7 karma · joined May 28, 2020
Completely different from a bunch of script kiddies on 4chan getting together Friday night and ddosing for the lulz, or any subsequent incarnations that are true to the ephemeral spirit of anonymous.
Protestors day one were hurling heavy rocks tens of yards at riot police as they stood. They are constantly being dehumanized - the protestors stand inches away and scream at police. All of this during a pandemic, by the way.
It's obscene to watch the media (CNN in particular) repeatedly claim that these nationwide protests are peaceful, when the police are universally yelled at, belittled, threatened, and dehumanized while stoically standing, and almost all of these riots seem to be accompanied by late night looting. Not to mention, I've repeat fly witnessed protestors belittle police for being black, female, and/or physically small.
I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons for protestors to be angry, only pointing out that this notion that police are just antagonizing innocent, peaceful protestors is pure propaganda.
Aside: that I have access to 20 first person perspectives from all sides of a historic event in real time, from the comfort of my home, is a testament to how far humanity has come.
You will be equipped with a totally unique perspective for solving problems and, if things continue to grow as they are now, a very in demand and lucrative career, if you have the chops for it.
I think the problem is that norms actually encode this information - it's not just empathy and understanding, it's empathy and understanding that is appropriate as per the zeitgeist. The normal range of responses is entirely defined by local culture and not only is this the kind of implicit, abstract set of ideas that autism can make difficult to learn, but this discussion itself is also a social grey area which is only appropriate with a minority of people; and then only if they're already familiar and comfortable with you.
When you lack internal boundaries, it is difficult to navigate those of others when they are not communicated to you explicitly.
The weird kids get bullied because they are legitimately weird. But pretending to be normal is difficult and tiring and inevitably you say or do enough unusual stuff that you give off weird "vibes".
And what we call "bad vibes" are often just people picking up subconsciously on subtle abnormal behaviors. I doubt that 90% of the population has actually considered any of this from an introspective perspective. Asperger's is simultaneously obvious and invisible. And doubly difficult because the rules we are supposed to follow are abstract and unspoken, exactly the kind of ideas with which autism makes people struggle.
>You can spot hallmarks of fake theories, such as internal contradictions in the “evidence” and contentions based on shaky assumptions, psychologists say.
Just look at the many legitimate sources of conflicting information regarding COVID. Hell, many of our medical practices are based on "shaky assumptions" and shoddy survey data, especially in psychology.
Conspiracies happen, speculation is valid and arguably necessary for a healthy society. But this? This is just some kind of weird appeal to authority - recognizing the possibility of conspiracies and attempting to piece them together is not pathological and a society which believes it is it placing itself firmly under an unyielding authoritarian boot.
There is simply no objective definition for either of these concepts and if you may be fine with Twitter having this kind of power now, but you may regret it if the shoe is ever on the other foot.
Having a corporate arbiter of truth is antithetical to a free society, especially when creating one's own platform is impractical because of network effects.
Who is going to fact check the fact checker? Effectively Twitter has the final word because this is their platform - not because they are correct, and if these political squabbles had an objectively correct answer then we wouldn't have multiple parties.
People are find with it right now because it's en Vogue to hate on the president, but that doesn't mean the fact checking is justified or even honest - and I reiterate, the dangerous part here is that people implicitly take Twitter to be an authority when they absolutely are not. Their fact check isn't even accurate, but people don't tend to question what they want to hear.
Twitter's role is a neutral party - the same way that journalists are ultimately doing a disservice to society by editorializing everything while claiming to be neutral. It is dishonest and divides society from the top down.
You don't think it's a problem that a platform which controls the information that reaches millions of eyes, acting as a mouthpiece for the president, applies a totally subjective "fact check" disclaimer based on an uncharitable interpretation of the president's tweet, while pretending to be politically neutral?
And while ignoring similar misstatements from other politicians on both sides of the aisle?
The issue here, and I cannot stress how dangerous this is for society, is that an entity which gatekeeps information for millions of eyes, is pretending to be a neutral party while overtly manipulating the messages of politicians from one political party.
This creates a manufactured consensus which is influences policy and elections according to the whims of a handful of high level managers/executives at Twitter. It's an abhorrent concentration of unnofficial, unchecked soft power and it was hugely irresponsible and unethical for Twitter to publicly pick a side without a massive disclaimer.
This isn't even getting into the holes in the "fact check". What a joke. How much hubris do you need to believe that your tech company can act as an arbiter of truth?