#publicdiscourse — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #publicdiscourse, aggregated by home.social.
-
Stanford researchers find a single question could be the key to changing someone’s mind
-
Stanford researchers find a single question could be the key to changing someone’s mind
-
DATE: July 24, 2026 at 04:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Reclaimed hate speech backfires by desensitizing listeners, study finds
URL: https://www.psypost.org/when-reclaiming-derogatory-language-goes-wrong/
Reclaimed derogatory language is often viewed as an empowering tool for marginalized groups to take back control of harmful words. However, new research published in the European Journal of Social Psychology suggests that listening to reclaimed homophobic statements can actually cause unintended harm. The studies show that exposure to reclaimed slur words desensitizes some heterosexual listeners to standard hate speech and worsens the mood of gay individuals.
Hate speech involves abusive or threatening language directed at individuals based on aspects of their identity, such as race or sexual orientation. Sociologists and psychologists recognize that this kind of language causes psychological distress for minority groups. It also increases general prejudice among the broader public. Over time, hearing these words can make people accept hostile attitudes as a normal part of society.
According to classic psychological models, verbal prejudice is often the first step in a dangerous progression. If left unchecked, these verbal expressions can escalate into active avoidance, outright discrimination, and systemic violence against minority populations. This is why researchers pay close attention to how hostile language spreads and evolves in everyday conversation.
In response to systemic hostility, minority groups sometimes adopt a strategy known as language reclamation. This occurs when a community takes a slur historically used against them and uses it intentionally in a positive or affirming context. A well-known example is the word “queer,” which originated as an insult but is now widely used as a neutral or proud identifier by many non-heterosexual people.
Academics and activists generally frame language reclamation as a successful way to strip slurs of their toxic power. Yet, few researchers have experimentally tested how overhearing these reclaimed words impacts both the minority group and the general public. Members of marginalized communities have voiced concerns that using reclaimed slurs might accidentally validate the original insults in the eyes of outsiders.
To explore these dynamics, psychologists Dominik Puchała, Michał Bilewicz, and Aleksandra Świderska from the University of Warsaw in Poland initiated a series of experiments. The research team wanted to see if reclaimed homophobic language acts like an emancipatory shield or if it backfires. They designed three separate tests to investigate how both heterosexual and gay individuals react to hearing slurs in different contexts.
In the first experiment, the researchers recruited 489 heterosexual Polish adults. The participants were told they were evaluating audio processing software designed to clarify conversations in crowded places. This cover story kept the participants from guessing the true purpose of the test. While rating the artificial software interfaces, the participants listened to short audio clips of people speaking in public.
Some participants heard audio clips containing neutral statements about gay people. Other participants heard clips containing an anti-gay slur. The researchers manipulated the context of the slur by telling half the listeners that the recording came from a pride parade, signaling a reclaimed use of the word among an accepting community. The other half were told the recording came from an unspecified public gathering, signaling traditional hate speech.
After listening to the initial clips, all participants were asked to listen to entirely new recordings of traditional anti-gay hate speech. They were then asked to rate how offensive they found these new statements. Finally, the participants answered questions designed to measure their overall acceptance of gay people.
The researchers found that exposure to homophobic language at a pride setting caused a desensitization effect among conservative and moderate participants. After hearing the reclaimed slurs, these individuals rated subsequent traditional hate speech as less offensive than people who had listened to neutral audio clips. This drop in sensitivity caused these participants to express lower overall acceptance of gay people.
For example, desensitized individuals were less likely to say they would tolerate having a gay person in their neighborhood or family. The desensitization effect was not statistically significant among liberal participants. Liberal individuals generally remained highly sensitive to the harmful speech regardless of their initial exposure to the audio clips.
To verify this pattern, the team conducted a second experiment exclusively involving 242 conservative heterosexual adults. The researchers intentionally recruited conservatives because earlier polling indicated this ideological group might perceive hateful content as less disturbing than liberals do. The procedures mirrored the first test, utilizing the identical audio clips and software evaluation cover story.
The results confirmed the initial findings, showing that conservative listeners who heard reclaimed slurs became desensitized to traditional hate speech. To these listeners, the reclaimed community setting did not neutralize the slur. Instead, the context seemed to signal that using derogatory language against gay people was generally acceptable in contemporary society.
