I must have missed the memo on this situation.
But more seriously, there’s such a thing as constructive criticism, and there’s such a thing as fatalism. And there are people who burn their own reputation by complaining more than is useful.
Ironic for you to say that on a post that specifically talks about trait transfer, of people hardwired to misattribute and shoot the messenger.
I think that real solutions to complex problems only arise from analysis and thinking carefully. They don't come from application of simple heuristics.
1. the only way a messanger is wrong is if they send the wrong message. Hence the adage.
2. It's all an interpretation of a complex situation, it may not be "right", but it's nearly impossible to find the objective truth. In the abscence of truth, no subjective take can truly be "wrong".
>I think that real solutions to complex problems only arise from analysis and thinking carefully.
And the fatalism comes from the realization that modern societies in an alarming number of sectors simply aren't even trying to solve the problem. they are playing a prisoners dilemma and they are more than happy to defect.
Well, if a messenger carries a message that he or she knows or should know is incorrect, illegal, or lacks crucial context or qualification, there's a problem there.
The message might be "correct" in that it is an accurate word-for-word transmission of what the message's author said, but the message could still "wrong" in other senses of the word.
Sometimes we just want accurate transmission of content, e.g., with a phone call. In other contexts (scientific, legal, journalistic, political) we expect broadcasters of messages to exercise some responsibility over what and how they say things.
> no subjective take can truly be "wrong"
No one wants to live in a world where everyone believes this. Have you ever been mugged? I have. Being tackled and having my wallet stolen was "truly wrong." I am not interested in political or sociological arguments to the contrary.
I've come across this response a lot. It pops up when someone repeatedly won't take the hint and stop talking about the entirely visible decay.
> And there are people who burn their own reputation by complaining more than is useful.
Some types of reputation are like fields of weeds that choke out new, healthy growth. Burning them makes for better soil.
So, that commenter was just wrong, and his wrong assumptions are perfectly explained by the article.
There's folks who profit off panic, and prophets of doom should be treated skeptically like anyone else.
Everything may look as an "opinion" to you, but only until facts start hitting you literally.
the only difference between a cold truth and a prophet of doom is the lens you view it in. In other words, the opinions of the ones receiving the news.
Skepticism is good to have, but this article wasn't about an anthology of 2000's to 2020's unfettered capitalism. The audience of such an article needs to have some awareness of the modern economic situation to get the most out of this.
there's a very odd similarity between her mothers' delusion about cat 4 hurricanes and her own example of people being "blown out of their apartments by typhoon-strength winds". having disasters like that thrown in your face constantly by every conceivable media source probably doesn't help.
fwiw, other essays: "Panic. It's Good For You.", "They Want Us All To Die", etc.