Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: cybercoma on June 19, 2018, 10:37:30 am
-
The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle
Publicly formulated the first time in January 2013[12] by Alberto Brandolini, an Italian programmer, the bullshit asymmetry principle (also known as Brandolini's law[13][14]) states that:
The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
It became especially popular after a picture of a presentation by Brandolini at XP2014 on May 30, 2014, was posted on Twitter.[15] Brandolini was inspired by reading Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow right before watching an Italian political talk show with journalist Marco Travaglio and former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi attacking each other.[16][17] A similar concept, the "bullshit mountain theory", was formulated by the Italian blogger Uriel Fanelli in 2010, roughly stating the same sentence.[18]
Brandolini's law emphasizes the difficulty of debunking bullshit.[19] In contrast, the faster propagation of bullshit is an old proverb: "a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on".[20]
Eventually, the idiots who buy into the bullshit over-run those who really shouldn't need to address their tedious nonsense with responses. A commenter on reddit explains:
The reasons many of us refuse to engage in these conversations is a bit more nuanced than just "it takes more time to refute." In many cases, the existence of a debate is itself more damaging than any possible amount of effort could reverse. People are prone to false dichotomies, where if there exist two sides to a conversation, people assume that both sides must be legitimate and/or the truth is somewhere in the middle. The truth, or at least the best and/or nearly incontrovertible estimate of it, is very frequently one sided. This is true for climate change, vaccines, etc.
An excellent example of where this goes wrong is things like Pruitt's Red vs. Blue debates. While it sounds "reasonable" to have such a debate, the only possible result is over-promotion of falsehoods about climate change, despite near certainty in the evidence that climate change is real and man-made.
This is what happened to the other forum and what will eventually happen here, if you ever attract enough new membership. This is what has happened in general on social media. More importantly, this is exploited by malevolent actors looking to disrupt social stability. Namely, Russia uses this for their propaganda campaigns aimed at weakening political discourse in the west, in order to undermine our political and military alliances, especially NATO, so that they can strengthen their own position in the world and enrich the Russian oligarchy.
-
The other forum has gotten better as most of the crazy people have left or been banned.
-
The other forum has gotten better as most of the crazy people have left or been banned.
Geez the last time I looked in over there it was still a lot of the same old alt/far right Trump type supporter types and the not bar conspiracy theorists. Luckily the management over here has been able to identify some of those who came up with new handles and tried to bring their crap but got shown the door quickly. Fedup is an obvious case.
-
An excellent example of where this goes wrong is things like Pruitt's Red vs. Blue debates. While it sounds "reasonable" to have such a debate, the only possible result is over-promotion of falsehoods about climate change, despite near certainty in the evidence that climate change is real and man-made.
Irony alert. The reason we need the red-blue debate is because the scientific establishment has gotten so arrogant that they demean and ostracize scientists that raise scientifically reasonable objections to alarmist narrative. If there is a concern about scientifically unsound arguments getting aired as part of this exercise then the alarmists scientists only have themselves to blame because they should have respectively engaged their skeptical colleagues instead of driving them out of the field.
We see the same kind of 'lack of nuance' coming from the left all of the time. If someone raises questions about immigration they are a 'nazi'. If someone suggests that woman may have different preferences than men they are a 'misogynist'. It goes on and on.
The use of vicious personal attacks as a way to avoid actually engaging in an nuanced discussion is a common affliction across the political spectrum. Trying to pretend it is only the "other guys" makes you part of the problem.
-
Irony alert. The reason we need the red-blue debate is because the scientific establishment has gotten so arrogant that they demean and ostracize scientists that raise scientifically reasonable objections to alarmist narrative. If there is a concern about scientifically unsound arguments getting aired as part of this exercise then the alarmists scientists only have themselves to blame because they should have respectively engaged their skeptical colleagues instead of driving them out of the field.
We see the same kind of 'lack of nuance' coming from the left all of the time. If someone raises questions about immigration they are a 'nazi'. If someone suggests that woman may have different preferences than men they are a 'misogynist'. It goes on and on.
