4 ms·

I found your explanation a lot more weird and a lot less simpler than the parent.

by blindwatchmaker 8y ago

philwelch 8y ago
One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity.
- Lionsion 8y ago
  > One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity. What exactly is the conspiracy theory here?
  - philwelch 8y ago
    "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government".
    - Lionsion 8y ago
      > "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government". I figured that's what you'd say. I think you misunderstand the meaning and connotations of the term "conspiracy theory." It doesn't mean, literally, "a theory that a group is conspiring." A true conspiracy theory, at its core, is an outrageous and unbelievable idea that gets elaborated on to an unreasonable degree. Think UFO coverups and black helicopters of the New World Order. It's not outragious and unreasonable to think "the right wing" is acting together to "reduce the scale of government" or support "business friendly" polices like binding arbitration at the expense of consumers. They literally campaign, in public, on those and similar ideas.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        There’s a spectrum of conspiracy theories, and not all of them are as absurd as the ones that literally involve UFO’s and the like. Yes, there is an ideological element to this, but there’s also a very pedestrian element of an overworked court and legal system that is more than willing to accept compromises that reduce its already-crushing workload, and dismissing that element because it’s “simpler” to just blame Republicans is the same kind of oversimplification that makes outright conspiracy theories appeal to people. It’s a lot easier to point to a group of people and say “they did this!” than to actually grasp all the complications of how complex real-world systems function and malfunction.
        chc 8y ago
        Are you saying you don't see any connection between decades of leaders who believe the government should have its funding cut and be less involved in business, and the fact that the government is so starved for resources that it can scarcely afford to get involved in businesses' disputes? There appears to be a pretty straightforward cause-and-effect relationship there.
        philwelch 8y ago
        No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying there are more factors than that and that things like unintended consequences and complicated feedback loops exist and have real consequences even though they're not as "straightforward" or "simple" as just blaming people you disagree with.
        Lionsion 8y ago
        > even though they're not as "straightforward" or "simple" as just blaming people you disagree with. You're getting way, way off track. This whole subthread started when someone asked why lawmakers would "cede power" to arbitrators, and the response was maybe they don't mind, with examples where they sought reduced power for the government. You're the one who seems intent on making this about blaming them.
        philwelch 8y ago
        I’m kind of doing a bad job here because the GP of the comment I was replying to bailed out and replaced his whole comment with something dismissive, so we can’t actually see the counterpoint I was trying to defend. Honestly, this thread (and HN in total) is increasingly a lost cause, so let’s just move on with our respective lives.
        Lionsion 8y ago
        > I’m kind of doing a bad job here because the GP of the comment I was replying to bailed out and replaced his whole comment with something dismissive, so we can’t actually see the counterpoint I was trying to defend. That point is preserved as a quotation in one of the other replies, and it seemed kinda facile. > Honestly, this thread (and HN in total) is increasingly a lost cause This subthread certainly wasn't good, but that happens when people double down on bad points, like the "conspiracy theory" one.
    - barrkel 8y ago
      That's not the conspiracy. In fact there's no conspiracy needed; just a belief that private individuals (including companies) are better at coordinating than the state is. And it's not even a controversial belief. What makes all the difference is how much of an imbalance of power between contracting parties you're prepared to accept before you think the state needs to intervene. That's a sliding scale, not a binary distinction.
    - chc 8y ago
      The idea that some people support policies they openly claim to support falls pretty far short of a conspiracy theory.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        The idea is more like, "conservatives intentionally restrict regulation of businesses, deliberately shifting the burden onto the judicial system, which they also starve of resources, such that the only manageable solution is to allow mandatory arbitration". The assertion is basically that all of these consequences were not only intended, but planned. Most of the contacts, licenses, agreements, terms and conditions, etc. that entail mandatory arbitration exist in the first place as a response to well-intended laws, regulations and judicial precedents that come from pro-consumer or pro-employee motivations. If you're an ideologically consistent conservative, you probably want to just get rid of those laws and regulations, at which point you wouldn't need a mandatory arbitration clause or, indeed, the entire remainder of the massive legal document. I don't know any conservatives who say, "yes, in order to use consumer software, you should have to agree to a ten-page document that says you shouldn't use it to run a nuclear reactor, but only if we put a clause in there about mandatory arbitration!" I think the conservatives would rather not have the red tape in the first place.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        I find it very telling when someone refers to "pro employee/pro consumer rules" as "red tape".
        philwelch 8y ago
        Ah, you're trying to "gotcha!" me. Just being able to understand and explain a viewpoint doesn't entail agreeing with it. Unlike seemingly everyone else in this conversation, I don't feel qualified to have an informed opinion on this. Of course, if you keep tut-tutting about it being "very telling" when someone is capable of explaining opposing viewpoints, then you save yourself the trouble of ever having to engage with those viewpoints and your bubble is intact. Congratulations on that. I commend you on your emotional and intellectual maturity. God, HN has gone to shit.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

I found your explanation a lot more weird and a lot less simpler than the parent.

philwelch 8y ago

One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity.

