zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
This is kind of the end result we're heading for, where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy. The shitty part is that I'm pretty sure 99% of people are reasonable human beings but the media has to make it seem like that isn't the case so the risk equation changes. Similar to how kids used to roam around the neighborhood but now it's deemed too risky because the media makes it seem like there are murderers lurking around every corner.

>>jxidjh+S4
It's a matter of risk mitigation.

Either a person accepts extreme, but very unlikely, risk by exercising perfect candor with everyone or they decide to clam up around people lower on the 'oppression hierarchy' which costs them almost nothing to do.

Why would any rational actor not choose option B unless they're getting some reward great enough to offset the risk of option A?

>>anonpo+Ok
https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-...

>>stcred+Kn
Thank you for sharing this. This issue is constant but I’ve never had it explained so well.

>>mojo98+Uu
There's a weird inversion of the Thermocline happening in the past few years, with "activists." Social Media can so amplify the voices of "activists," that they gain power which people are afraid to speak out against. Especially if the power is based on mob mentality. Especially if power is given over to accusation without evidence. (This is borne out by history. McCarthy, for example.) So when certain people go too far -- and given how power corrupts, it's inevitable that sudden onsets of power will corrupt -- people who should be saying "wait a minute" are saying nothing.

All power is fleeting.

All power is contextual.

Any one who tries to deny these truths, is attempting some manner of deception to further their own power at someone else's expense.