Whats_your_reasoning

You're absolutely right. I'd just like to add on:

Wise people learn from the mistakes of others. They observe and take note of chains of events, and use that knowledge in order to guide their own decisions in the future.

Wise people question what they believe. If they feel cognitive dissonance, they don't ignore it; they examine their ideas and consider the prospect that they may be wrong. They can change their minds based on new evidence.

Wise people are skeptical. When they learn about a situation, they don't take immediate sides based on knee-jerk emotions. Rather, they examine all available information and come around to their own ideas in their own time.

Using all of the above points are what guide wise people towards "cautiously correct" decisions. They are more likely "correct" because they base their ideas on a greater pool of information, and are capable of discarding ideas even if the ideas "feel good" to believe in. They remain "cautious," because no matter how sure they believe they are, they are well aware that there's a chance they could still be mistaken.

I wonder how much this will come back to hurt the company. Musk & co. want to play dumb games? Enjoy watching all the potential Xitter users in Brazil flock to Bluesky and other platforms while your site remains in the dark.

Xitter isn’t special. People will find ways to socialize online with or without it. And the longer people go without it, the more momentum other sites will gain. Whether this stalling is deliberate or unintented doesn’t matter, the fact is they’re only hurting their own bottom line when an entire country is disengaged from their platform.

In other words, keep it up, Elon. It’s fun to see some natural consequences arise from your stupid behavior.

He even stereotyped himself in some twist of argument from authority by saying “never go against an Asian on math.”

I could understand saying that about yourself as a joke in a casual setting, the way that many people make self-aware jabs at their own stereotypes. But to say it as if it’s some “gotcha” in a serious discussion is messed up.

I don't have a stake in this argument, as this is my first time learning about Doctorow. I just want to add that a good phrase to express the situation you described is "potential conflict of interest."

While we're at it, is it too much to ask for leniency in some instances of tone? It's not my fault my autistic brain can't hear the way my words come out. I overcompensate in work and in public by going "into character" as someone very cheery and positive - because any less than that inevitably leads to my "tone" overshadowing the content of my speech. My line of work requires my bosses to be knowledgable about autism, and I've even told my manager that my tone does not reflect my emotions.

Yet if ever I get tired, overwhelmed, or simply have several new instructions thrown at me in a short amount of time, I'm left not only grappling with whatever I'm told to do, but my facade slips and I also get a talking to about "my tone." I'm sorry, I do my best to control how I speak, but despite living over 30 years on this planet I still struggle with this "basic" aspect of communication. Holding it against me won't solve anything, but it will contribute to my social anxiety and the sense that I simply don't belong in society.

While you're thinking about them, throw in some prayers too.

Let us never forget that there was a chance for a Democrat to appoint a Supreme Court judge back in 2016. In fact, there was nearly a year we had only 8 justices - from February 2016 when Scalia passed away, all the way until Trump took the White House in 2017.

This only happened because Senate Republicans prevented Obama from appointing a new judge. Senate Republicans purposely kept the position vacant until Trump, predictably, filled that vacancy with a Republican pick.

It is possible abortion matters to them, just not in the way we'd think. After all, repeatedly asking their grown kids, "So, when will I be meeting my first grandchild?" at every possible opportunity sure hasn't worked.

This was such an awful take. Church-based childcare lacks much of the government oversight that non-religious centers adhere to. There’s a great book by former senator Sean Faircloth called Attack of the Theocrats that highlights a number of disturbing facts and news stories where children were neglected, harmed, and even died while under the so-called “care” of such institutions.

Even if we were to choose to ignore those realities, there’s still the fact that Vance’s idea means spending federal money to fund religious centers.

And here comes the point where, based on previous GOP behaviors, we have to think about what changes would likely occur in order to create this “neighborhood child care” model. A reasonable person who cares about the best interest of the children would probably support giving such child care groups a way to become trained and licensed, to ensure a high quality of care and safety for the children. Unfortunately, the GOP tends to fight against oversight and regulation. Without more specific details on how they would enact this change, we can only speculate on the proposed details. However, knowing the GOP playbook, I wouldn’t be surprised if their answer boils down to more deregulation, to allow more centers to proliferate with fewer “barriers.”

I hope that isn’t the proposed case. Either way, the idea of federal funding being used to prop religious organizations does not inspire my confidence.

I’m just surprised that couches can reproduce.

Oh yes, that's an important point. There's no sense in talking to a brick wall.

It's easier said than done, for many people. A lot of people prefer to avoid potential confrontation. It's sensible to the individual, but it does end up enabling the spread of disinformation as a result.

A good tip for these situations is to make it seem like you just figured something out. Go, "Wait..." and look like you're confused and thinking about it. Then slowly mention each point, laying out them out like puzzle pieces. Finally, and carefully, put it all back together to make the logical result.

Personally, I've dealt with these conflicts throughout my life (yay for autism!) and have had to learn how to handle them through trial and error. In my experience, having a positive reputation with whoever you're talking to makes your words much more powerful. Those of you who've stayed quiet (or at least, apolitical) til now may already have a big leg up on this. Also if you've never stepped in when a group is spreading disinformation, you may end up making a bigger impact than you expect. It's like when a quiet character in a show suddenly speaks up - you pay more attention, feeling that they're about to say something important.

One last thing - don't expect to change minds immediately. It takes time to process things, especially when one is confronted with logic that contradicts their beliefs. Sometimes it takes a few days, sometimes it takes a few years. Nonetheless, the more seeds of reason we sow, the better the chances that some will sprout.