It would be a lot easier for statists if humans were merely cogs to plug into machines to advance the state, and spent all their free time at home doing nothing.
I've disengaged from the news since shortly after COVID started so I had to DuckDuckGo what you meant. I see a 38 minute interview on YouTube that I could watch, but unless in it he announces his support for abolishing the police or canceling American history, I doubt it would change anything.
The reaction to his election traumatized me. For the first time in my life I felt like a foreigner in my own country.
I disagree with most of his policy positions. His tax cut was too small, his insistence on opening the public schools is baffling to me given how the public school system manufactures his opposition. He was never able to build the wall, although I expected that. Ultimately I can work with my disagreements with him and the right more broadly. There is room for compromise there.
But watching the left since 2016 and especially recently after the death of George Floyd, policy matters don't concern me much anymore. I'm afraid of the left. I feel intimidated by their vast cultural and social power. And I'm going to vote for someone that unapologetically opposes them.
I know that doesn't really answer your question as you asked it. But there it is anyway.
Not just murdered. He held his knee on a mans neck for eight minutes and forty six seconds! He held it on there for minutes after he became unconscious and other people yelled at him to stop! There is no excuse.
What I've noticed about your reply is that you didn't actually mention a policy achievement but a reaction to a perceived change in the country. It doesn't sound like your life is better. It sounds like you're worried about dramatic change even though the last four years has been tumultuous.
If that's the case, why do you want to vote for four more years of that?
More questions:
Why are you afraid of the left? What outcomes are you afraid of in particular?
The Trump administration has deployed federal forces to states that have not requested asked for any help. Do you believe this is necessary? And if so, why? Do you worry what precedents this sets for the left should Democrats take the Senate and White House?
What do you think about DeJoy's decision to functionally slow the speed of the Post Office?
How do you find Trump's handling of the coronavirus in comparison to leaders in Europe and Asia?
How do you think four more years of Trump will improve your life?
"Media coverage of the nation’s standing would change dramatically after a Biden victory, even if the reality does not. Mr. Biden promises increased federal coronavirus spending, but as president he couldn’t override governors’ authority to restrict economic activity, and he doesn’t propose to alter Mr. Trump’s program to accelerate vaccine and treatment development. With Mr. Trump embracing masks and trillions in federal spending, and high case totals in blue California and red Florida alike, a Biden victory wouldn’t change the epidemic’s trajectory. Yet, as the media hailed Gov. Andrew Cuomo despite his disastrous policy of transferring coronavirus patients into nursing homes and New York’s record high deaths, Mr. Biden’s election would also miraculously transform the virus from an existential threat into a manageable hindrance."
I'll bite! You get a screed! I'll address every question you raised...
> If that's the case, why do you want to vote for four more years of that?
Tumultuous does not imply worse. A high variance process can have zero mean.
> Why are you afraid of the left?
The Constitution was designed to handle an attack by disperse interests. It was not designed to handle a coordinated assault on the executive and the simultaneous watering down of the judiciary (e.g. court packing). Ten years ago I could say stupid things in public without being afraid for my livelihood. Now, I worry when I will cancelled for speaking aloud what I believe will help my fellow citizens. This is wrong and wholly attributable to the left. I can say progressive things around right-leaning friends. I dare not more than suggest non-orthodoxy around my left-leaning ones.
> What outcomes are you afraid of in particular?
That the notion of equality under the law is lost for the notion of absolute equality (i.e. interpreting the Declaration's "created equal" for instantaneous equality as defined by the mob du jour). That an increasing number of my personally earned dollars will be confiscated to support ends with which I disagree. For example, the Fed has no business addressing inequality as suggested by the Biden platform. Those poor bastards have enough trouble with monetary policy as we've agreed upon it for the past several decades.
> The Trump administration has deployed federal forces to states that have not requested asked for any help. Do you believe this is necessary?
Yes.
> And if so, why?
By what right does a state government decide to allow the destruction of Federal property? The Federal government serves the interests of the other 49 states when it shows up in 1 to address civil disorder. Did the other 49 states all say that they wanted the Federal government to turn a blind eye? We're all in this nation together.
> Do you worry what precedents this sets for the left should Democrats take the Senate and White House?
