Yes, exactly. :) Only more modern, like much more of them.

It's probably a thing of the right dosage. At the beginning your blood pressure goes up but finally you feel relieved that it's over when going to bed.

Good, you get it, sorta. You see, there is still preferred "truth," even if it rejects science as a whole. In other words, follow the narrative. Play your part. Do we not see this very thing today in the social justice mind games? This is why "feelings" matter: they're more important than empiricism.

This is the result. There's a few more ideas out there that are similar, but there inlies where quantum physics comes into this. The kicker is, few people realized Shroedinger was trolling. But it doesn't stop there. And we sadly aren't joking about this. But can we do worse than this? I don't know. Sit back and enjoy.

But critical theory and quantum physics are not necessarily the same, but boy do they ever go hand in hand. No, they don't reject all empiricism, just empiricism that they feel is wrong. If they rejected all empiricism, they'd jump off cliffs expecting to fly, as well. It's just a fancy little clause to ignore what is inconvenient for them. They even suddenly seem to be able to read peoples' minds, too, 'cause they are always telling us what we're thinking and what our intentions are.

I'd recommend looking it up on archive.org, since the site is down right now. I used archive.org in the link above, but gog parsed it in an odd way. Another grand one: Am I the only one that sees the inherent mysticism that can be provided for via quantum physics due to the mere co-existance of these ideas? They aren't really arguing in those terms, though. It's implied that it's not about the economy as a whole, but boosting regulations in favor of certain businesses, kind of like how corporate democrats use global warming and regulation surrounding it to make money on "green technology."

In order to read these articles to get any kind of confirmation, I have to disable my ad-blocker. Yeah, given that it intentionally doesn't block all ads (only "invasive ads"), I can only assume that the information there is also shady.

Nah, i don't really let it get my blood pressure up: stupid people are going to exist regardless of how much smart people try to educate the world. I find that when you get upset, it's because you're afraid others will believe differently from you, which should automatically make oneself question whether or not the stupidity they see in others is a result of the Dunning-Kreuger effect. I trust even some of the most uneducated people who would be on the fence can easily see what's goin' on. People don't live their entire lives being stupid without learning a few things on how to adapt to that lack of knowledge. Usually personal attacks in response to something impersonal is a dead giveaway, for example, and just about any moron can tell which arguments are towards an individual and which ones are broadly speaking. The peanut gallery might not be able to take over the debate, but they should have no trouble deciding who's full of it. There's times when the mob gets riled up, but usually you can talk them down once they're done screaming at you.

If that was actually their statement, they just have given me a reason to avoid Civ VI.

I'd understand a casualization. Saying 'the pollution mechanic is too complicated for the average gamer, so we'll remove it' is a valid gameplay decision. It may be a lamentable one for serious strategy players, but it's still a decision based on gameplay. But saying 'we avoid global warning because we don't want to annoy those idiots who like to pretend it doesn't exist' is a political statement. And as such a reason to avoid that game.

It's not over. Our planet keeps dying of its inhabitants' deep stupidity while we sleep.

It's kind of difficult.

It's absolutely your right to avoid games that you think carry political statements you do not agree with. For that matter you can avoid games for any reason (although it feels a bit like everything is political these days, probably the color of the socks (blue) I'm wearing too).

If these guys are clever they will give the explanation that you conjured about some game mechanics problem, even though in reality they just want to have the money from "those idiots".

I actually find it unlikely that the "Their explanation is that they want to avoid "controversial" issues." part of the original post here is true. That is very likely just made up in order to let it look worse than it is. At least I would like to see an original source for this.

It's probably best that one should assume that the removal of global warming from Civ VI is a political statement regardless of the given explanation and avoid the game if that kind of decision is upsetting one. If they wanted to keep global warming, they probably would have found a way. Only incorporating global warming at a realistic level (so every Civ game ends in something like total annihilation of the planet unless one stops building Industry and new cities) would be a sure sign that they really mean business.

Either stupidity (and smart people can be very stupid when driven by fear or prejudice) or con men talking (more likely sometimes). Both kinds are beyond any help.

An observable behaviour is that of those who, when confronted with data, consciously choose to avoid it altogether in order to allow themselves to remain in the realm of guessing. Kurt Vonnegut called them "the guessers". Guessing can be great for many as it is lazier than trying to find out what is really happening, and just more comfortable.

