RE: We need to become Sceptics | Those Who Claim Need to Provide Proof! Not the other way around!
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
We must also be aware of information bias on both sides caused by the psychological influence that information has when it is repeated enough times in the public sphere.
This is the psychology of marketing and also of propaganda.
Not many are so aware that we now live in an age of censorship.
If the truth is so true on either side, why is censorship of informations to a democratic nation so important. It undermines the veracity of truth.
Most people like to think themselves critical thinkers in the present media paradigm but time and time again just go along with the popular flow.
0
0
0.000
As you pointed out, many of us may think they are critical thinkers, but go along with the popular flow. That says enough: We are not ready to live in a more free society. As long as the majority of people go wit the popular flow, we need to control information flow to make sure the popular flow will not be something totally bad for the people. Something I dont like to see happening, meaning censorship should not happen, but it is required to protect a community/society. Just yet, I was chatting with someone in the phishing/smishing (phising through text messages) protection business, and he told me also young people (teenagers, young adults) are falling for these smishin attacks, some of them asking their friends if such and such message is true or false. When youngster who grown up in the digital age, cant recognise fake from real in such very simple cases, then I think we are a really ling way away from being able to live in a more free society. How sad this may sound.
I see your point but you've just justified fascism.
Are you ok with that?
I feel it is better to let humanity crash and burn, the only way we learn (and really learn) is through pain.
How much coddling do we need and how much good has that done us in the past? We live in a society of coddling.
What we need are uncensorable platforms that can't be destroyed by any one perspective.
Ok, we have one here.
You use strong words... I have not affinity whatsoever with such thoughts; I just point out the reality.
Hmmm, interesting. Such crash and burn could mean the overtacking of control by a few corporates driving the same what you call fascism. I dont think we want that to happen, do we? Next few decades we have to make sure technology will not be in the hands of a few, whatever form of economy will not be in the hands of a few, and with that control will not be in the hands of a few. Reality is that a few have all these knowledge and control already. In the fiat world. But certianly in the crypto world... the world that should be the driver of free societies, but in reality its taking as much power and money from all the rest. Ok, am a bit black/white with these statements, but am not far from the truth for a bunch of people moving around in crypto space. I tend to look at things positively, but from time to time reality hits and negative feelings about our future start to arrise.
That said, will fight for the good, honesty, continue to try to bring the message across as I try to do in my post, and continue to try to open the eyes of people who are too much followers. Hoepfully at one point in time we can have enough people around to be able to progress to more freedom :) Looking forward to that moment for sure :)
I don't disagree with you. It's a catch twenty two.
Fascism if you do, fascism if you don't.
Who is gonna be the one that presses the button of control?
Self-responsibility is the solution but who takes this option? This means facing personal pain now and willingly in order to avoid a greater pain in the future.
What we need more than anything is the foundation of a society that allows freedom without abuse - as one person's freedom is another person's tyranny.
What you state is stated with good intention I see - but i quickly see how your suggested methods of control cause greater problems in the future. As soon as we justify censorship in one sphere of information it becomes just as easy to press that same button in other areas.
Before you know it, everything you do and say is controlled 'for the betterment of humanity'.
And likely it won't be an altruistic or benevolent you or I that is creating this new framework for control it will be the powers that be which we have already come to distrust for all of their corruption.
My take home is this - people should stop trying to control each other.
There is amazing levels of corruption on both sides of this political dilemma happening in America - who are you to say in all of your wisdom that you are right?
I think we both want the same to happen; Our goals are the same at least, a society of freedom without control by others, an individual, an entity or whatsoever. The path towards such future, is where we deviate. I don't have the truth in my hands and never will. I only have suggestions. I think we need to find ways to get to the future we want and whatever path we go, we have to make sure we progressing to that goal. Its not that black and white. If control by some system is bound to move towards full control with no freedom to the people, this would've happened a long time ago already. I dont say we are on the perfect path towards our endgoal, we may want to (even need to) shift lanes. However I doubt we shall move to the lane where no control is executed, not today, and likely not anytime soon, since too many people will not be able to travel with us, while at the same time the bad actors will likely take control and pushes us to the lanes of more control then we are dealing with today. Sure, you may say: We can't look into the future, whatever happens then we will have to wait for until the future is the current moment. I think we really need to explore the roads (lanes) between as much freedom as possible, whilst bringing the mass to the end goal without the chance of a total reset of our societies with all the unpredictable outcomes we can imagine.
That said, I understand we are not on the same page wrt how we reach our endgoal which we share :)
Sure, well we can disagree non-violently without ending in a resolution to control each other. lol
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. For this moment, the people hold power still and their perspectives still have sway in politics no matter how non-critical they may be.
But with the advent of high technology, the people no longer need to be listened to. They can simply be controlled by those with the tech.
We're moving into a completely different world. Those megalomaniacs that previously were held back by the will of the people - now with both high technology and an unprecedented knowledge of the human mind - have a greater ability than ever to assert a plan for total dominion.
It's not a conspiracy, it's all out there for those that want to read it and do their research. At least it is, until someone decides that it's against the people's best interest to read about such things and decides to mandate laws that censor such content.
You make a very good point wrt technology and the possibility, well the very likelyhood, it can be used to dominate everything, including the people. Technology advancement and how this can be bad to reach our endgoal, is something I had long long thoughts about. To me, the only way this will play out well, is that technology will be in public hands. No single entity, or multiple thereof, shall be allowed to own the technology. We may need to start to remove the possibility of patents. We may need to break down the big corporates to small companies. We may need to break down the whole financial sector. We shall do so in the fiat economies as well as in the crypto economies. When we gonna breakdown all of what I mention, we will face a LOT of resistance. Not only by the owners of these corporates, but also by a lot of others who think their lives depends on those corporates. But we will have to go through this for sure, otherwise technology will be in the hands of a few, and we are all doomed. That said, the big corporates generally have a sort term focus, generally not having long term views on how technology can be harmful for themselves, let alone for the rest of the world. When not breaking down all of the, more or less, monopolies and bring this all back to small proportions, its (to me) very lickely technology will destroy humanity completely, ie AI will wipe out humanity since AI doesnt understand why we are not acting such that we can survive in the long run.
I'm all for none volient discoussions, agreement and living together and even like friendships with those who think differently :)
You wan to LOL?
This afternoon I read a Tweet from someone who not only believes in Bitcoin a lot, but also believes in a free society without rulers. You know what she wrote after she complained about some of her newly ordered furniture will be delivered end of year only? She wrote something like: "I ordered my bed at Amazon and they will deliver next week; A great service for which I like to pay a premium". D*rn... She doesnt understand what she is contributing to! These type of companies are 1000 times (maybe even 10000 to 100000 times) to big already. I laught for more than 10 minutes before I even could respond to that Tweet LOL
No, you point out a perspective. To state that you point out 'the reality' is solipsism.
Ok, I should've said a high likelyhood :)