5 ms·

Basically, everyone has already made up their minds whether encryption/guns/drugs/etc are good or bad, and use global events as "proof" of why they are right. I

Basically, everyone has already made up their minds whether encryption/guns/drugs/etc are good or bad, and use global events as "proof" of why they are right. It's not just the news anchors that do it. When was the last time you read someone say, "And this latest attack has changed my mind...". Almost never. Mostly it's "And this latest attack proves my agenda is right..."

mindslight 11y ago
Presumably there's a large amount of people undecided or unopinionated about these topics, being browbeaten by the telescreen. It can't all be sociological normalization, can it?
- rayiner 11y ago
  I think very few people are undecided about these things. These are "gut feeling" judgments. What is the appropriate trade-off between security and freedom? What is an acceptable amount of immigration and how much should we require people to integrate? Nobody sits there and does a cost-benefit utilitarian analysis of those questions, if one was even possible. They start with broad principles (e.g. surveillance is per se bad) and interpret facts to fit into their preconceptions.
  - noobermin 11y ago
    Honest question, people say this a lot, but why do we just have to do it without resisting it? I'd hope that the point of education to avoid that kind of reasoning (or lack thereof) as much as possible, not just to give our preconceived notions a tapestry of intellectualism.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      The fact is that for these sorts of high-level questions, there is no educated answer. There are no double-blind studies you can rely on to come to an educated conclusion. So instead you have people, even educated people, viewing everything through the lens of their chosen principles.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    This is a simplification of the issue. If some think surveillance is per se bad, who is it who thinks surveillance is per se good?
    - rayiner 11y ago
      I don't imagine that anyone thinks that surveillance is per se bad, but I'd bet there are lots of people who just see it as a possible option without necessarily assigning a negative reaction to it.
      - ionised 11y ago
        > I don't imagine that anyone thinks that surveillance is per se bad. Really?
        jessaustin 11y ago
        Based on the rest of the thread, that's probably a typo. It's an interesting slip, however, because he already set up this so-illuminating contrast between a simpleminded "durhh, surveillance bad" straw man and those wise dispassionate thinkers who are willing to consider any state action in its proper context. Because apparently it's necessary to burn the straw, no one is against e.g. the surveillance required on the part of police in order to avoid indiscriminately arresting everyone all the time. I.e., if police have good reason to believe that a law has been broken, it's probably appropriate to make an arrest. If they don't, it's probably not. Some targeted surveillance is appropriate to distinguish those two situations.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Some do. The good parts of academia, policy journals, think tanks, etc. But that doesn't get into mainstream media because it's boring. (Whether that stuff affects actual policies undertaken is a good question. I think it does, both directly, I.e. politicians read them, and indirectly by influencing the elite, who influence politicians.) There's also government agencies who make decisions based on public comments, both in law and in policy. There may be other influences, but I think the actual argument do matter somewhat.
pjc50 11y ago
The definitive, still relevant satire on this is http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.html http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.... : "Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics"
noobermin 11y ago
To give this a better framing, say after Sandy Hook, I'd wager that the first response in the mind of a liberal was, "Fuck! See, guns kill! If we didn't have the 2nd ammendment, so many children wouldn't have had to die!" For a conservative, their first response might have been, "Fuck! This is why teachers need guns to protect their children from crazymen! More children didn't have to die!" May be I'm a little too naive, but I really don't think people are insincerely manufacturing rage, both are upset about the tragedy, they just rationalize it in the mental framework they already have, and they sincerely respond with that mindset. I think the better question is why can't we be more rational/scientific about this. Forget gut feelings, put down a spreadsheet (at least) how many instances of this statistic correlate with this hypothesis. If it doesn't work, clearly your intuition is wrong, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just need to sharpen your intuition. I'd like to see government work like that, but neither side seems to want to do something like that.
- bdamm 11y ago
  Partly it's because people don't agree on what a rational basis would consist of. For example, pro gun enthusiasts consider a suicide by gunshot to not count as a "gun death", whereas pro gun control folks generally do. This different turns out to be an enormous problem, because suicide by gun makes up approximately half of all gun deaths, thereby making gun deaths either seriously dangerous when compared to motor vehicle accidents, or not dangerous at all.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  be more rational/scientific about this. Forget gut feelings, put down a spreadsheet But that already presupposes the answer to one of the major arguments. There's a fair philosophical case to be made for "it doesn't matter if the empirical net is positive or negative: the bottom line is that I have a natural right to defend myself and my family, even if other people cannot or choose not to do so themselves". Sorry, I don't mean to start the actual gun debate here. I'm just trying to show that the underlying question presents a false choice fallacy. It's incorrect to simply ask, "should the government make this regulation or not?". There's space for a lot more nuance in there: "is this a good idea or a bad idea? If it's a good idea, is it something that should be part of the private sector's purview? If not, can government do it effectively?"

