Quote from: DaRude on Today at 06:13:28 PM

Quote from: rolling on Today at 01:37:51 PM

Quote from: ghandi on Today at 12:55:32 PM

I really like and encourage critical thinking. But starting your "critical thinking" process by simply denying a election result is not my understanding of "critical thinking" it's more like a state of denial. There are people who simply claim there is no pandemic because there are no viruses in the first place. Thats not "critical thinking" that's just a straightforward lie. And this stuff somehow has to be controlled in the future. Otherwise the whole internet idea collapses in itself, because the people are not able to cope with the "information" aka "lies" they read.

//But i obligate to go back to the bitcoin price movement, instead of arguing over the internet. Cheesy

As free people, we all have the right to think whatever we want and believe whatever we choose to, including denial. There is nothing illegal about choosing to believe something that is seen as false by 99% of the rest. When something truly sinister happens in the world, you'll be thankful for these overly suspicious conspiracy theory believers/non-believers.

Nothing has to be "controlled". We succeeded in surviving as a species for millions of years just fine without any control. In fact, religious control set us back a couple thousand years. That should be enough of a lesson right there to stop the idea of controlling anything beyond setting clear laws and enforcing them. Just punish those who break the law and ignore the voices you don't agree with.

If enough people really get behind an idea or a person, there is probably some truth behind what they believe. Nothing in life is black or white. Everything is a shade of gray. What you have to ask is "why" so many people like Trump. Do you really believe they are all mentally ill? Critical thinking would be trying to understand what people see in Trump, not saying we must control something so people don't end up liking a guy like Trump.

I believe history shows that we're community species packed in groups (safety in numbers), as such there was always a controlling dominating figure, alpha leaders, kings, monarchs, tsars, religious leaders, gov etc, etc, etc. Think we can all agree that, for better or worse, majority tends to go with the flow, which is easily exploitable by knowledgeable individual. Historical template seems to be, play on people's insecurities, allocate blame on "others", and provide hope which can be only attained by unquestionably following the leader. Just because a cult manages to gather a huge following doesn't mean that there's much behind it other than individuals wanting to belong or be part of something greater than them.

If anything, right now we're experiencing liberation of opinions. Before there was that one crazy person at every bar, now all those crazy people in millions of bars have platform where they can come together, organize, grow and now don't feel marginalized/isolated. Despite education and space travel, flat earthers seem to be growing. I'm sure there's a forum for society of cannibals somewhere on the interwebs.

The problem becomes on deciding on what is crazy, as once you're "pigeon holed" in picking a side, the pack forces you to label the other camp as completely crazy and your camp as a ray of clarity and hope. And that's my biggest concern with any absolutes, including freedom of speech. Sure we can provide uncensorable platform on blockchain, but what do we do if a new charismatic leader, Hilter 2.0, or ISIS start dominating and spreading like wildfire, their primary directive is not to listen to "Intelligentsia" ignore educators and burn any literature not approved by the benevolent leader? Think there's enough rational people to not let them reach a critical mass?

Have been holding back from posting anything political for the last couple of days for fear of being hit with gay hentai porn but have to give some WOmerits for this post.