aftermath
Locked
 
|
Biden owes his election to _____________ (interesting, I cannot think of a collective pronoun that has not been tagged as racist); to what degree will he repay the debt? BLM co-founder demanding a meeting during transition and a policy advising role with regard policing. BREATHE Act https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/what-is-the-breathe-act-and-would-it-defund-the-police.html davew - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
How about “the failure of the Trump administration to support the needs of complex population centers”? From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of
Prof David West Biden owes his election to _____________ (interesting, I cannot think of a collective pronoun that has not been tagged as racist); to what degree will he repay the debt? BLM co-founder
demanding a meeting during transition and a policy advising role with regard policing. BREATHE Act
https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/what-is-the-breathe-act-and-would-it-defund-the-police.html davew - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
How about just "Trump." -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:01 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
"The BREATHE Act, as it’s named, calls for a 'time-bound plan' to close all federal prisons and immigration detention centers. It would also abolish ICE and the Drug Enforcement Administration, ban police departments from using surveillance and military-grade weapons, and reallocate funds from policing and incarceration to social-welfare, health-care, education, and environmental programs."
Sounds like a Libertarian Utopia! On 11/24/20 7:42 AM, Prof David West wrote: > BREATHE Act <https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/what-is-the-breathe-act-and-would-it-defund-the-police.html>https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/what-is-the-breathe-act-and-would-it-defund-the-police.html <https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/what-is-the-breathe-act-and-would-it-defund-the-police.html> -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
https://xkcd.com/2383/ Cody Smith On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 9:19 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote: "The BREATHE Act, as it’s named, calls for a 'time-bound plan' to close all federal prisons and immigration detention centers. It would also abolish ICE and the Drug Enforcement Administration, ban police departments from using surveillance and military-grade weapons, and reallocate funds from policing and incarceration to social-welfare, health-care, education, and environmental programs." - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Well, except the last part. In the L. O., don't we have to fling all the saved money out of the top of the Washington Moneyment and watch all the people kill each other groveling for it?
Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 10:19 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] aftermath "The BREATHE Act, as it’s named, calls for a 'time-bound plan' to close all federal prisons and immigration detention centers. It would also abolish ICE and the Drug Enforcement Administration, ban police departments from using surveillance and military-grade weapons, and reallocate funds from policing and incarceration to social-welfare, health-care, education, and environmental programs." Sounds like a Libertarian Utopia! On 11/24/20 7:42 AM, Prof David West wrote: > BREATHE Act > <https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/what-is-the-breathe-act-and-would-it-d > efund-the-police.html>https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/what-is-the-breat > he-act-and-would-it-defund-the-police.html > <https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/what-is-the-breathe-act-and-would-it-d > efund-the-police.html> -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Naaaa. I think you have a severely biased understanding of libertarianism. To be fair, it's not your fault. A core principle of libertarianism is to argue *for* a state when a state is *necessary*. This is why they're not anarchists. Any reasonable libertarian will willingly argue, and accept if argued well enough, the need for state run programs, including pro-social ones like education and health care.