For the final experiment, Puchała and his colleagues wanted to see how reclaimed language physically and emotionally impacts the targets of the slurs. The team recruited 181 gay individuals from Poland and asked them to participate in a similar audio test. The researchers measured the participants’ moods both before and after listening to the audio clips. They also assessed the participants’ sense of self-power and internalized homophobia.
In addition to self-reported surveys, the researchers used artificial intelligence facial recognition software to monitor the participants’ expressions while they listened to the recordings. This provided an objective, behavioral measure of their emotional reactions, capturing subtle signs of distress like sadness or anger. The researchers theorized that if reclaimed language is truly empowering, it should act as an emotional buffer against traditional hate speech.
The data told a different story entirely. Listening to reclaimed hate speech caused a notable drop in the gay participants’ moods, matching the mood deterioration caused by traditional hate speech. Hearing reclaimed words in a pride setting did not immunize the participants from the emotional sting of the traditional insults they heard later in the test. The facial recognition analysis confirmed this, showing that the participants exhibited similar levels of negative emotion across the different scenarios.
The study did not find that exposure to either form of hate speech increased internalized homophobia or decreased the participants’ sense of personal power. The short nature of the audio clips might not have been potent enough to alter deep-seated beliefs about their own identities. Still, the immediate emotional toll of hearing the slurs was apparent, even when the setting implied the words were being used playfully or supportively.
The findings suggest that the emotional weight of a derogatory word does not vanish simply because the speaker’s intentions have changed. While using reclaimed words might help some individuals cope within their own specific social circles, broadcasting those words outwardly can carry unintended consequences. For outside observers, hearing the slur can reinforce discriminatory attitudes, while marginalized listeners may still experience the word as a painful reminder of historical violence.
The researchers note a few caveats regarding their work. The study took place in Poland, a country where LGBT rights face heavy restrictions and hostile rhetoric remains prevalent in public life. The baseline levels of desensitization or internalized prejudice among Polish citizens might differ from those in other nations. The research team also focused entirely on homophobic language, meaning the reactions to reclaimed words related to race, gender, or disability might operate differently.
Future investigations will need to explore how the specific intentions behind reclaimed words alter a listener’s perception. For instance, using a slur for comedic effect might yield different psychological consequences than using it as an earnest political statement. Until these boundaries are better understood, the authors suggest that language reclamation remains a high-risk social strategy. The words seemingly retain an aggressive potential that is incredibly difficult to erase.
The study, “Reclaimed Homophobic Hate Speech Backfires: Desensitization and Mood Deterioration,” was authored by Dominik Puchała, Michał Bilewicz, and Aleksandra Świderska.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/when-reclaiming-derogatory-language-goes-wrong/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ReclaimedHateSpeech #DesensitizationStudy #LGBTQRights #HateSpeechImpact #MentalWellbeing #SocialPsychology #QueerIdentity #PublicDiscourse #PolandResearch #EmotionalEffects
-
DATE: July 24, 2026 at 04:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Reclaimed hate speech backfires by desensitizing listeners, study finds
URL: https://www.psypost.org/when-reclaiming-derogatory-language-goes-wrong/
Reclaimed derogatory language is often viewed as an empowering tool for marginalized groups to take back control of harmful words. However, new research published in the European Journal of Social Psychology suggests that listening to reclaimed homophobic statements can actually cause unintended harm. The studies show that exposure to reclaimed slur words desensitizes some heterosexual listeners to standard hate speech and worsens the mood of gay individuals.
Hate speech involves abusive or threatening language directed at individuals based on aspects of their identity, such as race or sexual orientation. Sociologists and psychologists recognize that this kind of language causes psychological distress for minority groups. It also increases general prejudice among the broader public. Over time, hearing these words can make people accept hostile attitudes as a normal part of society.
According to classic psychological models, verbal prejudice is often the first step in a dangerous progression. If left unchecked, these verbal expressions can escalate into active avoidance, outright discrimination, and systemic violence against minority populations. This is why researchers pay close attention to how hostile language spreads and evolves in everyday conversation.
