3 ms·

Our disagreement isn't on the question of Trump's existential threat status, it's on the question of what should be done about it (incidentally, the same disagr

by dlss 10y ago

Our disagreement isn't on the question of Trump's existential threat status, it's on the question of what should be done about it (incidentally, the same disagreement you seem to have with Sam Altman and Paul Graham). If you have a different solution than tossing out the heathens, I'm all ears. In Sam's blog post the solution he decides on is continuing dialogue. While this may be an imperfect solution, it seems to me a less imperfect solution than purging, as that generally results in communities being destroyed.

matt4077 10y ago
As long as an ideology is small enough, completely shunning it's adherents is actually the best strategy, because everyone is susceptible to social pressure. But I fear that at 40% of the population, and with the social bubble people have build around them, Trump's neo-fascist movement may be beyond the reach of such tactics. > it's on the question of what should be done about it Everything that is legal. When, in the past, Republicans advocated trickle-down economics you possibly had a chance to convince people with arguments. But I'm equally pessimistic about convincing anybody rationally. Trump and his supporters live in a reality completely divorced from any actually existing facts. It's this world with FEMA death camps and vast conspiracies planning to use the national guard to invade Texas and sell it to Mexico. There is no overlap anymore in what sources, what types of arguments, what axiomatic moral laws the two tribes consider valid. Both strategies seeming comparably useless, I decided at some point that, when my grandchildren ask me in 40 years or so I want to be able to say "I did everything that's legal".
- dlss 10y ago
  > As long as an ideology is small enough, completely shunning it's adherents is actually the best strategy Until the thousandth time you use this tactic, and the number of people shunned begins to outnumber the ones doing the shunning. > when my grandchildren ask me in 40 years or so I want to be able to say "I did everything that's legal". I'm sorry to hear this. I hope in time you can come to focus on the similarities you have to your fellow humans rather than what sounds like a myopic focus on purely ideological differences. As I said in GGGP to excuse your actions: > sometimes a person needs to make mistakes / destroy something beautiful in order to find the next level of understanding
  - adrienne 10y ago
    "Purely ideological differences" like whether sexual assault is okay and whether Muslims can be American citizens. Nope. Not going to just "agree to disagree" on that shit.

by dlss 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

As long as an ideology is small enough, completely shunning it's adherents is actually the best strategy, because everyone is susceptible to social pressure. But I fear that at 40% of the population, and with the social bubble people have build around them, Trump's neo-fascist movement may be beyond the reach of such tactics. > it's on the question of what should be done about it Everything that is legal. When, in the past, Republicans advocated trickle-down economics you possibly had a chance to convince people with arguments. But I'm equally pessimistic about convincing anybody rationally. Trump and his supporters live in a reality completely divorced from any actually existing facts. It's this world with FEMA death camps and vast conspiracies planning to use the national guard to invade Texas and sell it to Mexico. There is no overlap anymore in what sources, what types of arguments, what axiomatic moral laws the two tribes consider valid. Both strategies seeming comparably useless, I decided at some point that, when my grandchildren ask me in 40 years or so I want to be able to say "I did everything that's legal".

dlss 10y ago
> As long as an ideology is small enough, completely shunning it's adherents is actually the best strategy Until the thousandth time you use this tactic, and the number of people shunned begins to outnumber the ones doing the shunning. > when my grandchildren ask me in 40 years or so I want to be able to say "I did everything that's legal". I'm sorry to hear this. I hope in time you can come to focus on the similarities you have to your fellow humans rather than what sounds like a myopic focus on purely ideological differences. As I said in GGGP to excuse your actions: > sometimes a person needs to make mistakes / destroy something beautiful in order to find the next level of understanding
- adrienne 10y ago
  "Purely ideological differences" like whether sexual assault is okay and whether Muslims can be American citizens. Nope. Not going to just "agree to disagree" on that shit.