[mods delete this post if deemed verboten]

Does anyone else find it hard to escape their echo chambers? By escape I mean more than the ability to simply read stuff from "the other side" on whatever topic in question is. I mean engage, comment, respond with people who hold a different position than you.

In my experience, when belonging to let's say the "dominant side" (I say side again as a nod to the extreme polarization of seemingly every topic) that dissenting views are not tolerated explicitly. Censored/deleted either by mods/empowered authority or by versions of community ranking/rating schemes.

People on the "dissenting side" having been silenced in "dominant" managed spaces congregate in areas that "dominant" proponents by and large won't visit.

My feeling is that over time this pattern has become more and more extreme. People no longer try to understand the points of views of others and find their points of disagreement. People seem less and less inclined to accept that others may come to a different decision or judgement on a particular topic and that that is not an indication that one or the other is "wrong".

Discussion and exchange can help people understand why they hold different or even opposing views on something. Not by focusing on advocacy or from a position of persuasion. Instead, by trying to find the typically multiple underlying and orthogonal principles that comprise any topic of real world complexity. Discovering the different weightings/moral judgements/opinions people hold in regard of these.

Twenty years ago, places like these forums I felt offered promise for a template of how to enable those direct interactions among the wider community, at a time when the flow of ideas was very uni-directional.

I don't know what the solution is, but my fear is that the online echo chambers we fall into are starting to degrade the fabric of society. They are undermining the basic level of respect in each others individual agency and I'm fearful of where this path leads.

The Overton window moves in one direction. That's about all there is to say about that. History repeats because human psychology is flawed.

I've been listening to a lot of talks by Zizek the crazy philosopher. He had an interesting idea regarding understanding the other. He disparages the idea that if we get to know the other we will somehow come to terms and co-exist. He argues this is bulls***, we can never truly know each other, what's needed is blissful ignorance of others. We don't need to understand others, but just to co-exist.

There is a limit of course. But in general, we should just ignore each other and our idiosyncrasies.

We're literally a few hundred million tribes constantly snarling at each other, while also almost incidentally (like an emergent property?), cracking atoms and plumbing the secrets of the universe.

this is spot on.

IMO we don't consider if an action is good for the community. By community I mean the one you live in, walk in, eat in, s*** in. Allowing people to own multiple properties is not good for the community. Higher density buildings are generally not good for the community unless they are paired with increase in facilities and services.

against my better judgement, but I've really basically thrown my hands up in the air these days

Does anyone else find it hard to escape their echo chambers? By escape I mean more than the ability to simply read stuff from "the other side" on whatever topic in question is. I mean engage, comment, respond with people who hold a different position than you.

can confirm I am getting increasingly radicalised by every conversation I have with people outside of what passes for my echo chamber (although for the last couple years that has really been my circle of friends and family)

not sure if infi's plan - to have citizens seize the means of [digital] production from the entrepreneurs that created them (is there a name for this?) - is the right approach but so far we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas, so hey, might be worth a try. who are you and what have you done with infi! calling for heavy-handed government regulations on corporations - we'll have you voting Greens before you know it!

(the above is an example of an unhelpful snarky comment that will further drive any chance of polite constructive discourse auguring straight into the ground, it is included for academic purposes only)

People on the "dissenting side" having been silenced in "dominant" managed spaces congregate in areas that "dominant" proponents by and large won't visit.

the quotes are doing a lot of work in this sentence, but at the end of the day if you want to have a space that is not filled with nonsense, decisions have to get made about moderation policies

Aside from some vague limitations on these fringe groups organising - hard for me to get too worked up about Nazis being denied the right to use Facebook to organise their dopey events - there is little evidence to me that they are being silenced - go look at any QLD Health Facebook thread about COVID (or, frankly, most other topics) and you'll see they are just as full of s*** as ever. I feel like for these platforms to retain any utility whatsoever they simply can't let evil groups organise [1].

The moderation tools for subforum owners need a lot of work - there is not enough flexibility or control for administrators to effectively manage them at scale. I am not sure this is a solvable problem - FB have tried employing thousands (maybe tens of thousands, I can't remember) of humans to try to keep basic s*** like porn off and they can't do it.

So my only real constructive thought is that maybe we're just going the wrong way with all these platforms that try to get as many people in one place. Maybe one possible answer is that Internet forums should focus on small scale based on local communities (this aligns with what I have always thought about video games and dedicated servers, as an aside).

As an example, I think FB/Twitter would be a better place if politicians were only able to be followed/talked at by their constituents & people in their sphere of influence (fellow MPs, local journalists, etc). Too many politicians get caught up trying to go viral and end up getting their egos stroked by Russian trolls and fringe group morons from the other side of the planet, which deviates their thinking from the actual reality on the ground. I dunno how that would work, practically.

