Big Think - A Statement of Disappointment
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong:
When I initially connected to BigThink, I observed a variety of internationally famous people, as well as professionally significant people who are not quite so generally recognized, putting their faces and their words out for all and sundry. While I do not always agree with all of their views and comments, I have been inspired to participate and contribute in my own fashion - with my own name and face attached.
Both philosophy and science (and their respective derivatives and integrations) require rigor to be convincing and acceptable within their purpose. Accountability for that rigor lies upon the individual.
So my disappointment lies in the fact that there are contributors and commentors here who, for whatever reason, instead of representing themselves for who they are, hide behind fictitious and sometimes ridiculous names and less-than-humourous avatars, as if this were the friends-only blog of a fifteen year old.
Half of the challenge of open discourse is sticking your face (or neck, as the case may be) out and letting it rip. You and I both know that the chap standing in front of the tanks in Tienanmen Square was know to those in power.
I joined this forum to contribute in an honest (and, I hope, challenging) way; I have done so, with what thoughts and resources I have; if I find out that anyone I know personally is taking the halloween-mask route, they will get a bit of excoriation from me.
Yes, I know about the concept of free speech in American and other libertarian countries; the editorial pages of newspapers and magazines around the world abound with people espousing an opinion. And I don't know any reputable publication that prints such editorials without an actual name attached; I don't expect to see 'email@example.com' as a signature on an editorial.
I would challenge those who hide to come out - 'olly-olly-ox-in-free!'
New research links urban planning and political polarization.
- Canadian researchers find that excessive reliance on cars changes political views.
- Decades of car-centric urban planning normalized unsustainable lifestyles.
- People who prefer personal comfort elect politicians who represent such views.
Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.
- America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
- Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
- Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Science and the squishiness of the human mind. The joys of wearing whatever the hell you want, and so much more.
- Why can't we have a human-sized cat tree?
- What would happen if you got a spoonful of a neutron star?
- Why do we insist on dividing our wonderfully complex selves into boring little boxes
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.