zataomm
1yr ago
For example, something like this argument was (is) very common in the push for legal marijuana.
Exactly! And I guess your point is that the push for legal marijuana is slowly winning, but my counter-point is that legal marijuana is winning much more slowly than it ought to be, given that there is such a strong argument in its favor. Indeed, these are the kinds of important questions of public policy that I am worried about and that inspired this post, Singer's A' being illegal is nowhere near the top 10 on my list of biggest injustices. But we have lots of things that would make a lot of people better off but are illegal because they sound bad, which, as Bryan Caplan puts it, "The way I like to think about it is that markets are great at doing good things that sound bad, and governments are great at doing bad things, that sound good."
I agree with you that Singer's A' is not strictly comparable to A such that we can say supporting A but not A' is irrational, but my point is that the responses I have seen do not even get there, they stop at "A'? Ew, yuck"
zataomm
1yr ago
It's no more desirable that everyone should invent his own ethical systems than that he should invent his own electrical systems.
Nice.
zataomm
1yr ago
Not to get even more misanthropic but is it possible that some people are so bad at reasoning that we are better off if they just decide everything by gut instinct? At least their conscience will provide some grounding and they won't be tempted to start changing the calendar and murdering the bourgeoisie?
zataomm
1yr ago
Is it just that the news sources I'm reading are terrible? I feel like I've never seen it mentioned that there is another side (not just the IDF) fighting in this war. Like they mentioned that the IDF forces have surrounded the hospitals but it's not clear why, since as far as anyone has told me it is just full of doctors and their patients. I feel like I'm five years old asking these questions but it's just so weird to me, it's like the grownups understand something that I don't.
Recently, I've been subjected to several posts on Twitter about Peter Singer. Singer posits a compelling argument: Society accepts a certain concept, A, yet its variant A', which along many relevant dimensions is similar to A but should be less objectionable, is met with taboo. Here is Singer's post, although I don't want to get into the the details because I'm thinking not about the argument itself but the prevalent reaction to it. The most common response to Singer's points is not an intellectual rebuttal but rather an expression of shock and outrage. The taboo around A' is like an emotional firewall, preventing any rational discourse.
This pattern of reaction is disconcerting. We live in a world of complex issues that demand thoughtful consideration, yet it appears that a significant portion of discourse is reduced to emotional outbursts. It's really hard for me not to feel disheartened or even adopt a misanthropic view when I see things like this.
So, is this emotional explosiveness truly representative of the general populace, or is it just that on Twitter, the most extreme views gain the most traction? Moreover, how can we, as individuals seeking constructive dialogue, navigate this landscape without succumbing to frustration or misanthropy?
I'm genuinely interested in understanding whether these reactions are as pervasive as they seem and what strategies we might employ to foster more meaningful, thought-provoking conversations, especially in a world dominated by emotional responses.
Besides being obvious sneerclub bait, this post is kind of ridiculous because you can sum it up as "Why does the Motte exist?", but I just want to know if there is any way to bring more people into the Motte's style of discourse or how serious a problem it is that some people are seemingly unpersuadable.
zataomm
1yr ago
Sorry for the leading question but am I the only one naive enough to ask "Why don't the israeli troops just walk into the al-Shifa hospital?"? Where I live, if the national army wanted to take over the closest hospital I am confident they could do it in like 5 minutes by walking in through the front door.
If the answer is as I suspect, "the Israeli troops can't walk into the hospital because the hospital is being defended with guns," then why doesn't that fact appear in your average news story like this one? I know this sounds like a post from a person who really cares about Israel and is always going on about media bias against that country, so I just want to add a disclaimer saying that my position on Israel is that I'm just a normal American non-Jew who doesn't really know or care very much about it.
But honestly, to go back to my opening question, what the heck is going on at the hospital? Why can't they just take it over?
zataomm
1yr ago
Even without formal religion, I just can't believe that early humans didn't have moral frameworks, just from the simple fact that moral systems facilitate group cohesion and survival. There's just no way hunter-gatherers were a bunch of homo economicuses, and only modern humans have morality. Morality isn't a byproduct of civilization; it's one of its foundational building blocks.
zataomm
1yr ago
From the indictment:
COUNT 11 of 41
And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf ofthe citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP [et al.], [...] unlawfully conspired, with the intent to defraud, to knowingly make a document titled "CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA," [...] insuch manner that the writing as made purports to have been made by authority ofthe duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the State of Georgia, who did not give such authority
Read the above and recall that what AshLael wants anyone still reading this to believe is that for the purposes of the Georgia indictment, it makes no difference whether in creating the alternative slate of electors (aka "fake electors"), the accused parties intended for the "CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES" to deceive Congress into wrongly counting Georgia's votes for Donald Trump.
To echo a favorite line of mine, I cannot imagine an interpretation of the phrase "with the intent to defraud," or really the entire context and meaning of Count 11 and several other counts like it, that would make AshLael's position reasonable.
Whether the intent of the "fake elector" document was to deceive Congress matters to the legal case. Of course it matters. Anyone who says differently either hasn't read the indictment or is a troll.
zataomm
1yr ago
Well, it may be wrong, but so far I’ve provided one definition of fraud from Georgia law and another from Merriam Webster that include deceit. You haven’t provided one that doesn’t.
zataomm
1yr ago
I responded by pointing out they hadn't been charged with fraud, and the only charge mentioning fraud didn't involve the false electors and didn't include deceit as an element of the offence.
…at which point, I wrote that it’s hard to imagine a definition of fraud that would not involve deceit.
zataomm
1yr ago
The first person to use the word fraud (without de-) was you. You stated that you didn’t think deception was an element. I commented that fraud would seem to always involve deception. That’s why it’s relevant.
I’ll ask you once again to consider the method by which Trump stole the relevant voter data. It involved lying. A lot. Do you think Trump would have been charged with theft if his claims about the election had been true? The indictment sure makes it seem like the fact he was lying is relevant.
Also, stepping back for a second, there are so many counts in the indictment related to forgery, false documents, and false statements, I don’t know how you managed to start a debate over the one count that (arguably, in your opinion) doesn’t involve deception.
zataomm
1yr ago
My question about the Secret Service was an ironic reference to the idea that if the pieces of paper from these "fake electors" were a big problem when it came time to count the votes, presumably because said papers are difficult to distinguish from the votes cast by "authentic electors," then maybe they would have to call in the Secret Service, who are in charge of prosecuting cases of counterfeiting money and therefore experts in document authentication, to help sort things out.
zataomm
1yr ago
Technically I said fraud not defraud, so that makes me the best kind of correct. Here is the relevant Georgia law, since you are a big fan.
That said, as humorous as you are, you are still wrong. What do you think is involved in the theft? Let's use our imaginations and imagine that Donald Trump says to the official who controls election data, "hey, it's me, Donald Trump, your favorite president. Way better than Carter, obviously. Anyway, I suspect there was fraud in your state, so I need access to your voter data, please send it to me by December 1st." If the official then sends Trump the election data, do you think he would be guilty of theft?
I'm going to skip the part where you answer. The only way Trump and his allies "defrauded the state" in the case at hand is if they falsely claimed that they had the right to voter data.
zataomm
1yr ago
they LIED. They were not the duly elected and qualified electors. It was public knowledge that the duly elected and qualified electors had been chosen on November 20.
You understand that lying involves more than just uttering a false statement, right? Merriam Webster says: "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". No intent to deceive, therefore not a lie. As to your question "How are they not fake?" Same answer. No intent to deceive.
zataomm
1yr ago
I can't imagine a definition of fraud that wouldn't involve some kind of deception. Merriam-Webster:
1a : DECEIT, TRICKERY
specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
zataomm
1yr ago
Attempted crimes should be punished, but the details of why the "attempt" failed are relevant to determining whether it was a genuine attempt at all. In your attempted murder analogy, yes, you couldn't shoot me because your gun jammed, but if prior to that attempt you purposely manipulated the gun by jamming up the chamber so that a spent round would get stuck in there and be impossible to eject, that would be evidence that you never intended your "murder attempt" to be effective.
The fact that Congress wasn't fooled doesn't by itself make election fraud not a crime, but the fact that apparently Trump tried this maneuver in several states and in no cases were the "fake elector" votes counted, indicates that there is something suspicious about the narrative that he was trying to deceive Congress. Yes, they sent a piece of paper to Congress saying they were the duly-chosen electors and they were voting for Trump etc., but that paper was presented as what it was, an alternate slate of electors. At no point was Pence saying, "well, now I have no idea which ones are the real votes!"
zataomm
1yr ago
What I find infuriating about this discussion is how often the term "fake electors" is used. If the electors were "fake" and the electors commited "fraud", can anyone provide me with a count of how many of the fake electors' votes were mistakenly recorded in the Senate? Oh, none? Amazing! Well, what kind of detective work went into distinguishing the fake votes from the real votes? Was the Secret Service called in for their expertise in detecting counterfeit money?
Obviously the accurate term should be "contingent electors", in the sense that these would have been the correct electors if Trump prevailed in his various lawsuits. It's easy to imagine that in the case where he was able to establish fraud and the court determined that he had won the election, they wouldn't want the process to get held up by the need to quickly get some electors together to cast their votes and mail them to Washington, DC. The Georgia "fake slate" is dated December 14, so there would not have been much time to get these votes recorded if they had had to wait for all litigation to be resolved.
There's such egregious question-begging going on by calling them "fake electors", it makes me crazy how little pushback I have seen regarding this term.
zataomm
1yr ago
This is a good point, and I am inclined to agree with you. On the other hand, I would point to the boring-seeming reference to "state academic standards as adopted in Rule 6A-1.09401", which when you look it up just establishes standards under various names like "Sunshine Math" for each subject. AP Psychology is definitely not part of those standards.
Still, if I were a lawyer representing a teacher accused of professional misconduct for teaching about sexuality and gender identity, I would argue that the clear intention of that reference was to authorize teaching about sexuality and gender identity, if such teaching was integral to a course recognized as important by the Florida Board of Education. In other words, teachers shouldn't just "go rogue" and teach whatever they want to students about sexuality and gender that has nothing to do with meeting state standards, but if the sexuality and gender identity content forms an established part of the course they are teaching, then they will be okay.
Like I said, I'm inclined to agree with your interpretation, but I do think if you read past the letters and numbers of Rule 6A-1.09401 there is an argument there that the law does not impact teachers' ability to teach about sexuality and gender identity to the extent that such teaching is necessary for the AP Psychology curriculum.
Look carefully at the language the state is using: “the Department believes that AP Psychology can be taught in its entirety in a manner that is age and developmentally appropriate.”
This very much seems to be a scissor statement within this discussion. My reading of that portion of the letter was, "Look, the College Board is freaking out because we have this law in Florida saying that course content needs to be age and developmentally appropriate, so I just want to assure you that, as I see it, AP Psychology can be taught, in it entirety, in a way that is developmentally and age appropriate. Just don't go crazy and show the kids hardcore porn in class or make them affirm that we are all born as trans homosexuals or whatever." In the Washington Post article and others, that line is taken to be an implicit threat, "Hey superintendents, you'd better make sure you keep your course content appropriate, or else [makes throat cutting motion]."
It's not a true scissor because I can understand how the other side would read it as more menacing, but that wasn't my interpretation at all.
The Washington Post reports: Florida schools drop AP Psychology after state says it violates the law, a good example of the media getting as close to lying as you can get while still remaining in not-quite-lying territory.
As far as I know, this all started last Thursday, when the College Board issued a statement regarding its AP Psychology course and Florida law. In this statement, the College Board wrote: "The state has said districts are free to teach AP Psychology only if it excludes any mention of [content on sexual orientation and gender identity]."
Citation (desperately) needed! Contrary to what the College Board says, I have been unable to find any source on the internet prior to the College Board's statement corroborating their claim about what the Florida department of education requires. The Washington Post claims that the statement was based on a "conference call" between the board of education and school superintendents, but again, I have found no stories where the reporter interviews someone involved in the call in order to confirm the College Board's characterization of what was said.
On the contrary, on Friday, the day after the College Board published its statement, the director of the Florida Department of Education wrote a letter to the school superintendants, clarifying that
In fact, the Department believes that AP Psychology can be taught in its entirety in a manner that is age and developmentally appropriate and the course remains listed in our course catalog
As far as I know, this letter is the only official statement from the Florida Department of Education regarding the application of the Parental Rights in Education ("Don't Say Gay") law to the teaching of AP Psychology. And yet a google search of "ap psychology Florida" returns headline after headline of major news outlets reporting the College Board's interpretation of this law as if Florida had gone out and "banned" the teaching of AP Psychology in its schools.
Without knowing anything about the conference call (because no reporter bothered to check), I have to caveat that maybe Florida did suggest that some parts of AP Psychology could not be taught, only to backtrack after being called out by the College Board. But for me, it seems like a dishonest characterization of the law intended to make Florida and DeSantis look bad.
EDIT:
Okay, having done a bit more research by going back to read the College Board's previous statements on this matter, I have to admit that my characterization was mistaken. In particular, in their June statement on the AP Psychology course, they reference correspondence from the Florida Department of Education Office of Articulation (what a name!), asking the College Board to affirm that their AP Psychology course conforms to the new Florida law. Still not a "ban," but definitely the College Board is not engaged in the unprovoked attack on Florida that I was imagining. There was definitely some provocation.
I do still think this is more about grandstanding by the College Board than a straightforward application of the law, but I was wrong in thinking that the College Board was one-sidedly attacking the Florida Department of Education.
zataomm
1yr ago
Thanks for the link. As others have noted, it's extremely long, but its length does help address this feeling of unease many of us experience when observing or engaging with "culture war"-related topics in the modern online space. You wake up one day and everyone is saying something that is obviously false. I'm not sure whether it's helpful or harmful to my case to throw in examples here, but what comes to mind for me are Larry Summers on female representation, Covington Catholic, Kyle Rittenhouse, Trump's "very fine people on both sides", Florida's curriculum on slavery...
Apparently the "stages of grief" don't have as solid a scientific backing as we might hope, but even so, something like those stages are what I have gone through many times in the past few years as these cases have become hot.
Denial - it's just a misunderstanding, after the initial controversy people will look at the full context and realize there was nothing to get so worked up about
Anger - Partisans are inflaming the issue for their own benefit
Bargaining - If my friends and family would just watch this video, they'd see that the media portrayal has been all wrong. I'll just send them the link...
Depression - This is where I usually end up, because none of the above makes any difference.
So I really identified with your experience as an extended example of the "Bargaining" phase I've gone through myself. To be honest, there have been an embarrasing number of occasions on which I insisted on sitting down with someone and showing them a video or reading them an article that unequivocally establishes "the truth", in contrast to the media narrative. At those times, I would have been glad to pay people to watch these videos, because how could they watch the video and still disagree?
I can't say I've had 0% success in these endeavours; I think on occasion I've convinced people that the situation is more nuanced than they were led to believe. But I don't think I've every had anyone really understand my desperation to make them understand, get why these matters are so upsetting to me. So I quite appreciated your essay, not just because we agree on the matter at hand, but because I know how it feels to be so sure you are right but still need someone else to validate that belief.
I don't see the contradiction. Seems like another way of making the same point is that that taboos aren't passed down as the conclusions of a blue-ribbon commission on ethics, but rather they survive because the behaviors they encourage are pro-social, and therefore groups that adopt certain taboos are more likely themselves to survive and pass their taboos to the next generation. Do you disagree with that?
I mean, it's not that they couldn't have been the conclusions of a blue-ribbon commission on ethics, it's just that their origin doesn't really matter as much as their effect on group survival.
More options
Context Copy link