Progressivism? <:smugon:512048583806025739>

it is NOT a net positive by any means

progressivism came about the exact same time as the internet

FALSE

Holy shit, progressivism has slowly leaned left over the past 3 decades. But once again, I'll agree that the internet *accelerated* that rate, much to their demise

true, despite it's earlier roots it had no teeth nor significant following

^^^ READ

and this is the core of my point; ideas like communism and progressivism and pedophila were ALWAYS present. however, they were NOT allowed to fester and spread in forum of open debate

colleges

I'll meet you halfway. The internet bolsters a nasty net negative on escalating the insanity, isolationism, and progressive politics that currently saturate the media. But I still recognize the net positive in communication, economics, and quality of life reaped as a reward

what if the world really did end in 2012 and we're dealing with the aftermath

anyone with a bad idea couldn't go very long without that idea being flushed out or else they became fringe

not today

today, if you don't like what i have to say, you can ALWAYS find some group on reddit that beleives in the same hair-brained ideas

it's kind of a double edged sword tho bc the internet was the only way I found ppl like sargon

True, you no longer need to make the pilgrimage to Georgetown to drink the Kool-Aid <:smugon:512048583806025739>

people grow up thinking they always have the option to simply ignore conflict not realizing that ignoring conflict is the best way to INVITE conflict

And that's a sentiment I can passionately agree with

and instead of immediately explaining why certain ideas were BAD ideas, we ignored them, went to our seperate corners of the internet and let them fester and grow

in the past, you either learned to accomidate the wishes of a group in your vicinity, OR you stayed at home ALONE

that social pressure helped regulate society, ESPECIALLY the left

That's the consequence of echo chambers. It's always refreshing to cycle through media outlets. The days of Walter Cronkite are long since past

true, but we are ALL in an echo chamber

all of us

because we are never FORCED to reconcile disagreeements

I'd rather have instant access to information that be subjected to selective information

birds of a feather flock together

Malcolm Gladwell - Blink

Unfortunately. Just talk to anyone who only watches MSNBC or FOX and nothing else, it's insufferable.

In the book, he makes a solid case for why there is NO difference between 1) having not enough information and 2) having TOO much information with no way to filter for relevance

it is a common misconception that more information is always better

It rarely is because at a certain point, we start seeing patterns that don't really exist

Exactly. Which is why no one dare watch a 10 hour impeachment session every day. It's easier to reference trusted and reliable sources.

and, we can justify ANYTHING

evidence takes time and energy. more information just makes it easier to cast doubt on ANYTHING

even the fact that the earth is round

fact is that there is a paradox intrinsic to becoming more and more specialized

But it's still fact. Objective truth exists. When drowning in an ocean of opinion, sound judgement appears as a distant shore. But reason is a life raft. Even with all the information in the world, you can still easily make sound determinations and ignore the bullshit.

the more specialized we become, the more DEPENDANT we become on others who know more about things we do not. However, the less we have to learn to operate in a vacum, the less we are able to determine who we should TRUST and who we should not trust

the internet is creating a MASSIVE divide between the blue collar and white collar style of workers

No. The more specialized we become, whether in politics or tradecraft, the less dependent you become on placing wavering trust in questionable sources. You lean to discern truth from nonsense.