@sheldonrampton.bsky.social
Apathy is actually a reasonable response. People get a lot of information shoveled at them, some of it from very partisan sources, and if you're someone with a busy job or family responsibilities and don't have time to form an informed opinion, it's natural to just say, "I don't know."
January 13, 2026 at 6:20 PM
Apathy is actually a reasonable response. People get a lot of information shoveled at them, some of it from very partisan sources, and if you're someone with a busy job or family responsibilities and don't have time to form an informed opinion, it's natural to just say, "I don't know."
I'd read them, but I'm too busy annotating every frame from every episode of Pluribus.
January 10, 2026 at 5:04 PM
I'd read them, but I'm too busy annotating every frame from every episode of Pluribus.
What I'm doing right now personally is showing up to volunteer with the Democratic Party as much as I can, not because I think Dems are perfect but because the best way to stop Trump/MAGA from consolidating power and truly destroying democracy is to claw back the House and Senate from GOP control.
January 10, 2026 at 3:38 AM
What I'm doing right now personally is showing up to volunteer with the Democratic Party as much as I can, not because I think Dems are perfect but because the best way to stop Trump/MAGA from consolidating power and truly destroying democracy is to claw back the House and Senate from GOP control.
Calling Nixon a liberal is as "presentist" as it gets. No one saw him as a liberal while he was in office. Some of his policies might be seen as liberal today, but they were seen as conservative at the time. His conservative creds were the reason why "only Nixon could go to China."
January 8, 2026 at 5:00 AM
Calling Nixon a liberal is as "presentist" as it gets. No one saw him as a liberal while he was in office. Some of his policies might be seen as liberal today, but they were seen as conservative at the time. His conservative creds were the reason why "only Nixon could go to China."
It this was an episode of Law & Order, the plot twist would be that you and the mugger faked the robbery to collect the insurance money, but then they'd find the memory card with a photo of you and the mugger hugging. Close with Jack McCoy's ironic comment that the shooter got shot with your camera.
January 6, 2026 at 4:37 PM
It this was an episode of Law & Order, the plot twist would be that you and the mugger faked the robbery to collect the insurance money, but then they'd find the memory card with a photo of you and the mugger hugging. Close with Jack McCoy's ironic comment that the shooter got shot with your camera.
Don't tell me what to do.
January 6, 2026 at 2:53 PM
Don't tell me what to do.
There's a psychiatrist named Jonathan Shedler who wrote a pretty good analysis that explains behavior on both Twitter and Bluesky:
x.com/JonathanShed...
It happens across the political spectrum. I wrote my own blog post and expanded a bit on Shedler's insight:
strongsilenttype.net/2025/12/06/b...
x.com/JonathanShed...
It happens across the political spectrum. I wrote my own blog post and expanded a bit on Shedler's insight:
strongsilenttype.net/2025/12/06/b...
Jonathan Shedler on X: "1/ One of most important things I've learned: Severe personality problems find *camouflage.* No one thinks “I’m a sadist” or “I'm a malignant narcissist.” They find a belief system/social group that validates their most hateful, destructive impulses & construes them as virtues." / X
1/ One of most important things I've learned: Severe personality problems find *camouflage.* No one thinks “I’m a sadist” or “I'm a malignant narcissist.” They find a belief system/social group that validates their most hateful, destructive impulses & construes them as virtues.
x.com
January 6, 2026 at 6:22 AM
There's a psychiatrist named Jonathan Shedler who wrote a pretty good analysis that explains behavior on both Twitter and Bluesky:
x.com/JonathanShed...
It happens across the political spectrum. I wrote my own blog post and expanded a bit on Shedler's insight:
strongsilenttype.net/2025/12/06/b...
x.com/JonathanShed...
It happens across the political spectrum. I wrote my own blog post and expanded a bit on Shedler's insight:
strongsilenttype.net/2025/12/06/b...
Thanks for sharing this. Why do you think single payer systems have worked in Europe and elsewhere but not in the US? Is it simply that they adopted their systems earlier? I know their systems are imperfect too, but for the most part they work and contain costs better than in the US.
December 31, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Thanks for sharing this. Why do you think single payer systems have worked in Europe and elsewhere but not in the US? Is it simply that they adopted their systems earlier? I know their systems are imperfect too, but for the most part they work and contain costs better than in the US.
I met Charo once.
December 30, 2025 at 2:42 AM
I met Charo once.
The reason you're insulting my intelligence is because you're childish and obnoxious and can't think of any other way to communicate.
December 30, 2025 at 1:46 AM
The reason you're insulting my intelligence is because you're childish and obnoxious and can't think of any other way to communicate.
Oh, so you think Nancy Pelosi should just throw Trump in jail? Well, why didn't I ever think of that? If that's the caliber or your intellect, you should stop insulting mine.
December 30, 2025 at 1:36 AM
Oh, so you think Nancy Pelosi should just throw Trump in jail? Well, why didn't I ever think of that? If that's the caliber or your intellect, you should stop insulting mine.
Politics is not hanging doors. For your analogy to be even plausible, you would have to have some examples of people you think have done a great job and succeeded at "optimally resisting Trump." Otherwise, you're just fantasizing about some ideal world that you have no idea how to create.
