6 ms·

So, completely unconcerned, or just less concerned? Which?

lmm 5y ago
Overwhelmingly less likely to take the desired actions. I wouldn't presume to judge the difference between say 0.1% as likely and not at all likely.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > ...the difference between say 0.1% as likely and not at all likely. Heh, to think that this sub-thread began with someone (you? Can't recall) complaining about "arbitrary" boycotting... That's a mighty arbitrary number you've got there. What's to say the difference isn't actually between 80% and 99%?
  - lmm 5y ago
    I'm definitely claiming an arbitrary boycott is less than 20% as effective as a clearly principled one. I'm agnostic about whether an arbitrary boycott is completely 100% ineffective or a teeny tiny smidgen effective and I don't think that's a meaningful distinction to draw.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      I think your premise is horrendously flawed. How would most sellers even know whether people are boycotting them "arbitrarily" or not?!? 1) A boycott is a boycott; they only notice that people are boycotting them. 2) ALL boycotts are "arbitrary" in the sense that [almost no | few | some | many | most | almost all] people participate in them, for reasons of their own. 3) ALL boycotts are "clearly principled" in the sense that the people participating in them are doing it because of some principle that's important to them. 4) Seller A can't know -- and probably doesn't give a shit about -- whether each of the participants in the boycott is also boycotting sellers B, C, D, E, F, etc, which perhaps they ought to also boycott on the same grounds they're boycotting seller A. 5) As I already mentioned, some of the people boycotting seller A are probably also boycotting sellers B and C even though they can't be bothered to boycott D, E and F; some others boycott A, D and E although not B, C and F; some A, C, and F; etc etc. For every boycott, you'll find people who also for the same principled reasons boycott other sellers. Lots of arbitrary decisions make a random distribution; it all evens out. And the numbers (or number-adjacent adjectives) you keep throwing around, apparently in an effort to lend your totally subjective opinion some air of scientific legitimacy, are still totally arbitrary, or to call them what they are: pulled straight out of your nether orifice. How do you KNOW that "an arbitrary boycott is less than 20% as effective as a clearly principled one"??? What data do you have to claim the question is "whether an arbitrary boycott is completely 100% ineffective or a teeny tiny smidgen effective", when it could just as well be whether it is -- to pull equally random numbers out of my own arse -- 90% effective or only 60%? Sure, that might not be "a meaningful distinction to draw", either: Both are pretty fucking bad for the seller. So... Sorry, but to me your whole screed still feels just as arbitrary and unreasoned as you accuse those partial boycotters of being.
      - lmm 5y ago
        > 1) A boycott is a boycott; they only notice that people are boycotting them. Well if that's all they can find out then the boycott is pointless. If a boycott is meant to change the company's behaviour then there has to be a way for them to find out what the boycott is about. > 5) As I already mentioned, some of the people boycotting seller A are probably also boycotting sellers B and C even though they can't be bothered to boycott D, E and F; some others boycott A, D and E although not B, C and F; some A, C, and F; etc etc. For every boycott, you'll find people who also for the same principled reasons boycott other sellers. Lots of arbitrary decisions make a random distribution; it all evens out. That's only true if everyone is making their decisions randomly though. It doesn't hold if there's a correlation