aaron-santos

What a weird section on professionalism. The social construct of professionalism re-enforces the neoliberal hegemony. Who the hell would want to do that?

No apologies needed. The internet gives people a platform to speak without the same(but not necessarily less) social accountability that exists in meatspace. The change in accountability implies a change in the access that participants have to social scripts. What we are experiencing is a mismatch of social script access between meatspace and the digital space enabled by novel digital mediums and increased connectivity.

That is the current contradiction. My bet is that neither the meatspace social construct nor the digital social construct wins. The resolution is in their synthesis. That probably means that some meatspace social norms change and some digital social norms change. Finally, any resistance to those changes in inherently reactionary.

Thanks for explaining. Today was my day to not get a joke on the internet :)

Help me out. How does that imply war?

Why would you conflate hostile foreign power and being at war? There is a difference here between necessary and sufficient conditions. The presence of hostile foreign powers with whom we are not at war is evidence enough.

The propagandist wants the opponent to be strong enough to be a threat but ideologically weak enough to defeat. That should be enough for anyone to pause and think hard about what's really going on.

With the celebrity example I got more of a caricature effect. Excellent illusion.

My gut says that random trades have the same expected value as the underlying asset, but increased variance. I'm not a finperson, so learning why this could be wrong would be a learning opportunity.

> For decades we've been dealing with misinformation campaigns

Yes and no. Now that the labor for executing misinformation campaigns is outsourced and presented in a new way, the old wisdom of "don't trust the media", and "trust people you know" has become the new naïveté.

At least in the days of mass media, the centralization of messaging made it easy to identify and thus in some ways able to defend against. Now we're defending against brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles who have been caught up in whatever nonsense happens to be most engaging. The commodification of social relations is rapidly progressing and there isn't any viable protection from it.

You might be surprised to learn that there are even whole books about the topic complete with reading groups, speaking events, and discourse.

I have to hand it to you. It's clear that you're adept at creating confusion around ideas by "just asking questions", and creating cohesion around fuzzy concepts by stating opinions as facts. I've participated in too many of these "debates" to know where this is headed. If you genuinely want educate yourself on these topics, there are resources to do so. I encourage you to seek these out.

Why use utility an a measure to begin with? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree simply because of the number of assumptions being brought into this discussion.

I guess I'm ok with nuance and gray areas and anti-colonialism in a way that doesn't feel like a contradiction. Sorry that's hard for you.