Consensus not censorship
IT&#x27;S A TRAP! Seriously. I love the intent here. But in my view the whole premise is epistemologically wrong. (A word I&#x27;m almost educated enough to use.)<p>Truth by consensus is logical but not the point to which we have evolved. Here it seems like a retreat from our capacity into a pragmatic defensive stance. This is all we can manage.<p>This is essentially the Overton Window. Truth as managed by mainstream sensibility. And the mainstream is primarily a point of view that does not question our industrial imperialism. Things that subtract a lot from growth are not included.<p>And there is the potential disaster. Large parts of our history do not match our mainstream perception of national character at all. In fact, the mainstream view is one of intentional avoidance of facts. Dissent has never been mainstream. The forces of social change are not supported by the majority.<p>Example: The Overton Window does not include Chris Hedges. In fact, it doesn&#x27;t really include any of the real investigative journalists or honest historians of our time. The most curious and informed people we should be promoting are too subversive to be mainstream. And so they will not be included in a truth consensus.<p>What then is that &#x27;consensus&#x27; if it&#x27;s too shallow to feature its experts?<p>Something like that. Sunday morning shouting into the void.