in which companies people do and don't boycott, e.g. people think they're arbitrary boycotting some but not all of the companies that do X, but unconsciously they're boycotting Chinese companies but not American companies. > And the numbers (or number-adjacent adjectives) you keep throwing around, apparently in an effort to lend your totally subjective opinion some air of scientific legitimacy, are still totally arbitrary, or to call them what they are: pulled straight out of your nether orifice. How do you KNOW that "an arbitrary boycott is less than 20% as effective as a clearly principled one"??? What data do you have to claim the question is "whether an arbitrary boycott is completely 100% ineffective or a teeny tiny smidgen effective", when it could just as well be whether it is -- to pull equally random numbers out of my own arse -- 90% effective or only 60%? All I've been doing is clarifying what I'm saying. I'm putting numbers on it because you asked! First playpause had some strange fixation on whether I was claiming arbitrary boycotts were completely ineffective or only mostly ineffective, and then you jumped in with some strange fixation on the numbers I used to illustrate what I was saying. It's a bit much to ask for intense precision and then complain when I try to be precise.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > > 1) A boycott is a boycott; they only notice that people are boycotting them. > Well if that's all they can find out then the boycott is pointless. If a boycott is meant to change the company's behaviour then there has to be a way for them to find out what the boycott is about. Sigh... Yes, if some people "arbitrarily" choose to boycott company A for some reason that you think is somehow "invalid" if they don't also boycott companies B, C, and D that you think it should also apply to, they will of course let the company know that "We're boycotting you because of this principled reason!" What we were discussing was (your silly hangup on) their "arbitrariness" in not also boycotting other companies, and that company A neither knows or gives a shit about. Are you genuinely this obtuse, or just pretending because you think you'll "win" a discussion with intentional "misunderstandings"? > > Lots of arbitrary decisions make a random distribution; it all evens out. > That's only true if everyone is making their decisions randomly though. No, read it again: Arbitrarily. That's enough. Because everyone's "arbitrary" is different, the sum of them all will be indistinguishable from random. (In fact, there is an old adage that if you could measure all preconditions exactly, there is no such thing as "random". Even the movements of all the molecules in a gas wouldn't be "random" if you could know the initial position and velocity of each of them exactly... But you can't; that is, in a way, what "random" is.) > I'm putting numbers on it because you asked! First playpause had some strange fixation on whether I was claiming arbitrary boycotts were completely ineffective or only mostly ineffective, and then you jumped in with some strange fixation on the numbers I used to illustrate what I was saying. It's a bit much to ask for intense precision and then complain when I try to be precise. No. Either you're very bad at understanding what is being asked of you, or you are just plain lying when making this quoted claim. Absolutely nobody has been asking you for "intense precision" in numerical terms. We're asking for a qualitative motivation for the particular numbers you're making up: WHY should the effectiveness of "arbitrary" boycotts be as minuscule as you claim, and not on the hugely different scale I just as arbitrarily made up? Please stop deflecting; either provide some sensible replies or just admit that you've been bullshitting without the least speck of support from the very beginning.