mindslight 11y ago

Presumably there's a large amount of people undecided or unopinionated about these topics, being browbeaten by the telescreen. It can't all be sociological normalization, can it?

rayiner 11y ago
I think very few people are undecided about these things. These are "gut feeling" judgments. What is the appropriate trade-off between security and freedom? What is an acceptable amount of immigration and how much should we require people to integrate? Nobody sits there and does a cost-benefit utilitarian analysis of those questions, if one was even possible. They start with broad principles (e.g. surveillance is per se bad) and interpret facts to fit into their preconceptions.
- noobermin 11y ago
  Honest question, people say this a lot, but why do we just have to do it without resisting it? I'd hope that the point of education to avoid that kind of reasoning (or lack thereof) as much as possible, not just to give our preconceived notions a tapestry of intellectualism.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The fact is that for these sorts of high-level questions, there is no educated answer. There are no double-blind studies you can rely on to come to an educated conclusion. So instead you have people, even educated people, viewing everything through the lens of their chosen principles.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  This is a simplification of the issue. If some think surveillance is per se bad, who is it who thinks surveillance is per se good?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I don't imagine that anyone thinks that surveillance is per se bad, but I'd bet there are lots of people who just see it as a possible option without necessarily assigning a negative reaction to it.
    - ionised 11y ago
      > I don't imagine that anyone thinks that surveillance is per se bad. Really?
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        Based on the rest of the thread, that's probably a typo. It's an interesting slip, however, because he already set up this so-illuminating contrast between a simpleminded "durhh, surveillance bad" straw man and those wise dispassionate thinkers who are willing to consider any state action in its proper context. Because apparently it's necessary to burn the straw, no one is against e.g. the surveillance required on the part of police in order to avoid indiscriminately arresting everyone all the time. I.e., if police have good reason to believe that a law has been broken, it's probably appropriate to make an arrest. If they don't, it's probably not. Some targeted surveillance is appropriate to distinguish those two situations.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Some do. The good parts of academia, policy journals, think tanks, etc. But that doesn't get into mainstream media because it's boring. (Whether that stuff affects actual policies undertaken is a good question. I think it does, both directly, I.e. politicians read them, and indirectly by influencing the elite, who influence politicians.) There's also government agencies who make decisions based on public comments, both in law and in policy. There may be other influences, but I think the actual argument do matter somewhat.

pjc50 11y ago

The definitive, still relevant satire on this is http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.html http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.... : "Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics"

noobermin 11y ago

To give this a better framing, say after Sandy Hook, I'd wager that the first response in the mind of a liberal was, "Fuck! See, guns kill! If we didn't have the 2nd ammendment, so many children wouldn't have had to die!" For a conservative, their first response might have been, "Fuck! This is why teachers need guns to protect their children from crazymen! More children didn't have to die!" May be I'm a little too naive, but I really don't think people are insincerely manufacturing rage, both are upset about the tragedy, they just rationalize it in the mental framework they already have, and they sincerely respond with that mindset. I think the better question is why can't we be more rational/scientific about this. Forget gut feelings, put down a spreadsheet (at least) how many instances of this statistic correlate with this hypothesis. If it doesn't work, clearly your intuition is wrong, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just need to sharpen your intuition. I'd like to see government work like that, but neither side seems to want to do something like that.

bdamm 11y ago
Partly it's because people don't agree on what a rational basis would consist of. For example, pro gun enthusiasts consider a suicide by gunshot to not count as a "gun death", whereas pro gun control folks generally do. This different turns out to be an enormous problem, because suicide by gun makes up approximately half of all gun deaths, thereby making gun deaths either seriously dangerous when compared to motor vehicle accidents, or not dangerous at all.
CWuestefeld 11y ago
be more rational/scientific about this. Forget gut feelings, put down a spreadsheet But that already presupposes the answer to one of the major arguments. There's a fair philosophical case to be made for "it doesn't matter if the empirical net is positive or negative: the bottom line is that I have a natural right to defend myself and my family, even if other people cannot or choose not to do so themselves". Sorry, I don't mean to start the actual gun debate here. I'm just trying to show that the underlying question presents a false choice fallacy. It's incorrect to simply ask, "should the government make this regulation or not?". There's space for a lot more nuance in there: "is this a good idea or a bad idea? If it's a good idea, is it something that should be part of the private sector's purview? If not, can government do it effectively?"