5 ms·

Idk, I saw a lot of takes from people I know from IRL in 2020/21 where the moment 100% containment seemed like it wasn't an option people said "why try anything

Idk, I saw a lot of takes from people I know from IRL in 2020/21 where the moment 100% containment seemed like it wasn't an option people said "why try anything at all? what happens, happens, if your grandma dies she dies." even though vaccines looked promising but weren't generally available yet... even with these promising percentile "solutions" very close, if the solution isn't 100% effective people seem to give up. I think if you've ever been around depressed or emotionally overwhelmed people or just people generally you see this kind of all or nothing thinking is not just common but prevalent. I've always been against paternalism historically but the last few years have provided a fair amount of evidence that it might be a valid tactic. I used to be ideologically against cohersive power as well but persuasion often doesn't come from well reasoned argument, it can come from brute repetition, or for addicts of different stripes (drugs, ragebait, social media, personality) persuasion seems like a dead end.

lazide 3y ago
Authoritarianism isn’t bad because it doesn’t work. Authoritarianism is bad because it works too well - for the authority. And while the authorities interests and everyone else’s may align well at the beginning, that is very unlikely after awhile. And then there is nothing anyone can do about it.
- bitwize 3y ago
  I have three words for anyone who doesn't think authoritarianism can work out well in the long run -- Lee Kuan Yew. Thanks to him, Singapore is a single-party autocracy -- that's rich, clean, and generally pleasant to live in.
  - lazide 3y ago
    For one generation. That isn’t the long run yet. He didn’t die that long ago. He also left a lot of angry Malays and Indians in his wake. Dictators worked out well for Rome for awhile! And Saddam did really turn Iraq around. The biggest issue IMO with Authoritarians is they tend to take out realistic competition (Cincinnatus excepted) and force everyone else to march in lockstep with them. Part of the ideology. So even if they do allow succession, it’s controlled and ‘monoculture’. Which long term (or even short term if done harshly enough) weakens the state and the population, as it makes everything rigid. It tends to snap instead of bend. But only time will tell. The CCP has also been doing pretty well by most standards too, and they have a ‘leader for life’ now too. Some kind of authoritarianism (by committee, dictator, king, etc) has been and is the historic norm, no?
- fellowniusmonk 3y ago
  I agree with your take on Authoritarianism, it's not a good multi generational approach since transfer of power eventually becomes violent and incompetent dictators are normative. Paternalistic communication isn't necessarily authoritarianism though. No info is being withheld, anyone who cares can still look it up, it's more of a marketing tactic.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  In the past few years we've learned that no matter what course of action a group of any significant size chooses to take, at least 25% of them will just say "no, fuck you" and either refuse to go along or actively sabotage the effort. Given that, what's your alternative? How do you get the necessary level of cooperation happening right now so there's some semblance of civilization left for people 3 generations from now?
  - lazide 3y ago
    Since when is 25% enough to block the other 75%? Actually? 75% is a supermajority. Think about that a bit, and I think you’ll get your answer. You’re being lied to, and it isn’t actually that 25% that is (solely) at fault.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      Since we can't accomplish what we need to accomplish without 100% participation. You're deluding yourself if you think we have any hope of a reasonable climate future without universal participation. And, yes, it is the 25%'s fault when they're just willing to say "no" to anything because it hurts someone they want hurt, even if it also hurts them in the process.
      - lazide 3y ago
        There has never been a time where 100% of anyone has ever actually been on board. Nor a time when it was ever required. Actually. It isn’t even in the rules that such a thing is even requested or desired. If someone is giving you another impression, that is a good place to start in your investigation. The answer is staring you in the face, you just don’t want to see it.
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Please enlighten me.
        3y ago

lazide 3y ago

Authoritarianism isn’t bad because it doesn’t work. Authoritarianism is bad because it works too well - for the authority. And while the authorities interests and everyone else’s may align well at the beginning, that is very unlikely after awhile. And then there is nothing anyone can do about it.

bitwize 3y ago
I have three words for anyone who doesn't think authoritarianism can work out well in the long run -- Lee Kuan Yew. Thanks to him, Singapore is a single-party autocracy -- that's rich, clean, and generally pleasant to live in.
- lazide 3y ago
  For one generation. That isn’t the long run yet. He didn’t die that long ago. He also left a lot of angry Malays and Indians in his wake. Dictators worked out well for Rome for awhile! And Saddam did really turn Iraq around. The biggest issue IMO with Authoritarians is they tend to take out realistic competition (Cincinnatus excepted) and force everyone else to march in lockstep with them. Part of the ideology. So even if they do allow succession, it’s controlled and ‘monoculture’. Which long term (or even short term if done harshly enough) weakens the state and the population, as it makes everything rigid. It tends to snap instead of bend. But only time will tell. The CCP has also been doing pretty well by most standards too, and they have a ‘leader for life’ now too. Some kind of authoritarianism (by committee, dictator, king, etc) has been and is the historic norm, no?
fellowniusmonk 3y ago
I agree with your take on Authoritarianism, it's not a good multi generational approach since transfer of power eventually becomes violent and incompetent dictators are normative. Paternalistic communication isn't necessarily authoritarianism though. No info is being withheld, anyone who cares can still look it up, it's more of a marketing tactic.
Paul-Craft 3y ago
In the past few years we've learned that no matter what course of action a group of any significant size chooses to take, at least 25% of them will just say "no, fuck you" and either refuse to go along or actively sabotage the effort. Given that, what's your alternative? How do you get the necessary level of cooperation happening right now so there's some semblance of civilization left for people 3 generations from now?
- lazide 3y ago
  Since when is 25% enough to block the other 75%? Actually? 75% is a supermajority. Think about that a bit, and I think you’ll get your answer. You’re being lied to, and it isn’t actually that 25% that is (solely) at fault.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    Since we can't accomplish what we need to accomplish without 100% participation. You're deluding yourself if you think we have any hope of a reasonable climate future without universal participation. And, yes, it is the 25%'s fault when they're just willing to say "no" to anything because it hurts someone they want hurt, even if it also hurts them in the process.
    - lazide 3y ago
      There has never been a time where 100% of anyone has ever actually been on board. Nor a time when it was ever required. Actually. It isn’t even in the rules that such a thing is even requested or desired. If someone is giving you another impression, that is a good place to start in your investigation. The answer is staring you in the face, you just don’t want to see it.
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Please enlighten me.
        3y ago