|
Thanks for the reply. I had hoped my response to be encouragement, rather than ad hominem, as you never know when that might make a difference for someone. Sorry that didn't work out. I suggest one source of the comment's downvotes, was not the views expressed, by the style of argumentation used. Though priors which read in a different subculture as not merely incorrect but silly, I agree didn't help. I'll focus on the argumentation. Though as an aside, one difficulty in communicating between bubbles, is recognizing that "everyone knows" can become "that's absurd" at bubble boundaries. This can be funny. When Hollywood folks were complaining (re copyright law), on the record, about congressmen not "staying bought", rather than admitting to bribery, it was perhaps more something vaguely like "Everyone I talk with about this topic knows we're right.[bubble] Obviously and completely right. He knew what's right, so we funded him. Since he knows what's right, and did something else, the only thing which makes sense, is he was bought off to do what's not right". To do a cartoonish characterization. Anyway... Yesterday, exploring your previous comment, I removed the link, and fed it to... either Bing/chat or ggl AIMode, prefaced with something vaguely like "The person who wrote the following wishes to escape their thought bubble. Evaluate and make suggestions to help them. "...comment..."". Thinking it might help me reply with something useful. The result was long and interesting somewhat (so probably bing). Maybe one-shot LLM chats could be a tool towards a goal of bubble busting. The item I recall now, was noting a "morality play" style of argument, with cartoon characters ("liberals" this, "scientists" that). Imagine in some profession context, you're looking for someone to provide reasoned technical analysis of some complex system, and you get "oh, it's straight forward - <large group> just needs to confess their sins". I won't here critique that as theology, but as analysis, what would think of that? What value would you place on it? Or in a discussion of some web phenomenon, a comment "it's simple - web devs are bozos - they just need to pay attention". There is a, lack of fruitfulness, in this flavor of abstraction. So I suggest "dissenting opinion on this liberal site" misses one likely source of the comment's downvotes. Thanks for the conversation. |