you're right that most people are sensible and decent. it's just that the system you're defending doesn't care what they think, and in fact holds them in contempt.
meritocracy is an insulting and corrosive myth. the people crowding the roof start ten rungs higher on the ladder than the rest of us.
the best stuff is our dreams of a better world, and they laugh at it until it becomes a threat to them, then they co-opt it or they exercise their monopoly on violence.
i think fedi is more "you never change things by fighting the existing reality. to change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete" (Buckminster Fuller).
for better or worse, the "existing reality" is that the world order established beginning in 1945 is falling apart. that's where the momentum is carrying us, and i don't see a reverse gear here.
BTW William, you make me think and make me question myself. i appreciate that, thank you.
but where do you see us going? I think I said it before in a conversation with you, but I just see us adapting general liberalism to the internet. it should improve things after a chaotic middle period, but I may have too much of an optimistic perspective on our ability to adapt.
what makes you optimistic makes me pessimistic. that's the spice of life. 😎
i believe that left to ourselves people will instinctively choose co-operation and solidarity but we're being gamed.
where are we going? best case scenario, toward a tipping point where we see the game as a game and refuse to respect the rules / algorithms.
worst case, tribe vs tribe vs tribe vs tribe vs tribe, into an apocalyptic singularity.
over and out for tonight, food & sleep now.
I love the concept, but any meritocracy requires some kind of level playing field.
Something the "woke" contingent is actually quite correct about is that the playing field is far from fair/authentic. Their simplistic and counter-productive solutions aside, it is a real problem.
Even relatively simple effects can create feedback loops that are impossible to overcome without flipping the table. Even if the "online" playing-field is level, it won't be for long because it doesn't exist in a vacuum.
That said, just because something isn't possible in totality, it doesn't mean we shouldn't adopt and tinker with elements of it.
the term finally popped in my head. imo it's what liberalism is intended to accomplish, the best ideas & art bubbles to the top. the internet makes it much more possible than ever before. a goal I think we can rally around. beyond general adoption, a big piece is just making it super easy and automatic to directly fund creators. fix that and I think the creators become more interested in decentralized distribution without paywalls.
kinda the evolution of free culture.
two things, kinda intertwined.
in this model, the people producing the items of merit don't "win" as much as the ideas/content (mental/digital goods) does. when that happens, we all win.
I'd like a better word than "dominate". maybe "win". what this culture should produce is a situation where all the stuff is out there. nothing gets replaced, but maybe "displaced" in the collective mindspace. and lots of stuff is thought highly of, but only because "we" decided it to be so.
a place for liberal values on the #fediverse