I wonder how we might prevent this things to happen. I suspect it's linked with demography and popularity, something something Dunbar's number related.

This concept is almost tautological since the only conceivable alternative would be universal omniscience.

There is much to say about what is reality, and you can bring researcher like Hoffmann stating that we see of reality only what is good for our peak survival (don't need infrared, don't see infrared).

Hyperreality is something else altogether. First, it's a common theme in postmodernist to state we live in a construct culturally accepted and ever evolving. Hyperreality states that we accept for reality layers that are objectively not, and make it "more real than real". The flavors of energy drinks (with weird names and chemically cultivated), porn for sex, Disney land as archetypal America, tv reality (which is everything but reality). Transposing the sign-value for the thing by itself. Words does not mean the thing that they use to mean but are reinterpreted upon this biased view of reality.

The map is not the territory, the word are not the reality behind them.

Media are more problematic because they are the message (see McLuhan), they are a space we live in (the water the fish flow in), not "reality" sense by our direct organ.

But yeah it's tricky, there is a philosophical conundrum, I get your point.

Hasn't this always been the case?

Now, whether people actually want that from others in these cases, or are merely enjoying the use of power a little too much, is another discussion.

The idea that regardless of a person's "right" to make a certain choice, an action can be so harmful that it cannot be corrected, but also that it can be forgiven is too far from how we think and live now.

In the US, at least, if you engage with conservative culture, with Christians, with rural people, with the people who are tired of "cancel culture," you will still find plenty of grace.

I'm an independent. Over the last few years, it has been entirely Coastal people who have cut me out of their lives for things like saying I think the EcoHealth Alliance might have had something to do with COVID-19. The ones left in my life are the ones that know how to give grace.

Sure, this is anecdotal, but it's cultural commentary.

And to throw a bone and not pick too much on one side of the culture war, the Red areas have their own pathologies. For instance, while they won't necessarily stop talking to you altogether if you do something wrong, but lots of them will spread shit about you all over the community if you do.

Maybe everyone could stand to listen to Christ on this topic, whether or not they believe in him in so many words

> In the US, at least, if you engage with conservative culture, with Christians, with rural people, with the people who are tired of "cancel culture," you will still find plenty of grace.

As is often the case with generalization born of prejudice, this effort to split good and evil along ideological lines fails to match up with reality. Plenty of Progressives give grace to people around them. Plenty of Christians ostracize and abuse even the people closest to them. The vocal hypocrites on either side loom large for their ideological opponents and the quietly good on either side are easily ignored, except by their ideological peers. This pattern holds in rural towns and huge cities.

The problems of selfishness and hate for others are difficult to solve, and unfortunately even a framework as simple as Christ's demonstrates that. Try not to get too comfortable with the belief that people who see the world differently aren't still trying to navigate it kindly.

I also think it could be rephrased in a way that would make it easy to see how it describes the american political right, but I kind of trusted the readers to do that and didn't bother. But things like refusal to wear masks, wide-spread gun ownership, these are the "self-actualizated rights" that conservatives understand as needing no forgiveness regardless of harm caused.

I've been unable to find in the Bible the phrase that says "take from bob and give it to bill and you will be righteous".

My interpretation of the Bible is that Jesus encouraged people to freely give of their own to help others.

I'm genuinely curious where your leftist views derive from Christian principles.

But I am lucky enough to have received a centuries-long tradition of christian radicalism, and came to no conclusions on my own. You can read john chysostom, or mother maria, or tolstoy, or talk to your own priest. The path is well-worn and there are many ways to find it.

I believe that if one espouses honest opinions, and they don't hold up to facts and reason, one should re-evaluate those opinions, or acquire a stronger basis for them.

Yup.

The new thing is that we’re too smart and cool for all the things religion teaches, while we scratch our heads trying to solve all the problems it gives you the solution for.

I think I would have had much more interest in faith/religion if they acknowledged the myth component of their stories, and acknowledged the utility of abiding by the framework nonetheless.

If any theist says they have no doubt, I’d first say they’re possibly lying, maybe to themselves.

First of all, that isn't new. The Renaissance, when philosophy, science and law began to divorce themselves from religion, started about 700 years ago.

Second, nothing useful taught by religion actually requires religion itself. You don't need to believe in salvation through faith, or the Holy Trinity, or Hell and brimstone for the teachings of Jesus to be useful. That isn't religion, that's philosophy.

This hinges very much on your definition of "useful;" if you don't believe in God or the resurrection of the dead, then talk concerning them is of course pointless. But if you do, they are very useful indeed.

