#Skepticism

[janusfranc15]

That’s a fascinating sentence.

You waste your precious time arguing online about religion, you stop, you log into JSTOR, and you get the joy of reading the opinions of people who actually know about the topic:

Bliss

[ghost-in-the-corner]

just as a general reminder

learn how to fact-check for yourself, cause soon enough, most online sources won't be reliable

[milliebobbyflay]

Imagine a world where creationism was unanimously central both to the ruling class's conception of self and to the logic that justifies their power. Darwin's work still exists, attempts to suppress it outright would only drive interest; curious and rigorous scholars who've sought out his work can testify to its quality and relevance, and often teach natural selection in their courses. Still, there remains an understanding that Darwin is not what the people with money and power want to hear, and so when proposing research grants or attempting to climb the academic ladder, Darwin is typically ignored in favor of alternative theoretical frameworks which, while less useful, are far more likely to receive funding.

This creates a cycle where, because Darwinism has been ignored in all of the most influential and groundbreaking research, it becomes inessential. Scholars can receive their PhDs without ever having read a single work on natural selection. Despite its utility as a theory, intuition and an implicit trust in the social reality created by and within these institions creates the sense that Darwinism is, to put it bluntly "crank shit," the sort of thing you study to amuse your own curiosity and stroke your ego rather than actually trying to change the world.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that Darwin was correct, that evolution by natural selection is the primary mechanism by which species develop and change over time. However, since using Darwinist theory (or any alternative routes taken to similar models and conclusions) as anything but a garnish will get you labeled as a crank, the entire discipline of biology becomes warped around its absence. Entire fields form to cobble together makeshift solutions to the gaps Darwinism fills, further cementing it's irrelevance. Thousands of scholars devote their lives to fleshing out the forest of asterisks and duct tape holding on a vastly overstretched lamarckian and at times implictly creationist framework.

From the outside, the discipline begins looking absurd. Clearly driven by internal politics, sprawling in a million directions without any consistent underlying theory, shy on results. Despite billions pouring in year after year trying to answer some of the most fundamental questions about humanity, history, health, all lines of inquiry seem to eventually terminate in a shrug of "life is complex, how could we hope to understand everything about it?"

Okay now switch Darwin with Marx. This is the state of contemporary western social science.

[girlfishes]

I am a “trans exclusive radical feminist” in the same way I am a “Christian exclusive radical feminist” or a “Muslim exclusive radical feminist”.

You have the right to identify yourself as you please. I am within my rights to believe that how you define yourself is false. No, I do not believe that you are a child of god, because god doesn’t exist. I do not believe that your gender identity makes you a woman, because there is no gender identity inherent to womanhood.

Your immaterial beliefs about yourself have no bearing on how I should perceive you. Your immaterial beliefs about yourself have no bearing on how I should define my own experiences. And your immaterial beliefs about yourself do not override the material reality you share with everyone else.

This doesn’t mean I hate you. On the contrary, it means I respect you enough to take your claims and their consequences seriously instead of humoring you like a little child.

[philosophybits]

He has a stormy spirit. His mind is in bondage. He is haunted by a great, unsolved doubt. He is one of those who don't want millions, but an answer to their questions.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

[creature-wizard]

I get the temptation to try and revive the hardcore atheist/skeptic movement of the 2010s, but like, the political situation we're in right now is literal proof that their methods don't work. If they did, things would look a lot different right now. Today's atheists and skeptics need to learn from the mistakes made back then and try to do better.

[lifewithchronicpain]

I’m watching Apple Cider Vinegar, which is about a woman who faked a brain tumor to sell a wellness book and app. Now of course that premise is offensive, but I’m far more interested in the story of her “rival” Milla, who is based on a woman named Jessica Ainscough. She tragically died after refusing to let surgeons cut off her arm and tried to treat her cancer with diet. She did the same with her mother who passed away two years before she eventually died herself in 2015.

