You often here how there are two sides to a story. This is the case for anything pretty much. There is a claim, and a counter-claim. In a clean fashion, one side is wrong, and one side is right. Sometimes, it's not so cut and dry, and you can have both sides with some things that are right and wrong.
Source
Debating both sides allows the merits of those arguments to bear fruit the logic and any supporting to facts to back them up. This isn't desired by some who would rather their side win; logic, facts or evidence be damned. This has occurred maybe "forever" in human cooperative living.
We find ourselves at a time when agendas are being pushed with little concern to openly air out the arguments. Instead, censorship is reigning. Be it in the mainstream media that simply doesn't talk about certain things so people aren't even aware of them, or the social media big tech giants that censor and ban content that attempts to provide the counter-argument.
A recent article on The Conversation by a "Professor of Psychology" and "Research Fellow in Education" is openly advocating to silence opposing voices. They don't want both sides of an argument to get air time or exposure anywhere. They want people to follow Scientism, where only "trusted", "authoritative" and "approved" scientists can know what is true or not.
Source
After talking about biases for why people do or don't accept some information or arguments, they conclude that making their one-sided positions more effective and being accepted by people, only that information should be reaching people.
And to prevent optimism bias, we also need to avoid presenting “both sides of the argument” in the messaging - the science tells us that there’s only one side.
One side. That's science for them. Be it climate change (formerly global warming) or COVID-19, there is only one side. The other scientists who have arguments and data for their counter-argument don't matter. You, peon who can't think for yourself, need to listen to the approved an sanctioned authoritative experts, and no one else. You need us to tell you what to think and what to believe.
Source
The political misuse of science has caused the ignorant masses to be distrusting, afraid, and paranoid of it, sometimes to the point of claiming all science is false. We live in a world created by science and technology but most of us know little or nothing about it.
That's sad for someone to claim all science is false. Demonstrability is the passing grade.
The article you provide commentary for here is written under the assumption that the writer knows the true truth and that there are no deviations from this.
The very conception of this idealistic philosophy is the birth of totalitarianism.
It comes down to control of information through perception. It's nothing about facts but about the religion called facts.
Absolutely, it's all about controlling info to control perception and the mind.
Another consideration is that we should also be studying the psychology of implementing martial law via a crisis.
Sales people use it by creating urgency in their product, it's a part of our individual conditioning and also our collective conditioning.
How blind even the smartest people are to see what they are actually doing by writing articles such as the one you comment on.
I once mentioned in a post how the government actions in recent months to force people to stay home and not work is a form of martial law, and someone protested on grounds of a total definition of martial law.
And yet, martial law in action regardless of motivation forms the conditioning that normalizes a habit.
So while the habit of martial law is normalized within culture using COVID-19, and the would-be protestors of martial law sit back in their seats of specificity believing all is well - the world is conditioned to a different mode of society - so the actual switch to martial law by action AND definition becomes an easy transition for the unconscious human.
It's the whole frog-slowly-boiling-in-water thingy.
As a general whole, individuals need to be more aware about how information is seeded and propagated in the group mind, and in this how our habits develop into culture, and how this acts as an psychological fence guiding our actions.
It is hard to look at the ugly truth, but it is obvious once it is seen.
Sometimes I wonder if this many people that behave as a group yet claim to be individuals (the belief system called 'individuality') are actually redeemable.
Some of us have hope, others don't. Which side of the fence do you stand on? The hope side? Or the let-the-world-slide-if-this-is-what it-wishes-to-do side?
The Hope side consists of the ideal philosophy that enough people will stand up and behave as individuals in time to stop the full control of a full blown totalitarian culture. It's very optimistic considering how unconscious the actions of the human behaving as a group prove to be time and time again.
Another angle yet again is that we fight fire with fire. Those that are aware of the group mind and its tendencies direct smaller groups in cells. Groups of not quite yet fully aware individuals, yet on their way to getting there and still requiring some form of cohesive group with leadership to move themselves.
Some protest this angle because it does not respect the individual and allow full individual conscious decision making - but it also acknowledges the ugly truth that too many are still not aware nor ready to be aware to the capacity of full self-responsibility.
It's a dangerous game of invisible hierarchies.
So many claim awareness in this supermarket spirituality world of modern western individualism. How many realize that so few of us live true to this definition? How many so easily fold to authority and 'approved experts' when the chord of urgency is struck?
Hope anyone?
The article may as well just read - "I support a totalitarian state, join me!"
Maybe if I put glasses on like in 'They live' I can see it. haha
Academic scientists are experts in only allowing one side of an argument.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was barely an experiment, and didn't prove anything, but it has steered the ENTIRE course of what science has been taught for a hundred years.
Today, we have gone the wrong way in science for 100 years.
The modern materialistic science book is good as a door stop, but not much else.
Soooo, we are just seeing the reality of academia.
It has never been a place were you could argue new theories.
Not all of them, but yes unfortunately many are that way. Foundations are seldom re-evaluated indeed.
Whenever someone is trying to censor, it's because they're wrong.
Thanks!
Most likely.
Curated for #informationwar (by @aagabriel)
Delegate to the @informationwar! project and get rewarded
It's all a bunch of crap from both "sides"...