Now that situation seems to have shifted, and the left has adopted and re-branded ideas of original sin, absolution, performative prayer, etc. But I don't believe for a minute that folks in my hometown have discovered how to embody the idea of grace and cultural liberality. If anything I see more antagonism now that evangelism and Trumpism have created a terrible two-headed beast.

The sjws and Christians show grace in exactly the same way: you earn it by converting.

Middle America also has it's own issues, nihilism, crab mentality (big one), and drug issues (also a coastal problem) are some that come to mind

Is that really a thing people believe? I don't think that's actually true. B/c people know they fuck up, and they will ask the people around them for forgiveness, and they think they can deserve it. And when someone who actually matters in our lives does something wrong, we can sometimes forgive them.

I think the problem is:

- the most highly visible cases are often public figures who did something wrong for a long time and only expressed when they were caught or caught and publicly shamed. It's hard to believe these people are sincere when they repent.

- the public performance of unforgiveness has itself become an opportunity for virtue signaling.

- the most sincere apologies are for these reasons given and received out of the public eye, and I think we then don't see the real response modeled very often.

But it's not at all clear that an intuitive trust or reputation model that works well for individuals scales to something reasonable when applied to groups and institutions.

Bayer (well, IG Farben) made the Zyklon B used in the gas chambers of the Holocaust. Is Bayer still evil even though no one who did that is still there? Can they be forgiven? Should they be? Where does the conscience of an organization reside and how can others tell if it has been remediated? Can an organization feel shame or remorse?

Is the US good or evil? What kind of reasonable aggregation function could you possibly define that takes as inputs enshrining slavery in the Constitution, the Trail of Tears, later freeing the slaves, the Marshall Plan, etc. and is able to somehow weigh those against each other to produce a single meaningful output?

Grace: Getting on with your life and not letting yourself get caught up in someone else’s moral failings. You do you.

There are times in life where we (or people around us) fuck up. Genuine remorse occurs and receiving forgiveness can bring closure as it can signal that a relationship with someone is still there.

I think assuming forgiveness is a one-way interaction may be true in some contexts, but not all.

Actual grace in Christianity involves becoming a believer, no? That comes with its own set of obligations. Combine this with a culture that jumps at the opportunity to capitalize off of people's misery and you have a recipe for self destruction. Look at the pharma companies poisoning this country with opiates if you want an example

Grace requires a level of trust that isn't possible in the current economic configuration

Large public apologies are performance art.

But this is the use, and so it isn't useless. Not everyone who compels a public apology actually cares whether the accused feels genuine remorse. They want to enforce a cultural standard because they think that cultural standard is a good thing.

An apology can be issued to acknowledge inconvenience or understanding, or to indicate someone is being heard. You can apologize for not changing or for disagreeing.

Means you acknowledge the hurt saying something will cause but you still need to say it. because it needs to be said.

He finally stopped :-)

"I'm sorry to say this" is just a polite way to express real displeasure for the fact that people sometimes have strong opinions, but they can be wrong at the same time, but in some cases they get easily offended when more knowledgeable people or simply more thoughtful people point it out.

So starting by saying sorry does not refer to the person they are answering to specifically, but to the larger aufince that is listening, because they'll have to hear something that is probably obvious to the majority, but not to that particular very wrong and aggressive person

Simply because they are trying to be polite.

Also.

The part before "but" counts as much as everything else, or the English language would not contain the word "but".

I'm sorry yo say this, but quoting GOT it's not deep.

An apology doesn't mean you did something wrong, many times it means you're doing something that did not want to do, but need to do and it's gonna hurt someone.

I'm sorry sir, but your parking is expired, I have to give you a ticket.

Apologizing on a social network to your 4 million followed because you have a vegan channel but in reality you are not vegan, have no intentions to become one and also find them pathetic, it's not an apology, it's damage control and trying to control the narrative, there's no space for real feelings at that point.

Real apologies are between people who know each other and love each other and do not want to lose each other over their ego.

So in conclusion most of the time apologies are a formalism, an ice breaker "sorry, what's your name again?" you are not really sorry. You just don't rember who that person is, but sorry works better than "hey you insignificant NPC my boss said I had to do this thing, but I don't care and I will forget your name in... what's your name again?"

Finally, I'm also sorry to say this, but the article is a puff piece for wanna be PR of the rich and famous and the authors should apologize for it.