1. Before some free speech galaxy brain steps in and says, stroking their chin thoughtfully, "ah, but who are you to say that Nazis are evil", maybe just go f*** yourself.

in unrelated news about my ongoing radicalisation, my local federal MP appears to have banned me from his Facebook page today because of a comment I made (which he has also deleted)

is this what it feels like to be banned from things? ugh it's very unpleasant, no wonder people get so angry about it

https://trog.qgl.org/up/2202/mp-ukraine.jpg

AITA? I was asking a legit question, sure, possibly a bit obnoxiously, but I could not f*****g belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve he made that post at this time

I note (looking at his FB page in incognito) that he has since made a bland single-line "we stand with Ukraine" post which I guess qualifies as foreign policy

1. Before some free speech galaxy brain steps in and says, stroking their chin thoughtfully, "ah, but who are you to say that Nazis are evil", maybe just go f*** yourself.

I agree, though I wouldn't frame it as a question, more a statement like "trog is not smart enough to say nazi's are evil".

But while we are on the subject of evil nazis, borderline retardedly mentioning ukraine to the member for taringa (who was definitely going to engage with a random who apparently cares what the greens think about anything on a topic he has no portfolio responsibility for), turns out ukraine has a neo nazi grandma's.

I for one welcome this hard line by Russia against very evil nazi's.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7dpdd/why-is-this-ak-47-toting-ukrainian-grandma-being-trained-by-neo-nazis

If Russians stop this definitely as evil as hilter nazi grandma from posting on facebook even once it will have been worth it.

(the above is an example of an unhelpful snarky comment that will further drive any chance of polite constructive discourse auguring straight into the ground, it is included for academic purposes only)

It's funny how some of the supposed freedom people want books banned in schools they don't like and there's even pastors burning books. What's the world coming to.

So one of the books they want removed from elementary school libraries (not quite the same as banning) is this book which gives graphic depictions of various sex acts.

Why do you want to show 8 year olds how to give blowjobs? Been to Thailand recently?

So one of the books they want removed from elementary school libraries (not quite the same as banning) is this book which gives graphic depictions of various sex acts.

Why do you want to show 8 year olds how to give blowjobs? Been to Thailand recently?

Wow! Excellent strawman. Did you think that all up by yourself and reach out to your f***ed up biases of an echo chamber.

still think you're a full on knob. Have for over a decade, nothing has changed.

Why are you so obsessed with me?

So the book I linked to is one of the specific books that people are pushing to be removed from primary school libraries.

It depicts graphic sex acts.

So if you're complaining about "supposed freedom people" "banning books" and that's the specific book they are complaining about you *must* think it's appropriate to depict blow jobs to children between the ages of 5 to 12. Either that or you were ignorant about the debate.

Take your pick. And yes I'm a "dismissive prick" about debating the merits of showing porn to young children.

Does anyone else find it hard to escape their echo chambers?

The fact that one would read another point of view and consider those arguments suggests they're not living in an echo chamber. But it is important to distinguish what you consider an echo chamber, because what you're describing sounds a lot more like people feeling marginalised or disenfranchised for having a particular view. I think there's a big difference between what society as a whole finds acceptable and an echo chamber.

These days people who believe in peer reviewed science, technical innovation, and medicine are by some labelled as sheep living in an echo chamber who refuse to be enlightened. Which is just mind blowing. How do you deal with people who think this way? It's like trying to tell the nutball in the valley that he isn't the second coming of Christ, he's just a guy wearing a vest and no pants. There's just nowhere to go with some people.

Society collectively tends to move with an idea. For example when society collectively decides that black people are people too, not a second class of sub-human. Or that women should be able to vote. Being gay is not a crime, but socially acceptable. That the age of consent shouldn't be 12 but higher. Whatever it is, society as a whole sets the standard. There will always be outcasts or fringe members of society that will swim against the current. It has happened for thousands of years. What has changed is the Internet and these days social media. When before the outcast knew they were an outcast, these days the Internet allows them to find groups of like minded people to form virtual social structures that make them feel like they're not the odd one out.

That's my thoughts on it.

The people who won WW2 didn't care about it. The people who lost Vietnam really cared about it. Just sayin'

I don't believe the people who discovered how to start fires cared about it either, or whether they wiped their arse with their hand or a leaf.

