It's a consequence of the "attention economy." Extremely low overhead to content creation led to both a saturation and dilution of content, and, at the same time, a shortening of attention spans. It's a race to the bottom in terms of quality reporting. There's a vicious cycle that goes something like, distracted populace is attracted by sensational content, creates an economic demand for pandering and sensationalism, populace comes to expect sensationalism and pandering and reject quality reporting.

What got branded as the post truth era is really more of the post nuance era. Every piece of journalism must fall to one side or the other of some ideological line of narrative, or it's like a 3rd football team that no one has ever heard of running onto the field and making a touchdown in the middle of a tie game; it merely confuses and enrages the fans.

We're to the point now where a large percentage of people can't even comprehend any information or point of view that can't be shoehorned into a recognizable narrative. You can watch them get stuck in a loop of, "so what you're trying to say is..." until they succeed in placing it securely into one camp or another, or finally decide in frustration that this new information is useless to them and therefore meaningless

So all that exists are words because you've defined "word" to mean anything that exists. How does that help you to think about anything in a different or less confused way?

Beyond a critical point and time it often becomes denotatively defined as correct, which is not always what we mean by 'correct.' In terms of clarity or consistency the popular choice often is wrong. If one takes issue, specifically, with the popular usage of a word, then obviously the meaning of 'correct' is functional, not denotative. So the reminder that lexicography follows vernacular, while true, is meaningless in that context.

This is pretty silly. I might agree if the tactics were manipulative, but simply offering advice? No. What seems to be overlooked here is that advice from others is really just additional information available in one's environment. It's up to the person receiving advice to decide how to weight, interpret, and apply it. We have impressionable, stubborn, and contrarian types among us. Those are ways of describing set biases in the ways people treat such information. But the most important part is that information is not coercion.

It's also important to learn how to handle such advice, because you're absolutely going to be receiving it. Even if this moral stance against coaching people on their life choices made any sense, it would still be ignoring that fact. If you ignored the fact that reading is an essential life skill, you could easily make the case that it's immoral to force children to learn it. But that's cutting the context short; in the full context, it's immoral not to.

It doesn't break any law of physics and that's not what's claimed in the video. The thought experiment is simply to demonstrate paradoxes in the classical notion of identity. The solution to this supposed conundrum is actually pretty simple; there isn't any essential "you" who has experiences. There's only experience itself, i.e. experience is the net result of being, not a thing that beings do. At the moment that two exact copies emerge from the transporter they cease to be exact copies, simply by virtue of the fact that they no longer occupy the same space. They're both equally "you" inasfar as a "you" exists, which is to say that it really doesn't, at least not in the sense of an essential being. The continual chain of cause and effect that thinks of itself as you is multiplied and split so that each chain is now separate, operating from two different perspectives at once. That situation is not essentially different than the situation of your experience existing alongside the experience of a person who's been separate from you their entire life, i.e. just another person.

What's the difference?