Twitter and the Feminization of Society

but ... but ... Andrew ... where is the transparentsee .. that mythic, chimearic saving grace deigning to reign down from the thoughtosphere???

and what the hell happened ... your aneurism operation ... prolly botched to the point of stroke out .. your status as a happy simpleman ... your  family fails to report either way. Why? Why other than out of disrespect for what much of your former self stood and your present self no longer cares for???

stuck it on twitter thus:

12/9 ---- 1wind ----- k222 -- 18/02 : : [LOT] --- -3/10 : [CTC]

 https://youtu.be/-RKh1Jwzris
feminance is duh 'big' tec [=miniaturizing] centralic monoptatrix punishment for duh failmale [he who is no permie protector of diversity but content to claim prizes for accepting biocidal wages. Gruesomeness ensues. ps: Andrew was a huge insp.

Here's the only more than one line comment under that 13yo vid btw:

@FrancisRoyCA
8 years ago
I wonder why the author assigns "communicating and sharing" to the Feminine, when it is in fact, universal to both sexes?

I very much like the idea of having the evolutionary trajectory (great phrase) of ideas traced. Boy, what a boon that would have been in the realm of politics or philosophy.

He makes the statement that since things are networked, that there is no hierarchy. I disagree. Hierarchy is central to the nature of all communication. Dominant ideas take hold, and non-dominant ideas disappear. That there are many interrelated hierarchies does not mean that they have disappeared. The very notion that one central point spawns a series of sub-ideas and that larger networks take precedence in people's minds is illustrative of the point.

Also, I'm not sold on the notion of "the wisdom of the crowd." That a greater number of people may offer a statistically larger chance of coming to a workable conclusion, does not imply wisdom, a well-considered conclusion based on the interrelationships of knowledge. One might go so far as to claim that the statistical distribution of crowds does in fact support the notion of the granularity of random bits of data being selected by effect, and not by design, much akin to biological evolution.

Also, he falls prey to reification, the notion that ideas are things. People's behaviour, beliefs and that which they value are all processes, not an identity as a "thing."

The ideas presented are thought provoking. From my point of view, the author makes a number of interesting observations, but includes a number of conclusions for which I can find no justification.