The trick is you have to separate the actual libertarians from the ones who *call* themselves "libertarians". And then you have to argue patiently, with data, over and over again, until they finally see the need for the state in that context. It's exhausting and I don't blame you if you usually give up before reaching that point. On 11/24/20 9:11 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > Well, except the last part. In the L. O., don't we have to fling all the saved money out of the top of the Washington Moneyment and watch all the people kill each other groveling for it? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by cody dooderson
Interesting stylizing of high-dimensional (if binary)
multi-dimensional analysis.... yielding an increasingly
high-dimensional (and obscure) "corner-case" in the hyper-version
(2^n) of a quad-chart ? On 11/24/20 9:30 AM, cody dooderson
wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
> Naaaa. I think you have a severely biased understanding of libertarianism. To be fair, it's not your fault. A core principle of libertarianism is to argue *for* a state when a state is *necessary*. This is why they're not anarchists. Any reasonable libertarian will willingly argue, and accept if argued well enough, the need for state run programs, including pro-social ones like education and health care. > > The trick is you have to separate the actual libertarians from the ones who *call* themselves "libertarians". And then you have to argue patiently, with data, over and over again, until they finally see the need for the state in that context. It's exhausting and I don't blame you if you usually give up before reaching that point. > [hidden email] wrote: >> Well, except the last part. In the L. O., don't we have to fling all the saved money out of the top of the Washington Moneyment and watch all the people kill each other groveling for it? Nick - You have well characterized a common (and well earned) caricature of (L)ibertarianism with the feature that watching the "sheeple" tear one another part in their ignorant greed and fear is a key feature of their brand. The Trumpist badge-of-honor to "own the Libs" is an even uglier variation. Hillary's gaffe that exposed the "despicablizing" of anyone who would support Trump (or who would not support her?) is yet another variation. Glen - I acknowledge your distinction between Libertarian(tm)s and the more pure-to-conception version (though I don't know any of the latter except from "just-so" anecdotes told mostly by the former who don't realize how transparent they are). I'm also reminded of the They Might Be Giants verse in a song: "I know politics bore you, you and your racist friend"... it takes on more significance every time I try to speak in depth with a crypto-racist (or crypto-classist, or crypto- anythingist) who uses one thing to obscure another thing that prevents/excusing them from engaging in a meaningful/thoughtful conversation/thoughts. Maybe, as you say, it just takes more patience and data, even with them? All - I've become a fan of Jim Scott's view of things as described in his "The Art of not being Governed" which I would say distinguishes itself from Anarchism in the sense of simply doing what it takes to not (need to) be (G)overned (thus "Art" vs "Trick" in the title). SteveG and I have talked of late around the dual-use of the term; "govern" and it's cousin "regulate" in the domains of systems (complex, Complex, and nominally neither) vs in politics and statecraft. The former being a "system" for seeking the right/opportunity/power to do the latter, and the latter being (on a good day) the role of designing/maintaining governance systems which allow/guide/constrain human systems (socioeconomic) to operate efficiently and humanely (according to some set of values of what is humane and what features are to be measured and optimized?). Many - This "August Body" is one of the few places where I find enough richness and nuance FOR these discussions to unfold. I don't want to be (too much) like Nick wishing "we" were different (I'm alluding to his occasional Jonesing on being able to distill these threads into proper scientific papers), but I often feel that we bring up (potentially) rich topics and then put them to away before we've really put them through their full paces. I am guilty, of course, of both sins of (c)ommission in my own tangenting (never really feels that to me when I do it, but recognize how it must when it is pointed out... "dookey-in-the-fan" style) and witholding (half my missives don't even get saved in a "drafts" folder) and perhaps my lack of focus leading to a well (enough) crafted argument to make it past my own Censor Homonculus and obviously relevant in it's tangential content/style to make it past everyone else's TLDR censors. (TTDR, more to the point?) Few - I can't think of a thing I can say here, believing that only a few would care... but maybe those reading this got past the TL/TT DR censors are the canonical "Few"... and some of you may just be reading out of morbid fascination with "where is THIS tangent going?". Perhaps the thing I am struggling with is that we seem to be coming out of the other end of a "Long Dark Teatime of the Soul" (nod to Douglas Adams) with Trump about to be frog-marched out of the Whitehouse and as we lick (or staunch or splint or debrade or detox) our wounds and try to stand up and wobble forward with conviction, away from the take-a-dump-with-trump-in-the-dumpster fire that was the last 4+ ( start counting with Trump's primary win) years, toward *what*? Does a Biden-Harris/Democrat term give us the opening to take stock and make some hay while the sun is shining? Or are our politicians (and selves) stuck in an obstructionist contrarianism that only allows us to do (lame) preventative and remedial things while we hold our breath waiting for the "other shoe to fall"? I recently heard a commentator (late night comedian) make the very apt point that Trump started a grievance campaign against himself when he *won* (electoral college) in 2016, so whatever he does "next" will be nothing more than a continuation of that. I felt that the Republican controlled congress (esp. Senate) has been unable to do anything *but* obstruction in many terms now. Maybe, in the sense of regulatory feedback, that is the most they *can* do right now? Ride the brakes, drag the feet, unfurl the kite tail a little longer? Those *can* be powerfully stabilizing forces on the edge of chaos. Ramble, - Steve - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
you are bad bad bad bad man Codi lol 😂 quite Angular you have their! and a fantastic React-tion. Lol thank you thank you I have a PHP in puns! On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:27 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Well, crypto-* is different from people who don't really understand the categories. With my friend's hard right uncle who shocked me by claiming he was "more libertarian", I suspect he had someone who called themselves that and he liked the conversation(s) they had *or* has done some shallow reading on what it meant ... maybe listened to Rand Paul or somesuch. He's not crypto-right. He just doesn't understand the categories.
