better_discussions.md 6.7 KB
whatsup man I am talking to you I don't have a problem right now cool I feel alright I don't mean to be I have a feeling that becoming offended is the only thing that you can do on some days I'm good now you have a pattern this is a stupid pattern I think that we are born to disagree yeah now you're just repeating yourself it's good to type with this keyboard once you get used to it babut it's still not great, because some of the keys really seem to stick I can't seem to unstick them once they stick it's just weird to try and get around it yup that's how I do.. I speak and talk fo rall the ages and all the different types of peoples solidarity, brother it used to seem like such an artform, to plainspeak and to just simply be very effective at trying to communciate your idea, whether or not it happened to use the most refreshing vocabulary, or esoteric wording, or mst specific terminology in order to be domain specific and extremely accurate there are other ways of conveying an accuracy, but I suspect that some of it might seem to be for hte better, but actually is not that is, if we are more able to specifically say what we mean, then we'll at least understand one another more than less and it takes for both parties to be capable of communicating at the level, before it becomes a reality otherwise it can be interpreted as some sort of ego driven behaviour that also brings us back to the issue of speaking to people using their language, or speaking at the level of audience it's important, but it's definitely not the most optimal way for two individuals to commnunicate to one another, especially about impoertant ideas which have nuance and are worthy of scrutiny and discernment It would be difficult to know for sure, but it's certainly helpful for a global totalitarian effort to have a populace which, though there are many highly intelligent individuals, is unable to communicate internally, misunderstands frequently, and is prone to overreacting upon misunderstanding, to the point of violence and exclusion so maybe we need to get back to the other subjects, such as the health issues, the surveillance state, the idea of normalizing certain behaviours by better obfuscating them through technolgical changes, changes of mediums, change of format, change of standard, change of environment, change of verfiicative methods, and so on if we do everything online, there's less of an opportunity to be able to verify the details and the semantics the details.. the authenticity.. the legitimacy... the bona bide nature of it if things are less authentic, and we are strugglign in a world void of authenticity, where is theere to go? it would necessarily be madness, as humans need to be able to make sense of their world and if they're unable to trust anything that they participate in, then madness is the result once they are mad, it becomes increasingly easy to make whatever excuses are required to control and contain them in fact, in many cases, as is evidenced by the current covid crisis, they're willing to contain themselves and make themselves mad at an accelerated pace the standard for hwat's required in order to control a massive population.. it's insane how simple and easy it is for most, they simply don' want to offend anyone and initially, it just took the promise of a limited time frame without actually making the time frame set in stone to claim that, broadly, everyone's movement is restricted for the next while indefinitely, but with just a certain amount as a minimum it seemed rather easy and simple at the time.. innocuous.. common sense.. the right thing to do.. the just and empathetic.. the compassionate way of moving forward... but now that we have increased the values of all of these things, we can reintroduce them with decreasing specificty in order to compel humans to do just about anything no one wants to be evil and responsible for the worst parts of society, so we can take every issue, divide the line along hte worst representations of the opposing argument, or whichever argument reduces the control of the state or increases the liberty and autonomy of the individual, and make sure that the world has understood that the actual line that something is divided on, is the one with the horrid representations of one of the sides or arguments even if there are legitimtae arguments which might make all of those other perspectives invalid or untenable, we can ignore them because we are forced to look at the issue through this one frame and who's to argue with it, when every single media company, vevery politician, your family and friends, and the narratives of oevery important company in information technology, all agree, at least through action, that the interplay of the issue is exaclty as was being demonstrated, in spite of your pitiful evidence even to bring up your evidence requires you to, at least in the mind of those you're speaking with, commit yourself to one side of the issue as was illustrated in the narrative that they have beheld there's no getting around it, you need to take the dirt in order to bee able to get inside the discussion, and only then can you slowly weed yourself back to the point where they might be able to consider your idea without falling into the same trap of perceiving it as a representation or manifestation of the issue which they were told to believe it to be how to get around it? you actually havew to set a backdrop for those discussions, they can't just be done as a response to someone's political comiserating.. you actually need to set a stage for a particular type of discussion, niform the participants of what value sthey should be utilinzing in order to make the discussion as effective as possible, and provide the logistics and perhaps even the guidance to have the event happen how do we start making these events more commonplace? I believe we have to do it oonline, unfortunately, in spite of the authenticity issue and all the other aforementioned ones but nevertheless, that' swhere it needs to take place and that's the only way we can move forward in the immediate of course, as things open up we'll star tto have more opportunities to do iut in person, in fact we could have both run together and they can compliment one another in a various ways furthermore, we can use the mix of perspectives in order to perform analyses and study as to what components are effecting the dialogue the most, and how something can be learned from one format which might inform the other format and improve the quality to start with, we'll just need to continue the conversations that we've been having with people up to this point ie I should take the offer of communicating with Jim, and try to get some content ready for a more formal and presentable discussion which we can air on SStronglogic Solutions exit