Takes spread like wildfire json.blog
@jsonbecker I agree with this for most online conversations these days:
It’s not a conversation, it’s a signaling competition.
@jsonbecker i commented on this somewhere else - but I bookmarked it at when i first read it - did what I was going to do and now releasing the bookmark - but before I do ... 💯
@jsonbecker HA! think of a puppy sitting on its pillow. The treat is just a yard away - but the puppy is looking up and asking can i get it? can I get it?
not yet ..... not yet ..... not ... R E L EA S E
@jsonbecker I wrote a kind of response to your post and I just wanted to let you know that I hope it doesn't come off as too argumentative (in light of your posts's self-reflective tone especially): blog.martin-haehnel.de/2024/05/2...
@matti it does not, though of course I agree with much and quibble with some.
Mainly, I don’t think “trying out an opinion” is quite the act of deception implied. It’s a normal thing people do in the course of a discussion. We don’t normally enter a discussion with a fully formed, unchanging, sense of what we know and believe! Part of a conversation is often trying to convince others or yourself.
The other thing I would note: part of the problem of broadcast-driven mediums on the web is that your audience can suddenly become very different than expected. Decontextualization can be as much the source of the “harm” as any actual content. The idea that a critique of a politician you agree with cannot be made lest the other side uses it is pretty tough to swallow, for example. So while the facts of climate change, for yet another example, are incontrovertible in the macro, that shouldn’t stop the capacity for someone knowledgeable to critique a specific study or data set or framing, lest the deniers seize upon it. Similarly, decontextualization can be read as cruel and harmful speech when the level of care and compassion can and are adjusted to your audience. A change in audience can mean deep misinterpretation.
All that is to say, there are times for moral clarity and simplicity. But I think each of us will choose slightly different places where we can make that stand. And the current state of speech has pushed us to vastly expanding the scope where people demand a simple take. I’m not sure we’re making the right choices there. Actually, I’m pretty confident we’re not.
@jsonbecker Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
I may have a slightly different definition of trying out an opinion. I don't disagree that exploring possible perspectives should by all means be permitted. I just feel that it's helpful to distinguish "figuring out what my opinion is" from "trying out what other people would do if this would be my opinion". I think consent and disclosure are somewhat important here. By flagging things appropriately people know what to expect.
Speaking of expectations: I agree that both scion and rootstock can be the source of harm (to use a slightly weird metaphor). Being aware of there being harm in either doesn't excuse us to not care for the potential harm done by either, though, right?
The big question when it comes to shifts of society like you describe with your examples for me is always: How much can you actually do? My reflex is to say: Not much. Intentions are a lag measure. That doesn't mean we shouldn't support what we think is important to create the world we want to live in - even if it's only for our own sakes - and support the people and actions the seem to us necessary to make these things more likely, but I do think this stuff is merely necessary but not sufficient to change the course of the world at large. So we'll have to live within the world in which we live, warts and all.
This implies to me that what follows from your observations is no ownership of cause and effect but recognition of our collective limitations. I don't think that we make actual choices in that way as you hope.