A crypto-* actively asserts they are whatever their cover is. They *encrypt* what they are. So a crypto-righty who claims to be a libertarian will actively deny that libertarians believe there are appropriate roles for the state. They may allow the military, but disallow any other state function. Whether their assertions are *lies*, where they're hiding their true beliefs on purpose, or simply delusional or embedded in confirmation bias or whatever, isn't that important. But they actively work against any persuasion or data. An innocent righty will succumb after you explain what libertarianism actually is: the attempt to optimize for maximal liberty, including the right to do heroin, the right to engage prostitutes, the right to health care, the right to be taken seriously even when wearing a tutu, etc. A crypto-righty's prejudice against heroin addicts and tutu-wearing philosophers will show up subtly. An innocent righty's prejudices will be obvious. One of the reasons I'm drawn to the neoreaction elites is that they *do* seem to understand libertarianism and still reject it in favor of more rigid command and control structures like monarchies and dictatorships. They don't really hide their fascist tendencies. They try to proffer fascism in its more pure sense, as a valid (however unsound) ideal. So while my answer to your explicit question is "no, crypto-*'s cannot be persuaded with patience and data" an non-encrypted-* can be persuaded with patience and data. You just have to play their game for long enough to actually persuade them ... and retain your sanity in the process. But to go back to the BREATHE act, programs like universal health care and basic income *are* libertarian if they end up maximizing liberty. Of course, whether they do or not is and should be subject to test and criticism. On 11/24/20 1:26 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > >> The trick is you have to separate the actual libertarians from the ones who *call* themselves "libertarians". And then you have to argue patiently, with data, over and over again, until they finally see the need for the state in that context. It's exhausting and I don't blame you if you usually give up before reaching that point. > I acknowledge your distinction between Libertarian(tm)s and the more > pure-to-conception version (though I don't know any of the latter except > from "just-so" anecdotes told mostly by the former who don't realize how > transparent they are). I'm also reminded of the They Might Be Giants > verse in a song: "I know politics bore you, you and your racist > friend"... it takes on more significance every time I try to speak in > depth with a crypto-racist (or crypto-classist, or crypto- anythingist) > who uses one thing to obscure another thing that prevents/excusing them > from engaging in a meaningful/thoughtful conversation/thoughts. Maybe, > as you say, it just takes more patience and data, even with them? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen -
Great analysis of crypto-* and the distinction between innocent and deliberate conflation of isms. I suppose I believe/suspect that most of us (and them if there is any distinction) are a mix of both. We adopt postures that "seem like a good idea at the time" and then have to try to hold those postures when the context around us shifts enough that they become awkward. In my experience there is usually a "gradual awakening" about how uncomfortable those postures might be(coming) and recognizing opportunities for (un)gracefully shifting one's balance into a new, more comfortable/appropriate posture. I could personal anecdote my way through dozens of examples for myself and those nearby, but I trust others will have their own experiences with this. I'm reminded of (some of) Bill Viola's "slow-video" art installations... - Steve On 11/25/20 9:50 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > Well, crypto-* is different from people who don't really understand the categories. With my friend's hard right uncle who shocked me by claiming he was "more libertarian", I suspect he had someone who called themselves that and he liked the conversation(s) they had *or* has done some shallow reading on what it meant ... maybe listened to Rand Paul or somesuch. He's not crypto-right. He just doesn't understand the categories. > > A crypto-* actively asserts they are whatever their cover is. They *encrypt* what they are. So a crypto-righty who claims to be a libertarian will actively deny that libertarians believe there are appropriate roles for the state. They may allow the military, but disallow any other state function. Whether their assertions are *lies*, where they're hiding their true beliefs on purpose, or simply delusional or embedded in confirmation bias or whatever, isn't that important. But they actively work against any persuasion or data. > > An innocent righty will succumb after you explain what libertarianism actually is: the attempt to optimize for maximal liberty, including the right to do heroin, the right to engage prostitutes, the right to health care, the right to be taken seriously even when wearing a tutu, etc. A crypto-righty's prejudice against heroin addicts and tutu-wearing philosophers will show up subtly. An innocent righty's prejudices will be obvious. > > One of the reasons I'm drawn to the neoreaction elites is that they *do* seem to understand libertarianism and still reject it in favor of more rigid command and control structures like monarchies and dictatorships. They don't really hide their fascist tendencies. They try to proffer fascism in its more pure sense, as a valid (however unsound) ideal. So while my answer to your explicit question is "no, crypto-*'s cannot be persuaded with patience and data" an non-encrypted-* can be persuaded with patience and data. You just have to play their game for long enough to actually persuade them ... and retain your sanity in the process. > > But to go back to the BREATHE act, programs like universal health care and basic income *are* libertarian if they end up maximizing liberty. Of course, whether they do or not is and should be subject to test and criticism. > > On 11/24/20 1:26 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> The trick is you have to separate the actual libertarians from the ones who *call* themselves "libertarians". And then you have to argue patiently, with data, over and over again, until they finally see the need for the state in that context. It's exhausting and I don't blame you if you usually give up before reaching that point. >> I acknowledge your distinction between Libertarian(tm)s and the more >> pure-to-conception version (though I don't know any of the latter except >> from "just-so" anecdotes told mostly by the former who don't realize how >> transparent they are). I'm also reminded of the They Might Be Giants >> verse in a song: "I know politics bore you, you and your racist >> friend"... it takes on more significance every time I try to speak in >> depth with a crypto-racist (or crypto-classist, or crypto- anythingist) >> who uses one thing to obscure another thing that prevents/excusing them >> from engaging in a meaningful/thoughtful conversation/thoughts. Maybe, >> as you say, it just takes more patience and data, even with them? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Yeah, I tend to agree. But as I age, I'm unfortunately starting to believe the right's rhetoric that some people are just Evil [⛧], and will fight the evidence and confirm their bias until they die. I was recently told that "it's a shame" that the main lesson I was taught as a child was to shut up and listen. I'm not so sure. The world would be a better place if more people, perhaps including me, simply shut up and listened.
The *last* think I intend to do is "adopt a posture". What I pride myself on is the ability to listen to another's "posture", repeat it back to them, then obliterate that posture ... hopefully without them feeling "attacked" ... which they always do because I'm incompetent at that part. I think I hunt for and try to obliterate any of my own postures I may be at risk of adopting. But clearly I'm delusional. Others *insist* that I do adopt and retain my own postures. Pffft. I am Towlie. I have no idea what's going on. [⛧] My definition of Evil is simply "willful ignorance". It's not Evil to realize you have a finite lifetime and simply can't learn some subject or another. But it's Evil to insist you've learned all you need to know about some or another subject. On 11/25/20 9:26 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > I suppose I believe/suspect that most of us (and them if there is any > distinction) are a mix of both. We adopt postures that "seem like a > good idea at the time" and then have to try to hold those postures when > the context around us shifts enough that they become awkward. In my > experience there is usually a "gradual awakening" about how > uncomfortable those postures might be(coming) and recognizing > opportunities for (un)gracefully shifting one's balance into a new, more > comfortable/appropriate posture. I could personal anecdote my way > through dozens of examples for myself and those nearby, but I trust > others will have their own experiences with this. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve!
This is great. You have re-invented paradigm shifts at the individual level! For me, it is more discontinuous, than it is, apparently, for you. One day I believe one thing, and the net day, it's opposite. What is that thing in Alice in Wonderland? "...two contradictory things at the same time?' Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 11:26 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] aftermath Glen - Great analysis of crypto-* and the distinction between innocent and deliberate conflation of isms. I suppose I believe/suspect that most of us (and them if there is any distinction) are a mix of both. We adopt postures that "seem like a good idea at the time" and then have to try to hold those postures when the context around us shifts enough that they become awkward. In my experience there is usually a "gradual awakening" about how uncomfortable those postures might be(coming) and recognizing opportunities for (un)gracefully shifting one's balance into a new, more comfortable/appropriate posture. I could personal anecdote my way through dozens of examples for myself and those nearby, but I trust others will have their own experiences with this. I'm reminded of (some of) Bill Viola's "slow-video" art installations... - Steve On 11/25/20 9:50 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > Well, crypto-* is different from people who don't really understand the categories. With my friend's hard right uncle who shocked me by claiming he was "more libertarian", I suspect he had someone who called themselves that and he liked the conversation(s) they had *or* has done some shallow reading on what it meant ... maybe listened to Rand Paul or somesuch. He's not crypto-right. He just doesn't understand the categories. > > A crypto-* actively asserts they are whatever their cover is. They *encrypt* what they are. So a crypto-righty who claims to be a libertarian will actively deny that libertarians believe there are appropriate roles for the state. They may allow the military, but disallow any other state function. Whether their assertions are *lies*, where they're hiding their true beliefs on purpose, or simply delusional or embedded in confirmation bias or whatever, isn't that important. But they actively work against any persuasion or data. > > An innocent righty will succumb after you explain what libertarianism actually is: the attempt to optimize for maximal liberty, including the right to do heroin, the right to engage prostitutes, the right to health care, the right to be taken seriously even when wearing a tutu, etc. A crypto-righty's prejudice against heroin addicts and tutu-wearing philosophers will show up subtly. An innocent righty's prejudices will be obvious. > > One of the reasons I'm drawn to the neoreaction elites is that they *do* seem to understand libertarianism and still reject it in favor of more rigid command and control structures like monarchies and dictatorships. They don't really hide their fascist tendencies. They try to proffer fascism in its more pure sense, as a valid (however unsound) ideal. So while my answer to your explicit question is "no, crypto-*'s cannot be persuaded with patience and data" an non-encrypted-* can be persuaded with patience and data. You just have to play their game for long enough to actually persuade them ... and retain your sanity in the process. > > But to go back to the BREATHE act, programs like universal health care and basic income *are* libertarian if they end up maximizing liberty. Of course, whether they do or not is and should be subject to test and criticism. > > On 11/24/20 1:26 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> The trick is you have to separate the actual libertarians from the ones who *call* themselves "libertarians". And then you have to argue patiently, with data, over and over again, until they finally see the need for the state in that context. It's exhausting and I don't blame you if you usually give up before reaching that point. >> I acknowledge your distinction between Libertarian(tm)s and the more >> pure-to-conception version (though I don't know any of the latter >> except from "just-so" anecdotes told mostly by the former who don't >> realize how transparent they are). I'm also reminded of the They >> Might Be Giants verse in a song: "I know politics bore you, you and >> your racist friend"... it takes on more significance every time I >> try to speak in depth with a crypto-racist (or crypto-classist, or >> crypto- anythingist) who uses one thing to obscure another thing that >> prevents/excusing them from engaging in a meaningful/thoughtful >> conversation/thoughts. Maybe, as you say, it just takes more patience and data, even with them? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |