A sad casualty of the information age has been the general dumbing down of arguments made by people, especially on the internet dot com In days past, those who were motivated could read and craft arguments from such sources, with few SparkNotes, 5-minute histories, or other shortcuts available. Less-informed folks might mouth off in a tavern debate, but they had to conjure up wild claims without the generous assistance of a search engine. Faking it took some effort, despite the imperfections.
Today we sense a different horizon. Every Jermaine, Reese, and Zephyr can simply pop a question into Google, hit the search button, and copy-paste a hyperlink purporting to back their claims – even if it comes from the likes of Quora, Yahoo Answers, or perhaps “Ask Jeeves,” if the latter even exists. There’s no prerogative to read the actual body text or explore citations, because what supports them MUST be accurate and beyond reproach.
On the surface level this dynamic is not so problematic, yet it renders a larger-than-life proportion of the national population quite confident in their own opinions, no matter how incomplete those thoughts might be. The internet’s affordance of little introspection for their purposes means those fragile links serve to enhance the ego, and assure a diminished likelihood of further investigation of the material. After all, with that argument remanded to the “settled science” cranial bin, what more is needed?
Perhaps a great deal. Unfortunately, the people who bother to distill petty emotions and look at raw information are left victims of fellow internet people and their mindless bloviation. Since the former group tends to be humbler and more patient, discussions typically end with their voice being drowned out by a million smug cries from the effectively illiterate. Ambition to change the norm shatters upon a weathered hill where the shallow brains defecate pure dopamine satisfaction, while always thirsting for more.
In the interest of not becoming one of these said gremlins, it is imperative to be illiberal with the surrender of your mind. Before wading into a debate, pause to consider how thoroughly the concept has been understood. Failing to do so can result in a situation where bluster and invented facts are necessary to remain credible, methods avoidable when adequate preparation is undertaken. Sure, the appeal is significantly less wonderful, but at least time is not wasted by lowering ethical standards merely to survive.
Just a (measured and researched) thought.
ECONOMIC COMMANDER 
Hi Mr. Goldberg, not sure how other people have done requests, but I saw your video on nationalism, and I was curious what your thoughts on globalization were? I have colleagues who endlessly argue that globalization is a good thing with little to no negatives for everyone, but I have argued that while globalization has its benefits, it has been a disaster for the the average citizen in the US. I argue that globalization only works for the people of a nation when the corporations are expected to work not only to thrive in an international market, but to work with the interests of their nation of origin and the people of said nation.
They argue that the standard of living has never been higher in the US, which on a technological level is true, but I argue that the current standard of living has been increasingly supplemented by debt rather than increased purchasing power, which itself has remained largely stagnant (a trend that they tend to ignore by claiming that wages have “naturally increased over the years”). They argue that moving away from lower skilled, decent paying manufacturing jobs is not a problem and use the lump of labor fallacy to justify the move. They also argue the average American isn’t willing to do manufacturing jobs or Agricultural jobs (which I think is a completely unproven and anecdotal claim). While the possible number of jobs are endless in theory, I find it ignorant to suggest that all of those jobs are going to be well-paying, when corporations have no incentive nor national obligation to actually provide decent paying jobs in the US.
Basically, I believe my colleagues fail to see beyond the basic economic models and theories, only seeing the economy as a whole rather than analyzing the economic prospects of the average citizen. I would really like to hear your thoughts, especially on globalization and whether nationalism (or lack thereof) by corporations plays a role in the economic prosperity of the average citizen.
LikeLike