The use of vicious personal attacks as a way to avoid actually engaging in an nuanced discussion is a common affliction across the political spectrum. Trying to pretend it is only the "other guys" makes you part of the problem.
So once again you attempt to label 97% of qualified environmental scientists as simply "alarmists". tsk, tsk.
-
Irony alert. The reason we need the red-blue debate is because the scientific establishment has gotten so arrogant that they demean and ostracize scientists that raise scientifically reasonable objections to alarmist narrative. If there is a concern about scientifically unsound arguments getting aired as part of this exercise then the alarmists scientists only have themselves to blame because they should have respectively engaged their skeptical colleagues instead of driving them out of the field.
wait, what? Are you stating the scientific establishment (your phrasing) is on one side of the referenced red-blue debate? Which side is that wascally scientific establishment on? ;D
-
The other forum has gotten better as most of the crazy people have left or been banned.
Fewer people disagreeing with the right-wingers so less arguments ensuing. Not everyone is alt-right over there, but the ideology is close enough that disagreement is minimized and most everyone gets their bubble strengthened. Michael still does a great job at presenting dissenting views, but it doesn't make any difference. The "lefties" still posting mostly troll the stupidity. A certain American poster is currently ranking "most liked" posts, so that says a lot about the general headspace there.
Thanks to Argus, Goddess, TimG and other sane(ish) RW posters who post here and give us a way out of our bubble too.
-
Thanks to Argus, Goddess, TimG and other sane(ish) RW posters who post here and give us a way out of our bubble too.
I'll take sane-ish! :D
-
I'll take sane-ish! :D
Glad you saw that I intended that humorously. :)
-
Fewer people disagreeing with the right-wingers so less arguments ensuing. Not everyone is alt-right over there, but the ideology is close enough that disagreement is minimized and most everyone gets their bubble strengthened. Michael still does a great job at presenting dissenting views, but it doesn't make any difference. The "lefties" still posting mostly troll the stupidity. A certain American poster is currently ranking "most liked" posts, so that says a lot about the general headspace there.
Thanks to Argus, Goddess, TimG and other sane(ish) RW posters who post here and give us a way out of our bubble too.
Yes I have noticed B_C often ranks high. Thankfully he is staying put. Of course why wouldn't he, he likes his sheep.
-
I don't buy into this principle. There are cycles everywhere. It's interesting to discuss why they happen but things don't just fall apart because everything is garbage. That's too negative.
Look at democracy - it has had its ups and downs over centuries. Don't look for any easy answers... unless it's in McLuhan :D
-
I don't buy into this principle. There are cycles everywhere. It's interesting to discuss why they happen but things don't just fall apart because everything is garbage. That's too negative.
Look at democracy - it has had its ups and downs over centuries. Don't look for any easy answers... unless it's in McLuhan :D
I think you need to look a bit closer at democracy. The democratic revolutions are little more than 200 years old. You’re sadly mistaken if you think it’s historically durable.
-
...it has had its ups and downs over centuries.
You’ll have to provide a cite that democracy, in a form we might actually call fair, has been around for centuries.
Sure, you can find some democracies older than 300 years, but these were hardly true democracies... they were for the elite only, which is anathema to a real democracy.
Women could vote starting in the early 1900’s.... you think there was true democracy before half the population had any sort of say? I would argue that allowing white men only to run a country is not a democracy.
-
I think you need to look a bit closer at democracy. The democratic revolutions are little more than 200 years old. You’re sadly mistaken if you think it’s historically durable.
I don't think it's necessarily durable, per se. I said it has had ups and downs, but it can't last forever in its present form any more than it can collapse into autocracy that we have seen in the past.
Brandolini's theory is fine for social media, for the 2000s, and for what Russia is doing. If true, then it's just an iteration of human beings getting used to an inevitable technology. That technology will be suited to our governance systems by the time it all shakes out. Keep in mind that social media is still pretty new.
In other news:
"Shuffalo" your shoes when you buy them in Buffalo so you don't pay customs for them :D
-
I don't think it's necessarily durable, per se. I said it has had ups and downs, but it can't last forever in its present form any more than it can collapse into autocracy that we have seen in the past.
