Didn’t know where to post this, so hopefully this is the right spot. Please boycott Brave. I’ve recently learned that not only is their CEO bad, but their fanbase is toxic, too. I will no longer be using Brave for that reason.
Didn’t know where to post this, so hopefully this is the right spot. Please boycott Brave. I’ve recently learned that not only is their CEO bad, but their fanbase is toxic, too. I will no longer be using Brave for that reason.
You seem to be inserting emotional reasons into your arguments why Brave shouldn’t be used. I’m not convinced. That being said I don’t use Brave because the business model is not sustainable in my opinion and if scaled gives too much control into the hands of one company. If Google adopted the same policy for its browser it would be investigated for anti-trust monopoly practices in a heartbeat. You can’t have a single company controlling all ads in a browser. Even Google doesn’t do this.
What’s the problem with emotions though? Do you believe emotion can be easily separated from most statements? Isn’t one of the main problems with tech in our times that it’s manipulating emotions? A sense of invasion that prompts a need for privacy does not involve emotion? A sense of justice for user freedom does not involve emotion? Emotions are pervasive and subtle, this trend of preferring the emotionless option over the one that shows emotion weirds me. Someone who feels targeted by a homophobe feeling ‘emotional’ about it seems more than valid to me, and calling it emotional in a dismissive way is like saying that emotion is not valid/important.
The problems is that your emotions are different than my emotions so we try as a society to separate emotions when making decisions that affect everyone. It’s actually part of the basis of the scientific method.
That would be true if such “society” was ruled according to the scientific method. I agree with your premise, what I’m trying to point out is that those who actually make the calls can and will often act on emotions, and use the emotions of the population against it. They have no regard for our emotions being different. It’ s not “we” who try to separate emotions, it’s those we are in power of making that separation, and they separate not according to the scientific method but according to socio-economical interest.
Or you can see it differently.
Scientific methods showed that appealing to the general instead of the particular is more widely accepted as argument in our societies.
Eg : boltanski & thevenot “de la justification”
What are “our” societies? I live in one dominated by fundamentalist Christians.
Well I’m Belgian and the book in refer to is about France.
I’m sure it can be generalised. But I don’t have any references.