6 ms·

This is so awful that it strikes me as likely being a door-in-the-face[1] proposal designed to make a more 'reasonable' proposal that is still vile on its own m

This is so awful that it strikes me as likely being a door-in-the-face[1] proposal designed to make a more 'reasonable' proposal that is still vile on its own merits seem palatable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

KennyBlanken 4y ago
See also: Overton Window and Anchoring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias) ...but yes, this is why in the US republicans are constantly floating all sorts of batshit regressive policies on social welfare programs, LGBTQ people, voting rights, immigration - it shifts the ultimate compromise closer to their desired outcome, and even if it doesn't, it still is virtue signaling to their base, something to shout about at campaign rallies. "See what I tried to do for you? But those evil liberals shot me down! I need your support!"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mikrotikker 4y ago
  Dems too. They're both as nutty as each other. You hear that? Someone in the distance is shouting "I just want public healthcare". Russia is about to find out why USA doesnt have public healthcare.
orbisvicis 4y ago
Don't you think it'd be better to ratify the most vile proposal while the ideals of freedom still have majority reign? To create a fiasco so enduring it won't soon be forgotten? And before tools of mass manipulation become any more technologically sophisticated? If I'm reading [1] correctly, we're just picking up momentum down a decades-long slippery slope. 1. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_2022_PDF_Booklet_Digital_Final_Web.pdf https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_202...
- concordDance 4y ago
  I expect initially only those who are unpopular and unlikely to be defended by the public will be prosecuted. Then over time more political enemies (probably starting with "trans women aren't women" activists) will be prosecuted and the slow slide begins...
  - dover 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - mikrotikker 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - wizzwizz4 4y ago
      That's highly regional and cultural. Few people probably believe the idea you have in your head, but, then, few people are probably espousing it.
      - dover 4y ago
        [flagged]
        wizzwizz4 4y ago
        Again, culturally- and regionally-specific. My anecdotal evidence is that the people I've talked to (a narrow, biased group of people) have more nuanced views than the surveys pick up. Where I live, more people support the death penalty than are transphobic (according to polling, no less!). Most people don't know the first thing about anything. Ask them what we should do about climate change, and they'll say "household recycling". Ask them whether they're okay with the environmental impact of a nuclear power station, and they'll say they're outraged about it. The uninformed opinion of people who haven't really thought very hard, when presented with a loaded question, is not particularly indicative of the process they use to form their views: it's more indicative of your sampling method. I don't know much about how sanctuaries and safe spaces are run, but it's my understanding that they don't generally have "we accept anyone who meets this sentence-long description" policies. Round these parts, shelters have always been able to discriminate against trans people with reason, and they haven't been doing so, and it hasn't been an issue: public sentiment is just that. People have been medically-transitioning in English-speaking cultures for well over a century, now, and it's only been a Big Deal in the last couple of decades. Politics.
mdp2021 4y ago
Interesting that it has a name, to make "Door in the face" akin to the opposite "Foot in the door". It is discussed by Charlie Munger as part of what he calls the "reciprocation tendency", after the studies from Robert Cialdini in the practice of "«ask for a lot and back off»".
auggierose 4y ago
The proposal does outline Options A-E, and of course decides that Option E, the most aggressive one, is the way to go. Maybe they plan to fall back on D or C, if E gets rejected.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

See also: Overton Window and Anchoring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias) ...but yes, this is why in the US republicans are constantly floating all sorts of batshit regressive policies on social welfare programs, LGBTQ people, voting rights, immigration - it shifts the ultimate compromise closer to their desired outcome, and even if it doesn't, it still is virtue signaling to their base, something to shout about at campaign rallies. "See what I tried to do for you? But those evil liberals shot me down! I need your support!"

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mikrotikker 4y ago
Dems too. They're both as nutty as each other. You hear that? Someone in the distance is shouting "I just want public healthcare". Russia is about to find out why USA doesnt have public healthcare.

orbisvicis 4y ago

Don't you think it'd be better to ratify the most vile proposal while the ideals of freedom still have majority reign? To create a fiasco so enduring it won't soon be forgotten? And before tools of mass manipulation become any more technologically sophisticated? If I'm reading [1] correctly, we're just picking up momentum down a decades-long slippery slope. 1. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_2022_PDF_Booklet_Digital_Final_Web.pdf https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_202...

concordDance 4y ago
I expect initially only those who are unpopular and unlikely to be defended by the public will be prosecuted. Then over time more political enemies (probably starting with "trans women aren't women" activists) will be prosecuted and the slow slide begins...
- dover 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - mikrotikker 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    That's highly regional and cultural. Few people probably believe the idea you have in your head, but, then, few people are probably espousing it.
    - dover 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - wizzwizz4 4y ago
        Again, culturally- and regionally-specific. My anecdotal evidence is that the people I've talked to (a narrow, biased group of people) have more nuanced views than the surveys pick up. Where I live, more people support the death penalty than are transphobic (according to polling, no less!). Most people don't know the first thing about anything. Ask them what we should do about climate change, and they'll say "household recycling". Ask them whether they're okay with the environmental impact of a nuclear power station, and they'll say they're outraged about it. The uninformed opinion of people who haven't really thought very hard, when presented with a loaded question, is not particularly indicative of the process they use to form their views: it's more indicative of your sampling method. I don't know much about how sanctuaries and safe spaces are run, but it's my understanding that they don't generally have "we accept anyone who meets this sentence-long description" policies. Round these parts, shelters have always been able to discriminate against trans people with reason, and they haven't been doing so, and it hasn't been an issue: public sentiment is just that. People have been medically-transitioning in English-speaking cultures for well over a century, now, and it's only been a Big Deal in the last couple of decades. Politics.

mdp2021 4y ago

Interesting that it has a name, to make "Door in the face" akin to the opposite "Foot in the door". It is discussed by Charlie Munger as part of what he calls the "reciprocation tendency", after the studies from Robert Cialdini in the practice of "«ask for a lot and back off»".

auggierose 4y ago

The proposal does outline Options A-E, and of course decides that Option E, the most aggressive one, is the way to go. Maybe they plan to fall back on D or C, if E gets rejected.