CPC #50: OUR SOCIAL DILEMMA: DOES HOW WE COMMUNICATE GIVE BAD IDEAS THE AURA OF TRUTH?

I want you to watch the video above in its entirety before you go on to ask yourself this key question.  

Do predatory publishing and social media have something in common that breeds the facade that bad ideas and science can, on the surface contain the aura of truth? 

I follow a lot of people on social media who I disagree with because it allows me to see aspects of life I am blinded to by my own biases.  Social media allows me to see things I am blind too because the medium is the message.  

When "People" become weak, societies crumble because liberties shrink. Only courageous hearts can endure the bitterness of truth.......

All too often we fail to see the good in a difficult situation. Our minds are wired in such a funny way that we tend to believe just because a door closed it must be a bad thing. I say this because I saw a comment from "progressive author journalist" that said, "Ruth Bader Ginsburg is going to be replaced by a woman who walked through every door that Ginsburg opened for her so she can promptly use her position to shut them all for others behind her."

When I read the comment above on Twitter and saw how many people liked the comment, I thought to myself, there must be a lot of people on Twitter who think chronically with a closed mind.  These are people who revered RBG in life, but never really understood her message.  Every door was closed to RBG and what did RBG do?  Did she fold like a cheap beach chair or did she do something about it by thinking fiercely about her plight? 

When RBG started law school in 1956, women accounted for less than 3% of the legal profession = CLOSED DOOR

Until the early 1950s, the majority of local school boards and clerical firms had “marriage bar” policies in place against the hiring and retention of married women, so heading off to law school with a family in tow was truly a venture into uncharted waters. This is around the same time when Elinor Ostrom—future Nobel Prize winner in economics—would have been splitting up with her first husband because he saw graduate coursework as incompatible with their life together. This is another example of a CLOSED DOOR.    Did this stop Elinor from creating a new room in the future for women like Ms. Ahern?  What is the common tie here?  In the 1950's these powerful women did not have social media and that medium was not filtering the way they think into something that create a prison for them so they could not destroy the glass ceilings they faced.

Social media, and specificaly, Ms. Ahern's tweet, allowed me to realize the basis of our political divide is tied to how people think about ideas when they are unable to process information well. 

History didn’t have to move the direction that it did without some help from thinkers like RBG. Waypavers are willing to be first in line to take chances that others around them are either not willing or not able to. In so doing, they forever alter the expectations of those who come after them. By deciding the path of professional constitutional law was possible for her, Ginsburg made it easier for others to decide they were capable as well.

Ginsburg credited her mother and her undergraduate teachers with enabling her “to take part in the effort to free our daughters and sons to achieve whatever their talents equipped them to accomplish, with no artificial barriers blocking their way” RBG discussed this in her preface of her "In My Own Words".  She credited her mother with encouraging her to be a lady, meaning, to always be civil; to be independent; and to love libraries and books. It appears this was RBG medium.  That medium bred a different kind of thinking in Justice Ginsburg.  Ginsburg mentioned the ambitious, literary “Jo” from Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women as a favorite find from those early days she spent in the library on page 4 of the book. I suspect if you took a poll of women in business today, you’d find an awful lot of “Jo”s who were also lit on fire by Ms. Alcott. 

       LOUISA M. ALCOTT 

RBG also credited two of her undergraduate professors, novelist Vladimir Nabokov, and constitutional scholar Robert Cushman, with teaching her the value of choosing words carefully and taking a principled stance.  

Justice Ginsburg lived her principles do you think Ms. Ahern does?   Does she value words as an author?  Might that be tied to the medium she trained on?  Do you think that might have some lasting effect on her work because now she is an author and journalist?  Given what RBG said above about words, the door RBG opened, might be fraught with some problems, no?  

Don't judge Ms. Ahern by a tweet, but I want you to ask yourself a question........might how she saw and learned about RBG on social media define the message she has received and this is now seared into how she acts, speaks, and talks, and will live the rest of her life?  It is quite clear RBG medium was not equivalent to Ms. Ahern's.  

Why did her tweet about a closed door and RBG go viral on social media?  Might this virus of poor thinking be more dangerous than anything COVID-19 can throw at humanity?  

Has social media let a genie out of the bottle that has fostered an anti-wisdom movement that has led to a door that should be bolted shut? 

Why do people believe that this tweet from Ms. Ahern has an aura of truth to it when the life of RBG was all about having a door slammed in her face at every step of her early life?  Wasn't the action of a slammed door what created a new life for women?    Moreover, those who do believe that Ms. Ahern tweet has some logic to it, how do you think it will affect how they trust Amy Coney Barrett?  How will it affect anyone else in your life who you perceive that closed a door in your face?  

