> his bar is beneath the ground

I agree. In general you're pointing out one failing of this post, but I think there are a whole host of things that are missing from it to be anywhere near a substantial guide.

Don't fall into the trap of "an idiot disagrees with me, so I must be right" is a great observation/rule! But it's like the first level of the reasoning game (if the game even has linear levels).

There is value in that, and trying to provide even more observations would likely make the post fall flatter when readers disagreed with at least some (and/or the author didn't do a good job on some in favor of his primary point).

But "If you can’t find those people in the real world, turn to the internet and find them there" is especially fraught, as this subjects you to much different memetic hazards that the article doesn't touch upon at all. Meaning if you seek out online discussion communities and find their more-reasoned arguments refreshing, you're right back at the entrances to rabbit holes of extremism [author's usage] that are emotionally attractive rather than rationally considered.

▲

zahlman 2 days ago | parent [-]

> ... and find their more-reasoned arguments refreshing, you're right back at... emotionally attractive rather than rationally considered.

How do you figure?

▲

mindslight 2 days ago | parent [-]

Just because someone can find or create lengthy logical rationalizations does not mean they're arriving at universal truths.

Gödel's first theorem says that a logical system can either be incomplete or contradictory. The comprehensiveness of natural language (our primary tool for communicating), especially with the prevailing over-reliance on Boolean logic, points to the results from our use of them being readily contradictory.

So with Internet forums (especially when you're first exposed to them), you switch from getting half-baked reasoning in meatspace interactions (the focus of this article, and easy to spot!) to long chains of fully-baked reasoning that are logically consistent. But yet they ultimately still lead to some pretty terrible places - due to what they've left out of their starting assumptions, and then tacitly reject by closed-world-optimizing for the assumptions they did make.

	▲	cowboylowrez 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The contradictions probably should generate political compromises. I mean it would be sort of ridiculous to say "Godel, so lets be a failed state!" I would also not buy blaming the ridiculousness of the USA's state of affairs on Godel either, as I don't see any attempt from the powers in charge to lean toward "fully-baked reasoning", in fact they are whackadoodles from the best I can tell lol Some folks talk like the lowest of the lowlife trolling forum goers are even remotely approaching logically consistent philosophical systems that eventually run into eventual and inevitable paradoxes, and I don't buy it. Heck, we should be that lucky to have forums like that instead of rabid identity wars. Have you ever chatted with a libertarian for instance? In english? Half your terms need to receive new definitions lol