6 ms·

> For a lot of social issues, being given the midpoint solution is like being given half a baby. I think this cuts to the heart of the issue - and demonstrates

> For a lot of social issues, being given the midpoint solution is like being given half a baby. I think this cuts to the heart of the issue - and demonstrates the problem with this line of thinking. I also think you're missing the point of the Solomon story. When Solomon proposed that solution, one woman said "No, no - give her the baby." That woman was willing to compromise. She was willing to compromise all the way, to lose the entire dispute, to preserve the important thing they were fighting over. Solomon didn't actually plan to cut the baby in half. On many social issues, there is a negative-sum, "burn it all down" solution that leaves both sides worse. Which side reaches for that option? Which side is willing to sacrifice the deeper issue in order to "win"? That's the side that deserves to lose.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
badrabbit 8y ago
I think he got the point just fine. She was willing to compromise because half a baby is a dead baby. She would compromise on whether or not the baby was in her possesion but she could not compromise on the state of the baby. It is better to lose the whole war than to lose what you value the most. Losing could mean many things,not just loss of possession.
lotsofpulp 8y ago
Can you provide a specific example(s) of a side sacrificing a deeper issue in order to win, in recent history? I'm having trouble coming up with examples.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  How about the US government in the 1960's conceding to civil rights demands in order to avoid a violent revolution?
  - close04 8y ago
    Are you saying that the people who were fighting for civil rights actually deserved to lose because they were willing to... fight to get them?
    - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
      No.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    That doesn't make any sense as a comparison that I'm trying to find between real life politics and the the above commenter's analogy about sacrificing a baby just to "win".
- tway4567 8y ago
  We have a couple recent examples. If you think that the freedom of speech on the internet is important and foundational, then FOSTA appears to be us trading a deeper issue for a shallower one. Leaving aside the fact that it's not even likely to fix the problem it's trying to solve. A similar example: the recent court cases by state AGs to ban certain types of CAD files from being published.
- tmorton 8y ago
  I can think of many cases where "the other side" refused to compromise, creating a negative-sum game. But let me cite an example where "my side" was in the wrong. I'm a liberal-ish person, and I think most states could use more tax revenue. I'm also concerned about climate change. This is a pretty mainstream set of positions. In 2016 there was a ballot initiative proposed in Washington state that would levy a tax on carbon emissions, and offset it with cuts to other taxes. The result would be revenue-neutral (or slightly revenue-negative). It was opposed by the usual suspects (energy companies), but also some environmental groups and the state Democratic party. Part of the liberal argument was that the initiative wasn't perfect. Given a new source of revenue, liberals saw many needs that could be met, instead of tax cuts. But that wasn't the deal on the table. The initiative failed, and we got the "dead baby" of no carbon reductions, no spending on other needs, and a less efficient tax system. Details here: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_Sales_Tax_Reduction,_Initiative_732_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_S...
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  Not to get too 2016 about it but a lot of Republicans would've told you in 2015 that their top 3 beliefs were family values, cutting gov't spending and free trade.
- Jordrok 8y ago
  Two words: Donald Trump
close04 8y ago
In the Solomon story one woman was 100% right and one was 100% wrong. Are there many social issues where the 2 sides that meed this criterion? I think a better visualization of the problem is "you can't cross a canyon in less than a single bound". Sometimes there is no meeting half way. Last but not least, compromising is sometimes not an option. It's like the paradox of tolerance where the only thing you have to be intolerant to is intolerance. Because allowing that is basically killing your options. It's like allowing bacteria to kill you because you are pro-life and not willing to kill them. In the case of free speech, anything that would lead to someone else losing their freedom for the same should not be allowed just to have "a compromise". Hate speech is not free speech any more than contract killing is just a financial transaction. And just like contract killing, hate speech should be punished the same as the crime it instigated to. You instigate violence, you have to be put in the same jail cell as the people who threw the punch.
- atlantic 8y ago
  > Hate speech is not free speech any more than contract killing is just a financial transaction. Personal anecdote. When I moved to the UK in the 1970, there was a little platform in Hyde Park called Speaker's Corner. Anyone could step onto it and make a speech about anything, anything at all; they could do so in the strongest terms, without being bothered; there was always a small audience standing around, and often lively debate would result. Most of what was said on that platform would now be characterized as "hate speech" by people of your ilk. And the times were not exactly peaceful; there were IRA bombs going off in England at least once a week. Yet the authorities made a point of not interfering, because memories of WWII were still recent, and the right to free speech was considered sacrosanct. Draw your own conclusions.
  - rjplatte 8y ago
    That's healthy, and we need more of that, especially face-to-face
  - walterbell 8y ago
    We need that with a livestream and queuing mechanisms to reduce the risk of monopolization.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

