This is really weird line of argument you're going down. I don't think anyone ever talks in pure facts. Ever. I think literally everything we say is an opinion.
So what you're really trying to do here is argue with me on the basis of some incredulity, which is really just as hominem.
Yet, through organized society, we have tamed some of its worst elements.
How am I stating it as a fact, when I explicitly qualified the remark as an opinion?
I don't think that's the only difference. I think you should look into the research on symbology and it's relationship to propaganda, demagoguery and in-group behaviors.
Honest question: why are you so angry right now?
I don't believe this analogy is operative at all. I have already conceded that not all memes are bad. I also support nuclear power, even though nuclear technology can be used for bad, too. Your analogy is really just a straw man, as conceived.
Literally don't know how you're drawing these inferences.
These platforms are going to make the privacy issues related to advertising and tracking cookies seem like a pedestrian concern in comparison.
I'm not debating they are powerful. I think my original point implicitly concedes that. I'm arguing they lower information content in the discourse, tend towards framing things in black and white, in-group and out-group.
I'd say lies and misinformation travel effortlessly through memes. So we disagree strongly on this point.
I wouldn't argue any of the claims you're making about the role of money, here. And I would suggest that none of this is incompatible with my prior point.
Okay. But you could literally apply this defense to demagoguery itself, and then argue demagoguery is a good thing on the same basis.
And I'd probably argue that most political memes are a form of demagoguery in any case.
I don't agree that any conception of money ameliorates these concerns. I think all such claims are simplistic and reductionist, and an example of the fallacy of the single cause.
So is a lot of pernicious propaganda. Not sure why this is a salient point. It's not like I'm arguing they should be outlawed or something.
He’s very smart. I have incredibly frustrated disagreements with him (metaphorically that is, as I’ve never met him). He also has significant blind spots.
But I actually think he has valid insights into human nature. Even if I don’t take the same lessons from those insights into the political sphere as he does.