6 ms·

This may be unpopular, but I'm actually fine with polititians manipulating the truth in that scenario (_if_ we accept as a starting point that the shortage of m

This may be unpopular, but I'm actually fine with polititians manipulating the truth in that scenario (_if_ we accept as a starting point that the shortage of masks was already unavoidable, and the best option for public health was to convince the public to minimise purchases). Part of the job of politicians is to act as a rudder for the general public, and if tragedy of the commons applies to a scenario, a politician doing what they can to counteract that effect, even by deceipt, isn't fundamentally wrong (if it's for a genuinely good cause and the situation didn't have a less distasteful solution). If polititians need to tell us that there is no fuel shortage to avoid a rush that worsens the fuel shortage, so be it. It is (and _should_ be) assumed that polititians are manipulating the truth, the only question is whether they're doing it at a level and for a cause that are acceptable. I am _much_ less comfortable by similar behaviour in scientists. Science is built on trust and a pursuit of truth, lying is anathema. This is true both within scientific debate, and from the outside, when scientists share their perspective it should be a counter balance to the more flexible interpretation of truth provided elsewhere. Tldr: Polititians can and should play politics (politics _is_ mostly white lies, or just lies, depending on your cynicism level). Scientists should not, it hurts the reputation of science as a whole.

thathndude 5y ago
I get your point. But the long term damage doesn’t justify the lie. That’s a race to the bottom. And what happens when the scientist and politician is in a hybrid role, like Fauci? Folks don’t trust Fauci because credibility, in general, has been harmed. Q conspiracy theorists thrive in a world of distrust. Chronic distrust of politicians is too high a price to pay to justify the use of the occasional manipulation.
- zarzavat 5y ago
  Plus it's simply ineffective. Enough people saw through the lies such that all the masks sold out anyway. I reckon an honest approach and appeal to morality would have seen more masks donated to hospitals than simply telling people that they don't work.
  - scratcheee 5y ago
    That's a fair point, although in this case drawing attention to the shortage would have made it even more newsworthy, and might have made the few greedy profiteers more fervent in their desire to buy up all stock, even as the average person reduced their buying. Appealing to morality works better when each person gets an approximately equal vote. If one arsehole can counteract the good behaviour of 10, that weakens the honest approach. Whether it would have actually been worse or better I can't really guess, but I do see your point that it might have worked and definitely wouldn't have weakened public trust the way the dishonest approach did, so yeah, I'll concede that was probably a bad call.
- gurkendoktor 5y ago
  Not only distrust of politicians. I'd say the mainstream media have suffered from a similar loss of trust over the last years because most outlets simply repeat official guidance from the WHO or national agencies.
  - thathndude 5y ago
    100%. And for me personally, I think the most powerful discrediting tool is juxtaposition of their changing positions. It’s very common to see “super cuts“ of the media pulling a complete 180 on positions. Those are super compelling to the public, who are generally in alignment in hating hypocrisy.
itronitron 5y ago
The error that the experts and politicians made was that they only considered N95 or surgeon's masks and didn't have the insight to realize that any face covering would reduce transmission if everyone was wearing them. Plenty of people own scarves and handkerchiefs, and for a while people were making their own masks at home. So the initial message could have been that any face covering helps and that N95 masks need to be reserved for healthcare workers and responders.
- scratcheee 5y ago
  Yes, certainly would have been a better angle. I suspect bad/limited data played into that, but it does seem like a fairly obvious direction to go in nonetheless.
tremon 5y ago
a politician doing what they can to counteract that effect, even by deceipt, isn't fundamentally wrong A politician manipulating the public is an attack on democracy, since democracy relies on having an informed demos. Condoning such behaviour shows how much faith a person has in (true) democracy.
- scratcheee 5y ago
  I don't have faith in true (aka direct) democracy. It relies on the average person being well informed enough about everything involved in running the government to make good decisions. It also relies on every person in the country acting in good faith for the benefit of all, which at best you could convince _most_ people to do _most_ of the time. I do have faith in representative democracy to do _approximately_ the right thing most of the time, or at least minimise how bad the bad results will be. In other words, I think people are better at deciding who to trust to run the country than they are at actually running the country. Given that, it should be no surprise that I also think there will be situations where the person trusted to run the country will realise that telling the public the whole truth will be a bad idea, because they are better at interpretting that truth than the public is. Lying to the public is not (imo) a slippery slope that inevitably makes anyone who goes down it a monster. Polititians can be something other than perfectly honest and actually satan, and in fact they must be. I think a perfectly honest polititian would be a bad thing overall, even beyond the fact that their career wouldn't last very long. Where on that scale they should be is in the end in the hands of the public, via our democratic vote. Certainly I don't support constant lies and hiding of things the public needs to know. But that isn't what we're discussing here, we're discussing a single lie used for a good cause (though I admit it was probably not the best solution to the problem, it was at least a logical concept: convince people who need masks less to not panic buy masks, leading to more masks for people who need them more).
enriquto 5y ago
> This may be unpopular, but I'm actually fine with polititians manipulating the truth Sadly, this not unpopular.

