Welcome to Naberrie Fields! Introductions & banter

I think Arch Duke was making a broader allusion. This video, which I alighted on the other day, while a tad dry, usefully touches on the deficiencies of monocultures and tribal thinking:



Three criteria are identified for a knowledge-based consensus:

- Consilience of Evidence (0:50)
- Social Calibration (2:02)
- Social Diversity (3:03)

I have highlighted the relevant criterion. Note that this does not refer to diversity in exactly the same sense that it is commonly understood and employed by left-leaning ideologues. It's specifically the sub-part on groupthink that makes for a cogent explanation (3:50):

"There's a tendency for groups of small numbers or highly similar groups to attempt to minimise disagreement and promote conformity. A desire for harmony within the group can cause people to ignore reservations they may have and reach agreement for the sake of agreeing rather than based on standards of evidence. A large diverse group will have less of an inclination towards groupthink as differences among the group exist from the outset."

 
I think that nicely sums it up. I found the video in the context of reading into the development of the heliocentric model of the universe and the factors that led to its acceptance and supplanting of geocentric models. The catalyst and fulcrum here would be Galileo's clash with, and eventual sentencing and silencing by, the Catholic Church in the early 17th Century. This was the page where I found the video: critical-angle.net/2016/08/22/on-and-against-method-and-process/

Anyway, it amused me when I got to that part in the video, because I was easily reminded of the situation I have described with TFN over the past few years. The strange thing with humans is that we're not too smart when we surrender our individual selves to a wider set of group ideals -- which perhaps happens much more often than we realise or would like to admit.

Even "smart" and "enlightened" majorities tend to bully, discard, or downplay minority groups, struggles, ideals, and concepts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Which could be considered problematic when you claim you're in favour of diversity, and that you allegdly don't suppress views and opinions that go against the grain or are critical of some pre-determined consensus. 

Welcome to all new members! Do make yourselves at home.

Sorry this thread has kinda become Grand Central Anti-TFN Station, but I've started, so I'll finish...


Good speech here from Rowan Atkinson speaking in 2012 (yes, sadly -- this was already recognised as a problem eight years ago), on the growth of authoritarian attitudes toward free speech, which has resulted in the so-called "cancel culture" we now have online. I think it contains part of the answer -- calling a character a Nazi or a fascist is evidently construed as insult; so in order that Kylo fans don't have their feelings hurt, people using such terms must be told to stop, and if they refuse, they are to be silenced:




Just like the mods on TFN. They're not "intolerant". They are merely "intolerant of intolerance". And if you get banned: remember, says one of these mods who is merely intolerant of intolerance, it's your fault:

Thanks (insofar as I can take credit for that)!

But I never half-ass image selections. Visual art is my religion.