Today I learned

7850 readers

1 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

sonder@lemmy.ml

139

TIL that Gwyneth Paltrow is not just a harmless grifter (arstechnica.com)

submitted 6 months ago by sgibson5150@slrpnk.net to c/todayilearned@lemmy.ml

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I never went as far as to defend Gwyneth Paltrow, but after her Hot Ones appearance I created a post (which I will link in the comments) where I suggested that she's done no more harm than male grifters and that the dislike of her as a person was primarily due to misogyny. That's before I learned about her promotion of these unproven "vampire facials". Now an unlicensed clinic performing this procedure has given at least three women HIV. You guys were right and I was wrong.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sgibson5150@slrpnk.net 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This is rather uncharitable of you. I hear all the time that the problem with online social interactions is that people won't admit when they're wrong and frequently "double down". I'm here with an apology and a correction, and you find this unsatisfactory?

[–] classic@fedia.io 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

An apology, if sincere, is not dependent on the reaction of others

edit: at the same time, in the spirit of promoting a healthy behavior, others here, including me, could have phrased our content in more charitable ways. This commenter does have a point; but tweaking it might have changed the tone in a positive way, for example. Maybe this is a big deal for you to post! Why not receive it in a way that will encourage more of a desirable quality? Afa where to post this, an edit to your original post would seem like a more appropriate place. That's where the conversation and "error" occurred.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

My critique is of your process, not your result. And, my thesis is that in the long term, developing and refining your how is actually more important than coming to a correct conclusion.

If you just are told what a correct conclusion is and you don't understand why, and can't even evaluate the validity of why, then you're you're just surrendering yourself to group think. This is how people get MAGA-ized or Jordan Peterson-ized and how they can't get out.

Hypothetically, let's say someone was staunchly pro-Israel, and NOTHING they were doing made you want to be critical of actions by them.

And then say that suddenly they changed their mind. Not because of the genocide they're perpetrating against the Palestinians, but instead because MTG was going off about "Jewish space lasers". Ok, sure, maybe it's "good" that interests have coincidentally aligned, but you're still not really a rational agent, and I can't really trust you to make ethical evaluations because your process is nonsensical.

It's more important to me, and for your role as a member of a functional society to be able to critically evaluate information than it is for you to simply "land" on a good conclusion by what is essentially random chance.

I do recognize it's difficult to admit that you've changed your mind. I am sorry, I do commend you for it. I even respect you for it.

Consider this just a call to action that I sincerely believe that you can improve your ability to self-assess and evaluate information critically and logically. Without someone explaining the weakness in your decision making process, you'd be missing an opportunity to consider and reevaluate your own processes.