This thread must not die. It is the last of the "politics threads" that needs the be kept for posterity in the face of the ever growing and overwhelming evidence that the NPC's are more NPC than previously thought possible.

a graph of peer-review


be interesting to chart the "regularity of major scientific breakthroughs" alongside that chart. Speaking as someone who worked for a peer-reviewed journal. it is, by definition, seeking peer approval. interesting to object to being called a sheep...
The people who won WW2 didn't care about it. The people who lost Vietnam really cared about it. Just sayin'

God you're a twat. What an inane and superfluous statement highlighting you're a full on condescending wanker when anyone calls you out. What a knob. Go f*** yourself.

God you're a twat. What an inane and superfluous statement highlighting you're a full on condescending wanker when anyone calls you out. What a knob. Go f*** yourself.

Goodness you do get yourself worked up don't you? You haven't worked for a peer-reviewed journal have you?

still keen on giving porn to 12 year olds?

Nobody:
absolutely nobody:
Eorl: my mother is a dementia ridden sub-human nazi.

personally my test of whether or not I live in an echo chamber includes whether or not I'd *unbidden* publicly denounce an immediate family member for a pollical fad.

the above post is easily the most disgusting immoral thing I've seen written on this website in 20 years, by a considerable margin. Frankly if you're the quality of person who gets to be an editor the permanent ban is welcome.

however, prior to my banning I'd urge you to look at three things. Firstly go and look at the 'Melissa' thread and both see what I said and realise how hard it is to take a hardline editorial line on trans issues from this website as a result. Any post that is edited or reads 'this space for rent in an epic thread' should be read as your personal failure in light of this new found zeal.

Secondly, go and read about the cultural revolution and understand the true scumminess of what you just did.

thirdly and finally, calling people sub-human in service of the inclusion cult is really f*****g dumb and really f*****g funny. happy to get banned from this website for unapologetically saying paedophilia is bad.

It's not anti-trans to reject calling someone by their pronouns

"I'm not anti-trans, I'm just an a******!" i continue to insist as i slowly shrink and transform into a corn cob

Hey so while we are talking about echo chambers

Remember that time the new york times and washington post won pulitizers for a made up story about Trump colluding with russia.

so here is john durhams report on that.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

One of my personal favourites from the report is

Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

another fav

Our investigation determined that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting. Nor was Steele able to produce corroboration for any of the reported allegations, even after being offered $1 million or more by the FBI for such corroboration

super weird the FBI would offer a million bucks for proof of a claim they had no evidence of.

anywho, I can count on one hand the people on this forum who called Russiagate correctly in 2017. And exactly zero of the people worried about echo chamber in this thread are among them. Right now they're really concerned about showing porn to young children.

Kiss my ass morons. get back to me when your understanding of the world doesn't include obviously wholly invented stories.

Nobody:
absolutely nobody:
Eorl: my mother is a dementia ridden sub-human nazi.

personally my test of whether or not I live in an echo chamber includes whether or not I'd *unbidden* publicly denounce an immediate family member for a pollical fad.

the above post is easily the most disgusting immoral thing I've seen written on this website in 20 years, by a considerable margin. Frankly if you're the quality of person who gets to be an editor the permanent ban is welcome.

however, prior to my banning I'd urge you to look at three things. Firstly go and look at the 'Melissa' thread and both see what I said and realise how hard it is to take a hardline editorial line on trans issues from this website as a result. Any post that is edited or reads 'this space for rent in an epic thread' should be read as your personal failure in light of this new found zeal.

Secondly, go and read about the cultural revolution and understand the true scumminess of what you just did.

thirdly and finally, calling people sub-human in service of the inclusion cult is really f*****g dumb and really f*****g funny. happy to get banned from this website for unapologetically saying paedophilia is bad.

So you'd rather allow your family member the ability to sink further into a dangerous echo chamber that has a higher risk of harm to self or others because they believe the conviction of defining a person is theirs and only theirs, to calling them out on their bulls***? I'll take self reflection and societal understanding for $1,000 thanks Eddy.

Paedophilia is a horrendous act against a defenceless child and no one should believe they have the right to do something like that. No one should also have the right to equate an expression of art and career choice as to paedophilia because that person being a condescending prick has some immoral echo chamber argument against said form of art. "I heard it on TikTok therefore it's real" is just as bad as your blatant ignorance to the logical and analytical basis of peer reviewed scientific journals.

No one should also claim that science is proof that something is right. Science is about developing a theory and then testing that theory to determine its extreme limits and existence. If you want to believe the boogieman is real without any shred of evidence, please go ahead. However, don't go calling out people for asking how it is you can believe in the boogieman did you've never seen him or been able to articulate how exactly he could be real.

Social media is a perfectly articulated weapon of destructive creative thinking. Pressing that like button because it makes you chuckle is removing any form of interactivity and "doing your part" to agree because it has 70 other people liking it.