theothersparrow

There’s a pithy saying about science that goes, “All models are wrong, but some models are useful.”

It reminds me of something a sociology professor said about economic and sociological theories being lenses that focus on particular aspects of the world--they can't see everything, but often they can narrow in on certain parts to aid our understanding.

Let's not forget priming a number of the remaining for inflating the prison population.

... which is the same as "forcing the remainder to work" come to think.

Damn, I wish I'd noticed this bit of context before responding.

Because we're emotional creatures first, we default to what's familiar or comfortable. Logic/critical thinking take sustained practice and a lot of effort. There's a study that suggests that many of our conscious choices are simply post-hoc rationalizations for decisions made in the unconscious.

I absolutely no longer trust anyone that insists they're naturally and perfectly logical, they are unquestionably hiding some fixation or personal opinion which--if challenged--will make them unravel in the worst fashion.

I expect that if/when that time comes, we'll see the credibility of video evidence decline.

Currently at my night job, there is video surveillance of common areas. Because of the skill and tools required in doctoring/deepfaking, there's a pretty large window in which footage could be used should it ever need to be. But when we approach the point at which doctoring/deepfakes become pedestrian or even automated, that window slims dramatically.

Depending on the speed and ease with which it can be done, we could see legitimate arguments in favor of discounting video evidence as it then becomes less reliable than eyewitness testimony (which is already notoriously unreliable).

It can be a touch alienating; there's a swath of rituals you're now not a part of, either because you're actively excluded or because you just no longer fit there (talking about church events and the like).

Conversations change just a little bit too--in the same way monotheists look at polytheists funny when they invoke more than one god, atheists wind up looking at any theist in the same fashion. By that token, when people realize you're atheist, they look at you as a bit damaged--my bestie's cousin blurted out "tf is wrong with you?" when I admitted I was atheist, for instance. In the US it only takes a look at some states' laws on eligibility for public office to see that for some, the only thing worse than having a different faith is having none at all.

It can also be kind of disorienting; you spend quite a bit of time recalibrating your moral framework--what you consider right/wrong and why you take those positions. In this regard, it can be a bit draining too, dedicating so much of the processor sitting on your neck to a kind of reconfiguration.

Lastly and perhaps the worst drawback is how limiting it can feel: when there's no longer a higher power to feel guarded by, you're left with the realization that there's just your own little mortal self and it's depressing lack of influence.

But ultimately, I've found it kind of rewarding: ditching the need for a creator figure (and later, the concept of an afterlife altogether) has freed me of that dissonance that occurs when injustices or random tragedies occur. When you no longer lean on the idea that there must be an inherently just or attentive higher power, those bad things become a little less nerve-wracking.

And while I lose a some rituals and venues through which to connect with others, it's a drop in the ocean compared to what's still out there.

And that powerlessness we're left behind with eases when we recognize there's other kinds of power that come through community (nebulous as that concept feels right now).

The simple answer is they're attempting to insulate themselves from consequence or challenge.

Free speech doesn't work like that (it only protects you from gov't retaliation, not other private citizens), but it doesn't stop them from trying because as some of the responses here exemplify, people will fall for it and let them continue saying whatever, regardless of whether it's true or harmful to the vulnerable.