As much as scammers enrage me, there is nothing more upsetting then the true believers who buy into the scams. They might make you feel better for a while but eventually they will fail against a disease like cancer.

I get that the treatment for cancer is shit, and is usually a choice between chemo, surgery, and radiation, sometimes all 3. We have reduced the rates of cancer death but it doesn’t change the hell that people go through to survive.

I do however think this show is also showing how doctors can be so sure of themselves that they only try to treat the cancer and not the patient. Doctors themselves are the ones that drive many people to seek alternative therapy, regardless of how good the traditional one is. You can’t just berate a cancer patient into the treatment you want, you need to help them understand and get on their level.

As tragic as I consider the scam that is “alternative medicine”, we should never treat people who look to it as stupid. We need to understand where modern medicine failed them and forced them away from science based medicine.

[winged-thinged]

I think being honest about what's real and what isn't real matters. I think telling people the truth matters. I think access to good information matters. I think people make better decisions when they're grounded in reality.

Values and beliefs can be inspiring and important, but they're not a good replacement for facts. Spiritual practices can be meaningful, but they are not a good replacement for real life.

[unsolicited-opinions]

Why You’d Die for a Guy Who Makes Skincare Videos

It might be hard for some to believe now, but for millions of Millennials and Gen Z readers, JK Rowling wasn't just the author of the Harry Potter series - she was a social justice literary godmother of childhood.

For a time, Rowling was broadly loved, especially by social liberals and people who cared about social justice. It wasn't just her books - she herself was part of the emotional scaffolding of an entire generation, particularly as stories of her very generous charitable giving spread online and she said pleasant, kind things in interviews about her hardscrabble background and rags-to-riches story. She seemed someone who didn't let incredible success change her. People loved her, put her on a pedestal, and felt she was a part of their families, helping to teach their kids how and why to oppose N̶a̶z̶i̶s̶ Death Eaters.

And then came the dissonance. Rowling made increasingly ugly statements about gender identity which understandably alienated and infuriated many of her fans, who re-examined her works and found other views or tropes they found objectionable.

Jo went from hero to villain, from Hermione to Voldemort, surprisingly quickly.

But what followed wasn't just a "cancel culture" backlash and it wasn't just a steep drop in her Q score. For many, it was nearly an existential crisis. Many fans didn't just feel  disappointed - they felt betrayed. 

Why? Because this wasn’t just about disagreement or disappointment. It was about a parasocial bond fracturing in real time.

I'm not mocking this. It was for some as traumatic as the death of a loved one, and people experienced very real feelings of grief. I saw them experience denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance.

That’s the thing about parasocial relationships: they're emotional investments in illusions. They feel real...but they're not.

I do this, too, despite trying to stop.

I was thinking about Gal Gadot yesterday, and how I may not think very highly of her as an actor, but I sure admire her as a person and feel both admiration and affection for her…despite the fact that I don't know her as a person.

I'm not accusing Ms. Gadot of anything! I continue to cling to my impression of her as a lovely, admirable person - and I will probably fight you if you threaten that impression

…but isn't it @#$%ing weird that I cling to warm feelings about her as a human being when every exposure I've ever had to her has been through a screen and managed by a publicist?

Do you or the people you know have strong feelings about the divorce of Johnny Depp & Amber Heard?

Why?

What Is a Parasocial Relationship, and Why Do You Have So Many of Them?

Coined in the 1950s by sociologists Horton and Wohl, a parasocial relationship is a one-sided emotional bond where a viewer feels a personal connection to a media figure who doesn’t know they exist. Back then, this meant TV news anchors like Edward R Murrow or Walter Cronkite.

You probably have several yourself - not because we have people who are as universally known and broadly trusted as Murrow or Cronkite, but because the media landscape is so fractured. Now it's...almost anyone with a ring light and a subscriber count.

That soothing TikTok therapist you like or the ASMRtist who gets you to sleep. Maybe the influencer/podcaster you follow who helps you understand the news, the celebrity who always seems like such a sweet and decent person in interviews, that analyst for the Times of Israel who makes shit makes sense - or maybe it’s a fictional character who left us in 2012 and took part of your soul with them

(RIP, Leslie Knope: still alive in our hearts!)