Absolutely. All unconstitutional concentrations of power in the legislative, executive, or the judiciary undermine the the dispersion of power aimed for by the Founders. Prior to Trump, Obama had a field day with executive actions. Both should be hung out to dry for what they did. Both allowed the legislators to avoid hard choices and instead ruled by dictat. When the executive steps in, it allows the legislative to skirt their jobs. We elect those asshats to make choices, not point fingers and make speeches.
> What do you think about DeJoy's decision to functionally slow the speed of the Post Office?
The legislative branch can do what it wants to the USPS. Let the legislative branch sort it out. In particular, if the House is unhappy let the House put forward legislation in the manner that Congress should pass all laws as set forth under the Constitution. Let the elected members of the Senate suffer the brunt of their constituents if those constituents do not like how the Senate votes on the House's proposal. It's a great system so rely on it.
> How do you find Trump's handling of the coronavirus in comparison to leaders in Europe and Asia?
See the peer comment. Generally, fine as evidenced by https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat.... There is a lot of fearmongering and virtue-signaling baked into the Covid response commentary. I believe kneecapping the economy in the short term is the wrong choice in the long term.
> How do you think four more years of Trump will improve your life?
The past four years has improved my quality of life vs what I suspect would have been the alternative. The economy was humming (humming!) prior to Covid appearing. Imagine the current economic situation had unemployment been even what Obama left when he exited office. Most of my improvements have been because, as a generally free economic agent, I have invested in myself instead of asking for a third party to hand me things.
The Trump tax cuts have been beneficial to many, and the capping of SALT deductions ensures that some states do not soak the country instead of soaking their own inhabitants when they raise rates.
Just today, De Vos made considerable headway to stop "Dear Colleague" on campus, Iran/Venezuela were taken to task for skirting sanctions, and Israel/UAE announced diplomatic breakthroughs unexpected even a year prior.
As for going forward for four more years, the Constitution was designed to deal with a useless President. Four more years of a high-noise status quo is far less dangerous to America than a coordinated attempt to cast aside what's been inherited and to replace it with a bunch of Bernie/A.O.C. wish lists. Hillary lost because she was too damn conniving in many moderate's eyes. People simply forget how much they owe to the ideas of their forebearers-- the modern world is a consequence of the competition of many competing interests. When we subject the world to the designs of bureaucrats we lose the power of the free market, the greatest force for good that humanity has ever known.
> You didn't ask it but...
...the world isn't as f*cked as reading the New York Times or the Washington Post would have one think. It also certainly isn't as rosy as the WSJ opinion pages would suggest. But, consider, a pandemic is upon us and somehow the social order is not unraveling. We're discussing how, not if, to educate the children. People still plan for decades hence. Private property rights are upheld. Invaders are not on the door step. Pretty much the only thing up for grabs is if the left is going to deep six you for having dared to breathe unorthodox thoughts aloud. They sure do love to destroy their own, no?
I'm afraid that the history of my country will be permanently revised and that my children will learn the revised version instead of the patriotic one. I fear I'll have to correct everything they learn about history and language.
I'm afraid that the public school system and the universities will convert my children from happy and productive citizens into angry activists.
I'm afraid that a portion of most products I buy will wind up supporting causes that are detrimental to my own interests, as the left has somehow gained control of the board rooms of major corporations.
I live in a dark blue state under lockdown and I fear we'll never truly be freed from it. I worry that the left will once again dispatch extremists to my neighborhood because of some unpredictable future event that sets them off.
I believe the left hates men, boys, white Americans, and Christians. I'm most of those things and you couldn't induce me to vote for a Democrat even if you paid me FIRE money right now.
I know that only answers your first question. I don't know who DeJoy is. I don't care about the post office. And I don't care about his response to the virus. In my opinion, the government has no role to play in virus handling.
I don't support the president because of his polices. I support him because he opposes the left. The only thing he could do to lose my support is to cave into them.
>But watching the left since 2016 and especially recently after the death of George Floyd, policy matters don't concern me much anymore. I'm afraid of the left. I feel intimidated by their vast cultural and social power. And I'm going to vote for someone that unapologetically opposes them.