It was at that time, I decided I needed to write about this topic in this blog for my patrons to become "agent provocateur" to get you to think about how bad science and poor ideas go viral today and gain traction THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE.  Many of the papers supported by the paradigm on C19 right now have these same traits.  

You don't believe me? 

Here Fauci explains how and why he will limit who can have in your home, what pets you can have, the end of large events, and the effective dismantlement of cities. This should chill you.

HYPERLINK  

This paper shows us how poor science may lead to a tear down of civil liberites.  RBG was a champion of showing this inequity in her legal career.  

RBG was deeply concerned about the impact McCarthyism was having on civil liberties in the 1950s. RBG’s engagement with this cause was her first experience with the idea of the lawyer as a defender of constitutional rights, an influence which would carry through into her work with the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. The first brief RBG filed with the U.S. Supreme Court as a lawyer was in the 1971 case of Reed v. Reed, in which a mother had sued to be able to administer the estate of her deceased son. Idaho law had given explicit preference to the father since he was male, but the Supreme Court decided in favor of RBG’s argument that the Fourteenth Amendment did protect against gender discrimination in law.  

RBG saw this work to advance equality as the “constitutional legacy” of our founding ideals: The founding fathers rebelled against the patriarchal power of kings and the idea that political authority may legitimately rest on birth status. Their culture at their time, she believed, might have held them back from fully perceiving or acting upon ideals of human equality and dignity.  From my reading of RBG life and her legal career this is why she became a leftist.  She was not a progressive or communist in any way.  Today's leftist have tried to paint her that way to gain a door or access point to put a progressive communist jurist on the SCOTUS.  

What really does leftist mean in the world that formed the great mind of RBG?  RBG education ideas were destroyed by her life experiences she faced.  She used those life experiences and chaos to change her world and the world around her.  She realized in law school and in her cases she argued before the SCOTUS that it was the incompleteness of the founding father’s vision of a non-hierarchical liberal democracy that blinded them to the harm that slavery, inequality in rights, protectionism, and monopoly privileges would wind up causing to their government and their principles.  She realized the founding fathers did not hate women, they just were blinded that not including the words women in the Constitution would lead to collateral deficits in the law affecting generations of women.  They were blinded because of their culture and society at the time did not allow them to see all facets of what their words might do 50, 100, 250 years into the future.  

Do you think Ms. Ahern's tweets will age well into the future as RBG ideas have?  Might the medium both used have something to do with this?  

I'm currently deeply concerned that Dr. Fauci has become modern medicine's Joe MCCarthy.  His nonsense is destroying civil liberites in the name of pseudoscience.  It is being sold to the public under the guise of Big Pharma and vaccines to give it legitimacy.  

In 2020 America, many people speaking their “truth” on social media but they are really telling lies to their audience and the medium is giving them the ability to do so.  There is only the truth and it is not necessarily “yours”.  You are entitled to your opinion, but you've never been entitled to your own set of facts,  before social media arrived.  The medium allows you to cherry pick your data sets and this is fueled by your own cognitive biases and the network of people you surround yourself with.  Your circle of influence says a lot more about you than you want to admit.

This tells me this topic is current and important for you to understand if we are ever to trust one another.  It might be incredibly important for you trusting the scientific links I shared with you here in my past, present and future.    

I believe when you believe bad ideas or succumb to poor science it erodes trust.  It might even erode your trust in something that is true and give way to false beliefs.

When I read the tweet, I immediately thought about the video above and how bad science is now created for propaganda to sell things to people that they really don't need for health.  In fact, if they buy it, it might make them unhealthy.  Then I thought about social media and bad ideas and how they spread.  Is this why so much of what we believe is FALSE.

We've all heard the cliche, the medium is the message.  If this is true today, what is our mediums doing to our messaging?    

Does the medium of communication contain the seed of destruction for the message, ideas, or information?  

Where did the cliche come from?  When it comes to understanding new media, one of the best to learn from is Marshall McLuhan. He was a Canadian born in 1911 and he died in 1980, McLuhan had no opportunity to experience the Web the way we know it today, but that didn’t stop him from exerting a huge influence on it. 

It was McLuhan who first spoke about technology and communication having the ability to create a “global village.” As an early educator and pioneer of the study of communication and its evolution over time, McLuhan introduced a lot of observations about the impact of new forms of expression and media. Most notably, McLuhan’s expression “The medium is the message” has had a resounding impact not just on Web design but on mass media in general.

