This is going to be "off topic," but i think it's really more on topic when you get into the meat of it.
MightyPinecone: If this discussion continues, I will try to restrain myself to only fact checking one of your statements a day, as it takes a lot more time to actually looking things up, than it does to make them up. Ultimately there is scientific consensus on the matter. If you want to change that you better find some pretty damn good evidence.
Here's the real issue with these type of discussions. I was thinking about just abandoning the discussion for reasons i'll state below, but seeing as i've gotten messages before privately from people supporting me, here, i started to eat at me as if i was letting them down.
People are pretty invested in their worldviews, for whatever reason, whether it's trauma, positive experiences, etc, and these things all lead into other worldviews. As a consequence, we like to defend these worldviews, even if it means putting our fingers in our ears and screaming "LA LA LA!" But, at the end of the day, we need to have the humility to accept we may be wrong about something, that we're being willfully ignorant.
And, you're right, it does take a lot more time looking things up than it does to make them up, which is why i hardly bother doing it, anymore. And every time I brought something up and included a source, i got clear indications that no one was even so much as clicking the links to the sources. Don't like the sources? Fine, state your issues with that source, but at least give one counter-argument to what's actually said, for even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is the issue with identity politics: if we don't like someone, we dismiss their arguments, regardless of any merit and/or weight, simply by virtue of "they're bad."
So, why bother? If you don't want to watch a 1 hour video? Fine, I give a summary. But, the summary goes unaddresed, and it's the crux of the argument. Why continue to invest time in that which is to be ignored? Why, if my political opponents refuse to listen to anyone other than their own echo chamber (and let's be honest, what is and isn't published is controlled by a political echo chamber, which was another major point from that video), why should I give them the time of day? Why should I consider myself obligated to educate myself on their point of view, again, when i've heard the majority of the arguments before, to pretend that maybe the "willful ignorance" argument isn't projection, when it displays itself clearly in this thread, throughout? The kicker? My "opponents," if you will, actually admitted to this in different words throughout the post: there's a barrier to entry in this discussion. I could go on all day about the part of that that's left out of "well, to even enter the discussion, you have to go through a period of agreement with the mainstream view to even get into a position to disagree with it, and even then you won't get published."
But that's beside the point: no one's really willing to listen to each other. We have gotten to this point that we have our little echo chambers of thought, where we don't have to worry about addressing ideas that disagree with our own. So when we get into a discussion, we just kinda skim over each other's writing, looking for a single weak point, or just a point that we could dispute, despite how weak or strong it is, then hammer that home as if we've struck some major blow to an opposing boxer. Not only do we project, publicly, of willful ignorance onto our opponents (and we all do this, not just "one side" or "the other"), but we turn around and plot in secret of how we can manipulate moderation to lock or close a thread that has not been going in our favor.
Even I will admit to this much: Tauto and I got into a huge disagreement because he thought i was a plant from "them" (implying the people i disagree with the most on these boards). We all know that when "one side" is loosing the argument, or at least when the "back patting" begins, the other side ends up resorting to personal attacks and accusations, and it happens in every thread, including this one. I can see why GOG is non-chalant about closing threads: as much as we need to discuss these issues, the conversation isn't actually happening. We like to pretend that this is justified, 'cause we all know that this is the way political arguments work (no one ever really changes their mind), by saying that it's the undecided lurker that counts. But, really, how many people even lurk in these threads?
But, on the other hand, politics, by virtue of being about trying to tell people how they should and shouldn't live their lives, invades spaces previously untouched. There is no safe haven for politics, and thus banning or trying to avoid political discussion is an exercise in futility, just as much as contributing one's own ideas to political discussion. What doesn't help is when spaces meant for political discussions get shut down, 'cause that just moves all that pent up anger to other places (this includes threads here on GOG), and eventually underground (and that's where things get dangerous, 'cause then it becomes plots, and that may include violence). But how do you stop the crazy power hungry control freaks from sticking their noses into everything? Well, we know shutting people up doesn't work (at least on the right, 'cause the left hasn't been feelin' this lately nearly as much), but heaven forbid you try to run away: they're follow you. Run to video games to avoid real world problems? Yep, them virtual tits on that woman are a problem, as well as the "evolution" of your virtual pets. All education does is get you fired up, but avoiding it and you get run over by the ones fired up.
There's no rest for the weary, nor is there any punishment for the wicked. You'd think humanity would've learned from the violence of the 20th century, but, no, we haven't. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. You see times of prosperity, but those times can never last. You'd think by now humanity could've solved the God issue (i believe i have a viable explanation, but you'll never get it in a place like this), fate vs free will (i've heard some good arguments, and seen manifestations first hand), and other fundemental issues, but you just can't have nice things: right now i'm a willful idiot and my opponents are assholes (it's way deeper than that, but this is what the conversation has devolved into). Humanity claims to pride itself in making novel ideas, yet we can't help but delve into making new religions shortly after almost completely abolishing old ones. Let's change out the old god for the new god, then call ourselves enlightened. Yeah, progress.
That's not to say that we haven't made huge progress throughout the history of society: we have the ability to do so many things, like travel all over our planet, grow food in areas that couldn't support life before, we can even preserve the ideas of individuals in various formats (audio, video, paper, etc) for almost an eternity, we can even bring people back to life sometimes, and we can communicate over vast distances. But, at the end of the day, you're willfully ignorant 'cause you don't agree with what i say when i ignore you. I keep asking myself, "what's the point?" Then i'm reminded, "But you pay that price for wanting all those cool advancedments humanity has, like medicine."
Even if we addressed each others' points properly, we'd still be ignoring each other.