In response to systemic hostility, minority groups sometimes adopt a strategy known as language reclamation. This occurs when a community takes a slur historically used against them and uses it intentionally in a positive or affirming context. A well-known example is the word “queer,” which originated as an insult but is now widely used as a neutral or proud identifier by many non-heterosexual people.
Academics and activists generally frame language reclamation as a successful way to strip slurs of their toxic power. Yet, few researchers have experimentally tested how overhearing these reclaimed words impacts both the minority group and the general public. Members of marginalized communities have voiced concerns that using reclaimed slurs might accidentally validate the original insults in the eyes of outsiders.
To explore these dynamics, psychologists Dominik Puchała, Michał Bilewicz, and Aleksandra Świderska from the University of Warsaw in Poland initiated a series of experiments. The research team wanted to see if reclaimed homophobic language acts like an emancipatory shield or if it backfires. They designed three separate tests to investigate how both heterosexual and gay individuals react to hearing slurs in different contexts.
In the first experiment, the researchers recruited 489 heterosexual Polish adults. The participants were told they were evaluating audio processing software designed to clarify conversations in crowded places. This cover story kept the participants from guessing the true purpose of the test. While rating the artificial software interfaces, the participants listened to short audio clips of people speaking in public.
Some participants heard audio clips containing neutral statements about gay people. Other participants heard clips containing an anti-gay slur. The researchers manipulated the context of the slur by telling half the listeners that the recording came from a pride parade, signaling a reclaimed use of the word among an accepting community. The other half were told the recording came from an unspecified public gathering, signaling traditional hate speech.
After listening to the initial clips, all participants were asked to listen to entirely new recordings of traditional anti-gay hate speech. They were then asked to rate how offensive they found these new statements. Finally, the participants answered questions designed to measure their overall acceptance of gay people.
The researchers found that exposure to homophobic language at a pride setting caused a desensitization effect among conservative and moderate participants. After hearing the reclaimed slurs, these individuals rated subsequent traditional hate speech as less offensive than people who had listened to neutral audio clips. This drop in sensitivity caused these participants to express lower overall acceptance of gay people.
For example, desensitized individuals were less likely to say they would tolerate having a gay person in their neighborhood or family. The desensitization effect was not statistically significant among liberal participants. Liberal individuals generally remained highly sensitive to the harmful speech regardless of their initial exposure to the audio clips.
To verify this pattern, the team conducted a second experiment exclusively involving 242 conservative heterosexual adults. The researchers intentionally recruited conservatives because earlier polling indicated this ideological group might perceive hateful content as less disturbing than liberals do. The procedures mirrored the first test, utilizing the identical audio clips and software evaluation cover story.
The results confirmed the initial findings, showing that conservative listeners who heard reclaimed slurs became desensitized to traditional hate speech. To these listeners, the reclaimed community setting did not neutralize the slur. Instead, the context seemed to signal that using derogatory language against gay people was generally acceptable in contemporary society.
For the final experiment, Puchała and his colleagues wanted to see how reclaimed language physically and emotionally impacts the targets of the slurs. The team recruited 181 gay individuals from Poland and asked them to participate in a similar audio test. The researchers measured the participants’ moods both before and after listening to the audio clips. They also assessed the participants’ sense of self-power and internalized homophobia.
In addition to self-reported surveys, the researchers used artificial intelligence facial recognition software to monitor the participants’ expressions while they listened to the recordings. This provided an objective, behavioral measure of their emotional reactions, capturing subtle signs of distress like sadness or anger. The researchers theorized that if reclaimed language is truly empowering, it should act as an emotional buffer against traditional hate speech.
The data told a different story entirely. Listening to reclaimed hate speech caused a notable drop in the gay participants’ moods, matching the mood deterioration caused by traditional hate speech. Hearing reclaimed words in a pride setting did not immunize the participants from the emotional sting of the traditional insults they heard later in the test. The facial recognition analysis confirmed this, showing that the participants exhibited similar levels of negative emotion across the different scenarios.
The study did not find that exposure to either form of hate speech increased internalized homophobia or decreased the participants’ sense of personal power. The short nature of the audio clips might not have been potent enough to alter deep-seated beliefs about their own identities. Still, the immediate emotional toll of hearing the slurs was apparent, even when the setting implied the words were being used playfully or supportively.
