For example you look at the history and look whether something was more helpful than harmful (eg: fascist propaganda)
or you look at the science and look whether something is a real theory or barely an hypothesis whose flaws are well-documented.
Basically, instead of saying "GOP says it's raining and Democrats says the weather is nice", you look at the facts and open your window.
> That would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (...) become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events
That scenario exists merely in your slippery slope fallacy.
Meanwhile, fascist propaganda has been proven to do huge damage on this very planet of Earth.
Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'. In the US it seems to mean: 'I must be free to do everything including harming people. If I can't harm others, I'm not really free'
I don't believe that many people believes seriously in 'free' speech absolutism. Are you for abolishing libel laws? Prohibiting non-disclosure agreement? Because they hinder practical free speech more than hate speech laws.
Very few issues have both sides. Booleans yes, they have exactly two equally valid values. Coins also have both sides. But most issues are neither coins nor booleans.
Yep, assuming there are two equally valid positions for everything, because they have a two-party system, so there must be for every topic a GOP side and a Democrat side. Never mind that both parties have often similar bad policies on any topic, in which case you fool yourself believing to be objective while you are only repeating bipartisan dogma.
"Better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else". No, the critics of two-party systems don't want a single party system like Soviet Russia. They want multipartism.
And science has sometimes settled on only one theory. And in other times may have four different competing hypotheses. And other times just no idea whatsoever.
The positive side of both-sideism is that it's very easy. Count the number of sides being presented. Complain if it's not two. Being very lazy myself, I value that.
The spirit of capitalism comes from the US and has a religious background.
Nowadays, many countries have a strong US cultural influence, no shit.
I wish I was smart enough to make this up, but it all comes from this very famous book which summary I provided.
Maybe reading books is not your thing, but I find it interesting.
For women online in particular I'm pretty sure lots of them would rather enjoy less attention on them personally. Too much it not pleasant for _them_. I'm thinking in particular about friends who are content creators, minding her own business and receive comments on her look, insults, sexist comments, unsolicited dick pics, rape and death threats,... I'm sure sexism has nothing to do with that.
OK I'm done on this topic. Maybe there are a lots of women behind internet trolls and then I'm wrong, that's an empirical question. My comment was on "strongly disagree" vs "bullshitting"
I can't do that in general.
Certain attitudes OTOH are heavily gendered, like the psychology behind internet trolls who at the simplest level is that they want everyone's attention to orbit around them.
I have seen 25 years of internet trolling and this kind of attitude is gendered yes. Not in a binary way but in a bimodal one. I could have avoided the point because it's obvious though. I don't hate men because as you found out I'm one myself.
A button for 'disagree strongly' should upvote a comment.
When Einstein and Niels Bohr 'strongly disagree' on quantum physics in 1927, they start a debate that makes both of them more enlightened.
When a bullshit artist, who couldn't care less about the truth, hijack a discussion to make it all about Him (it's almost always a dude), everyone become dumber.
"Moving along" is not enough because the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it.
I have lived in France and Germany and 95+% of the articles I have seen that follow this exact pattern to use as selling argument for $SomeTechnique$ the exact number of millions or billions someone made using $SomeTechnique$ were from the US.
Perhaps you don't pay attention. It striked me because I couldn't care less about the lives of billionaires. People laugh at the 9 years old girl who wants to become Madonna but that dream is no more irrealistic and is IMHO less stupid than becoming Elon Musk.
And no, I'm not gonna make 9 babies. If I have a child one day I want to do half of the parenting.
Sounds like a U.S. thing too. Worshipping of rich people, who must be rich because they are virtuous (Weber) therefore if you copy their habits you can be virtuous too, become rich and go to paradise.
On my way to make 9 babies in order to become the next Elon Musk.
For example you look at the history and look whether something was more helpful than harmful (eg: fascist propaganda) or you look at the science and look whether something is a real theory or barely an hypothesis whose flaws are well-documented.
Basically, instead of saying "GOP says it's raining and Democrats says the weather is nice", you look at the facts and open your window.
> That would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (...) become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events
That scenario exists merely in your slippery slope fallacy. Meanwhile, fascist propaganda has been proven to do huge damage on this very planet of Earth.
Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'. In the US it seems to mean: 'I must be free to do everything including harming people. If I can't harm others, I'm not really free'
I don't believe that many people believes seriously in 'free' speech absolutism. Are you for abolishing libel laws? Prohibiting non-disclosure agreement? Because they hinder practical free speech more than hate speech laws.