4 ms·
Let's pretend that such a projection exists and we can assign people to points on the cartesian plane. This begs the question, how do the points change over tim
by zests 6y ago
Let's pretend that such a projection exists and we can assign people to points on the cartesian plane. This begs the question, how do the points change over time?
Mathematically speaking, we can add to our model by assuming there is some notion of a flow or a vector field on the quadrant that pulls individual people/points in directions. There are also people moving in their own directions either due to inherit personal characteristics or perhaps life events impacting them.
How do we model this field? We could start by creating a bunch of "attractors" or points on the plane that people are attracted to. Think of an attractor like a very massive body and the gravitational pull it has on other bodies. If these attractors do exist, where are they on the compass?
Some attractors might be "abstract ideals" that naturally draw people to each part of the quadrant but I'd say the biggest attractor is in fact other people. Human beings have tribal tendencies and so if/when a lot of people cluster on the compass it pulls even more people in. With our gravity analogy this is like a massive star absorbing all of the mass surrounding it.
Some people have anti-conformist tendencies and don't like to belong to large groups of like minded people. Eventually large pockets of people become increasingly unstable and people radically disassociate with the big attractor. This is like a supernova radically expelling mass in all directions.
I prefer the gravity analogy because it avoids moralizing specific "locations" on the compass. A gravitational well can occur anywhere and we can discuss them abstractly. I think what PG is saying is that it is not a good idea to let yourself be pulled in to the well. Just look at the wells that have occurred in the past. All of these statements can be made with respect to an abstract political context. Now apply them to the current context.
Does this post make any sense or is it just the ravings of a mad lunatic? Do we believe these things because they are true or do we believe them because we agree with their conclusion? Do we disagree because we disagree with the conclusion?
Is it really possible to introspect and judge the validity of our own conclusions? If anyone can answer this questions (preferably by reference to a third party source) I'd be appreciative.
- Kednicma 6y agoHonestly, it's all too easy to read PG's "social" and "individual" as code words for "socially-planned markets" and "unregulated free markets", making his left-right axis actually the left-right axis of the political compass. And from there, it's easy enough to start unmasking the entire essay as a thinly-veiled apology for why neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and other upper-right ideologies on the standard political compass are, in fact, the Good Ideologies that are Better than everybody else's. Edit: Let's complete the analogy. In my framing, PG is calling lower-lefties "sheep", upper-lefties "tattletales", and lower-righties "dreamers". This clearly places PG in the upper right with bootlickers. From this framing, PG looks at the left as weak and enslaved to a state, with the "sheep" being unable to consider anything beyond what the state tells them and the "tattletales" enforcing the rules of the state. If only the "dreamers" could stop being so namby-pamby and be more "aggressive", then we could have a more "individual" state. PG gives zero examples when he says: > In the last few years, many of us have noticed that the customs protecting free inquiry have been weakened. Oh? Which free inquiries, PG? Please, show us; what has poor PG been unable to talk about because of the mean old Twitter mob? To hear millionaires whine of not being able to simply get their way, you'd think that they're in danger of being shipped to the gulag. In fact, though, PG is hilariously wealthy and can publish his words through a variety of platforms; in addition, he's never had those platforms taken away from him because of a line of inquiry that he's pursued. Can he show otherwise, or is he just being a whiner?
- anoncoward121 6y agoPerhaps he speaks on behalf of others, precisely because he is in the enviable position of still being able to speak out. If you work at Google and depend on your salary, you cannot say these things. Which is a pity, because "left" and "right" agree on a lot of things like state brutality. But if the "left" monopolizes that topic and vilifies others because of a lack of total obedience, working together is impossible.
- Kednicma 6y agoSounds like bullshit. I've worked at Google, and I spoke up loudly while I was there. I've spoken up while at other employers, too. We can't simply let ourselves be muzzled by corporate accusations of thoughtcrime. When we say the slogan, "it is hard to get somebody to realize something when their salary depends on it," we are talking about cognitive impediments to understanding. We aren't talking about the lying that corporate spokespeople carry out. Which far-right state agrees with the idea of less state brutality? Could you name one? I'm only able to think of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bhutan, and Thailand, and they all have quite a bit of state-sponsored brutality, in their own different ways.
- t_serpico 6y agothat was a completely pointless analogy