The video above shows you how a new medium has been created to sell things to people they do not need.  That is the point of predatory journals.  It gives cover to bad science and bad scientists.  You, my audience need to fully understand the implications of this new medium so you vet your experts and what they push and sell you and make sure they are not using predatory journals to push pseudoscientific ideas in your direction.  You might never know why their bullshit appears genuine.  Here is an example of a "doctor" selling you, the public an idea that was created in a predatory journal as the video above showed.  Who is packing your parachute?  

Now that you know that DEFCON 26 outed GcMAF in the video above, how will this temper how you see Dr. Dietrich Klinghadt's advice on anything in the future?  Did he dig deep enough for his tribe to uncovered truth or did he use predatory journals to create profit for himself?  Will Ms. Ahern's tweets give you confidence that her vision of the present and future is built on a strong foundation?  Do you like the way she has used words since she is now an author?  Has the medium really helped her?  

See, outing bullshit and bullshitter's has a deep purpose to someone on a journey to see the truth..........the medium we use and how we use has a deep message for our audience. 

Since the early days of communication, humanity has been captivated by the methods it uses to convey and preserve information. How we communicate with each other defines who we are and constitutes so much of what makes a culture and an individual unique. 

What if our current use of social media is destroying our human identity and destroying truth so that we get further from the answers society really needs?    If the medium is the message, what is the medium telling you, my student Black Swan, today about how we think about our world?  

When I read Ms. Ahern's Tweet I immediately thought to myself, "maybe these people I should spend some time on and try to help?"   The sudden death of RBG really caused some chaos in the mind of Ms. Ahern.  RBG was a liberal thinker.  She was not progressive.  Progressives always seem to deal in hopes rather than in facts.......Ms. Ahern however, is very progressive in her thinking.  I do not even think she realizes that she is anti RBG in her thoughts, but I want you to think about that idea and see if I am right or wrong in telling it.  

That is when i decided to pen this blog to teach my tribe that social media is harming truth, the truth's in Nature's recipes that guys like Dr. Fauci and Mark Zuckerburg are trying to hide from you.  

Less than 24 hours ago I was banned on FB for telling people that the sun, via Vitamin D creation was a great therapeutic idea for COVID19.  

I posted two articles from non predatory journals that support the use of the sun and Vitamin D as a preventative cure from COVID 19.  Then I got this:

I had my legs cut out from underneath me.  I was censored.  What did I do.  I fought back using the medium and the pen as my message to my tribe.  

If you feel as if your legs have been cut from underneath you, as Ms. Ahern did above in her tweet, instead of wallowing in despair get back up on your feet and touch the door that you feel has closed to you. If a door you value has closed for any reason, you should spend or waste any more time staring at it.  Ms. Ahern is a budding author.  She better think about the path she is on now.  

When you write to help others never compromise to someone else's standards.  You have two choices in your life.  Live by your own choices or you'll be forced to live by someone else's.  Better to write for yourself and your own standards and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.  The world is not ready for some folks when they show up, but that shouldn't stop anyone from trying to help mankind.  Some things in life just can’t be bartered over or placed on the sale rack – and your self-worth is at the top of the list.

Be at peace and look for an open door. It’ll be there. Life is not lived through just one door. Then, walk through that new door it into the next phase of your life. A closed door is nothing but a new opportunity for new life experiences. One that might be greater than the life you knew in the old room, with the locked door tied to it.   RBG did it and so can you.   

Above Erin Schaff a NYT photographer, take a picture where you see conservative women, who support Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, pray while touching the doors of the Court as progressive leftist Jacquelyn Booth lies, crying on the ground, mourning the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

What was Ms. Schaff trying to convey to her Twitter audience if the medium is the message?

When the doors begin to close, the mind should begin to open.

Are you victim of life, or are you capable of overcoming your fears by thinking fiercely well?

How smart are you? 

Do you find logic in false ideas?

Why does this happen to you?   

Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof. The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. Does being super wrong about something in the past negate a current idea that is fabulous?

What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds under a technocracy? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us?

2020 has shown us all that humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. 

In my opinion, social media acts to destroy real truths by giving every user a perception of the tech companies algorithm which is built around their version of the truth. Their truth is design around separting you from your dollar just by slightly getting you to change your behavior because of what their algorithm does to your brain via a blue lit screen.

How do I use social media?  I train wolves to think.  Help me find some more of them.  Share this with them if you enjoyed this journey through my mind.  

CITES: 

In My Own Words, RBG.  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1501145258/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=sl1&tag=lfdigital-20&linkId=033f04d2ec535d134930c041ebc307be

Twitter feed of Ms. Ahern and Schaff

The movie: The Social Dilemma on Netflix.