The findings suggest that the emotional weight of a derogatory word does not vanish simply because the speaker’s intentions have changed. While using reclaimed words might help some individuals cope within their own specific social circles, broadcasting those words outwardly can carry unintended consequences. For outside observers, hearing the slur can reinforce discriminatory attitudes, while marginalized listeners may still experience the word as a painful reminder of historical violence.
The researchers note a few caveats regarding their work. The study took place in Poland, a country where LGBT rights face heavy restrictions and hostile rhetoric remains prevalent in public life. The baseline levels of desensitization or internalized prejudice among Polish citizens might differ from those in other nations. The research team also focused entirely on homophobic language, meaning the reactions to reclaimed words related to race, gender, or disability might operate differently.
Future investigations will need to explore how the specific intentions behind reclaimed words alter a listener’s perception. For instance, using a slur for comedic effect might yield different psychological consequences than using it as an earnest political statement. Until these boundaries are better understood, the authors suggest that language reclamation remains a high-risk social strategy. The words seemingly retain an aggressive potential that is incredibly difficult to erase.
The study, “Reclaimed Homophobic Hate Speech Backfires: Desensitization and Mood Deterioration,” was authored by Dominik Puchała, Michał Bilewicz, and Aleksandra Świderska.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/when-reclaiming-derogatory-language-goes-wrong/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ReclaimedHateSpeech #DesensitizationStudy #LGBTQRights #HateSpeechImpact #MentalWellbeing #SocialPsychology #QueerIdentity #PublicDiscourse #PolandResearch #EmotionalEffects
-
I wrote last week into my "Cruella De CyberSIN" piece that #tech has a lineage problem and is, in effect, a first-order shouting match.
Elon and Sam just publicly proved me right at an altitude that induces vertigo in me.
This is what happens when first-order thinkers build billion dollar companies. That's really all I have to say.
https://systemic.engineering/cruella
#Cybernetics #FirstOrderShoutingMatch #ElonMusk #SamAltman #XTwitter #CruellaDeCyberSIN #CantMakeThisShitUp #WhatElseIsThereToSay #AI #GenerativeAI #PublicDiscourse #SystemicEngineering
-
I wrote last week into my "Cruella De CyberSIN" piece that #tech has a lineage problem and is, in effect, a first-order shouting match.
Elon and Sam just publicly proved me right at an altitude that induces vertigo in me.
This is what happens when first-order thinkers build billion dollar companies. That's really all I have to say.
https://systemic.engineering/cruella
#Cybernetics #FirstOrderShoutingMatch #ElonMusk #SamAltman #XTwitter #CruellaDeCyberSIN #CantMakeThisShitUp #WhatElseIsThereToSay #AI #GenerativeAI #PublicDiscourse #SystemicEngineering
-
Climate change is a consequence.
Where you look at a problem conditions where you look for a solution.Read @thierryaaron.bsky.social:
https://sklonger.app/profile/thierryaaron.bsky.social/post/3mhrzbuhf3s2p#advocacy #influence #framing #strategy #publicDiscourse #climate #adaptation #mitigation #rootCause
-
Climate change is a consequence.
Where you look at a problem conditions where you look for a solution.Read @thierryaaron.bsky.social:
https://sklonger.app/profile/thierryaaron.bsky.social/post/3mhrzbuhf3s2p#advocacy #influence #framing #strategy #publicDiscourse #climate #adaptation #mitigation #rootCause
-
The Illusion of Engagement: Why Social Media Rewards Ignorance Over Thought
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — June 3, 2026The Myth of the Thinking Crowd
Social media platforms promote a comforting illusion: that ideas rise or fall based on merit, that good arguments eventually find their audience, and that collective intelligence emerges from enough voices speaking at once. In practice, the opposite is more often true.
What rises is not insight, but familiarity. What spreads is not thought, but reassurance. Platforms optimized for engagement are structurally hostile to work that requires attention, humility, or reconsideration. This is not a failure of individual users so much as a failure of the system that selects which behaviors are rewarded.
Status Before Substance
On most social platforms, content is evaluated before it is read. Signals such as follower count, tone, identity, and alignment with group expectations determine whether an idea is granted consideration at all. Substance is secondary.
This produces a closed loop. Those already recognized are amplified. Those outside the circle are dismissed without engagement. The act of not reading becomes a performance of belonging.
