3 ms·

One thing I've noticed related to this - your average global warming skeptic that you talk to in day to day conversations (not entrenched stakeholders on the in

by nsxwolf 10y ago

One thing I've noticed related to this - your average global warming skeptic that you talk to in day to day conversations (not entrenched stakeholders on the internet) becomes far more willing to believe in man made climate change once you remind them that they are under no obligation to support or accept any particular policy to mitigate it. But if you tell them they have to give up this or that lifestyle, or pay more in taxes, or support a one child policy or whatever else you come up with, they instantly become allergic to the facts.

tbrownaw 10y ago
Well yeah. If you conflate those things or tie them together, you've basically declared your intent to demand a mile if they give so much as an inch. Which means the only sensible response is to fight tooth and nail every step of the way.
- Spivak 10y ago
  This is basically the NRAs strategy as well and it's been incredibly successful. They know that their opponents intend to use compromise as a foothold for total disarmament so they have no choice but to occasionally take extreme or irrational stances. I don't blame them in the slightest.
  - brianberns 10y ago
    > They know that their opponents intend to use compromise as a foothold for total disarmament. Really? Care to provide any factual evidence for that statement?
    - kbenson 10y ago
      I'm not the GP, but I think it's obvious that of the spectrum of desired outcomes regarding gun control and the people that support them, there exist some that want nothing less than the total ban of firearms (as some other countries do). Any measure less than that will appease some, but others will continue to advocate. The part that wasn't spelled out is how any appeasement helps those who want more extreme measures. I think that is explained somewhat by allowing them to then point out that you've capitulated on gun control for safety reasons, so the argument is no longer whether guns are unsafe, but how unsafe they are, and being able to reframe the argument in that manner is likely to result in further restrictions later as current events are used to pass more stringent laws. I'm not sure how true that is or not in practice, but that's what I assume the GP was referring to.
    - rjeli 10y ago
      "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" - Diane Feinstein "All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars." - Chuck Schumer Look at Australia - first they registered, then they confiscated (go down the list, knock on doors). edit: upon reread, this comment seems like partisan fluff. I am for common sense gun control, but unfortunately our political climate punishes compromise -- so I just wanted to point out, yes, there are in fact people who want to take 'em all away, forever.
      - Qwertious 10y ago
        "Look at Australia - first they registered, then they confiscated (go down the list, knock on doors)." IIRC you're still allowed to have (some types of) guns, as long as you keep them in a gun safe.
exclusiv 10y ago
People can be on the same page but still have a debate about the extent of the situation. They could agree on man made climate change while believing it's not a doomsday scenario. The extent is important because that's how you set sensible policies. If it's really not doomsday than the policies you might advocate for would be ridiculous. If it is a doomsday scenario then the lack of policies one of the skeptics you spoke with would be ridiculous.
tikhonj 10y ago
I find this very revealing: it's easier to argue against an objective claim—even if all the evidence points against you—than it is to argue against a normative claim. So it's easier to deny "global warming exists" than it is to deny "if global warming exists we should make sacrifices to prevent it" even though, abstractly, it should be easier to make a strong case for the first point. Zooming out even more, it's somehow easier to argue against established scientific fact than it is to argue for valuing shorter-term concerns more and longer-term ones less. Part of this is that if you argue against the first position you might be labeled as uniformed or ignorant, but if you argue against the second position, its supporters will tar you as immoral, evil and generally a bad person.
mherdeg 10y ago
On the flip side, a 2015 study found that if there is some incentive for telling the truth, people are more likely to tell the truth. From the abstract of "Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics", Quarterly Journal of Political Science Dec 2015 ( http://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/QJPS-14074 http://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/QJPS-14074 ): ""The experiments show that small payments for correct and "don't know" answers sharply diminish the gap between Democrats and Republicans in responses to "partisan" factual questions. Our conclusion is that the apparent gulf in factual beliefs between members of different parties may be more illusory than real. The experiments also bolster and extend a major finding about political knowledge in America: we show (as others have) that Americans know little about politics, but we also show that they often recognize their own lack of knowledge."" (I should note that I have not actually read this paper, only news articles purporting to describe it.)
barrkel 10y ago
It's perfectly rational to agree on man-made climate change without agreeing on a subsequent action.

by nsxwolf 10y ago

tbrownaw 10y ago

Well yeah. If you conflate those things or tie them together, you've basically declared your intent to demand a mile if they give so much as an inch. Which means the only sensible response is to fight tooth and nail every step of the way.