The only time you should ask yourself "is this a good apology?" is when you are writing one for someone else.

And as long as the public is not incredibly angry, they'll mostly just quietly go along with it, because it's not worth fighting against. But they're not the source.

It's manufactured forgiveness.

I think we've come to regard "forgiveness" as inevitably ending with reconsiliation. But perhaps, more often, it shouldnt.

That is, forgiveness is how I see the other when I see them not as an enemy or friend, but as a tragic part of nature. I have moved on. Our ability to forgive has, perhaps, been distorted by the perception that it's an act of kindness. I think, rather, it's the most rutheless form of grief there is.

Another insight from the article is apology as a kind of non-violent humilitation. And the idea that apology even as a cultural expectation is somewhat rare and somewhat contingent on the era.

This, again, makes sense but feels counter-intutive.

What would a society look like which forgives without apologies? Perhaps one much better at moving on, much better at focusing on outcomes rather than obsessing about status.

Perhaps the "purpetrator" doesnt need to apologise, we can just forgive them and punish them at once. We punish not to humiliate as an act of vengence, but as a necessary step to a better outcome. Eg., firing a dangerous boss, breaking up with a partner, etc.

For example, an idea I live by is giving enough trust such that if the other person breaks that trust you've gained more than you've lost. A trite example would be letting a co-worker borrow $20. If they never pay you back you've gained more value from that than the $20 loss. Or if you have cleaners come into your home, if they steal that $5 sitting on the desk then you've gained much more you've lost.

From personal experience, through a bad set of circumstances, I once had a cat I loved very much scared up into a tree that hung over the privacy fence over the neighbors yard, who had a large dog. Long story short, the neighber was up in the tree, removed the cat, it fell into his yard, and the dog killed it. I wasn't there at the time since said neighbor was supposed to come and get me when he was ready (he had a friend who trimmed trees for a living supposed to come over). When I came over, he had the dog chained up in a corner so I could safely walk into the yard.

I was extremely sad over the cat, I spent over $2k in emergency surgery trying to save her. My gf to this day can't talk about her without crying and it's been years.

But I never got angry with the neighbor. Was it on purpose or just sheer stupidity? I honestly don't care, I can engage in an impotent rage or completely dismiss them as unimportant. I chose the latter. I was able to live next to that same neighbor for 3-4 more years, although we never had any other interactions.

quite frankly, they're not important enough for me to expend the energy on them.

But forgiveness mainly gives something to oneself not the other. It frees oneself from that hold over oneself.

Apologies, if they are expected, are expected within the frame of a transaction. But forgiveness which doesn't seek something from the other can be given without an apology.

The person who is forgiven doesn't need to know they are forgiven. Even if they are told, the feeling of freedom and the actual forgiveness comes before that.

I was with you until this last bit. My experience is that people will beg for forgiveness. Even if you forgive them, you’ll then find it’s reconciliation they were after. They will then ignore your forgiveness, or rather continue asking for it until you provide them a sense of reconciliation. I usually cut ties by then. They typically don’t really care how you feel and it’s all to boost their own ego and right the wrongs they’ve inflicted in their own mind.

Maybe not universally applicable but my experiences seem to follow this pattern.

Where perhaps, in a recent past, to be forgiven was more obviously "to be released from the burden of mattering, one way or another".

A few might, then, genuinely want forgiveness because they feel guilt that you still hate them. But many moreso feel no guilt, what they want is to be reconsiled. To be judged positive and worthwhile.

If this transition has occured, it would line up with the guilt->shame, envy-jealousy, etc. transitions. It would be a co-opting of noble language (genuinely wishing forgiveness) for ignoble selfish reasons (wishing reconsiliation).

I find this thesis prima fascie plausible, in that I feel under-educated in the nobility of guilt, the dangers of envy, and the purpose of forgiveness. An education, i'd say, my great-grandparents certainly had.

We use it as the grease between the wheels for smaller things because we can't know what's in each others heads. And for larger things, it allows both parties to move on.

To forgive without letting the other person know is absolutely about punishment (assuming they're alive, available, etc).

I had a brother who had a fiance that left him, when she went to get remarried she sent him an email basically apologizing for all the shitty things she did and asking for forgiveness. he came to me in tears asking what he should do and I told him not to respond. Don't give her that closure, she wants to start her new life "clean".

I have no idea what he ended up doing, he never told me. Knowing him, he most likely did respond, but my point is that I viewed her apology as selfish and would have preferred she never got that closure.