I suspect that rioters burning half of Minneapolis down won Minnesota for Trump, after coming within 1.5% of winning the state in 2016. (Yes, the only state that voted for Mondale in 1984.) If he wins all other states he won in 2016, Trump only has to win one of Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for reelection. Look at how close polls are there already (https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/minnesota-2020-... let's see how things look in another month or two, when people are less afraid of being called a racist for vocalizing dislike of violent "protests", even to a pollster.
Don't count out other states, like Oregon and Washington, that saw and are seeing continued violence in the name of Floyd and BLM.
Grandparent might be referring to the fact that the founders' vision of limited government was of a government much smaller than what we have today with much less interference in people's lives. If they were alive today the founders would likely be shocked at just how much the (federal) government does and how much it impacts daily life. Since the government was expected to do much less than it does today, voting would have a much less significant impact on people.
Concrete examples that did not exist at founding include:
- social programs (welfare, social security, unemployment benefits)
- high levels of military spending/military industrial complex
- income tax
- many of the executive branch regulatory and other agencies
George Washington's cabinet had only five members: himself, the secretary of state, the secretary of the treasury, the secretary of war (now defense), and the attorney general. Nothing else - no Department of the Interior, no Health and Human Services, no Department of Education, no Department of Energy, no Small Business Administration (just to name some that come to mind).
People should have feel the burden that taxation places on them.
Payroll withholding already artificially dampens the strain that taxation imposes on everyone that earns a paycheck. Issuing a pre-filled out form is another step backwards.
Paying taxes should be burdensome and uncomfortable.
That is an ideology and a rather twisted one. We were over this when people were opposing anaglesia and anaesthesia. Wanting people to suffer needlessly is a bad thing.
Make taxes burdensome, and you create a market for tax filers who make them easy for you. All youve done is make taxes more expensive then, without getting better government services.
1. It never seems to solve the problems it claims to address. When evidence against it is brought to bear, its advocates move the goal post.
2. There is never an established "end state." More and more areas of life magically become "rights" and then get added to its ever increasing responsibility.
3. It is commonly used as a means to buy votes and sow social dissent by convincing a receiving group that a productive group wants to take their livelihood away.
4. The US government is arguably not representative enough to be tasked with providing it. The nation is too large, the people are too divided, and the political system is too corrupt.
5. It relies on confiscation by the aforementioned unrepresentative entity. And those that never use it shoulder a disproportionate burden of its funding and implementation.
The idea that a social safety net is a Universal Good Thing needs to be reevaluated.
> 1. It never seems to solve the problems it claims to address. When evidence against it is brought to bear, its advocates move the goal post.
Sure it does. There are dozens of Western European countries where people do not go bankrupt due to medical debt, post-secondary education is free or affordable, homelessness is not a serious issue, and large portions of the population are not incarcerated.
> 2. There is never an established "end state." More and more areas of life magically become "rights" and then get added to its ever increasing responsibility.
Sure there is. Scandanavian countries, for the most part, have had a fairly undertstable steady-state relationship with their social safety nets for decades, with policy arguments mostly taking place on the margins.
> 3. It is commonly used as a means to buy votes and sow social dissent by convincing a receiving group that a productive group wants to take their livelihood away.
Creating government policy that is appealing to voters is the basis of democracy.
> 4. The US government is arguably not representative enough to be tasked with providing it. The nation is too large, the people are too divided, and the political system is too corrupt.
Sure. But it's probably worth trying to change that right?
> 5. It relies on confiscation by the aforementioned unrepresentative entity. And those that never use it shoulder a disproportionate burden of its funding and implementation.
The idea that a social safety net is a Universal Good Thing needs to be reevaluated.
Yes, it requires those who amass a disproportionate amount of the society's financial resources to shoulder a disproportionate financial burden of maintaining that society. They're still doing pretty well, go to Geneva sometime and hang out with rich people and see for yourself.
I am pro large social safety nets, but they are inherently a problematic institution that come with a large number of economic and social tradeoffs.
I do agree that we could still do a better job than what we are doing but many of your points are never going to change under any large welfare system, at a minimum points 2-5 fall into this category in my opinion.