Claims that a book, article, or argument is “bad” without having been read are not intellectual judgments. They are status declarations.
The Performance of Intelligence
Social media rewards the appearance of intelligence rather than its practice. Quick takes outperform careful reasoning. Moral certainty outperforms curiosity. Dismissal is cheaper than engagement and therefore more common.
This environment trains users to react, not to think. Reading deeply carries social risk: one might encounter complexity, ambiguity, or ideas that resist easy alignment. It is safer to signal agreement with what is already popular.
Over time, this dynamic produces a culture that confuses confidence with competence.
AI as a Convenient Scapegoat
Recent hostility toward the use of artificial intelligence in writing follows this pattern. AI has become a shorthand accusation, a way to disqualify work without engaging it. The claim is rarely that the argument is wrong, only that its origin is suspect.
This tactic avoids the discomfort of evaluation. It replaces critique with insinuation. Whether the work predates AI, incorporates it transparently, or uses it as a tool rather than a substitute is irrelevant. The label serves its purpose: dismissal without reading.
Engagement Metrics as Anti-Intellectual Filters
Platforms measure success through likes, reposts, and replies. These metrics favor content that confirms existing beliefs and punishes work that challenges them. As a result, the system filters out complexity long before readers encounter it.
Low engagement is then treated as evidence of low quality, rather than as a predictable outcome of structural bias. Serious work is declared irrelevant because it does not perform well in a space designed to marginalize it.
This logic mistakes popularity for validity.
Why This Is Not an Audience Problem
It is tempting to blame users for this environment. That temptation should be resisted. Most people behave rationally within the incentives presented to them. When platforms reward speed, certainty, and conformity, those traits will dominate.
The problem is not that people are incapable of thought. It is that the system actively discourages it.
Expecting serious engagement from a platform optimized against it is a category error.
The Cost of Confusing Noise for Judgment
When dismissal replaces critique and status replaces reading, the collective capacity for judgment erodes. Institutions, ideas, and policies are evaluated based on vibes rather than evidence. This has consequences beyond social media.
A culture that trains itself to ignore complexity will struggle to govern complexity.
Why Walking Away Is Rational
Disengaging from these systems is not surrender. It is alignment. Serious work does not require constant affirmation. It requires preservation, clarity, and time.
Archives outlast feeds. Records outlast reactions. Thought outlasts applause.
The purpose of writing is not to win attention contests in environments designed to flatten meaning. It is to establish a record that can be encountered by those willing to read.
From Alamo to Anarchy argues that saving U.S. democracy requires breaking Texas into five states. In a sharp Zoomer voice, Dorah Zurino traces Texas from slave republic to today’s “lab of extremes” (Rangers, Jim Crow, ERCOT, SB8) and maps a constitutional, step-by-step plan to un-monopolize power and let real communities govern.
https://books2read.com/u/mdBD9RAPA References
Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. W. W. Norton & Company.
Lanier, J. (2018). Ten arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now. Henry Holt and Company.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. Oxford University Press.
#digitalPlatforms #engagementMetrics #institutionalLiteracy #intellectualCulture #misinformation #publicDiscourse #SocialMedia -
The Illusion of Engagement: Why Social Media Rewards Ignorance Over Thought
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — June 3, 2026The Myth of the Thinking Crowd
Social media platforms promote a comforting illusion: that ideas rise or fall based on merit, that good arguments eventually find their audience, and that collective intelligence emerges from enough voices speaking at once. In practice, the opposite is more often true.
What rises is not insight, but familiarity. What spreads is not thought, but reassurance. Platforms optimized for engagement are structurally hostile to work that requires attention, humility, or reconsideration. This is not a failure of individual users so much as a failure of the system that selects which behaviors are rewarded.
Status Before Substance
On most social platforms, content is evaluated before it is read. Signals such as follower count, tone, identity, and alignment with group expectations determine whether an idea is granted consideration at all. Substance is secondary.
This produces a closed loop. Those already recognized are amplified. Those outside the circle are dismissed without engagement. The act of not reading becomes a performance of belonging.
Claims that a book, article, or argument is “bad” without having been read are not intellectual judgments. They are status declarations.