You don't just like these figures. You feel like you know them. You trust them. You believe them.

And because the media landscape is so fractured, there's been a massive change in scale.

Parasocial relationships used to be a quirky side effect of media. now they are the media -and that's changing how we think, how we feel, and how we disagree.

Because when our media ecology changes, we do too - and it has changed a lot in the last ~30 years.

1980s

Most who were around in the 1980s used to see celebrities only if they watched the Oscars on TV or in the pages of People magazine in the waiting room of a doctor's office.

Sure, people were interested in the lives of celebrities, but didn't know much about them.

1990s

The 90s gave us 24/7 access: The explosion of cable TV, MTV Cribs, behind-the-scenes specials, paparazzi culture, and reality TV. Suddenly, celebrities weren't just icons - they were like roommates you gossiped about. Stars- They're just like us!

2000s: Social Media

Social Media (the phrase didn't become common and mainstream until arurnd 2005) changed everything. MySpace made you a brand, Facebook made you your own publicist, Twitter made you a PR disaster - and YouTube threatened to make everyone a star.

Early lifestreaming was in progress and suddenly almost everyone seemed to have a public persona.

The 2010s: Influencer Culture

If you were around then, you might remember when Instagram brought us the perfectly imperfect aesthetic. That was around the time when "aesthetic" started being commonly used as a commodifying noun.

No, really. Previously, "aesthetic" was used exclusively to describe a cohesive visual style, but as social media platforms became more commerce-driven, it evolved into a shorthand for marketable lifestyles and curated identities.

Tumblr Girl aesthetic

VSCO Girl aesthetic

Soft Grunge aesthetic

Hypebeast aesthetic

And this is when Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle brand GOOP took off, selling a Jade Egg for vaginal use.

YouTubers got makeup deals, product placements, and sponsorships. Twitch streamers livestreamed 12 hours a day. Podcasters often became emotional support besties. The intimacy got so strong, we started seeing strange and/or unhealthy behaviors being produced.

Now:

TikTok, YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels - they all learn who you emotionally bond with and spoon-feed you more of them. It’s not a conspiracy - it’s just capitalism doing what capitalism does.

Parasocial Relationships Aren’t New, So What's Your Problem, You Prolix Old Prick?

Parasocial relationships used to be background noise and now they're shaping politics, public health, and how we perceive reality itself.

Back in the day, one might love Mister Rogers, Mr. T, Mr. Bean, or Mr. Spock..but nobody looked to them for their opinions on nutrition, investment portfolios, foreign policy, child-raising.

Today, though? A Twitch streamer or TikTok creator might change views on vaccines, war, or economics. Sometimes people will take them seriously because they once cried on camera, shared the viewer's Enneagram or Myers-Briggs type...or otherwise felt very relatable.

(Spoiler: Star signs, Enneagrams and MBTIs are all bullshit)

And because the internet flattened the distinction between expert and entertainer into influencer, you may not be able to tell whether you’re being informed, manipulatedo...or emotionally catfished. But almost always, you're being sold something.

Familiarity Replaces Credibility

Parasocial attachment makes us treat familiarity like credibility and that's hacking our brains by hijacking our emotions.

If someone feels trustworthy, we believe them, even when they’re wrong, wholly ignorant, and have no qualifications/education/expertise in the topic. Lack of those things is no longer an impediment.

And if someone says something true but doesn’t give us good vibes, we are likely to tune out.

This is how Joe Rogan becomes more influential on health than the CDC (when he's really sort of GOOP for men).

It's how TikTok herbalists convince you to eat raw garlic to cure anxiety. (So you'll be both anxious and lonely!)

It's how people with ring lights and relatable feelings become political thought leaders. (How the fuck else can one explain Theo Von having millions of followers?)

We don't want good information anymore. We want someone who makes us feel heard and seen.

Parasocial Politics

It’s not just about influencers and skincare routines. It's also about political discourse. We now follow pundits the way we used to follow bands. They have fandoms. Beefs. Merch. Lore.

2024 saw the rise of Parasocial Politics. Trump didn't do a lot of interviews on policy with MSM journalists. He shot the shit with bro podcast influencers. They helped Trump get votes, and he returned the favor (ever transactional) by inviting influencers into the White House.

Debates often aren't debates anymore - they’re turf wars. You're not just disagreeing with a perspective or an opinion, you're attacking someone’s internet chosen family member. 

Did you see how many people needed to take sides over Douglas Murray's appearance on Joe Rogan's show?

That's why criticizing Elon Musk, Chappell Roan, Jordan Peterson, or Hasan Piker online feels perilous. Their followers aren't just fans. They're emotionally bonded. You're not merely wrong, in their view - you’re a threat to someone they love.

When identity and ideology get parasocially fused, people will defend a belief not because it's right, but because their digital chosen family member (who doesn't know they exist) believes it.

Vibes > Facts

Truth used to be about evidence. Now it’s about vibes. Welcome to the epistemic hellscape where:

"That doesn’t feel right" > "That is verifiably correct"

"He seems genuine" > "He cited a source"

"She gets it" > "She has a degree in it"

Call it emotional resonance, emotional realism or vibe epistemology, but the result is the same - a society where public consensus is based not on shared facts but on shared feelings.

Remember when public health was guided by epidemiologists? Now many people get their health advice from whatever talking head on YouTube seems aesthetically pleasant and relatable.

This is why there isn't more widespread panic over an absolute crackpot like RFK Jr running US health agencies. It's been normalized to discard expertise.

Trust him, bro. He works out and stuff and the brainworm is dead now, so he's all good...!

Why This Makes Public Discourse Unbearable

Good faith arguments are increasingly rare: You’re not challenging ideas, you’re insulting someone’s digital soulmate.

Criticism becomes betrayal: Calling out a creator’s bad behavior becomes a moral offense.

Debate becomes drama: Instead of changing minds, we’re trying to win comment-section custody battles.

People say "we need to talk to each other again," but we often can't, because we're often not talking to each other - we’re too often talking through our parasocial avatars who are louder, more dramatic, and less reasonable than the real us because that's what drives engagement and makes the algorithm go brrr.

How many times do you encounter someone who can't promote or defend their view except by insisting you watch this YouTube video and educate yourself?

What Can We Do About It?

We don't need to avoid all parasocial bonds, but we do need to expand our media literacy to include being parasocially aware.

Ask Yourself: Do I Feel Like I Know This Person? ...because you don’t. You know their content. That’s different. Remember that you're not engaging with a person, but a media product.

Separate Vibes from Truth Just because someone is relatable doesn’t mean they’re right. Love with your heart - but use your head for everything else. Be skeptical, be cynical, and accept no 'facts' you haven't verified.

Remember the Algorithm Feeds You Your Own Reflection Although it may feel like it, that’s not validation - it's manipulation. Don't let it make decisions for you, don't mistake feelings of validation for a solid argument. Use tracking blockers, use VPN, don't log in to use YouTube, whatever- but stop using the For You Page (which is pushed on all social platforms) as your go-to for anything, not even for boredom relief.

Let People Be Wrong Without Making It a War or Personal If your fave (or anyone else) says something dumb, it’s okay. You can keep watching and still think critically. (I still like much of John Green's work, despite having issues with his video on Judaism.)

Diversify Your Feeds If everyone you follow makes you feel emotionally safe, you're likely in a digital echo chamber with throw pillows and padded walls - and that's awful for your mind. Start following smart, intellectually honest people you disagree with. If you get nothing else out of it, you'll train yourself to think critically while disagreeing with them - and you might discover a good point you haven't considered or common ground you hadn't been aware of. Stop regarding anyone with views counter to yours as evil, stupid, or driven by hateful intent. There are people who disagree with you who are smart, intellectually honest, decent people. Engage with them in good faith.

In a world where everyone is a brand and every argument is a fandom war, the only way forward is to get smarter about the people we let live in our heads rent-free.

Above all else, remember that relatability is not trustworthiness.

Stay skeptical, stay curious, ask every question which comes to mind, and maybe call your irl friends more often to touch some grass together.

About the Author: @Unsolicited-Opinions thinks too much about internet culture, media ecology, media literacy, and how brainrot seems to be accelerating. He is probably not your friend, even if you like everything he posts and seems like a good dude on Tumblr. (He is, however, grateful that you actually read this far.)

[suliqyre]

No one is going to convince you of anything by giving you an argument for it. You might discover you're wrong about something, but it'll happen on your own schedule. It'll happen because you're skeptical of your own beliefs, you ask yourself questions, and you're open to changing your mind. It feels good when you realize a belief you thought was true is actually false. It feels good because it means you're now a bit closer to the truth.

Read more...

[isitcorrect]

So the right-wing press is currently in meltdown about Queen being cancelled, they're cancelling Queen you guys. Those woke Millennials and Gen Z made them remove "Fat Bottomed Girls" from their Greatest Hits album.

So is this true? Erm, no. What blog do you think this is.

There's a bit of deception in the headline here, which is of course all most people read. "Fat Bottomed Girls cut from Queen's greatest hits to appease younger audience". But if you go on Spotify right now, you'll find several versions of it, still uncancelled and listenable. So what gives?

Well, by "to appease younger audience" they don't mean Millennials or Gen Z. They mean much younger. See, the song was only removed...on a platform for literal children.

Specifically, children 3-12. We're not talking about Millennials (whose youngest members are in their twenties, by the way) being sensitive here, we're talking about eight year olds. Now, whether "Fat Bottomed Girls" is inappropriate for children or not is a discussion you can have, but it's a discussion no one is having, because they're reading a misleading headline designed as right-wing outrage bait, and talking about it as if the song has been banned for everyone, and not been left off one niche music service for grade schoolers. What a sweet life these people lead, you don't have to read anything when you can just get mad over a headline and decide it's the result of whichever group you hate the most

Anyway you can still listen to any Queen song you like, provided you aren't getting your music from one specific website for children

[starryoak]

As someone raised by atheists and only exposed to Christianity through stuff like Veggietales, to this day I still can’t intellectually wrap my mind about a genuine belief in religion, as in actually believing any of that shit actually happened. Like. Literally all of the major events described in almost every religion is stuff that factually cannot have happened if you understand almost any science or even just the fact that nothing like that ever has any evidence it can happen now. And people just. Politely ignore that fact? Like I understand that to a lot of people religion is about community and rituals and not so much the actual texts, but like. The fact that magic isn’t real is entirely undeniable. Most everything in the holy texts of most major religions is stuff that we know from how science works doesn’t exist and can’t have happened. And that for some reason doesn’t bother people? They just. Believe in it anyway? I can’t understand that perspective. To me, something being true is actually important, and the fact that religions say that things that aren’t real exist says that they aren’t reliable sources for basing my understanding of the world on. Again, I understand that most people don’t think about that, that religion is primarily about social cohesion and tradition and rituals and not about whether it’s literally true or not. But that perspective is just incredibly alien to me. It’s just weird, that most people can apparently just. Politely ignore that science has completely invalidated nearly everything religion says is true, and still for some reason believe in it anyway.

[nofatclips-home]

Why nobody told me about Captain Disillusion?!?

[philosophybits]

In every generation most people, even among those who are said to dabble in thought (professors and the like), live and die in the illusion that there is, and if it were granted them to live longer, would persist, a continued straightforward ascent of increasing comprehension. How many experience at all the maturity of discovering that there comes a critical point where it turns the other way, and from then on it is a matter of an increasing grasp of the fact that there is something one cannot grasp.

Søren Kierkegaard, Journals and Papers