> An engaged and well-informed public has always been the foundation of our democracy
Is there even a shred of scientific evidence to support this hypothesis? I see it in print so often that it appears to be a axiom that is considered so correct as to be unquestionable.
Democracy has never really relied on people being well-informed. The "wisdom of crowds" incorporates a lot of ignorance. It just assumes that ignorance is random, while informed opinion will tend to have a bias in favor of reality. If 49% of the people make a random guess one way, and 49% of people make a random guess the other way, then 2% of people who actually know something will put the best-informed answer over the top.
So democracy is robust against ordinary ignorance. It's just not robust against deliberately-induced ignorance[1]. The nudge towards reality is easily overwhelmed by a thumb on the scale of the wrong answer.
Ignorance has never been really random, but the press of misinformation is more widespread than ever. As is the press of information, but when people don't know which to choose, misinformation is often more attractive.
Democracy is intended to be a sort of "eventually correct" system; the people vote to make decision (a), see what happens, then vote again to make decision (b), etc. If decision (a) produces bad outcomes, then knowledge of those bad outcomes will presumably affect the way everyone votes in decision (b). Over time the voting populace converges the government toward their desired state, in theory.
The challenge here is in knowing whether an outcome was bad or good. Different people can have different perspective on facts, of course. But if people don't have direct experience in the outcomes, then they have to hear about it 2nd hand. That's where the opportunity opens up for them to hear lies, which corrupt the process.
The challenge in the 21st Century is that our most pressing issues seem to be those that don't produce immediate direct experience for most voters, like climate change, systemic racism, non-point-source pollution, threats of diseases, authoritarianism, etc.
People are increasingly reliant on 3rd parties to inform them on these issues, and the information ecosystem we've built to do that optimizes on engagement instead of accuracy.
I wonder though if another issue is at play: in the past both well-informed and random folks would mostly have "swayable" opinions (mostly certain, but leave room for a doubt; thus open to arguments and possibly a change of opinion), currently most opinions seem to have a religious hardness to them. This makes science less influential -- people tend to put a lot of spin on key findings to avoid changing their views.
This is judging by newspapers and magazines of 50 years ago and talking to older generations; not sure how objective this is.
Huh, never thought about the math like that. It makes a lot of sense, thanks for sharing.
P.S. Before the age of social media, was there not the same level of risk of induced ignorance through traditional media campaigns and propaganda? If not, why not?
Propaganda has always been a problem, and it's hard to quantify if it's actually worse now or merely different. Even if it's merely different, though, it feels like it's the kind of problem that should be solvable. In so many cases people aren't merely misinformed but actively hostile to science in a way that should bite them in the butt sooner rather than later. Surely, one thinks, that should make it possible to resolve it, at least a little.
> Propaganda has always been a problem, and it's hard to quantify if it's actually worse now or merely different.
I think that part of what makes it both different and worse now is the way that, thanks to automatic personalisation of content, what feels like honest intellectual inquiry will be met with automated replies that drive us deeper in the direction of our beliefs (inadvertently; they optimise for engagement, but it's more likely that a random browser will engage with something that supports their beliefs than that challenges them).
Of course, there was always propaganda before, but there was at least the chance of realising critically that it was being forced upon you, and so choosing to resist it; or, if you wanted to be swallowed up by the propaganda, at least you had to make some effort to find the material that would support that position. It's the way that our filter bubbles are now more than ever hidden from us and, even worse, presented as ever more rarefied intellectual inquiry that I think causes so much 'unswayability'.
Is there any way to realistically and gradually reduce the prevalence and thickness of these filter bubbles, so that people can be encouraged to practice critical thinking in a sustainable way? Will this have to necessarily be a governmental effort, or can there be business value in such practices? Will there ever be sufficient incentives for any government to work on this?
Sorry for all the questions, I'm just thinking out loud.
> Is there any way to realistically and gradually reduce the prevalence and thickness of these filter bubbles, so that people can be encouraged to practice critical thinking in a sustainable way? Will this have to necessarily be a governmental effort, or can there be business value in such practices? Will there ever be sufficient incentives for any government to work on this?
