|
|
|
|
|
|
by jfengel
588 days ago
|
|
|
Is the goal to get people to think positively about radical social engineering? If so, it might have been more useful to start with a more plausible example. As it is, it looks like it's trying to make the notion of "radical social engineering" look bad. Unfortunately, it's hard to "think outside the box" because the box often exists for a reason. Most of what's outside the box is bad. Maybe it has also excluded something extraordinarily good, but you won't find it by casting about at random. Just telling people to think more radically doesn't seem to be helpful. |
|
|
That was my take away from the interview. And yes, I would agree the interview did not present the well.
My point is that those are legitimate criticisms, deceitful journalism and outright lies are not legitimate criticism.
We can debate how valuable it is to think outside the box is, and when to do it.
That said, hopefully we both agree that spreading lies, misinformation, and outrage amongst people is not productive either.
Heck, there are even legitimate reasons to be upset by what he said, but that doesn't justify lying about what was actually said. That benefits nobody but those who profit from clicks.