Spivak 10y ago
This is basically the NRAs strategy as well and it's been incredibly successful. They know that their opponents intend to use compromise as a foothold for total disarmament so they have no choice but to occasionally take extreme or irrational stances. I don't blame them in the slightest.
- brianberns 10y ago
  > They know that their opponents intend to use compromise as a foothold for total disarmament. Really? Care to provide any factual evidence for that statement?
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I'm not the GP, but I think it's obvious that of the spectrum of desired outcomes regarding gun control and the people that support them, there exist some that want nothing less than the total ban of firearms (as some other countries do). Any measure less than that will appease some, but others will continue to advocate. The part that wasn't spelled out is how any appeasement helps those who want more extreme measures. I think that is explained somewhat by allowing them to then point out that you've capitulated on gun control for safety reasons, so the argument is no longer whether guns are unsafe, but how unsafe they are, and being able to reframe the argument in that manner is likely to result in further restrictions later as current events are used to pass more stringent laws. I'm not sure how true that is or not in practice, but that's what I assume the GP was referring to.
  - rjeli 10y ago
    "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" - Diane Feinstein "All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars." - Chuck Schumer Look at Australia - first they registered, then they confiscated (go down the list, knock on doors). edit: upon reread, this comment seems like partisan fluff. I am for common sense gun control, but unfortunately our political climate punishes compromise -- so I just wanted to point out, yes, there are in fact people who want to take 'em all away, forever.
    - Qwertious 10y ago
      "Look at Australia - first they registered, then they confiscated (go down the list, knock on doors)." IIRC you're still allowed to have (some types of) guns, as long as you keep them in a gun safe.

exclusiv 10y ago

People can be on the same page but still have a debate about the extent of the situation. They could agree on man made climate change while believing it's not a doomsday scenario. The extent is important because that's how you set sensible policies. If it's really not doomsday than the policies you might advocate for would be ridiculous. If it is a doomsday scenario then the lack of policies one of the skeptics you spoke with would be ridiculous.

tikhonj 10y ago

I find this very revealing: it's easier to argue against an objective claim—even if all the evidence points against you—than it is to argue against a normative claim. So it's easier to deny "global warming exists" than it is to deny "if global warming exists we should make sacrifices to prevent it" even though, abstractly, it should be easier to make a strong case for the first point. Zooming out even more, it's somehow easier to argue against established scientific fact than it is to argue for valuing shorter-term concerns more and longer-term ones less. Part of this is that if you argue against the first position you might be labeled as uniformed or ignorant, but if you argue against the second position, its supporters will tar you as immoral, evil and generally a bad person.

mherdeg 10y ago

On the flip side, a 2015 study found that if there is some incentive for telling the truth, people are more likely to tell the truth. From the abstract of "Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics", Quarterly Journal of Political Science Dec 2015 ( http://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/QJPS-14074 http://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/QJPS-14074 ): ""The experiments show that small payments for correct and "don't know" answers sharply diminish the gap between Democrats and Republicans in responses to "partisan" factual questions. Our conclusion is that the apparent gulf in factual beliefs between members of different parties may be more illusory than real. The experiments also bolster and extend a major finding about political knowledge in America: we show (as others have) that Americans know little about politics, but we also show that they often recognize their own lack of knowledge."" (I should note that I have not actually read this paper, only news articles purporting to describe it.)

barrkel 10y ago

It's perfectly rational to agree on man-made climate change without agreeing on a subsequent action.