The problem that I see is that filter bubbles keep people happy, so the effort to fix it has to be an effort that's going to make people unhappy—and what business or democratic government is going to do that? To me, it's like being a teacher (my profession); there are ample studies that show that teaching effectiveness is in many ways inversely correlated with student satisfaction (because true learning is often uncomfortable), and yet the incentives for teachers are all in the direction of encouraging student satisfaction even when everyone knows it can be at the expense of learning.
I see, that makes sense. Kind of a "eat your vegetables" type of situation.
I really hope we can learn and get to a better place from here, but I'm not holding my breath. The way I see it, there's a good chance that the world will only continue to become increasingly more authoritarian and dictatorial. Because in a world filled with more and more widespread filter bubbles and entrenched divides, authoritarianism and dictatorships logically become the optimal solution to get society to cooperate and function.
In the old days the propaganda was expensive and it came from monied interests and any such interest would have a competitor pushing the other way providing balance and allowing room for the influence of the most informed citizens.
We're in the weird territory because some propaganda comes from really low-budget campaigns not easily steadied by the stabilizing influence of competing businesses. The disruption is akin to the printing press invention - suddenly low budgets provide loud voice. I expect this to go the same way - running good social media campaigns will demand huge budgets and require support from big businesses.
The other odd (and alarming) part is that the government bureaucracy itself became a source of the propaganda - we don't have a competing government bureaucracy so no tension is created to promote balance.
The 98% are never split equally. And some percentage of 100% is always swayed by propaganda. That's why it's propaganda that pushes the vote over the top. And in today's democracy, its done under the guise of "education". That's why the self-declared "engaged and well-informed" are often the most targeted, readily swayed, and eager to back the wrong movement.
The anti-vaccine movement is one example of the engaged being swayed to total conviction, and it's easy to question whether they truly care about their children, but love is their motivation. Similarly, many "wrong" movements are for the love of democracy of the country etc.
And looking at the bullet points at the end of the article, those are what even the "wrong" are doing, extremely proactively. And it all starts with the "educator" claiming to be the "reliable information source", which happens to be what Scientific American is also doing here.
I posit it's susceptible to both, and that it is susceptible to any manipulation. Not just overt or malicious. Even in good faith. And even the article is a form of manipulation. And I am saying the "manipulated" and the "educated" are often one in the same especially in hindsight when wrong becomes clear.
> The nudge towards reality is easily overwhelmed by a thumb on the scale of the wrong answer.
What’s the evidence supporting this?
I've noticed this trend of all sides of every political debate declaring that the other side has fallen for "fake news." In actuality, it's often that people with the "wrong answer" just have a different value system than the people with "right answer."
I provided a link. You don't get to sea-lion me by just repeating "evidence" until you've demonstrated that you've at least read the sources I gave you already.
The wikipedia article you linked doesn't make this claim.
The primary example, that cigarette companies tried to hide that smoking causes cancer, doesn't prove this point -- the vast majority of people know this and the propaganda effort was a failure.
You are missing the point: there's an entire field of study about the claim and the various ways that it's true. The wikipedia article is about that field of study. Hence, the only way the claim would be false would be if that entire field of study were completely junk (e.g. homeopathy or neurolinguistic programming), which from the wikipedia article, it doesn't look so.
> the vast majority of people know this and the propaganda effort was a failure.
The vast majority of people know this now, but it was just as much a subject of motivated doubt in its time as climate change is now. It's only because of a massive counter-propaganda effort (in a good cause, but it's still propaganda) that it seems so obvious to us now, and so inevitable in retrospect that people of sense would see the truth.
In my lifetime I have never known the average person to be engaged, nor informed. I think they're mostly mis-informed for the past 10+ years.
People just believe whatever outlandish title comes across their facebook feed. I had about 12 people ask me if I heard the news--that wayfair was selling missing children on their website, disguised as fancy cabinets. It took me about 12 seconds to find out it was a theory with no evidence put forth by an anonymous reddit poster. 2/12 changed their minds when I showed them that.
I made the terrible mistake of trying to convince someone out of this insane view only to remember the old quote, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into".
Maybe we should just devote the entirety of a school year to basic rationalism and logic...
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into".