Change is inevitable. But protecting the freedoms we value is not about protecting democracy per se. It is about protecting free speech and valuing diversity of opinion. Limiting speech or enforcing conformity in the name of 'social good' is the slippery slope into authoritarianism. But free speech and diversity of opinion means raucous public arguments which creates the illusion of weakness when it is actually a strength. I would much rather live in a society that elected Trump (who will eventually be shown the door) than live in a society where I am stuck with president Xi for life and face re-education camp if I buy the wrong books or say the wrong things on twitter.
-
Change is inevitable. But protecting the freedoms we value is not about protecting democracy per se. It is about protecting free speech and valuing diversity of opinion. Limiting speech or enforcing conformity in the name of 'social good' is the slippery slope into authoritarianism.
I agree in principle that the freedoms and democracy are not the same thing, in that free speech for example need to be valued and protected individually. But... one of the reasons we protect free speech is to provide the feedback loop to governance. Also, every single democracy puts some limit on lying so caterwauling on 'free speech' limits is tantamount to crying wolf.
But free speech and diversity of opinion means raucous public arguments which creates the illusion of weakness when it is actually a strength. I would much rather live in a society that elected Trump (who will eventually be shown the door) than live in a society where I am stuck with president Xi for life and face re-education camp if I buy the wrong books or say the wrong things on twitter.
Right, if we're having mock elections of false choices I would choose Trump over Xi and Doug Ford over Stalin etc. etc.
I would submit that Democracy has evolved to the point where it needs to be iterated, but not discarded. To ease your discomfort over being interned for sexism, let's use the example of GMOs instead:
GMOs are safe to consume, and can be a boon to poor countries however misinformed people will propagate incorrect information about them. At a certain point, ballot initiatives will be introduced and susceptible politicians will be coaxed into speaking about them. How do we iterate our democracy to acknowledge that bad information is indeed a thing, and improve the quality of our publics ?
-
I would argue that allowing white men only to run a country is not a democracy.
Argus would disagree with you. In fact, he would go a step further and argue that even the poor should be disenfranchised so that only propertied white men run the country.
-
I think you need to look a bit closer at democracy. The democratic revolutions are little more than 200 years old. You’re sadly mistaken if you think it’s historically durable.
Our particular democracy has been evolving since Magna Carta.
-
I agree in principle that the freedoms and democracy are not the same thing, in that free speech for example need to be valued and protected individually. But... one of the reasons we protect free speech is to provide the feedback loop to governance. Also, every single democracy puts some limit on lying so caterwauling on 'free speech' limits is tantamount to crying wolf.
I am talking about the culture of free speech - not the laws. If there is a culture of free speech then any laws that place limits on the extremes will not undermine free speech. If that culture disappears then the laws will get more and more restrictive until we wake up one day and realize it is gone and we can't get it back. The culture of free speech is under threat because way too many people think it is acceptable to silence political opponents.
GMOs are safe to consume, and can be a boon to poor countries however misinformed people will propagate incorrect information about them. At a certain point, ballot initiatives will be introduced and susceptible politicians will be coaxed into speaking about them. How do we iterate our democracy to acknowledge that bad information is indeed a thing, and improve the quality of our publics ?
All politics is subject to people who peddle misinformation. It seems strange to single out GMOs. What about the inevitable reduction in jobs caused by raising minimum wages? What about he housing affordability crisis created by excessively high immigration rates? At some point all of these questions come down to values and cannot be addressed by quoting facts.
-
I am talking about the culture of free speech - not the laws. If there is a culture of free speech then any laws that place limits on the extremes will not undermine free speech. If that culture disappears then the laws will get more and more restrictive until we wake up one day and realize it is gone and we can't get it back. The culture of free speech is under threat because way too many people think it is acceptable to silence political opponents.
So you are clarifying this:
"But protecting the freedoms we value is not about protecting democracy per se. It is about protecting free speech and valuing diversity of opinion."
I get it, and actually when you use the term "culture of free speech" then I can accept what you mean. I can't say I follow your points on laws becoming more restrictive but since we have one government, we do need a common 'public' and therefore public discussion.
