Until election season is over, Twitter has reached rock-bottom to me.

I won’t say it’s unusable, since I am using it, but I have to navigate around its main thing to continue with the positive elements of the network effect that exists there.

And so many accounts are super biased on any given topic to a clearly irrational degree. I keep seeing things that seem like satire, but instead they are genuinely written to appeal to lower information people in a way that, from my perspective, is highly patronizing to them.

I find it so distasteful. The prior election year 2020 had a lot of polarizing elements obviously, but 2024 has more clearly conscious polarizing elements going on. Large influencer accounts whose motives are clear toward a broader audience with talking points geared toward child-level rhetoric and civic understanding. You can watch them as an observer speaking to their flock as though they were children.

Very interesting read erik. Heidegger definitely had some points that he made about the differentiation between man and machine. It would seem to me his biggest gripe with the idea of machine and man is that it unifies its word, making it perfected, inhuman. If the word of a man is to be interpreted as such there should be the flaws detectable/relatable in order for the reader to associate that what it is he is engaging with is another humans thoughts.

While i can relate to his assumptions of such things as being inhuman to a degree. I think the human aspect of the idea can be one that can be falsified. If the idea you dislike is championed by that of someone fallible then you can side step the idea altogether and attack the human behind the idea.

By being able to immortalize the idea in a structured manner indistinguishable from any other the idea can hide in the crowd and be fought with on merit instead of the creator of the idea itself. Both instantiations of the written/ typed word does have its tradeoffs.

I think the embracing of the technologies (whatever they may be of any time, now or in the future) should be of one that , is the user of said technologies able to achieve said goal using them, instead of becoming consumed by said technology. It should be one of enhancing said human experience not hampering it.

I also enjoyed the view that comparison of the critique of heideggers claim that the mechanized version of writing is dumbing down of the word. As the written word itself is a self realization of rules and expectations that have been reached to by a wider audience and acceptance as a written word. The paper being used was created by mechanized means, the pen and ink as well. So if one were to accept these technologies for the written word then acceptance of the typewriter is one too far stretched, as the analogy of of the user of an instrument shown that once the user becomes acclimated to the new device it becomes apart of the writer himself.

Ideas are just that ideas, but when those ideas are placed down written or otherwise, the become reality. Ready to be consumed, contemplated, deliberated, attacked, refined.

The paper with written is the human psyche self realization, and for others to come to consensus on is what i am reading true or untrue?

Fascinating history that someone opposed to a technology would've/possibly owned the thing he desperately tried to denounce as less than. Could it be he secretly enjoyed it MORE than the writing process so as a way to right in his own mind his dirty pleasure, publicly denounce it?

Cheers bud.

Maybe we should be worried about the German government banning Bitcoin?