merely symptoms of the belief itself.

As far as I can tell, there is no good reason to suppress the opinions of anybody because common sense and consensus will usually win the day. The only people who would seek to suppress opinions of others must IMO surely be working to an agenda in which they pursue either what is best for their own interests, or what they believe to be best for everybody else's. And anyone who believes they know what is best for everybody else is, in my opinion, usually deluded and highly unlikely to bring about what actually is best for the species, race, or whatever as a whole.

On that basis, I'm not sure we need to be worrying about evil agendas so much as well meaning idiots in a range of different guises.

Dunno, there’s a lot of harm done because people believe bollocks. Whether it’s vampire lynchmobs in Malawi or antivax evangelists in California, people die everyday basically  because people believe any old dogshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Dunno, there’s a lot of harm done because people believe bollocks. Whether it’s vampire lynchmobs in Malawi or antivax evangelists in California, people die everyday basically  because people believe any old dogshit.

Yes, but you won't change those people's opinions no matter what you do. These aren't the sort of people his paper is talking about IMO - he's aiming at people who are undecided or at the very least open to having their opinion changed. He just wants to change it to suit the way he thinks it should be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fully Detached said:

Yes, but you won't change those people's opinions no matter what you do. These aren't the sort of people his paper is talking about IMO - he's aiming at people who are undecided or at the very least open to having their opinion changed. He just wants to change it to suit the way he thinks it should be.

I agree to an extent. However the assumption that people are basically sensible and there is no need to ever manage the spread of ideas is (sadly) misfounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hail the Tripod said:

I agree to an extent. However the assumption that people are basically sensible and there is no need to ever manage the spread of ideas is (sadly) misfounded.

In your opinion yes - and your opinion is every bit as valid as mine. That's kind of the point I'm making, in that you and I have differing opinions on the subject, and probably neither of us will have our minds changed by the other. But for anyone reading who is unconvinced either way, they will make a much more informed decision by being exposed to both view points. Suppressing or interfering with one over the other does not give the individual free choice.

That's not to say that many people won't go on to make spectacularly shit decision regardless of the balance of opinion available to them, but that is our right as human beings IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fully Detached said:

In your opinion yes - and your opinion is every bit as valid as mine. That's kind of the point I'm making, in that you and I have differing opinions on the subject, and probably neither of us will have our minds changed by the other. But for anyone reading who is unconvinced either way, they will make a much more informed decision by being exposed to both view points. Suppressing or interfering with one over the other does not give the individual free choice.

That's not to say that many people won't go on to make spectacularly shit decision regardless of the balance of opinion available to them, but that is our right as human beings IMO.

So it makes sense for the state to intervene as a countervailing force in some forums? Even though some ideas are batshit crazy and or dangerous, at what level does the state decide an intervention is warranted. Which ideas would it be decided required state sponsorship and which ones require state supression. I don't believe the state has any right to make these types of value judgements on discussions. Obviously it has a moral duty to protect its citzens against harm or criminality, but ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shaneyson said:

So it makes sense for the state to intervene as a countervailing force in some forums? Even though some ideas are batshit crazy and or dangerous, at what level does the state decide an intervention is warranted. Which ideas would it be decided required state sponsorship and which ones require state supression. I don't believe the state has any right to make these types of value judgements on discussions. Obviously it has a moral duty to protect its citzens against harm or criminality, but ideas?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I think as soon as you go down the route of deciding that some ideas need to be suppressed, then you have a conundrum of where you begin intervening.

My opinion is that whilst some ideas are undeniably batshit crazy, the best thing to do is leave people to make up their own minds, and if they happen to wipe themselves or others out in the process, it's an unfortunate fact of life - but ironically some of the best evidence that the idea was, in fact, batshit crazy after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shaneyson said:

So it makes sense for the state to intervene as a countervailing force in some forums? Even though some ideas are batshit crazy and or dangerous, at what level does the state decide an intervention is warranted. Which ideas would it be decided required state sponsorship and which ones require state supression. I don't believe the state has any right to make these types of value judgements on discussions. Obviously it has a moral duty to protect its citzens against harm or criminality, but ideas?

I think it makes sense to employ people to reassure and promote the use of polio vaccine if there is a big drop in uptake as a result of antivax misinformation groups. I’m sure there are plenty of other areas where pseudo scientific bollocks or religious horseshit places a burden on society, and while I believe they should have the right to speak their crazy, it may worthwhile to have an official counterpoint.

It should be limited by openness though, where people are employed to do this, there is really no reason to do it in secret. Think of it maybe as “science communicators” for social media.

Political opinion shaping is more ethically troublesome, but may be a precondition of lasting civil society, i’m not in a good position to judge really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Dunno, there’s a lot of harm done because people believe bollocks. Whether it’s vampire lynchmobs in Malawi or antivax evangelists in California, people die everyday basically  because people believe any old dogshit.

It sounds pretty unpleasant but as long as they're just lynching them I think those vampires will probably be ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might have misinterpreted what you were saying above, apologies.

 

9 hours ago, Fully Detached said:

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I think as soon as you go down the route of deciding that some ideas need to be suppressed, then you have a conundrum of where you begin intervening.

My opinion is that whilst some ideas are undeniably batshit crazy, the best thing to do is leave people to make up their own minds, and if they happen to wipe themselves or others out in the process, it's an unfortunate fact of life - but ironically some of the best evidence that the idea was, in fact, batshit crazy after all.

A bit like the wisdom of crowds.  I can't remember the quote but it went along the lines of when you meet someone with the average IQ half of the population are not as clever as that. We're doomed I tell ya, dooomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shaneyson said:

I might have misinterpreted what you were saying above, apologies.

 

A bit like the wisdom of crowds.  I can't remember the quote but it went along the lines of when you meet someone with the average IQ half of the population are not as clever as that. We're doomed I tell ya, dooomed.

Yea, you say to someone, "Do you know that half the population are below average intelligence?" It is depressing how many will challenge you to sources, accuse you of elitism or say you are crazy.  That is what we are up against!  Way too many people are as dumb as shit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Snow bird said:

Yea, you say to someone, "Do you know that half the population are below average intelligence?" It is depressing how many will challenge you to sources, accuse you of elitism or say you are crazy.  That is what we are up against!  Way too many people are as dumb as shit!

In further education colleges, courses are judged against the national benchmark. What this is, is the average result of each course, compared across the country.

if the course in a college does not beat the benchmark (average remember) the teachers are threatened with the sack. O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.