this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
98 points (97.1% liked)

World News

39385 readers
2271 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/48076971

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The only options I can see are: net negative, net positive, or net neutral.

Yes because you're a fundamentalist, maybe you aren't a religious nut but this is exactly how they think. Nothing can be more complex than what fits into their narrow simplistic worldview.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Help me understand. Help me overcome my narrow, "fundamentalist" thinking. If net positive, net negative, and net neutral are not the only logical possibility, then what other possibilities are there?

If you're arguing that determining the net of something like globalization is complex and challenging, I agree, but I don't see how that proves that there are more logical possibilities than the three I've identified. Modern global civilization is extraordinarily complex, and yet we try to find ways to measure the effects or outcomes of modern civilization to determine if it has been a net positive or net negative for humanity. This is at the heart of the concept of "progress." Now, maybe you don't subscribe to this concept, maybe you reject the grand narrative of human progress, and if that's the case, well, fair enough, but I can tell you that most of the proponents of globalization absolutely do subscribe to the concept of human progress, and they have advocated for globalization because they believe it will further said progress.

If you're arguing that "positive" and "negative" in this context are inherently subjective, and thus there's no way to determine if globalization is objectively positive or negative, that's fair, but if that's your argument then it's just as valid for someone to say globalization is bad as it is for someone to say globalization is good.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're very.... Combative. I don't want argue this, mostly because I know arguing will get nowhere. I used to think like this and if you're genuinely interested there are tons of resources online but mostly just get out of your shell, learn other cultures and worldviews. Not just learn them but befriend people who genuinely view the world completely differently than you. I know from personal experience that just getting into a random argument with a stranger online will just waste both of our time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I used to think like this and if you're genuinely interested there are tons of resources online

Alright, well if you're not willing to explain how or why you changed your thinking on this topic, at least link me to even one of these "resources."