Proportional Investment

By Not the Territory · Aug 25, 2022 · ·
  1. Or: just why exactly Thanksgiving is unbearable, and how it's your fault as much as it is Aunt Jones's.

    The too long, didn't read version of this is that critical evaluation needs to scale with emotional investment or you're just another dunce. Onward to the weeds...

    You know about weaving then attacking straw men. It's disingenuous at best, lazy at worst. The term is also now shorthand for 'I don't like your argument,' unfortunately, which is a shame but that's how language goes with trickle-down misuse from our culture's intellectuals. Digress.

    If you value your own opinion, you need to steelman it. If you actually put work into challenging your own notions, finding the most informed opposition and digging into wells of evidence, you'll find things you didn't consider. They will at the very least add nuance to your original position and increase the ease of refuting counterclaims.

    "But Territory, I don't have the time or energy for that. I've got kids, and Netflix, and Twitter, and my wifehusband and I work full time in demanding jobs and we still can't pay the bills."
    unnamed.jpg
    This was me, every night. This is how I became Sodium Man.

    That's fine. Just stop talking about politics.

    "But I heard that x/y is a woke fascist good feminist or white supremist bad feminist."

    Yeah, and at what age do you learn that you can't trust those claims? 30? 45? 85? 110? You're running out of time. Think about it critically or stop thinking about it at all. Every individual capable of cognition has a personal responsibility to adhere to this principle. This isn't 'echo chambers' or the 'algorithm' trying to rile you up. Stop externalizing. Take responsibility for your own level of information. You didn't stop being a free agent as soon as your opened an application on your phone.

    If you don't have the time to look into it, don't. Then move on. It's either important or it isn't. It either matters or it doesn't. Match the degree of emotion or engagement with the level of critical thought.

    J.K. Rowling and the allegations against her are one example. No intention of side-tracking here, our opinions on that are moot—how we got there is what matters. I have met countless, countless people that parrot she is transphobic, but never actually looked at the content of her open letter or tweets in question. It's a dangerously innocent question I ask, as well:

    "Oh, well what did she say?"

    No one ever knows. Again, and I will carve this into your forehead if needs must, I do not care what you actually think about J.K. Rowling and you shouldn't care what I think either, but if you made up your mind without reading her tweets or open letter, and worse, experienced any kind of outrage (in her favour or against) about it without gathering evidence, you're part of the Thanksgiving dinner problem.

    It is you. You're just as bad as Aunt Jones.

Comments

  1. Louanne Learning
    I know a conspiracy theorist. The latest link he sent me was to an article with an obvious anti-vaxx bias:

    https://newsdetectives.substack.com/p/3-doctors-die-at-same-hospital-days

    I read the first couple of lines and dismissed the article as biased and sensational. But he falls for this stuff. When I called him on his unreliable source, he got defensive.

    Some people want to believe. They ask themselves "can I believe this?" and then easily find support. One questionable piece of evidence and they accept the claim.

    Others do not want to believe. They ask themselves "must I believe this?" and then look for contradictory evidence. A single reason to doubt is enough to dismiss the claim.

    https://www.theifod.com/can-i-believe-this-vs-must-i-believe-this/
      Not the Territory likes this.
  2. Not the Territory
    Well, I would have approached him with supporting counter evidence.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/08/03/fact-check-no-tie-between-covid-19-vaccine-and-toronto-doctor-deaths/10178177002/

    https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/scicheck-three-canadian-doctors-died-of-long-term-illnesses-contrary-to-false-claims-covid-19-vaccine-was-cause/

    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/29/gateway-pundit/deaths-three-doctors-canada-were-neither-sudden-no/

    As for the author of the Can I Believe This vs. Must I Believe This article, he makes an interesting point about slivers of doubt: a burden of perfection on the idea one doesn't want to believe. He brought up antivaxxers... which lead me to wonder, has he taken the time to steelman their position, taken his own advice? I am doubtful of that.

    I really do see both sides of most contentious issues to be lacking critical thought. That's why my tone in the blog is so accusatory. The whole point is that I'm not strictly talking about typical conspiracy lovers, the Aunt Jones, the Alex Jones, the flat-eathers, the doughnut earthers, the cryptid chasers, the lizard men, etc... I'm also talking about the people in our circles. I'm throwing shade on you and myself as well, even primarily.
      Louanne Learning likes this.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice