141
TIL that Gwyneth Paltrow is not just a harmless grifter
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
141 points (84.4% liked)
Today I learned
7585 readers
1 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
So you were able to gloss over all of the actual scummy things she does for personal benefit...
And the one thing that changed your mind is something that had NOTHING to do with her?
It wasn't her procedure. It wasn't her spa. She has nothing to do with this.
This is like if I say "cycling is great, you should do it" (I like this facial), and then instead of buying a bike from a bike shop (licensed spa), you buy it from a shady bike thief (unlicensed spa with no records leaving unsealed blood laying around). And then it turns out the bike was stolen from a drug lords kid (HIV positive blood from unknown source). So when they see you riding it they shoot you (gets HIV).
There are many, many people at fault in a scenario like this. But, unbelievably, in THIS scenario Gwyneth actually isn't one of them.
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?
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.
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.