#waysahead — Public Fediverse posts

Are we able to bridge the gap between what the average person believes about the world, and what the world is really like?

In this question, I am including a theory whereby a person is able to understand a language that is adjacent to their own, with a little help, but will reject language that is more than one step removed.

So, let's say your mom is a centrist.
She has certain viewpoints that have been core centrist fare for decades, like, "it's important for the US to support Israel's right to exist".

Under this theory, she won't accept language that directly reverses this, such as "It is important for the international community to recognize the right of palestinians to defend themselves from Israel".

Instead, intermediary languages would need to be used.

Similarly, your uncle is a center-conservative. He has viewpoints that have been center-conservative mainstays for a century, like "Competition is important to prevent decline", and won't accept language like "Competition is usually a sign of a mismanaged system with artificial scarcity, it is a harmful state of affairs that will engender needless social strife and waste".

I think, on some amphibian-brain level, the far right understands this mechanic rather well. The whole Youtube doom-slide to nazism is a case in point: The frog is gently being introduced to more and more poison, until it's no longer able to exist in a non-toxic environment.

But on the "left", i.e. among sane people, there tends to be a demand for maximally precise language.
This is sometimes called out as "sectarianism" or "tribalism".

Yet maximally precise language is going to doom the sane people to a steady decline, on a floating island, far out at sea, that no-one can reach.
(Especially when They attack the independence of universities)

What is really needed is an ecosystem of gently increasing precision.

In a word: Accessibility.

Accessibility is Solidarity.

#solidarity #politics #WaysAhead #bridgeBuilding

Are we able to bridge the gap between what the average person believes about the world, and what the world is really like?

In this question, I am including a theory whereby a person is able to understand a language that is adjacent to their own, with a little help, but will reject language that is more than one step removed.

So, let's say your mom is a centrist.
She has certain viewpoints that have been core centrist fare for decades, like, "it's important for the US to support Israel's right to exist".

Under this theory, she won't accept language that directly reverses this, such as "It is important for the international community to recognize the right of palestinians to defend themselves from Israel".

Instead, intermediary languages would need to be used.

Similarly, your uncle is a center-conservative. He has viewpoints that have been center-conservative mainstays for a century, like "Competition is important to prevent decline", and won't accept language like "Competition is usually a sign of a mismanaged system with artificial scarcity, it is a harmful state of affairs that will engender needless social strife and waste".

I think, on some amphibian-brain level, the far right understands this mechanic rather well. The whole Youtube doom-slide to nazism is a case in point: The frog is gently being introduced to more and more poison, until it's no longer able to exist in a non-toxic environment.

But on the "left", i.e. among sane people, there tends to be a demand for maximally precise language.
This is sometimes called out as "sectarianism" or "tribalism".

Yet maximally precise language is going to doom the sane people to a steady decline, on a floating island, far out at sea, that no-one can reach.
(Especially when the right wingers in power attack the independence of universities, cutting off one rather elitist bridge)

What is really needed is an ecosystem of gently increasing precision.

In a word: Accessibility.

Accessibility is Solidarity.

#solidarity #politics #WaysAhead #bridgeBuilding

Are we able to bridge the gap between what the average person believes about the world, and what the world is really like?

In this question, I am including a theory whereby a person is able to understand a language that is adjacent to their own, with a little help, but will reject language that is more than one step removed.

So, let's say your mom is a centrist.
She has certain viewpoints that have been core centrist fare for decades, like, "it's important for the US to support Israel's right to exist".

Under this theory, she won't accept language that directly reverses this, such as "It is important for the international community to recognize the right of palestinians to defend themselves from Israel".

Instead, intermediary languages would need to be used.

Similarly, your uncle is a center-conservative. He has viewpoints that have been center-conservative mainstays for a century, like "Competition is important to prevent decline", and won't accept language like "Competition is usually a sign of a mismanaged system with artificial scarcity, it is a harmful state of affairs that will engender needless social strife and waste".

I think, on some amphibian-brain level, the far right understands this mechanic rather well. The whole Youtube doom-slide to nazism is a case in point: The frog is gently being introduced to more and more poison, until it's no longer able to exist in a non-toxic environment.

But on the "left", i.e. among sane people, there tends to be a demand for maximally precise language.
This is sometimes called out as "sectarianism" or "tribalism".

Yet maximally precise language is going to doom the sane people to a steady decline, on a floating island, far out at sea, that no-one can reach.
(Especially when the right wingers in power attack the independence of universities, cutting off one rather elitist bridge)

What is really needed is an ecosystem of gently increasing precision.

In a word: Accessibility.

Accessibility is Solidarity.

#solidarity #politics #WaysAhead #bridgeBuilding

Are we able to bridge the gap between what the average person believes about the world, and what the world is really like?

In this question, I am including a theory whereby a person is able to understand a language that is adjacent to their own, with a little help, but will reject language that is more than one step removed.

So, let's say your mom is a centrist.
She has certain viewpoints that have been core centrist fare for decades, like, "it's important for the US to support Israel's right to exist".

Under this theory, she won't accept language that directly reverses this, such as "It is important for the international community to recognize the right of palestinians to defend themselves from Israel".

Instead, intermediary languages would need to be used.

Similarly, your uncle is a center-conservative. He has viewpoints that have been center-conservative mainstays for a century, like "Competition is important to prevent decline", and won't accept language like "Competition is usually a sign of a mismanaged system with artificial scarcity, it is a harmful state of affairs that will engender needless social strife and waste".

I think, on some amphibian-brain level, the far right understands this mechanic rather well. The whole Youtube doom-slide to nazism is a case in point: The frog is gently being introduced to more and more poison, until it's no longer able to exist in a non-toxic environment.

But on the "left", i.e. among sane people, there tends to be a demand for maximally precise language.
This is sometimes called out as "sectarianism" or "tribalism".

Yet maximally precise language is going to doom the sane people to a steady decline, on a floating island, far out at sea, that no-one can reach.
(Especially when the right wingers in power attack the independence of universities, cutting off one rather elitist bridge)

What is really needed is an ecosystem of gently increasing precision.

In a word: Accessibility.

Accessibility is Solidarity.

#solidarity #politics #WaysAhead #bridgeBuilding