The discussion I had on the weekend with a fellow BurningMan cult member revolved around how common courtesy (not on-campus laws and rules, online laws and rules) is driving people into bubbles of orthodoxy where you are unable to disagree. Discussions then become competitions between people trying to be more doctrinaire in an atmosphere of silence from the more pragmatic among us.
All politics is subject to people who peddle misinformation. It seems strange to single out GMOs.
Is it ? It seems to me there was a time when people couldn't broker liars. I chose GMOs because it's an example that we can use without falling into fighting the actual argument... unlike, say, immigration.
At some point all of these questions come down to values and cannot be addressed by quoting facts.
Well, yes. But a values discussion is actually a welcome terminus to a journey of discussion.
"I hate XYZ" "Really, well I love XYZ"
No facts at play, just values and tastes. On a large scale, if everyone was at that point it would be time to vote on it, or engage whatever process is necessary.
-
Our particular democracy has been evolving since Magna Carta.
The working class couldn't even vote 200 years ago in England.
-
The working class couldn't even vote 200 years ago in England.
It was not until May 1832 that the British Secretary of State for the Colonies formally stated that a new commission would be issued to Governor Cochrane to remove any and all Roman Catholic disabilities in Newfoundland.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_emancipation#Emancipation_in_Newfoundland
Men weren't all allowed to vote until 100 years ago in the UK, which was only TEN YEARS ahead of all women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918
-
The working class couldn't even vote 200 years ago in England.
The working class couldn't read or write and knew nothing about anything 200 years ago. What was their collective wisdom in terms of foreign relations, law and economics?
-
It seems to me there was a time when people couldn't broker liars.
Anyone who openly lied was disdained, and if a politician, and caught, resigned in shame. Then again, there was a time adulterers with multiple bankruptcies in their past and a predilection for childish namecalling couldn't get elected to public office. Standards have gotten exceedingly slack of late. Maybe the question is why? Is it an extension of our loosening moral code, which used to harshly judge all manner of anti-social behaviour but no longer does?
-
The working class couldn't read or write and knew nothing about anything 200 years ago. What was their collective wisdom in terms of foreign relations, law and economics?
That's demonstrably false. You think they just organized out of nothing? Not only did they have periodicals, but the works of people like Thomas Paine actually got working-class people arrested for carrying them. Christ, you're ignorant.
-
That's demonstrably false. You think they just organized out of nothing? Not only did they have periodicals, but the works of people like Thomas Paine actually got working-class people arrested for carrying them. Christ, you're ignorant.
The literacy rate in the UK 200 years ago hovered around 30% overall, and obviously far lower among the working class. Public schools weren't established until the end of the 19th century.
-
Christ, you're an ****. The literacy rate in the UK 200 years ago hovered around 30% overall, and obviously far lower among the working class. Public schools weren't established until the end of the 19th century.
So you’re just going to gloss over the fact that it wasn’t until the 20th century that they got to vote? Also you completely ignore the context of their literacy which is related to the fact that it was completely unnecessary when they were either indentured in manufactories or involved in trades. You speak about illiteracy rates as if they relate at all to the political awareness or intelligence of the population when it didn’t. I stand by my remark. You’re ignorant and only interested in pushing your narrow minded agenda the serves to protect the social hierarchies that benefit you to the detriment of others.
-
So you’re just going to gloss over the fact that it wasn’t until the 20th century that they got to vote?
Yeah, like I gloss over the fact that the 20th century was not 200 years ago, genius.
Also you completely ignore the context of their literacy
Because it's irrelevant to the point.
. I stand by my remark. You’re an ignorant hack who’s only interested in pushing your narrow minded agenda the serves to protect the social hierarchies that benefit you to the detriment of others. Ignorant, self-entitled pricks like you are one of the biggest problems we have in politics today.
And I stand by my belief that you are an extremist without any respect for basic human freedoms and dignity, and that views like yours lead inexorably to the Killing Fields 'the cultural revolution' or the gulags of Soviet Russia. You don't think you know what's best for the world, you KNOW it, and thus comfortably classify all who dissent as the dangerous and evil enemy of the people.