I have never believed one could receive forgiveness from another. Forgiveness comes from the self. In order to move on - from guilt or harm - we must forgive ourselves. Forgive our guilt, our shame, our self-blame; whatever we blame ourselves for our part in it - even if that part was being in the wrong place at the wrong time or trusting the wrong person. Forgiving only the other person doesn't solve the real harm we do to ourselves. I think it's an overlooked part of healing.

I understand the desire to want her to suffer for the hurt she caused your brother. However, in this context, I see it as her giving herself closure from the guilt by sending the apology. Acknowledgment from the other is not necessary (but maybe would have been nice); she had done all that was in her control.

Instead of giving the power to another or waiting for them to maybe provide closure, giving it to ourselves is the most healing thing we can do - no matter which side of the offense we are on.

  That is, forgiveness is how I see the other when I see them not as an enemy or friend, but as a tragic part of nature. I have moved on. 

This is my view of forgiveness. It doesn't mean reconcile. It doesn't mean forget. It means releasing the hate or anger towards the person who has wronged you. It does not mean you forget whatever they did -- that's likely impossible. It does not mean that you will trust them again, or trust them to the same degree. It does not mean that you were the one who was wrong to have be offended or hurt by whatever it was that they did (though sometimes it's worth reflecting on that). It simply means that you have moved on, and have released yourself from the pain or anger that surrounds those memories.

Edit: The framing of forgiveness as "canceling a debt" as f154hfds posted in another subthread is a good analogy.

def ifPersonaNonGrataPosts(Person NonGrata):

   let ListOfSins = getListOfSins(NonGrata)

    for socialMedia in AllSocialMediaAccounts do

      socialMedia.post(ListOfSins)

Reconcilliation is about the other person acknowledging the accusation of wrong. A confession of sorts. I'd suggest in the face of sincere apology this is always desirable to reconcile (turn the other cheek and what-not).

Restoration is about returning to the person trust and its associated privildges. Not everyone deserves to be restored depending on what they've done. I would argue the true mark of contrition is an acceptance they may be forgiven but never restored (depending on the nature of offense, of course).

Anyway, I thought the quote was in line with your "/I/ have moved on" phrasing.

Not sure I really agree with the rest of your statements about grief and forgiveness, nor that I understood all of your intend. But I love this quote and think about it sometimes, and it seems like it would vibe for your conception of forgiveness.

I don't see how forgiveness is ruthless. It takes great compassion to accept people and situations as they are without harboring bitterness, resentment, or judgment. Forgiveness is also a form of self-love.

The non-attachment that comes with forgiveness isn't the same as being cold or moving on by leaving someone else behind. That's still looking at things from an egoic "I have been wronged" narrative. Forgiveness is about dropping that story entirely.

> I think we've come to regard "forgiveness" as inevitably ending with reconsiliation. But perhaps, more often, it shouldnt.

I think in general reconciliation is a good thing, but it's not a given. And even if you do reconcile with someone, you don't have to restore full trust and involvement with them. You can clear the air and never talk to them ever again, or just on a need-to basis, or whatever. It all depends.

In general, our society's difficulty with forgiveness and the like is just another facet of not liking to confront truth. We struggle with truth in this era because the truth is often painful and demands a lot of change out of us that we feel unable or unwilling to give. The Twitter apology is an answer to the question "How do we pay lip service to the truth without having to actually engage with it?"

What we are saying, after all, is that the other is "a mere product" of nature; a symptom, not an agent.

This, I think, is the most "anti-Western" notion 'inside' forgiveness, and why it seems so counter-intutive.

The thing we do not want to give up is that people are agents who bare responsibility for their actions, that people are our objects of concern, that people are special.

When we forgive we, ineffect, dehumanise -- at least, for the moment of that forgiveness. We step outside of a world in which they matter. And that seems a more ruthless and radical gesture than just hating them.

Thomas Hobbes makes the following observation in leviathan, that is thoroughly depressing and at first perhaps paradoxical. A person who wronged you will only ever be able to hate you afterwards: either because of fear for your vengeance, or because of distaste for your forgiveness.

The positive action of forgiveness only applies to those who extend it; those who are forgiven are rendered impotent. it's somewhat of a manipulative act if it's not accompanied by magnanimity and reconciliation.

for that type of person, what it really means = you're dead to me

hence why they mention mourning as a key feeling. I think I'm like this too.