The Performance of Intelligence
Social media rewards the appearance of intelligence rather than its practice. Quick takes outperform careful reasoning. Moral certainty outperforms curiosity. Dismissal is cheaper than engagement and therefore more common.
This environment trains users to react, not to think. Reading deeply carries social risk: one might encounter complexity, ambiguity, or ideas that resist easy alignment. It is safer to signal agreement with what is already popular.
Over time, this dynamic produces a culture that confuses confidence with competence.
AI as a Convenient Scapegoat
Recent hostility toward the use of artificial intelligence in writing follows this pattern. AI has become a shorthand accusation, a way to disqualify work without engaging it. The claim is rarely that the argument is wrong, only that its origin is suspect.
This tactic avoids the discomfort of evaluation. It replaces critique with insinuation. Whether the work predates AI, incorporates it transparently, or uses it as a tool rather than a substitute is irrelevant. The label serves its purpose: dismissal without reading.
Engagement Metrics as Anti-Intellectual Filters
Platforms measure success through likes, reposts, and replies. These metrics favor content that confirms existing beliefs and punishes work that challenges them. As a result, the system filters out complexity long before readers encounter it.
Low engagement is then treated as evidence of low quality, rather than as a predictable outcome of structural bias. Serious work is declared irrelevant because it does not perform well in a space designed to marginalize it.
This logic mistakes popularity for validity.
Why This Is Not an Audience Problem
It is tempting to blame users for this environment. That temptation should be resisted. Most people behave rationally within the incentives presented to them. When platforms reward speed, certainty, and conformity, those traits will dominate.
The problem is not that people are incapable of thought. It is that the system actively discourages it.
Expecting serious engagement from a platform optimized against it is a category error.
The Cost of Confusing Noise for Judgment
When dismissal replaces critique and status replaces reading, the collective capacity for judgment erodes. Institutions, ideas, and policies are evaluated based on vibes rather than evidence. This has consequences beyond social media.
A culture that trains itself to ignore complexity will struggle to govern complexity.
Why Walking Away Is Rational
Disengaging from these systems is not surrender. It is alignment. Serious work does not require constant affirmation. It requires preservation, clarity, and time.
Archives outlast feeds. Records outlast reactions. Thought outlasts applause.
The purpose of writing is not to win attention contests in environments designed to flatten meaning. It is to establish a record that can be encountered by those willing to read.
From Alamo to Anarchy argues that saving U.S. democracy requires breaking Texas into five states. In a sharp Zoomer voice, Dorah Zurino traces Texas from slave republic to today’s “lab of extremes” (Rangers, Jim Crow, ERCOT, SB8) and maps a constitutional, step-by-step plan to un-monopolize power and let real communities govern.
https://books2read.com/u/mdBD9RAPA References
Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. W. W. Norton & Company.
Lanier, J. (2018). Ten arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now. Henry Holt and Company.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. Oxford University Press.
#digitalPlatforms #engagementMetrics #institutionalLiteracy #intellectualCulture #misinformation #publicDiscourse #SocialMedia -
“ #Publicdiscourse about #taxes and #inequality is, even more than discussion of other #economic topics, infested with #zombies — #ideas that should be dead, having been proved wrong again and again, but that keep shambling along, eating people’s brains.” open.substack.com/pub/paulkrug...
Bezos, Backlash and Zombies -
America's Philosophical Void: A Costly Misconception
Why Americans treat philosophy like faith, not thinking. This hurts education and public debate. Learn the real cost.
#PhilosophyVsFaith, #CriticalThinking, #AmericanEducation, #PublicDiscourse, #IntellectualGrowth
https://newsletter.tf/america-philosophy-faith-not-thinking-debate/
-
Many Americans think philosophy is about faith, not thinking. This is different from how other countries see it, leading to weaker public arguments.
