Show newer
PJ

I was wondering where and Maçães got the idea about the "decline of Western liberalism":

ft.com/video/a49cfa25-610e-438

Show thread
0
PJ

>***The illiberal promise*** is that once we’ve dispensed with liberalism’s inconvenience, uncertainty, and constant rumbles of public dispute, you will end up empowered. Your morals will be enshrined in law. Your culture will be propagated by the government. Your friends will be rewarded and your enemies punished.
>But a litany of wars, inquisitions, and purges show that for almost everyone, this promise is a lie. Without liberalism, you probably won’t end up empowered. You’ll end up bearably oppressed, if you’re lucky, or persecuted or dead if you’re not.

thedailybeast.com/anti-liberal

Show thread
0
PJ

I would not dismiss ***Western *** so fast as Bruno Maçães, Portugal’s former secretary of state for European affairs does in this propaganda article from .

Western Liberalism was on its "deathbed" many times but somehow always managed to defeat any lined up as its replacement, with either nationalist () or inter-nationalist () roots.

noemamag.com/the-return-of-civ

1+
PJ

No wonder the experiment failed

jacobin.com/2015/04/allende-ch

0
PJ

The Future of according to is in the Chinese model of a "Civilization State" with no Italian food.🤔

noemamag.com/article-topic/fut

0
PJ boosted
ᛕᎥᕼᗷᗴᖇᑎᗴ丅Ꭵᑕᔕ

People often interpret *Ashby’s Law* (after W. Ross Ashby) as if the *system*'s internal states must have the ***same level of variety*** as its *environment* in order to survive, which implies that the system should be able to *respond* (react) to every little disturbance from the environment.

This is not completely true because, on the lowest, , level, the system blocks from an (environmental) reaching the (internal, system protected) in two ways:

1️⃣ isolation (sheltering) from most environmental disturbances, and

2️⃣ reaction to (parring with) the remaining disturbance that managed to *break through* this passive protection.

from "Intro to "
pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASHBBOOK.htm

1
PJ

If you want to know what someone's **really** is, watch them when they are in a position of :

>Bonhoeffer’s argument is that the more someone becomes part of the establishment, the less an individual they become. A charismatic, exciting outsider, bursting with intelligence and sensible policies, becomes imbecilic the moment he takes office. It’s as if, “slogans, catchwords and the like… have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being.”

bigthink.com/thinking/bonhoeff

0
PJ

Arvind Narayanan:
>Even with something as profound as the internet or search engines or smartphones, it’s turned out to be an adaptation, where we maximize the benefits and try to minimize the risks, rather than some kind of revolution. I don’t think large language models are even on that scale. There can potentially be massive shifts, benefits, and risks in many industries, but I cannot see a scenario where this is a “sky is falling” kind of issue.

themarkup.org/hello-world/2023

Show thread
0
PJ

People are needlessly concerned that the unavoidable of (language and visual) tools will "break the landscape". The quality and quantity of "fake news" and other published BS may increase but people with the and to distinguish between and will always have the upper hand.

Humanity was in this situation of "disruptive innovation" many times in the past, and it somehow managed to grow up of it a little bit better than before.

Show thread
1
PJ

Who says is bad:

mainepublic.org/environment-an

0
PJ

***Six Misconceptions About ***

>1. Misinformation is just a social media problem
2. The internet is rife with misinformation
3. Falsehoods spread faster than the truth
4. People believe everything they see on the internet
5. A large number of people are misinformed
6. Misinformation has a strong influence on people’s behavior

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.11

1
PJ

@mike805 @Dreamwieber

The beauty of (including ) is in that instead of to do something you are doing it because you are to do it.

0
PJ

Interesting exercise. I've got the rabbit sitting on top of a tree wrong. 9 out of 10, not bad 😎

abc.net.au/news/2022-12-15/qui

0
PJ

@doctorambient

Let me put it this way: I'm more concerned about the misuse of nuclear power or a(nother) virus "escaping" from some lab than I am about any damage or similar tools could make to society.

0
PJ

@dustcircle@home.social

Are the 'scarry moments' because all those "creations" look more like nightmares than dreams?

0
PJ

@doctorambient

I meant physically break, like with a hammer.
It may break other, immaterial things we depend on, such as confidence, feelings, and self-worth though, depending on how you approach it.
As true for any other the purpose of is also the of human capabilities. In the case of this particular tool the augmented abilities are rather than . It will augment in the same way wisdom as it will stupidity.

1
PJ

>The best things in we don’t choose — they choose us. A great love, a great calling, a great illumination — they happen unto us, like light falling upon that which is lit. We have given a name to these unbidden greatnesses — , from the Latin for “spirit,” denoting the spirit of a universe we can only submit to but cannot govern.

themarginalian.org/2023/01/21/

0
PJ

>For subjectivists is meaningful, they say, but its value is made by us in our minds, and subject to change over time. Landau argues that is essentially a sense of worth which we may all derive in a different way - from relationships, creativity, accomplishment in a given field, or generosity, among other possibilities

getpocket.com/explore/item/the

0
PJ

@doctorambient

Isn't it the same with all tools? I would be concerned about someone having a hammer and not knowing how to use it.

At least with *chatGPT* they can't break anything. 😀

1
PJ

I feel something is wrong with this line of reasoning but I can't quite put my finger on it.

It has something to do with the flawed assumption that it is social media that "rips the fabric of civil society".🤔 What about the effects of the growing between the rich becoming wealthier and the poor even more impoverished?

, despite all its flaws, is actually the only democratic tool able to increase global awareness about the fact that such economic inequalities, despite being a global phenomenon do not originate from some "others" (race, nation, religion), but from your very "own people".

The excerpt is from:
eurasiagroup.net/issues/top-ri

0
Show older

identity

4

life

3

fear

3

complexity

2

thecommons

2

identitypolitics

2

diversity

2

epistemology

2

autopoiesis

1
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.

Trending now

Resources

Developers

What is Mastodon?

qoto.org

More…

v3.5.19-qoto · Privacy policy