Very good quote. It took me decades to comprehend that a lot of people don’t even try to understand things but go with whatever sounds right and makes them feel good. Especially when it comes to political issues I don’t think I have ever heard somebody say “oh yes, this convinces me to change my stance.”. People stick to their beliefs as long as possible. I only have seen people change their minds over years.
It's difficult, tiring, and demoralizing to keep on and on trying to maintain sincere and reasoned argument with seemingly unreasonable and ignorant people.
But we really can't give in to that cynicism. These conversations almost always have an audience, and the point isn't just to convince this person in front of you and win, but to keep your side of the argument alive and in front of as many people as possible.
And to practice your own patience, sharpen your argument, and maintain bridges and relationships.
I'm sure most people can't do it, but if you can please don't throw up your hands and walk away, depriving perhaps many other people from hearing a point of view they might not otherwise ever hear.
[Edit: Of course I'm speaking generally here about climate denialism, etc., not specifically about the crazy conspiracy theory mentioned above.]
Do you also put that much effort into arguing against climate exaggerationism? Claims like the world is on fire, civilization will end or humans will go extinct because of it? People who won't have children because they believe the world will no longer be suitable for human habitation during their lives.
If we're arguing for something rationally it is important to be honest in that argument. That means not pretending the risk doesn't exist, but also not over-inflating the risk.
One of the worst things the CDC did was take an anti-mask position initially when it was a bald faced lie unsupported by data. That destroyed their trust relationship and continues to haunt us now.
I've heard a similar theory about Epstein and child trafficking for years, but not one single person was ever able to provide evidence proving the allegation, so naturally I concluded the allegation is False.
Simple logic goes a long way in discovering the truth, no need to get into that complicated epistemology pseudoscience.
You think that's bad? I've met more than 12 people who believe humans were created by an invisible space alien who reads our minds and will punish us if we think the wrong thoughts. When I was at school, we were encouraged to engage in group chants begging the space alien not to punish us.
Religion is the elephant in the room. There are more people who believe God wants them to kill gays and Jews than believe in any internet conspiracy theory.
In "Amusing Ourselves to Death" they made the point that Americans used to be much better read, and would attend lectures as a past time. They said Presidential Candidates would travel the country and in-depth structured debates that went on for hours and would attract a huge mass of people. Never really bothered to confirm it but the idea sounded interesting.
I would say that in the past, the engaged and well-informed public (and few honestly) were valued by the policy/decision makers because they generally were or closely related to the decision makers.
The democratization of opinion and influence has not gone well for technical experts and correct information getting to (or influencing) people in positions of responsibility.
Everyone (no matter how ill-informed) is so able to issue opinions and "make their voices heard" that people in responsibility get confused who they should worry about satisfying.
Sometimes democracy (and democratization of information) is not a purely good thing.
I think it's more of an assumption required by models which say "democracy is a good idea that will work well." In other words, the typical civics class model goes something like "democracy is a good idea that will work well, assuming that (among other things) the public is engaged and well-informed."
That ironically isn't true - it can work well for reasons seperate from good decisionmaking even when excluding incentives as a component (democracy gives a wider array of relevant interests in decision making).
For one democracy is a good pressure relief valve - far from the monarchist fears they were way more stabme compared to the regular secession civil wars of monarchies and rebellions. Election results let a potentially hotheaded minority faction know "you won't win you know, you got only 30% of the vote - let alone what percentage would actually fight for you. You are outnumbered so chill, campaign, and wait for the next election".
>> well-informed public has always been the foundation of our democracy
I'd say maybe a well-informed electorate. Until very recently, the majority of "the public" wasn't allowed to vote and so had very limited input into "our democracy".
So - AFAIK, originally most white men weren't allowed to vote, in the US; I can't remember when this got changed, but in the very earliest formulation, there was a strong limitation where only certain kinds of landed property owners were allowed to vote.
I believe this had several intents behind it; one of them was of course just plain-old elitism/cronyism, but I think there were also some elements of using it as a proxy for education, shared-culture, and (presumed) fiscal responsibility.
There also was probably a surprisingly pragmatic problem of logistics; a small register of settled-down property owners was probably far easier to collect votes from that a wild array of migrant laborers, whalers, fur-trappers, and frontiersmen.