I have a past business partner who more or less, stole all our gear and fled. I let them know how I felt, but told them I wouldn't be actioning it any further than that. I let them know the social consequences of their actions were absolute, there's no way I'd treat them as a friend or work with them again, but I understood why they felt they needed to do it and I hope they find themselves in a better place.

To me, that's more a part of the reconciliation process than of forgiveness. It doesn't require forgiveness to abandon the other and move on. I rather think that forgiveness is the first step to restore the mutual relationship, it's a willful act to salvage what was broken. I guess in my mind, reconciliation is a prerequisite for forgiveness, but whereas reconciliation is about the self, forgiveness is about the other -- or at least the relationship with the other.

This is the Christian conception, and I think it's a very helpful way to think about forgiveness.

No, I think that's exactly how the Twitter mob operates. These people treat politics as some sort of religious war.

Or, as the article says, "It was either not enough or, oh, my God, please stop.".

Trying to placate a mob is pointless.

Be authentic (apologize if you really mean it), otherwise stand your ground and stay still. The mob will move on eventually. They are fickle and easily distracted. If you stay still? they'll move on. If you dart around? You're a target for the pack. Let them find the next target.

There's that joke about using accidentally using Personality A with Friend Group B; with the modern social internet, you're talking to every friend group at the same time and I think that's why we have such defensive pretense, placation and weasel wording going on. You lose all nuance, and you also lose benefit of the doubt.

I think that's what is missing on broadcast platforms like FB/Twitter et al, and why Discord has been such a hit. Discord gives you discrete friend groups, so you can form deeper more nuanced dialogues about topics over a long period of time.

Forcing someone to make a public statement via explicit or implicit threat of loss of income or ostracization is playground politics for adults.

Bullying and playground politics just isn't the right way to think about this.

Kyrie, e.g., put the economic pressure on himself. Nike sells shoes. They don't want to pay him anymore because he can't sell shoes nearly as well now, and might impact their ability to sell shoes long-term. Regarding the Nets and NBA, Kyrie's many million dollar contract isn't exactly for playing basketball. It's for his ability to get lots and lots of people to want to watch basketball. When he pissed off a lot of people he doesn't do that very well, and his value as a basketball player drops.

My point is that the "socioeconomic pressure" in many cases has nothing to do "bullying," "threats," or "playground politics". It can be self-inflicted: If you lower your value to the people who give you money, they will no longer want to give you as much money.

Apologize to people if you must, but never to the public.

Let's take a look at what they say about those two, at https://sorrywatch.com/al-and-louie/ .

Franken's first apology was a not-pology. The second is described as, on the whole, a good apology.

As for Louis C.K.'s: "People! He never says he’s sorry! So many words, and none of them are “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”!"

And from https://sorrywatch.com/a-roundup-of-good-celebrity-apologies... : "Look, I’m feeling kinda demoralized by people thinking Louis CK apologized well, what with him not actually saying he was sorry. (As we note repeatedly here, REGRET IS NOT APOLOGY, chant it with me.)

I don't see how the author of this piece connects Franken's apology to "performed remorse". How are we to conclude it wasn't an expression of real remorse?

> Regret is all about you; apology is all about another person’s feelings. Regret stands alone; apology reaches out to someone else. Also, shut up with the whole “regret the controversy” business. That phrase just means, “I’m irked at other people.” Regret your actions, then apologize for them. Do not say you regret other people’s responses to your being an asshole.

Note that it contains "regret" used two different ways.

Your "admittance of wrongdoing" is part of "regret your actions", while that chant concerns "regret other people’s responses".

You can see the book authors' "The Six Steps to a Good Apology" at https://sorrywatch.com/ . Your "knows their actions are wrong" is "2. Say specifically what you’re sorry FOR" and your "would take them back" is likely closest to "5. Explain the actions you’re taking to insure this won’t happen again."

(See also https://sorrywatch.com/the-parts-of-a-good-apology/ .)

Thing is, I don't think the author of the New Yorker piece really addresses the points of the book, but instead uses it as a stepping stone to a very different interpretation of the topic, and lumping the book into a lumpy mishmash of religion and Twitter mobs.

Which that book ... doesn't seem to be about.

The web site gives an example of a good apology that Lincoln gave to Grant, at https://sorrywatch.com/when-lincoln-was-wrong/ , and commentary on Grant's poor apology for ordering the expulsion of Jews from the Department of Tennessee, followed by his actions which help make up for that apology.

1. Forgiveness does not equate to trust or even reconciliation. If I lent you $1000 and you never paid me back, I might forgive your debt but will be much less inclined to trust you with my money in the future.