December 29, 2025 at 10:53 PM
Politics is not hanging doors. For your analogy to be even plausible, you would have to have some examples of people you think have done a great job and succeeded at "optimally resisting Trump." Otherwise, you're just fantasizing about some ideal world that you have no idea how to create.
This is like me saying, "Carlos Alcaraz needs to listen to my advice about how to play tennis. He has no idea how to play the game." The reality is that you have no idea what the challenges are at their level.
December 29, 2025 at 8:28 PM
This is like me saying, "Carlos Alcaraz needs to listen to my advice about how to play tennis. He has no idea how to play the game." The reality is that you have no idea what the challenges are at their level.
You calling Pelosi "genuinely awful at this" is a bit odd. She's won elective office and the Speaker's chair for decades, with a long history of legislative accomplishments. Have you ever won any election? Maybe you should read her book and try to learn from her instead of carping from Bluesky.
December 29, 2025 at 2:47 AM
You calling Pelosi "genuinely awful at this" is a bit odd. She's won elective office and the Speaker's chair for decades, with a long history of legislative accomplishments. Have you ever won any election? Maybe you should read her book and try to learn from her instead of carping from Bluesky.
I think it was the Civil War that radicalized McVeigh.
December 28, 2025 at 6:16 AM
I think it was the Civil War that radicalized McVeigh.
The "hive mind" reminds me a bit of ChatGPT and some of the things you said about Wikipedia in "The Death of Expertise." And maybe you remind me a bit of Carol Sturka.
December 24, 2025 at 5:36 PM
The "hive mind" reminds me a bit of ChatGPT and some of the things you said about Wikipedia in "The Death of Expertise." And maybe you remind me a bit of Carol Sturka.
I assume you're still not bothering to watch. FWIW, the last two episodes really had a lot going on. Gilligan is building a complex, very original sci-fi world. I can understand why you found the slow buildup frustrating, but I'm starting to really enjoy it, mostly for the ideas he's exploring.
December 24, 2025 at 5:30 PM
I assume you're still not bothering to watch. FWIW, the last two episodes really had a lot going on. Gilligan is building a complex, very original sci-fi world. I can understand why you found the slow buildup frustrating, but I'm starting to really enjoy it, mostly for the ideas he's exploring.
In short: Without ChatGPT, I'd never have been able to solve my "mystery," but ChatGPT would not have been able to solve it without my active guidance and follow-up. In my case, the relationship between human and machine "intelligence" was symbiotic. Neither was "superior."
/4x
/4x
December 24, 2025 at 5:13 PM
In short: Without ChatGPT, I'd never have been able to solve my "mystery," but ChatGPT would not have been able to solve it without my active guidance and follow-up. In my case, the relationship between human and machine "intelligence" was symbiotic. Neither was "superior."
/4x
/4x
It took several prompts, and ChatGPT gave me a couple of wrong answers before I finally remembered a detail -- the first name of a son who was injured but survived the attack. With that detail, ChatGPT did several searches and finally found the information in an old newspaper archive.
/3
/3
December 24, 2025 at 5:09 PM
It took several prompts, and ChatGPT gave me a couple of wrong answers before I finally remembered a detail -- the first name of a son who was injured but survived the attack. With that detail, ChatGPT did several searches and finally found the information in an old newspaper archive.
/3
/3
I recently used ChatGPT to "solve" a different "mystery" -- the name of the killer in a homicide case that I reported on when I was a newspaper reporter several decades ago. I'd forgotten his name, and Google searches couldn't find it. (It was a fairly obscure case.) So I asked ChatGPT.
/2
/2
December 24, 2025 at 5:06 PM
I recently used ChatGPT to "solve" a different "mystery" -- the name of the killer in a homicide case that I reported on when I was a newspaper reporter several decades ago. I'd forgotten his name, and Google searches couldn't find it. (It was a fairly obscure case.) So I asked ChatGPT.
/2
/2
It's a dumb article. The "mystery" is who paid for construction of an 800-year-old church, which the author was able to deduce after much effort but ChatGPT couldn't. He argues that this demonstrates the superiority of human intelligence. Maybe figuring out this "mystery" wasn't worth the effort.
/1
/1
December 24, 2025 at 5:04 PM
It's a dumb article. The "mystery" is who paid for construction of an 800-year-old church, which the author was able to deduce after much effort but ChatGPT couldn't. He argues that this demonstrates the superiority of human intelligence. Maybe figuring out this "mystery" wasn't worth the effort.
/1
/1
Some studies suggest that intelligent people like Pauling are more likely to dogmatically defend erroneous beliefs. This happens because (1) They're aware of their own intelligence and thus overconfident, and (2) They're skilled at rationalizing and defending their ideas, even when they're wrong.
December 21, 2025 at 5:37 PM
Some studies suggest that intelligent people like Pauling are more likely to dogmatically defend erroneous beliefs. This happens because (1) They're aware of their own intelligence and thus overconfident, and (2) They're skilled at rationalizing and defending their ideas, even when they're wrong.
There's nothing to stop you from picking it up again down the road if you so choose, but right now I think you just need a little space.
December 21, 2025 at 6:10 AM
There's nothing to stop you from picking it up again down the road if you so choose, but right now I think you just need a little space.