#PhilosophyVsFaith, #CriticalThinking, #AmericanEducation, #PublicDiscourse, #IntellectualGrowth
https://newsletter.tf/america-philosophy-faith-not-thinking-debate/ -
We can’t know if Donald Trump has dementia. Even if he did, it wouldn’t excuse his actions
#Politics #Health #Ethics #Media #Journalism #Psychology #Trump #Dementia #MentalHealth #Accountability #Misinformation #PublicDiscourse #Stigma #Leadership
https://the-14.com/we-cant-know-if-donald-trump-has-dementia-even-if-he-did-it-wouldnt-excuse-his-actions/ -
We can’t know if Donald Trump has dementia. Even if he did, it wouldn’t excuse his actions
#Politics #Health #Ethics #Media #Journalism #Psychology #Trump #Dementia #MentalHealth #Accountability #Misinformation #PublicDiscourse #Stigma #Leadership
https://the-14.com/we-cant-know-if-donald-trump-has-dementia-even-if-he-did-it-wouldnt-excuse-his-actions/ -
This story is spreading because it touches on deeper questions about identity and societal change.
#Europe #Politics #Society #GlobalDebate #CulturalIssues #PublicDiscourse -
This story is spreading because it touches on deeper questions about identity and societal change.
#Europe #Politics #Society #GlobalDebate #CulturalIssues #PublicDiscourse -
Participation, dignity, care, transparency, inclusion, voice — the language is everywhere. But what happens when the words remain, while the structures meant to carry them grow thinner, vaguer, or harder to answer for?
#Coherence #Leadership #Democracy #PublicLife #PublicDiscourse #Accountability #Meaning #CivicCulture #InstitutionalTrust #PoliticalCulture #SocialChange #SystemsThinking #Ethics #CivicLeadership
-
Participation, dignity, care, transparency, inclusion, voice — the language is everywhere. But what happens when the words remain, while the structures meant to carry them grow thinner, vaguer, or harder to answer for?
#Coherence #Leadership #Democracy #PublicLife #PublicDiscourse #Accountability #Meaning #CivicCulture #InstitutionalTrust #PoliticalCulture #SocialChange #SystemsThinking #Ethics #CivicLeadership
-
There’s a shift happening in plain sight.
It’s not that responsible and reckless ways of speaking coexist. They always have.
It’s that both now carry equal weight, even when the stakes are real lives and real futures.
#Democracy
#GlobalPolitics
#Leadership
#Geopolitics
#Sensemaking
#PublicDiscourse
#SystemsThinking
#PoliticalAnalysis
#Ethics -
There’s a shift happening in plain sight.
It’s not that responsible and reckless ways of speaking coexist. They always have.
It’s that both now carry equal weight, even when the stakes are real lives and real futures.
#Democracy
#GlobalPolitics
#Leadership
#Geopolitics
#Sensemaking
#PublicDiscourse
#SystemsThinking
#PoliticalAnalysis
#Ethics -
A capacity for rational dialogue?
“Democracy depends on the belief of the people that there is some scope left for collectively shaping a challenging future.” Jürgen Habermas
"His abiding concern was the state of democracy and the fear of backsliding into the exclusionary and violent social order..." >>
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/books/jurgen-habermas-dead.html
#PublicSphere #PublicDiscourse #communication #dialogue #nationalism #violence #democracy #CriticalTheory -
A capacity for rational dialogue?
“Democracy depends on the belief of the people that there is some scope left for collectively shaping a challenging future.” Jürgen Habermas
"His abiding concern was the state of democracy and the fear of backsliding into the exclusionary and violent social order..." >>
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/books/jurgen-habermas-dead.html
#PublicSphere #PublicDiscourse #communication #dialogue #nationalism #violence #democracy #CriticalTheory -
ICYMI: Santo & Schwartz – “Psychology of Stupid” Analyses with Author (Compilation) https://mauineutralzone.com/video/santo-schwartz-psychology-of-stupid-analyses-with-author-compilation/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #Psychology #CognitiveBias #CriticalThinking #MediaInfluence #PublicDiscourse
-
ICYMI: Santo & Schwartz – “Psychology of Stupid” Analyses with Author (Compilation) https://mauineutralzone.com/video/santo-schwartz-psychology-of-stupid-analyses-with-author-compilation/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #Psychology #CognitiveBias #CriticalThinking #MediaInfluence #PublicDiscourse
-
AI Tools Used in Epstein File Investigations and Public Discourse
AI helps search millions of Epstein files and creates viral videos. See how AI affects public talk and what it means for you.
#EpsteinFiles, #AITools, #ViralContent, #DataAnalysis, #PublicDiscourse
https://newsletter.tf/ai-tools-search-epstein-files-viral-videos/
-
AI is used to search over 1.4 million Epstein files and also to make viral videos. This is a big change in how we get information.