lmm 5y ago

Overwhelmingly less likely to take the desired actions. I wouldn't presume to judge the difference between say 0.1% as likely and not at all likely.

CRConrad 5y ago
> ...the difference between say 0.1% as likely and not at all likely. Heh, to think that this sub-thread began with someone (you? Can't recall) complaining about "arbitrary" boycotting... That's a mighty arbitrary number you've got there. What's to say the difference isn't actually between 80% and 99%?
- lmm 5y ago
  I'm definitely claiming an arbitrary boycott is less than 20% as effective as a clearly principled one. I'm agnostic about whether an arbitrary boycott is completely 100% ineffective or a teeny tiny smidgen effective and I don't think that's a meaningful distinction to draw.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    I think your premise is horrendously flawed. How would most sellers even know whether people are boycotting them "arbitrarily" or not?!? 1) A boycott is a boycott; they only notice that people are boycotting them. 2) ALL boycotts are "arbitrary" in the sense that [almost no | few | some | many | most | almost all] people participate in them, for reasons of their own. 3) ALL boycotts are "clearly principled" in the sense that the people participating in them are doing it because of some principle that's important to them. 4) Seller A can't know -- and probably doesn't give a shit about -- whether each of the participants in the boycott is also boycotting sellers B, C, D, E, F, etc, which perhaps they ought to also boycott on the same grounds they're boycotting seller A. 5) As I already mentioned, some of the people boycotting seller A are probably also boycotting sellers B and C even though they can't be bothered to boycott D, E and F; some others boycott A, D and E although not B, C and F; some A, C, and F; etc etc. For every boycott, you'll find people who also for the same principled reasons boycott other sellers. Lots of arbitrary decisions make a random distribution; it all evens out. And the numbers (or number-adjacent adjectives) you keep throwing around, apparently in an effort to lend your totally subjective opinion some air of scientific legitimacy, are still totally arbitrary, or to call them what they are: pulled straight out of your nether orifice. How do you KNOW that "an arbitrary boycott is less than 20% as effective as a clearly principled one"??? What data do you have to claim the question is "whether an arbitrary boycott is completely 100% ineffective or a teeny tiny smidgen effective", when it could just as well be whether it is -- to pull equally random numbers out of my own arse -- 90% effective or only 60%? Sure, that might not be "a meaningful distinction to draw", either: Both are pretty fucking bad for the seller. So... Sorry, but to me your whole screed still feels just as arbitrary and unreasoned as you accuse those partial boycotters of being.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > 1) A boycott is a boycott; they only notice that people are boycotting them. Well if that's all they can find out then the boycott is pointless. If a boycott is meant to change the company's behaviour then there has to be a way for them to find out what the boycott is about. > 5) As I already mentioned, some of the people boycotting seller A are probably also boycotting sellers B and C even though they can't be bothered to boycott D, E and F; some others boycott A, D and E although not B, C and F; some A, C, and F; etc etc. For every boycott, you'll find people who also for the same principled reasons boycott other sellers. Lots of arbitrary decisions make a random distribution; it all evens out. That's only true if everyone is making their decisions randomly though. It doesn't hold if there's a correlation in which companies people do and don't boycott, e.g. people think they're arbitrary boycotting some but not all of the companies that do X, but unconsciously they're boycotting Chinese companies but not American companies. > And the numbers (or number-adjacent adjectives) you keep throwing around, apparently in an effort to lend your totally subjective opinion some air of scientific legitimacy, are still totally arbitrary, or to call them what they are: pulled straight out of your nether orifice. How do you KNOW that "an arbitrary boycott is less than 20% as effective as a clearly principled one"??? What data do you have to claim the question is "whether an arbitrary boycott is completely 100% ineffective or a teeny tiny smidgen effective", when it could just as well be whether it is -- to pull equally random numbers out of my own arse -- 90% effective or only 60%? All I've been doing is clarifying what I'm saying. I'm putting numbers on it because you asked! First playpause had some strange fixation on whether I was claiming arbitrary boycotts were completely ineffective or only mostly ineffective, and then you jumped in with some strange fixation on the numbers I used to illustrate what I was saying. It's a bit much to ask for intense precision and then complain when I try to be precise.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > > 1) A boycott is a boycott; they only notice that people are boycotting them. > Well if that's all they can find out then the boycott is pointless. If a boycott is meant to change the company's behaviour then there has to be a way for them to find out what the boycott is about. Sigh... Yes, if some people "arbitrarily" choose to boycott company A for some reason that you think is somehow "invalid" if they don't also boycott companies B, C, and D that you think it should also apply to, they will of course let the company know that "We're boycotting you because of this principled reason!" What we were discussing was (your silly hangup on) their "arbitrariness" in not also boycotting other companies, and that company A neither knows or gives a shit about. Are you genuinely this obtuse, or just pretending because you think you'll "win" a discussion with intentional "misunderstandings"? > > Lots of arbitrary decisions make a random distribution; it all evens out. > That's only true if everyone is making their decisions randomly though. No, read it again: Arbitrarily. That's enough. Because everyone's "arbitrary" is different, the sum of them all will be indistinguishable from random. (In fact, there is an old adage that if you could measure all preconditions exactly, there is no such thing as "random". Even the movements of all the molecules in a gas wouldn't be "random" if you could know the initial position and velocity of each of them exactly... But you can't; that is, in a way, what "random" is.) > I'm putting numbers on it because you asked! First playpause had some strange fixation on whether I was claiming arbitrary boycotts were completely ineffective or only mostly ineffective, and then you jumped in with some strange fixation on the numbers I used to illustrate what I was saying. It's a bit much to ask for intense precision and then complain when I try to be precise. No. Either you're very bad at understanding what is being asked of you, or you are just plain lying when making this quoted claim. Absolutely nobody has been asking you for "intense precision" in numerical terms. We're asking for a qualitative motivation for the particular numbers you're making up: WHY should the effectiveness of "arbitrary" boycotts be as minuscule as you claim, and not on the hugely different scale I just as arbitrarily made up? Please stop deflecting; either provide some sensible replies or just admit that you've been bullshitting without the least speck of support from the very beginning.