I have to apologize for the lack of posts. I appear to be suffering from a bad gateway.
I don't just mean a bad gateway between my browser and hive.blog. I can get around that by using peakd.com or ecency.com. I appear to be suffering a bad gateway of the mind.
After I write a post, I think of all the ways that people can willfully misinterpret the post. I will leave the post hanging in the browser for a few hours and then delete it.
A part of the problem is that social media is not a good format for discussing nuanced issues and any issue worth discussing will have numerous nuances.
To make things worse. I tend to approach issues in a multidimensional style. That is, I examine the issue from different perspectives and develop arguments for and against the issue before speaking.
Social media presents arguments in a flat structure and it is difficult to really explore multidimensional fare.
The other problem is that social media really doesn't have a good structure for citing references.
Anyway, I write posts. I just delete them after writing.
I guess I have to admit that the lack of social contact has affected my mind. I have to admit, I really enjoy social contact. I like talking to people and I go a bit stir crazy if I go more than a couple years without engaging in any sort of intelligent conversation.
I did say years.
A big problem is that I live in Utah. Utah is controlled by an extremely oppressive church.
I really like the US Founders and the vision they had for this nation.
I've found that if I did something crazy like go to a GOP Caucus and talk about the ideas of Franklin, Jefferson or Lincoln, I would not only be thrown out of the meeting. I would be denounced as a servant of Satan as I am tossed from the door.
There is a strong reaction to the group that controls the state. Unfortunately, the members of the reaction tend to favor progressivism. Progressives are hostile to classical logic and the ideals of liberty.
The local puzzle is interesting: People who react to an oppressive structure tend to become at least as oppressive as the group they are reacting against. They often become more oppressive.
The process of action and reaction creates an echo chamber. As disputes evolve, each side of the divide will amp up the volume of their rhetoric until minor disputes turn into major conflicts.
In most cases, the dispute is based on a false dichotomy. IMHO, the best way to resolve a false dichotomy is to show that both sides of the dichotomy are false.
Unfortunately, the nature of social media makes this approach difficult as social media encourages people to pile on one side of the divide or the other with people upvoting and downvoting each other based on feeling.
Social media tends to make the divisions within a society worse.
A fundamental paradox of social media is that social media tends to undermine the societies that it infects.
To break false dichotomies, one needs a much more deliberative structure than social media. I know how to create such structures, but I have no idea how to get people interested in such structures.
A structure that exposes false dichotomies shows that both sides of a conflict have fundamental flaws. People do not like exploring their fundamental flaws.
I am aware that it is likely that I am blind to some fundamental flaws in my own system of reasoning. Personally, I have held many assumptions that I've discovered were false. I am usually put off when I discover the problem, but happy after I understand my error.
For example, I have often made mistakes in computer programs. I am horrified when I discover the mistake. I am thrilled when I find a way to recover from the mistake.
Progressives say that my admiration of the US founders is proof that I am pigheaded and never learn things. Post-post-post-modern Progressives tend to admire the likes of Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Chomsky, Che Guevara, Mao and the likes. These modern thinkers have a worse legacy than the US Founders.
Anyway, my post on why I have been unable to write posts has already gone on too long and hasn't actually resolved in a solution to any sort of problem.
I have the outline for a work that shows that progressivism and conservatism both came from the same source. Both systems of thought were created by people seeking to restore the monarchy. Progressivism and Conservatism lead to oppressive states.
Presenting this idea on social media fails because it simply gets both sides of the left/right split mad at me, and the only thing that matters on social media is popular appeal.
Anyway, the fact that I actively explore ideas from multiple perspectives has left me with a bad gateway that prevents me from finding a good way to interact with social media.
I see directions that I can pursue, but I keep finding closed doors that prevent me from pursuing the courses of action.
I can see why you'd think this. I can prove it isn't true, and I think you actually don't believe that it's true already, but are stating it to make a point regarding why you don't post much. You don't wish to offend, and no matter which side of a debate you are on, someone will take offence.
This is why many things besides popular appeal matter on social media. Social media is a microcosm of society, because it is society interacting via networked computers (mostly. Some of it's bots, but they are just noise that should be ignored).
Just like in middle school, different players in society take on different roles, like the class clown, or troll. While there's some appeal to the acts and statements of a troll, the real purpose of trolling is to reduce appeal of whoever they're trolling. The troll isn't after followers, the troll is seeking to reduce the zealotry of someone elses followers, or reduce their number. This is a different purpose than popular appeal, and it's only the first one of many I could account to social media.
The reason I use social media is not to gain followers or popular appeal. I seek to explore relevant issues to society and better understand them, while enabling others to do so also. Doing that can be very unpopular, and there have been times when I thought I was going to be flagged into the dust. I considered such times great successes at using social media, because the vituperation and excoriation I was confronted with taught me a lot, even if the trolls didn't intend to grant me such a boon at all. I don't doubt our interactions also enabled them to learn too.
One of the problems of honest discussion is that it sometimes doesn't take the form of advocating one side or another of an issue. That's fine with me, because I sometimes switch sides when I learn I was wrong about something, and I'd prefer to not have to first be wrong before I become right, but to be undecided. It's less of a leap to right than from wrong.
I follow you because you're thoughtful regarding issues I find important and that I want to learn more about. Even if you reckon you don't know what the answers are to questions you want to explore in posts, I'd be interested in your thoughts, as I point out above, I think it's fine to not know answers. It's better than being wrong.
Sometimes the lack of social validation can be discomfiting. Perhaps using a different account to explore ideas you don't want associated with your @yintercept account might enable you to post more freely. I hope you are encouraged by my comment to use social media to explore your thoughts on matters you find meaningful, rather than to merely seek validation.
I don't care how many followers you have, and don't intend to be your inner circle of trusted advisers and bosom friends. I do want to hear your ideas, and be considered a peer. Maybe Hive isn't where you should be looking for validation anyway. Maybe political meetings or religious events might be more appropriate for that, even in Utah where the majority seems to oppose your honest interests. Maybe other folks that agree with your policies feel just as much outcast as you, and holding some meetings would allow them to gain validation too.
Just post, and be the society you are a part of. That's my best advice.
Thanks!
Perhaps stop caring what others think of you and what you say. I think that one if the problems with giving everyone a platform to speak from, is that people overweigh the sound of their own voice, at a mass scale.
At least here on Hive, no one gives a crap you are from Utah or whether you give a crap about the founding fathers or whoever they might be. But even if they did judge, why fear judgement if you are holding an honest conversation?
I think a lot of the issues is that people no longer hold honest conversations and while they say different, all they are after is a bit more attention for themselves, so they claim labels of left, right, gay, white, grey, red and all the other surface level nonsense to have a counterpoint to argue with, because they feel that if they have an opposite, they themselves must be relevant.
People believe they are individuals, while seeking their relevance from a group.
Congratulations @yintercept! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @hivebuzz: