domain:putanumonit.com
wayfarer
3d ago
and with no air conditioning
that is a small aside - but large reason for that is that USA is much hotter and until recently it would be not-so-needed
article you linked even mentions it
FtSoA
3d ago
Well, there is no one "EA"; but broadly speaking EA exists within the liberal democratic view of human rights. So "unbounded consequentialism" isn't actually on the menu for policy interventions.
I'm personally a rule utilitarian / classic liberal, so I care about specific classic (negative) human rights and fostering material progress. So I like a lot of what EA is all about, but I have my differences. I do not like philosophical ignorant veils and ponds of kids, for example. In terms of rhetorical utility though, I very much enjoy using EA as a hammer to bludgeon progressives/leftists with.
I do not think it is fair to directly fault EA at large for Ziz and SBF. In the former case, they literally disavowed the individual and their ideas. In the latter case, they were too trusting (I just assume all crypto is a scam by default) and deserve some demerits for that, but SBF also fooled a great many worldly financial types outside of EA.
EA has no provision against people thinking of themselves as bringing about a utopia, and that makes it a dangerous philosophy.
Again, this is an extremely broad criticism that applies to many religions and ideologies.
MonkeyWithAMachinegun
Dancing to Tom Paine's Bones
3d ago
I'm completely unsure, but the comment I saw said there was "raw sewage" everywhere as a result of the aforementioned lunch-smushing.
FtSoA
3d ago
There's an entire world of rhetoric that's not just logical arguments. Use that.
There's the saying that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. I don't 100% buy that because I myself have disproved it on major beliefs at least three times, but it is often true in practice.
The point of the essay was to, as much as possible, list clear facts that I don't think reasonable people can disagree with on an object level. Using much rhetoric would defeat the style of trying to list clear facts. (To my knowledge, there isn't such a list of these facts all in one place [or a current one, at least]. If there were, I'd have written something different.)
There's no one single way to convince a particular person of any given thing at any given time. I acknowledge my approach has the tradeoffs it does. (Part of my worldview is acknowledging tradeoffs.) Plus, rhetoric is typically more words and my list was already pretty dang long, practically speaking.
Also, if we're debating the metalevel relative merits of persuasive strategies using the written word, rhetoric is a symmetric weapon. For example, Marxists can wax poetic about solving inequality just us much as I can lovingly describe personal liberty. I think you could call both Adam Smith and Karl Marx talented writers in terms of style. But as soon as we start talking about facts I get to beat Marxists to death with empirical results and basic math.
You got pretty close, but then Trump laughed your guy out of the room after using him.
One thing I will say for Trump is that he does seem to be restrained by "numba go down." That doesn't help avoid the subtler long term damage to growth, but if certain other presidents had cared about market reactions we'd be a richer country. Shame about DOGE being mostly a clown show.
It would be excellent if SCOTUS is able to overturn certain very bad no good decisions that led to significant government intervention.
ABigGuy4U
3d ago
Typically when a soldier uses a garrote, the victim is pushed forward with a knee to the back, while the garrote is pulled backwards with force. This crushes the trachea to the point the airway cannot reopen, and possibly even breaks the neck. It is a useful technique for quietly and quickly removing pickets, and if you want to see a demonstration there are World War II era training films that show the technique. This is consistent with the postmortem analysis that found physical effects that differed from those you would see with a suspension hanging, and were more consistent with a violent strangulation.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
3d ago
In the light of your own answer, what is the ideological component in EA that would prevent interventionist types, in principle, from being soviet tier hand grenades? I don't see it. I see the same type of unbounded consequentialism that can allow people to engage in the same sort of evil in the name of ultimate good.
EA has no provision against people thinking of themselves as bringing about a utopia, and that makes it a dangerous philosophy. And this is why Ziz killed people and SBF defrauded millions.
Marx was once a benign economics nerd too.
TIRM
3d ago
They explain given the state of his heart he probably won't live to see his 32nd birthday. I interpret that as a real issue.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
3d ago
If someone fundamentally does not care about measuring ROI of policy interventions, then what can one do.
There's an entire world of rhetoric that's not just logical arguments. Use that.
And if your mind goes "oh but it's all dirty underhanded manipulation" then get comfortable coping that you lost in a gracious fashion, because that's all that's gonna happen.
My "side" here is currently out of power or even major influence in either of the two major U.S. political parties right now.
You got pretty close, but then Trump laughed your guy out of the room after using him.
Might get a little bit of deregulation, SEC isn't out to ruin anyone doing anything, that's gotta be a win. Plus SCOTUS is surprisingly willing to tear into the administrative state. Take that, build on it. Goad either side into destroying it on the grounds that their rivals will use it, anything. Just because you don't have Milei running the show doesn't mean you have to be benign.
Being right is clearly insufficient!
Then act like it, dammit.
FtSoA
3d ago
Ask and ... you know the rest.
https://www.themotte.org/post/2277/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/352627?context=8#context
FtSoA
3d ago
Good work I'd say. Thank you.
For 6, I don't believe the dollar's relative value is a major issue for decades of trends.
FtSoA
3d ago
People have been killed in the name of EA ideas.
Such as? If we're referring to the Ziz stuff then well that's not going to cut it for me in that they were not part of "EA" in any meaningful sense for a long time before the real insanity began.
But also, plenty of people have been killed in the name of classic liberal ideas.
I, for one, think that if you gave soviet levels of power to the shrimp welfare people, they would be very unwise with it. I don't think that's an unreasonable view.
Probably! I can't get over that Classic Environmentalism is anti-interventionist to the point some want humanity to disappear, and then some EA types are so interventionist they want to basically eliminate nature because of the inherent suffering.
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
3d ago
voluptuous
I don't really know anything about her but I finally watched some of these ads. Goddamn. This is spot on. She's not like, supermodel hot but she does come across as extremely approachable and fun to be around which makes it 10/10.
My favorite one is this ASMR(!) version: https://youtube.com/watch?v=g3jeFzrFllM?si=0H7zCswwtKLSLfPT
Mantergeistmann
3d ago
Why would you do that? Announce it on twitter or tiktok or youtube or wherever normal people are.
You'd be surprised at how many people think that having an X account means you're financially supporting Nazism via ad revenue.
SSCReader
3d ago
To hear cis is to understand that transness exists, to hear hetero is to know that homoness exists.
I think this is the heart of the argument. If I show you a man buggering another man, you don't need a word for it to know that it exists. Similarly if I show you a man dressed up as a woman. You already know it exists. Then you create a word for it. That word does make it easier for you to communicate what you mean. "My neighbor is gay" is easier to say than "My neighbor fucks men" (barely) but you know the concept exists even if you lack special words to describe it. The shadow as you put it is already there, it predates the words. Men have been fucking other men (and boys) going back pretty much as far as we have recorded history. You're going to find out homoness exists whether there is a word for it or not.
We could replace the word (and yes I agree it's a pain to type) cisheteronormativity with menaremenandwomenarewomenandmenfuckwomenandthatisnormal and the only thing that would change is that it's maybe marginally even more of a pain to type than cisheteronormativity. You can indeed just say that cishetero is normal and gesture to every other mammal. There is nothing to stop you doing that. You don't have to defend it academically is basically my point.
You can just say "Clearly gay people do exist but it is normal for men to fuck women." an academic may respond with a torrent of words and the like, but normal people don't understand them and don't like them. You DON'T have to engage at their level to win in the public eye. People aren't persuaded by rational academic arguments. This is what Trump proves every single day. Academia can pound on about cisheteronormativity and Trump can just say "Men aren't women" and the majority of Americans will agree with him.
The infohazard of being gay exists. You can't hide it. The word gay is not the infohazard itself. It just describes it. You can use that to point people to the infohazard or away from it (Gay is good!, Gay is bad!) but having a word for it in and of itself is not the problem. If the infohazard is bad then it is the act of pointing people towards it that is the problem, not the word you use while doing so.
FtSoA
3d ago
I think Mises is right in the final analysis
I'm more of a Hayek and Friedman guy myself. Utilitarianism libertarianism > deontological libertarianism.
but this is bad argumentation for your stated goal because progressives do not share the basic priors that make these numbers convincing to you
The para re: policy effectiveness sets that up a basic shared prior of caring about means and ends.
If someone fundamentally does not care about measuring ROI of policy interventions, then what can one do. One can lead a horse to facts...
Moreover, they have their own numbers that you don't find convincing.
Not remotely good ones they don't. I actually read Capital in the 21st Century and I've taken econ courses from Marxists, so I'm pretty familiar with the other side of the aisle here.
That's kinda my whole thesis here: I used to accept those numbers as part as that narrative. Then I learned better.
Without that, you are in danger of merely engaging in congratulating your own side for having a worldview that correctly fits their perception of the world.
My "side" here is currently out of power or even major influence in either of the two major U.S. political parties right now.
Being right is clearly insufficient!
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
3d ago
I believe the term of art is "skull gun".
GoofyGoose
3d ago
- Poverty: capitalism works, redistribution doesn’t (or worse)
- Cost of living/services: Due to government subsidizing demand and restricting supply
- Welfare: Unfair redistribution
- Labor rights: Due to economic growth and competition, not unions
- The New Deal: Prolonged the Great Depression
- Rust Belt decline: Automation and unions, not free trade
- Europe: Low growth and health and pension crises
- Progressive governance: High spending and bad results
Did I miss anything? Which ones do you disagree with? I am not sure about 6: it could still be that a dollar that is too strong (expensive) harms exports. The problem there is still not the free market, rather underprovision of dollars in global markets.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
3d ago
comparing Soviet anything to EA is apples to hand grenades
People have been killed in the name of EA ideas. One can claim that this was the work of the criminal and mentally ill (and be right), but that's also what the Marxists say about their bad apples.
I, for one, think that if you gave soviet levels of power to the shrimp welfare people, they would be very unwise with it. I don't think that's an unreasonable view.
bonsaii
3d ago
If you're looking for something a bit more mainstream, I fell in love with tennis for many of the same reasons:
- competitive but not cruel
- extremely simple rules
- the points are short (though full matches are not)
- stylistic variation in participants
The last one has been in decline for the last couple of decades, much to my dismay, but at any given point there are at least a handful of players who make it to the top ten or so that add some variety, if not as pronounced as in the past (I've been considering writing a semi-effort post on this, relating it to more general trends towards homogenization in the myopic pursuit of optimization that I feel like I see almost everywhere now). Sampras-Agassi, Federer-Nadal, Federer-Djokovic, and the modern Sinner-Alcaraz are great examples of match-ups with contrasting styles.
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
3d ago
None, just mosey on down to the Leased Territories for some quick outpatient surgery.
zPvQINBQvfFR
3d ago
No eugenics, but you need to write an email to Joseph Manderley.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
3d ago
I won't argue against this rampant line-go-up apologia because, well, I think Mises is right in the final analysis; but this is bad argumentation for your stated goal because progressives do not share the basic priors that make these numbers convincing to you.
Moreover, they have their own numbers that you don't find convincing.
If you want to convince anyone of something, you have to start from within their worldview and chart a path to wherever it is you want to take them, and you better be very nice doing it too, people are easily scared (and rightfully so, actually).
Without that, you are in danger of merely engaging in congratulating your own side for having a worldview that correctly fits their perception of the world. This is a very popular game, and quite a lucrative one too, but as you might have surmised by observing your enemies engaging in it, it's not very effective political propaganda.
I don't consider these costs acceptable; as always, I consider them the least bad option. The alternative seems to be to not have scientific research happen in the US to anywhere near the same efficacy and scale as right now, thereby destroying the biggest engine of human progress and flourishing existing in the current world all because of some people's irrational focus on people's ancestry over all else.
It's also telling that your two most concrete costs aren't really that large on the scale of a country. Billions in property destruction is the same order-of-magnitude as badly-written liability laws letting oil drillers think they can get away with too-lax safety standard and causing some medium-sized spills, and one or two orders of magnitude less than a large-city government not taking disaster scenarios seriously and building good flood protection before a major hurricane. Thousands of extra murders is the same order-of-magnitude as making the wrong decision for whether to intervene in some standard once-per-year foreign conflict or the effect over a decade of not regulating lead well enough in one large state. These are not the order-of-magnitude that deserves such a national policy freak-out and not even close to the percents of GDP growth you lose from the kneecapping of the country's research infrastructure and skilled-immigration pipeline (and really, it is this big when a single skilled-immigrant's company is somewhere between 5-10% of the entire SAP500).
The other two are so fuzzy. How bad they are is so hidden in all these imprecise words like "acceptable", "tiers of justice", "explicit discrimination" that can be interpreted as anywhere from a nothingburger to one of the worst things that's happened in the last decades. Again, please try to be more concrete---it's impossible to reason accurately about this otherwise. I personally think you have such a skewed view of the relative impacts because you have never tried to be concrete about this before and are instead getting distracted by the exciting, culture-warry nature of the fuzzy words you can say instead.
Yeah, the altruism question is interesting, and I've seen what I might describe as "weaponized altruism," where an individual commits an act of self-sacrifice with the hope and intent of convincing someone else to commit to an act of even greater self-sacrifice.
Or perhaps the classical example where someone engages in an altruistic act that leaves them worse off, but they perceive that doing so will let them acquire increased social status in that particular situation, and they'll be able to trade on that social status for greater gains in the long term.
I define 'real' altruism in terms of incurring some material loss that is in excess, ideally far in excess, of the expected gains of taking the action, and that someone else is the expected beneficiary of the action.
On the extreme end this would mean dying or incurring some devastating injury in order to ensure someone else lives.
Even in less extreme cases, I don't now that its possible to live a whole life devoted to this ideal, because your ability keep incurring costs is bounded.
So I see it as only being represented in individual acts, and there are individuals who are capable of committing to such acts when the time comes, and those who will default to whatever is actually in their direct self interest.
More options
Context Copy link