Let’s insulate ourselves from the delusional masses by forming coalitions
How to start: Email me your core beliefs ( though I personally prefer a voice chat with on Skype, google hangouts etc.), especially the beliefs where you think you differ fundamentally from the vast majority of people. I will quiz you on various subjects ( and so can you) to see if our beliefs align. Overall my beliefs can be loosely labeled as: generally anarchist (i.e a live and let live approach), generally anti-authoritarian ( meaning I believe govt/authorities do not protect your interests), largely capitalist( i.e vehemently opposed to coercive co-operation, put forth by typical socialism) etc. Perhaps at the bare minimum we have to share a meta belief that it is necessary to reach out and cooperate with other like minded individuals as it is virtually impossible to 'de-delude' the idiotic masses though arguments/dialogs etc. My email address can be found on my profile. In my profile you will also find a link to some webpages that outline my beliefs.
After this step, if we think our beliefs align, I will add you to an an online forum ( zero people as of now) , where you can interact with other people that I will be screening.
Caveats:
-It often takes a very long time ( months to years) to form mutually beneficial alliances. ( more so when individuals are geographically isolated from each other.) This is not a quick fix for your immediate problems, or for people without perseverance.
-The online forum is not to rant against the world, or a place to discuss your core beliefs. This is more of a place for doers not ivory tower thinkers.
It’s really hard to for me to believe that someone else is not doing this ( i.e what I’m attempting in this post) already somewhere. Let me know if you are aware of similar efforts, I would be eager to join.
8 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 29.4 ms ] threadJust saying, there are loads of people who could be included in those masses who can start up a thread like this.
Not trying to be an ass here, but what would the screening process entail? Will it only be you who does the screening? Why would that be more advantageous than a screening overseen by a group of people?
What core advantages would joining this group bring to its members that can't be acheived through careful social network screening and common sense?
Great idea, though.
The advantage here is more to do with the number of individuals. You are correct I do the exact same thing (through careful social network screening and common sense,) but that is limited to my known social circle. Here I'm doing it with total strangers. As to the specific advantage - well it's too generic and huge a topic. Essentially it's the 'advantage' of dealing with level headed people. ( to give a concrete example I have lend money to someone who could not have normally borrowed that amount from a bank).
One example would be questions on the financial decision that you have taken. If you have blown up your savings on your marriage ,it is a red flag. If you are deep in dept because you cannot resist the urge to splurge after you get your salary, that is a red flag.
>Will it only be you who does the screening? Why would that be more advantageous than a screening overseen by a group of people?
To start off it is just me who will screen( because, I got to start somewhere .) Later others can do it. The process is not fundamentally different that interviewing candidates for a startup.
You've mentioned quite a few cliched tropes, which I'm sure you can already find many suitable echo chambers for. I find it interesting that you consider that such groups do not already exist, considering the current rise in right-wing, pro-extreme capitalism and anti-intellectual movements across the globe. I worry that you think they are too much talk and not enough action, as many a wrong action has started with that thinking.
I would suggest you do the opposite of what you intend: have more in-depth and open discussions with people who do not share the same core beliefs as you. Not arguments, shouting matches or meaningless online factoid swaps, but open discussions where you invite in and really ponder different opinions. Accept that pretty much everything is more complicated than it first appears and all an echo chamber will do is reduce thinking and reduce the essential nuance of viewpoints.
In all seriousness, I challenge the coherence cohesiveness and tensile integrity of your stated principles. They are self-contradictory in nature, don't appear to be particularly well thought out, and represent a rather common caricature of Silicon Valley and American ideology in which one wants ones cake but also wishes to eat ones cake.