Guessing is guided by what is already known, not by the ever threatening (for some) new concepts that challenges one's view of the world. In the realm of guessing "common sense" (the most changeable and easier to manipulate of all senses), "conventional wisdom" (that who tells the casual observer that the Earth is flat) and prejudice are kings.

Guessing is easier Add to that the confirmation bias: accepting only "information" that confirms already existing prejudices. Just because it is easier. Sources matter, but the bigger the prejudice, and the more obtuse the individual, the less they are going to distinguish crap from nourishment.

Also, on a final note: human stupidity and evilness can be unfathomable but, what about collective stupidity and evilness? When the individuals are a part of something larger of which they are only partially conscious? (if at all).
Hannah Arendt dealt with the latter, what about the former?

I haven't been to sleep in over a day. :P It doesn't feel as bad as I imagined it would be.

Check out Stanley Cohen's "States of Denial" maybe.

It shouldn't be surprising, because that's all part of being human. Every one of us has blinders and blindspots. We have out hang-ups, our biases and our bouts of denial. We are a product of our environments. To deny this is denial in itself.
Every one of us feels a drive to contribute to a discussion that interests us, regardless of our level of expertise or amount of evidense to support it. This forum is littered with examples of this behaviour, so why would a more important issue be any different?

My mother says climate change is a hoax. The other day I finally got her to spit out why, though an hour later she denied saying it.

Quote, "I don't care if it's true or not."

There will be people that brand others stupid or misinformed if they stand contrary to current theories, despite the reasons behind their stated opinion are often unclear. The human psyche is far more complex, and out of our own ignorance of a person's upbringing or current stage in life, we tend to ignore this. "Walk a mile in my shoes" so to speak.

There's also a genuine, intolerable, unavoidable, anti-democratic (and dangerous) violence in the reality of expertise. We all know of of institutions producing fake expertise (from Lyssenko to modern economy presented as hard science), so a hint of suspicion is rational. But this suspicion is further fueled by the sentiment of exclusion from discussions on matters that actually require levels of knowledge that not everyone can attain (if only because it requires yearslong building). People feel deprived of their voices in front of scientific communities, at the same time where wikis, participative internet and populism offer them a form of "democracy" where each voice is equal. Accepting that we are not equals in front of scientific knowledge, and accepting that it makes us vulnerable to manipulations but that we have no mean to combat it (at the layman level, the ratonal thing is still to trust expertise until further notice) is just tough on the morale, self-esteem, and fantasies of self-sufficient heroism. This gives momentum to populist charlatanism and super-selective relativism. Via, at best, the principle of indifference ("I don't know the answer therefore I'll assume it's 50/50").

Suspicious humility is a difficult stance to hold. Many people, without being experts at a scientific field, are still sufficiently aware of the functionning of scientific communities (their advantages, shortcomings, and shortcoming self-awarenesses) to generally trust its consensuses. But others, less directly aware of its validation and invalidation processes, have no reason to trust it. And yet others are taught -by their own selected authorities- to dismiss it by principle (because the scientific world is the enemy of traditional conservatism, is a nest of subversive communists, is the tool of Satan against Faith, etc).

It's not easy to build a consensus on stuff we don't have directly access to. It's not easy either to accept that we're not in position to hold our own strong opinion, and have to rely on (rationally) selected authorities.

This thread has very clear exemples of this unease, with fears of "top-down" authority arguments. Unavoidable fears, for unavoidable sources of knowledge.

One can try to rationalize it, but I guess that future generations will not look very favorably on us. Heck, I guess even our own children will probably loathe us a great amount.

But is it really rational? The amount of precaution and risk-aversion we take to avoid airplanes from falling down, or chocking on some plastic wrapping compared to converting the whole available space for living into a permanent desert and not doing even remotely what would be possible about it.

We have so many insurances against anything, but even if global warming would not likely be true, shouldn't just the possibility that it could drive every sane person to immediate emergency actions just because the estimated loss is so big?

Therefore I must conclude that we are on average crazy and irrational (or just not very smart). Blind spots are okay, but I guess they do not really explain. We are capable of learning and adapting our opinions.

Not for nothing, but I'm still leaning on the theory that not only is climate change a hoax, we are. We are all just part of someone's dream, and the instant that person wakes up POOF! Gone. Not even a discernible memory aside from the oft heard bleary eyed plaint, "I had the strangest dream last night."

I guess this will be the answer in most cases really. And for older people it might be just that, they won't feel the impact too strongly, so why should they care about it? Maybe for the sake of their children and grandchildren and so on... but that is the only argument I really have there.