#EpsteinFiles, #AITools, #ViralContent, #DataAnalysis, #PublicDiscourse
https://newsletter.tf/ai-tools-search-epstein-files-viral-videos/
-
Santo & Schwartz – “Psychology of Stupid” Analyses with Author (Compilation) https://mauineutralzone.com/video/santo-schwartz-psychology-of-stupid-analyses-with-author-compilation/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #Psychology #CognitiveBias #CriticalThinking #PublicDiscourse #MediaInfluence
-
Public Discourse
I thought about why accepting blog comments via email does not work for me. -
RE: https://fediscience.org/@UlrikeHahn/115887508756592856
Check out this paper on different conceptions of #reasoning and how it impacts the debate about whether #AI models can do it. 👇
#computerScience #psychology #philosophy #tech #publicDiscourse #academia #philSci #metascience #conceptualAnalysis #interdisciplinary
-
thoughtful message / reception revisit — worth a listen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhvwciQf-xs#VladVexler #publicDiscourse #politicalDiscourse #politicalFuture #Europe #Ukraine #Russia
-
Sports Anti-Violence Chief: Clubs Must Use Responsible Messaging for Fan Safety
#ethics #MajorSportsClubs #PublicDiscourse #responsibility #RodrigoCavaleiro
https://blazetrends.com/sports-anti-violence-chief-clubs-must-use-responsible-messaging-for-fan-safety/?fsp_sid=146804 -
The biggest takeaway from Jimmy Kimmel's return monologue that we can all take a lesson from
https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.upworthy.com/jimmy-kimmel-monologue
-
Today, Pete Stauber Learned How Quotation Marks Work
This video clip is from today’s House Natural Resources hearing, where Representative Jared Huffman offered an amendment to Stauber’s HR 4090.
As both Huffman and Teresa Leger Fernandez suggest in the discussion that follows, this incident is not just a one-off. It’s an example of a much larger problem of bad faith in public discourse.
Update 26 September 2025: A version of the same problem crops up again in Lindsey Halligan’s dodgy indictment of James Comey. As Ken Dilanian observes, “the indictment appears to attribute to Comey words he never uttered,” and it uses quotation marks to do so. Halligan is in fact quoting a question put to Comey in 2020 by Ted Cruz, who is in turn quoting Chuck Grassley’s question to Comey in 2017. I can’t say whether this exonerates Comey or gets the indictment thrown out, as some are speculating it will, but I’m interested to see how the judge deals with the misattribution.
Type your email…
Subscribe
#attribution #badFaith #blame #conversationalEthics #corruption #dialogue #ethics #interlocutors #publicDiscourse #respect #seriousConversations #unseriousness
-
A quotation from Bill Watterson
CALVIN: I’m thinking of starting my own talk radio show. I’ll spout simplistic opinions for hours on end, ridicule anyone who disagrees with me, and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism, and a lower level of public dialogue!
HOBBES: It would seem you were born for the job.
CALVIN: Imagine getting paid to act like a six-year-old!Bill Watterson (b. 1958) American cartoonist
Calvin and Hobbes (1995-01-19)More info about this quote: wist.info/watterson-bill/78925…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #billwatterson #calvinandhobbes #cynicism #divisiveness #host #immaturity #mockery #opinion #publicdiscourse #pundit #ridicule #talkradio #talkshow
-
🚨BREAKING NEWS🚨: The UK government finally admits that their "Online Safety Act" is less about saving children from the horrors of the internet and more about keeping tabs on that pesky "public discourse". Because who knew that safety meant "don't say things we don't like"? 🤔🔍
https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy222 #OnlineSafetyAct #GovernmentCensorship #PublicDiscourse #DigitalRights #ChildSafety #HackerNews #ngated -
UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy222
#HackerNews #UKGovernment #SafetyAct #PublicDiscourse #Influence #MediaRegulation
-
This is good, I haven't seen anyone talking about deliberate information overwhelm designed to hijack engagement, media coverage, and organised response and reaction.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DF-16qNPN-x/
#usa #democracy #humanrights #civilrights #media #cognitiveoverload #publicdiscourse #fascism #authoritarian
