Your solution to the problems in the world...
Is to, first, require that it is NOT POSSIBLE to determine another persons intent... ?
And, that remains true... even when they tell you what they're going to do... and why ?
And, then... ?
That's all you got...
All that says is: you are opting to be irrelevant, and hate others refusing to be blind to reality... as you demand.
================
Or, is it your contention that ONLY YOU can correctly determine others intent ? Including mine ? You seem to harbor no reluctance in "mind-reading" Donald Trump, for instance... in the SAME post in which you claim that can't be done ? So... only people you agree with should be granted an allowed to exercise judgement ?
But, otherwise... we should NOT EVEN TRY to understand what motivates people... because it is only possible to solve the worlds problems by IGNORING what motivates people ?
That explains a lot...
So, no one else must DARE to... listen to what Putin says he's going to do... and then note what he does ?
Your "innovation" in "new and improved ignorance"... is a fail.
I'll stick with [make better decisions].
But, in future... will understand WHY you should be ignored... as a non-participant in "reason"... ?
Should note, too... I'm a "hard science" guy... my education is, not limited to, but focused in biology, chemistry, physics, math... logic... history... And, I spent too much time programming computers... and far too much doing materials science work. I'm not a big fan of the pseudo-sciences... sociology... psychology are mostly BS... largely as "error" undertaken in adopting the "lenses" through which observation is conducted... but, at least not in denial about motivations mattering... I find a bit more "reason" in observations conducted as sociobiology... which at least tries to adopt a scientific frame of reference in posing its questions.
But, as I AM an "Expert"... given "ability to read, type, and have access to a search engine"...
Here's the psychobabble you are looking for, perhaps: Denialism: what drives people to reject the truth
If you can read that propaganda... and NOT understand what it is... why "the truth" needs to be in quotes ?
Because... nowhere in that article do they address how to [make better decisions]... or operate under the understanding we do have... of how to determine truth under uncertainty ? Or, how to do it BETTER ? Instead... they proclaim themselves the purveyors of truth... and wonder "why do people not believe us when we lie to them" ?
It appears honest, only in that... as it seems they don't understand, at all... why liars are easy to spot...
"The truth is what we say it is"... and "if you disagree... you are secretly a mass murderer"... and just haven't admitted it to yourself, yet ?
Rather like... "all Republican's are insurrectionists"... because they believe Democrats should obey the rules ?
Is that what you're saying ? That... you won't be bothered to do the work to determine truth for yourself... but have been told what is true... find it comforting to accept that... and find the idea that doing that work to determine truth for yourself might be... too challenging... or presumptive and wrong to undertake... the idea that "the truth you are given" might be wrong... so terrifying... that you refuse to do anything but genuflect and go along with... whatever you are told "the truth" requires ?
The NAZI's were right about the Jews ? Or, at least... it would have been wrong for anyone to question it, if you were there at the time ? Because, that's what The Guardian is advocating... as "you must blindly accept the things we tell you are the "accepted truth" ?
Otherwise... yeah... "all those people with different perspectives... who can see AND EXPRESS things others cannot see... that others don't want to hear about... as don't want to be forced to see "there is more to it" than what we are directed to believe is true... because told to accept it ?
Difference of opinion is "dangerous"... they say ? And, we can't have that, can we ?
Technology causes "the PROBLEM of questioning 'accepted truths' " as "opportunities for countering accepted truths multiply".
Well, that's good, at least... because... we don't believe truth is determined as a product of imposing a monopoly on opinion...
Right ?
So, the THREAT they see... is that "science" might happen.. in spite of their efforts to prevent it.... as improvements in perspective, fostered through communication, enable generating better observations... and through that observation, and debate over what we CAN see now as not before... getting us closer to the truth... than what is "acceptable" as "what we allow to be accepted"... in narrow perspective directed for us by the monopoly over opinion held by those telling us what to publish ?
/rant |