2. Forgiveness absolutely does not necessitate repentance of the perpetrator. In the Bible forgiveness is a necessity regardless of the situation because the Bible treats the inability of a Christian to forgive the ultimate hypocrisy (Matthew 6:14-15).

3. Wronging another person (or yourself - this might be far more common) does tangible harm to them. This harm is analogous to a financial debt owed. This debt is on the cosmic books so to speak: it's very real and must be dealt with either by forgiveness or retributive justice (or a combination of the two). Restorative justice is important but can't fix the original debt.

4. An apology no matter how sincere can't undo the debt either, it is usually impossible to make it right (unlike a financial debt which can be repaid). Society misses this at its own peril: forgiveness trumps apologies every time, this is the nature of wrongdoing. If anything we downplay how hard it is to make things right! As if a few well chosen words and humiliation could undo Will Smith's Slap? It can't work because it doesn't go back in time and change history to make the thing not happen!

5. Repentance makes it easier to forgive (it enables the victim and the perpetrator to meet in the middle), but it's always going to be hard to tell if repentance is genuine. See point 2.

Retributive justice can't fix the debt, either - it just makes more people hurt than before.

Often illustrated as "you can't un-ring a bell"

You can sincerely regret having done something harmful, but rarely does that undo the harm.

It has a short "I apologize" introduction, the rest is technical details about the situation, what is being done to resolve it, and giving credits to employees who are dealing with the problem. What I find appreciable is that Octave is not talking about his own person, he talks as the representative and leader of a company.

The video: https://www.ovh.com/fr/images/sbg/index-en.html

> "So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety."

If I recall correctly, he says that merely that endorsement, however transparently fake it was, got a lot of people off of his back.

The other problem is politicians cannot differentiate between performative displays and actual values. The end result is that you see diversity quotas elevated above all other priorities and criteria.

Everyone lies and we know it, our companies have mottos and everyone knows they’re fluff, and we teach kids to “thrive in ambiguity”, which is a beautiful phrase I’ve found on a job offer and which I have found symptomatic of our economy.

I still wonder what it was like to live in ex-RDA. Did people tell lies that others pretended to believe?

The same happens at corporations. When you are in planning meetings you often know the politically correct answer already. If you say it will actually take five times longer you are out of the inner circle. That although everybody knows that it will take that long. Seems the whole hierarchy is one big circle where everybody bullshits each other and knows it.

hehe

I had to be

it's what reputations are made of, to some extent

I feel bad for those who get f*** by it

by this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths and so everyone likes us

[0] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...

Unfortunately, the people who treat it like a game like SBF are the ones who make it in business and in politics. There's no need to have ethics if it's sufficient just to act like you do. Reminds me of Kyrsten Sinema who played the part until she had the job.

Which doesn’t make it better, my big take away from all the FTX stuff is that SBF and friends were just uh, not that smart, just dipshits losing other peoples money and thinking everything in life was as easy as impressing brainless VCs. (With some actual on purpose fraud mixed in as well, who knows)

> a sort of nihilism

The SBF saga is a great example of how easily the former degenerates into the latter. We're talking about someone who graduated MIT. He clearly has some amount of smarts and personal drive. "He's just a dipshit" is not an adequate explanation.

Though, yeah, he ends up a dipshit at the end of the story (presumably).

As in: "They lie to us, we know they're lying, they know we know they're lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them."

Pretty much the only brake pad on that machine is that capitalism actually requires at least some efficiency from the players, and a web of lies like that will destroy any institution. But I am far from certain.

Science environments are better suited for me, but I get bashed in general environments…

Rocket science is notoriously unforgiving. Nutrition science is pretty much the opposite, a half-hearted attempt to make sense of "garbage in, garbage out".

The difference is in, among others, loopback length. If something goes wrong during a rocket launch, the fireball is only seconds away. Not so much in food and health, where the consequences take decades and multiple causal factors are hard to disentangle.

"Everywhere the world movement seems to be in the direction of centralised economies which can be made to ‘work’ in an economic sense but which are not democratically organised and which tend to establish a caste system. With this go the horrors of emotional nationalism and a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer. Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible."

If anyone from the New Yorker is reading, please tweak the breakpoints on the media queries for the 13" MacBook Air.

:emoji-laughing-at-the-futility-of-such-an-ask:

In short, its likely the ghost of puriten christianity and its practice of exceptionalism that elevates itself whereas demeans, smears and makes enemies of all others by projecting all the evils to them.