0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteWow, that was fun... In my opinion he is criticizing how we assimilate information in general regardless of the subject or source, and in doing so, I think he knows he is risking being labelled as anarchistic even though he is actually labeling the modern purveyors of information as the anarchists. I don't think it's possible to arrive at an opinion about his politics from his postings, as his general purpose seems to be attempting to create a dichotomy between the way the human brain processes useless information in the digital age, and the fact that consequences good or bad are resulting from this process that the majority of thinking humans don't care about. We have created a situation in our world today where the vast majority of social, political, and now even scientific commentary is formulated with appeals to either popularity or unpopularity rather than fact.
Wow, that was fun...
Even more so, I feel he is attempting to illuminate that modern digital commentary often is very brief and makes simple statements so complex that effectively factually arguing another point of view would require a 100 page formal paper with footnotes and a bibliography, and further that the persons making the original comments have no idea how complex their statements are. I, being older, would just call it human nature that the human brain takes longer to eradicate historical errors from long strings of logic often preferring to add conclusions on top of monoliths of faulty logic, and part of me wants to give him a certain grace as far as that observation goes, as his general criticism of things digital seems to adapt that structural view. In any case some things he commented about were interesting to me.