Conspiracy Theories: Your Favourites and Discuss Why They Happen

couldnt think of where else to put this...

Part of the point of red-pilling yourself every once in a while is to understand where other people are coming from. Your sister-in-law talks a lot about the depredations of identity politics; your teen-age son is obsessed with how much women take from men during divorce; the guy from the hardware store has put half his savings into crypto, using a strategy based on astrology. Where do they get this stuff? Now you know. There’s a diagnostic aspect, too. “Just as you go to the doctor once a year to find out if you’re fundamentally healthy, a semi-annual algorithmic derangement can help you learn whether your perspective is as immovable as you take it to be,” Joshua Rothman writes.

But there’s a twist. The more time you spend having your mind changed online, the more you might sense that there’s something odd about the way in which opinions tend to be formed and held today. To any question you can ask, there’s apparently already an answer; in fact, there seem to be more answers than questions. “The Internet pushes us to question everything while foreclosing every question,” Rothman notes. “It’s a machine for telling you what to think.”

What’s true for politics appears to be true in other areas, too: everything is seemingly up for grabs. In theory, a lack of consensus on so many subjects should mean that we live in a time of widespread intellectual foment, in which we turn over the fundamental questions, exploring them in earnest, searching deeply for durable answers. But is that what we’re doing? Or have we mistaken a simulacrum of thinking for the real thing? Rothman writes about how thinking should really feel and why the Socratic method—the exploration of ideas through questions and answers—can help us think together: https://newyorkermag.visitlink.me/NWkimf

well, how often had/has vance been in contact with Bannon? Seems real intetesting the Pope dies the day after meeting that fucktard...