Lionsion 8y ago
> One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity. What exactly is the conspiracy theory here?
- philwelch 8y ago
  "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government".
  - Lionsion 8y ago
    > "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government". I figured that's what you'd say. I think you misunderstand the meaning and connotations of the term "conspiracy theory." It doesn't mean, literally, "a theory that a group is conspiring." A true conspiracy theory, at its core, is an outrageous and unbelievable idea that gets elaborated on to an unreasonable degree. Think UFO coverups and black helicopters of the New World Order. It's not outragious and unreasonable to think "the right wing" is acting together to "reduce the scale of government" or support "business friendly" polices like binding arbitration at the expense of consumers. They literally campaign, in public, on those and similar ideas.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      There’s a spectrum of conspiracy theories, and not all of them are as absurd as the ones that literally involve UFO’s and the like. Yes, there is an ideological element to this, but there’s also a very pedestrian element of an overworked court and legal system that is more than willing to accept compromises that reduce its already-crushing workload, and dismissing that element because it’s “simpler” to just blame Republicans is the same kind of oversimplification that makes outright conspiracy theories appeal to people. It’s a lot easier to point to a group of people and say “they did this!” than to actually grasp all the complications of how complex real-world systems function and malfunction.
      - chc 8y ago
        Are you saying you don't see any connection between decades of leaders who believe the government should have its funding cut and be less involved in business, and the fact that the government is so starved for resources that it can scarcely afford to get involved in businesses' disputes? There appears to be a pretty straightforward cause-and-effect relationship there.
        philwelch 8y ago
        No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying there are more factors than that and that things like unintended consequences and complicated feedback loops exist and have real consequences even though they're not as "straightforward" or "simple" as just blaming people you disagree with.
        Lionsion 8y ago
        > even though they're not as "straightforward" or "simple" as just blaming people you disagree with. You're getting way, way off track. This whole subthread started when someone asked why lawmakers would "cede power" to arbitrators, and the response was maybe they don't mind, with examples where they sought reduced power for the government. You're the one who seems intent on making this about blaming them.
        philwelch 8y ago
        I’m kind of doing a bad job here because the GP of the comment I was replying to bailed out and replaced his whole comment with something dismissive, so we can’t actually see the counterpoint I was trying to defend. Honestly, this thread (and HN in total) is increasingly a lost cause, so let’s just move on with our respective lives.
        Lionsion 8y ago
        > I’m kind of doing a bad job here because the GP of the comment I was replying to bailed out and replaced his whole comment with something dismissive, so we can’t actually see the counterpoint I was trying to defend. That point is preserved as a quotation in one of the other replies, and it seemed kinda facile. > Honestly, this thread (and HN in total) is increasingly a lost cause This subthread certainly wasn't good, but that happens when people double down on bad points, like the "conspiracy theory" one.
  - barrkel 8y ago
    That's not the conspiracy. In fact there's no conspiracy needed; just a belief that private individuals (including companies) are better at coordinating than the state is. And it's not even a controversial belief. What makes all the difference is how much of an imbalance of power between contracting parties you're prepared to accept before you think the state needs to intervene. That's a sliding scale, not a binary distinction.
  - chc 8y ago
    The idea that some people support policies they openly claim to support falls pretty far short of a conspiracy theory.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      The idea is more like, "conservatives intentionally restrict regulation of businesses, deliberately shifting the burden onto the judicial system, which they also starve of resources, such that the only manageable solution is to allow mandatory arbitration". The assertion is basically that all of these consequences were not only intended, but planned. Most of the contacts, licenses, agreements, terms and conditions, etc. that entail mandatory arbitration exist in the first place as a response to well-intended laws, regulations and judicial precedents that come from pro-consumer or pro-employee motivations. If you're an ideologically consistent conservative, you probably want to just get rid of those laws and regulations, at which point you wouldn't need a mandatory arbitration clause or, indeed, the entire remainder of the massive legal document. I don't know any conservatives who say, "yes, in order to use consumer software, you should have to agree to a ten-page document that says you shouldn't use it to run a nuclear reactor, but only if we put a clause in there about mandatory arbitration!" I think the conservatives would rather not have the red tape in the first place.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        I find it very telling when someone refers to "pro employee/pro consumer rules" as "red tape".
        philwelch 8y ago
        Ah, you're trying to "gotcha!" me. Just being able to understand and explain a viewpoint doesn't entail agreeing with it. Unlike seemingly everyone else in this conversation, I don't feel qualified to have an informed opinion on this. Of course, if you keep tut-tutting about it being "very telling" when someone is capable of explaining opposing viewpoints, then you save yourself the trouble of ever having to engage with those viewpoints and your bubble is intact. Congratulations on that. I commend you on your emotional and intellectual maturity. God, HN has gone to shit.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]