badrabbit 8y ago

I think he got the point just fine. She was willing to compromise because half a baby is a dead baby. She would compromise on whether or not the baby was in her possesion but she could not compromise on the state of the baby. It is better to lose the whole war than to lose what you value the most. Losing could mean many things,not just loss of possession.

lotsofpulp 8y ago

Can you provide a specific example(s) of a side sacrificing a deeper issue in order to win, in recent history? I'm having trouble coming up with examples.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago
How about the US government in the 1960's conceding to civil rights demands in order to avoid a violent revolution?
- close04 8y ago
  Are you saying that the people who were fighting for civil rights actually deserved to lose because they were willing to... fight to get them?
  - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
    No.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  That doesn't make any sense as a comparison that I'm trying to find between real life politics and the the above commenter's analogy about sacrificing a baby just to "win".
tway4567 8y ago
We have a couple recent examples. If you think that the freedom of speech on the internet is important and foundational, then FOSTA appears to be us trading a deeper issue for a shallower one. Leaving aside the fact that it's not even likely to fix the problem it's trying to solve. A similar example: the recent court cases by state AGs to ban certain types of CAD files from being published.
tmorton 8y ago
I can think of many cases where "the other side" refused to compromise, creating a negative-sum game. But let me cite an example where "my side" was in the wrong. I'm a liberal-ish person, and I think most states could use more tax revenue. I'm also concerned about climate change. This is a pretty mainstream set of positions. In 2016 there was a ballot initiative proposed in Washington state that would levy a tax on carbon emissions, and offset it with cuts to other taxes. The result would be revenue-neutral (or slightly revenue-negative). It was opposed by the usual suspects (energy companies), but also some environmental groups and the state Democratic party. Part of the liberal argument was that the initiative wasn't perfect. Given a new source of revenue, liberals saw many needs that could be met, instead of tax cuts. But that wasn't the deal on the table. The initiative failed, and we got the "dead baby" of no carbon reductions, no spending on other needs, and a less efficient tax system. Details here: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_Sales_Tax_Reduction,_Initiative_732_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_S...
yourbandsucks 8y ago
Not to get too 2016 about it but a lot of Republicans would've told you in 2015 that their top 3 beliefs were family values, cutting gov't spending and free trade.
Jordrok 8y ago
Two words: Donald Trump

close04 8y ago

In the Solomon story one woman was 100% right and one was 100% wrong. Are there many social issues where the 2 sides that meed this criterion? I think a better visualization of the problem is "you can't cross a canyon in less than a single bound". Sometimes there is no meeting half way. Last but not least, compromising is sometimes not an option. It's like the paradox of tolerance where the only thing you have to be intolerant to is intolerance. Because allowing that is basically killing your options. It's like allowing bacteria to kill you because you are pro-life and not willing to kill them. In the case of free speech, anything that would lead to someone else losing their freedom for the same should not be allowed just to have "a compromise". Hate speech is not free speech any more than contract killing is just a financial transaction. And just like contract killing, hate speech should be punished the same as the crime it instigated to. You instigate violence, you have to be put in the same jail cell as the people who threw the punch.

atlantic 8y ago
> Hate speech is not free speech any more than contract killing is just a financial transaction. Personal anecdote. When I moved to the UK in the 1970, there was a little platform in Hyde Park called Speaker's Corner. Anyone could step onto it and make a speech about anything, anything at all; they could do so in the strongest terms, without being bothered; there was always a small audience standing around, and often lively debate would result. Most of what was said on that platform would now be characterized as "hate speech" by people of your ilk. And the times were not exactly peaceful; there were IRA bombs going off in England at least once a week. Yet the authorities made a point of not interfering, because memories of WWII were still recent, and the right to free speech was considered sacrosanct. Draw your own conclusions.
- rjplatte 8y ago
  That's healthy, and we need more of that, especially face-to-face
- walterbell 8y ago
  We need that with a livestream and queuing mechanisms to reduce the risk of monopolization.