On Friday, December 6, 2024 at 6:15:36 PM UTC+1 Giulio Prisco wrote:
On 2024. Dec 6., Fri at 15:27, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: Moreover, the suggestion that the only way people can be exposed to unconventional ideas is through platforms like Rogan’s is deeply cynical and, ironically, elitist in its own way. It assumes that individuals lack the curiosity or capacity to explore challenging ideas without a messianic intermediary. Anybody with a library card—or even a basic internet connection—can access the works of Roger Penrose or Ben Goertzel; or visit some university course online or in person. *Elevating Rogan and popular figures like him to godlike status as the sole gateway to these ideas, while ignoring the problematic framing and biases inherent in their platforms, is itself an argument rooted in the very elitism you claim to oppose.* Touché! This is a good point. We agree on one point. Strangest thing to ever happen on this list. Everybody, it can be done! I can kill some "woke" nonsense: The same critique of platforms like Joe Rogan’s applies equally to establishments like *The New York Times* or other influential media. The claim of fact-checking as a safeguard is insufficient. Facts/proofs are always relative to some theoretical framework, and the failure of all sides—whether left, right, green, establishment, outsiders —to make their frameworks explicit is deeply unscientific and intellectually dishonest. This highlights why reducing political discourse solely to pragmatism is dangerous as history continues to demonstrate. Pragmatism alone evaluates actions by their outcomes but neglects the underlying metaphysical assumptions driving those actions. Politics cannot be judged merely on "what it does"; it must also be scrutinized for the implicit models of reality, human nature, and society that it operates from. Without this clarity, we risk normalizing a form of pragmatic cynicism that absolves opportunistic actors of accountability while enabling destructive policies to persist. An atomic bomb, for instance, may be an incredible feat of engineering, but the central question is who these engineers and decision-makers think they are, what they think reality is, and how they perceive others. Without interrogating these metaphysical assumptions, the decisions surrounding its use become unmoored from ethical accountability. Justifying everything in the name of self-defense for example... who defends the selves who will die as a result? Will you pay their families compensation? Why are you entitled to self-defense, but not your soldiers, their extended families etc. on both sides? It’s not just about what we do or whether it “works” but whether those wielding such power have the epistemic and moral clarity to act responsibly. The same applies across the board. When media, politicians, or institutions fail to make their assumptions explicit (and therefore keep them shielded from criticism), we enable a culture where opportunistic cynics, who always have easy answers, dominate; their actions excused by appeals to allegedly the best outcomes, rather than principles. We cannot afford to remain passive in this regard; scrutinizing the metaphysical clarity—or lack thereof—in politics and media is not a luxury but a necessity for safeguarding democratic and ethical governance. Hold them accountable for what they assume and see if they can explain it to children and adults without deflecting. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21af2501-efbe-4a4c-ad49-5e072028ffa4n%40googlegroups.com.