thathndude 5y ago

I get your point. But the long term damage doesn’t justify the lie. That’s a race to the bottom. And what happens when the scientist and politician is in a hybrid role, like Fauci? Folks don’t trust Fauci because credibility, in general, has been harmed. Q conspiracy theorists thrive in a world of distrust. Chronic distrust of politicians is too high a price to pay to justify the use of the occasional manipulation.

zarzavat 5y ago
Plus it's simply ineffective. Enough people saw through the lies such that all the masks sold out anyway. I reckon an honest approach and appeal to morality would have seen more masks donated to hospitals than simply telling people that they don't work.
- scratcheee 5y ago
  That's a fair point, although in this case drawing attention to the shortage would have made it even more newsworthy, and might have made the few greedy profiteers more fervent in their desire to buy up all stock, even as the average person reduced their buying. Appealing to morality works better when each person gets an approximately equal vote. If one arsehole can counteract the good behaviour of 10, that weakens the honest approach. Whether it would have actually been worse or better I can't really guess, but I do see your point that it might have worked and definitely wouldn't have weakened public trust the way the dishonest approach did, so yeah, I'll concede that was probably a bad call.
gurkendoktor 5y ago
Not only distrust of politicians. I'd say the mainstream media have suffered from a similar loss of trust over the last years because most outlets simply repeat official guidance from the WHO or national agencies.
- thathndude 5y ago
  100%. And for me personally, I think the most powerful discrediting tool is juxtaposition of their changing positions. It’s very common to see “super cuts“ of the media pulling a complete 180 on positions. Those are super compelling to the public, who are generally in alignment in hating hypocrisy.

itronitron 5y ago

The error that the experts and politicians made was that they only considered N95 or surgeon's masks and didn't have the insight to realize that any face covering would reduce transmission if everyone was wearing them. Plenty of people own scarves and handkerchiefs, and for a while people were making their own masks at home. So the initial message could have been that any face covering helps and that N95 masks need to be reserved for healthcare workers and responders.

scratcheee 5y ago
Yes, certainly would have been a better angle. I suspect bad/limited data played into that, but it does seem like a fairly obvious direction to go in nonetheless.

tremon 5y ago

a politician doing what they can to counteract that effect, even by deceipt, isn't fundamentally wrong A politician manipulating the public is an attack on democracy, since democracy relies on having an informed demos. Condoning such behaviour shows how much faith a person has in (true) democracy.

scratcheee 5y ago
I don't have faith in true (aka direct) democracy. It relies on the average person being well informed enough about everything involved in running the government to make good decisions. It also relies on every person in the country acting in good faith for the benefit of all, which at best you could convince _most_ people to do _most_ of the time. I do have faith in representative democracy to do _approximately_ the right thing most of the time, or at least minimise how bad the bad results will be. In other words, I think people are better at deciding who to trust to run the country than they are at actually running the country. Given that, it should be no surprise that I also think there will be situations where the person trusted to run the country will realise that telling the public the whole truth will be a bad idea, because they are better at interpretting that truth than the public is. Lying to the public is not (imo) a slippery slope that inevitably makes anyone who goes down it a monster. Polititians can be something other than perfectly honest and actually satan, and in fact they must be. I think a perfectly honest polititian would be a bad thing overall, even beyond the fact that their career wouldn't last very long. Where on that scale they should be is in the end in the hands of the public, via our democratic vote. Certainly I don't support constant lies and hiding of things the public needs to know. But that isn't what we're discussing here, we're discussing a single lie used for a good cause (though I admit it was probably not the best solution to the problem, it was at least a logical concept: convince people who need masks less to not panic buy masks, leading to more masks for people who need them more).

enriquto 5y ago

> This may be unpopular, but I'm actually fine with polititians manipulating the truth Sadly, this not unpopular.