5 ms·

This article sums up the biggest problem with politics. Rather than just trying various policies in simulation, we argue about them dogmatically until the end o

This article sums up the biggest problem with politics. Rather than just trying various policies in simulation, we argue about them dogmatically until the end of time. After a lifetime of witnessing tax cuts grow wealth inequality and burden the poor and middle classes, I view people in favor of them with concern. I wonder if they're able to extrapolate cause and effect to understand the ramifications of their choices. And they look at me the same way, I imagine as an astonishing waste of potential since I'm apparently miserable all the time and unable to cope with a world that wasn't designed for me, when I could just conform and be wealthy and successful. I don't know what to say to that, because I'm not sure that either of us is wrong. We can get mad about this stuff and pout and refuse to cooperate, but it reminds me of the scene in the Matrix when Neo is faced with saving humanity or the one he loves. The logical choice often isn't the right one, because consciousness and free will can tap into higher-level aspects of reality that transcend logic via intuition and emotions like love.

feoren 3y ago
> Rather than just trying various policies in simulation, we argue about them dogmatically until the end of time. That may be because what people argue about is very often not what they actually care about, because what they care about is outside the Overton window. You can't really argue that we should just harm black people for being black in order to make miserable white people feel a little better about their lives in comparison, so instead you argue about drug laws and being "tough on crime". You can't really argue that the poor and sick should just die on the streets (although this did get an applause at a Republican convention) so instead you argue about people taking advantage of the welfare system. You can't really argue that men should have utter dominion over women, so you instead argue about killing unborn babies. These things move the Overton window in the direction you want, so that next time you can argue the more extreme version. Who would want to simulate these things? That would just open up the possibility of being proven wrong. Wrong or right has nothing to do with it: they just want to hurt and control people. > After a lifetime of witnessing tax cuts grow wealth inequality and burden the poor and middle classes, I view people in favor of them with concern. I wonder if they're able to extrapolate cause and effect to understand the ramifications of their choices. But they know that tax cuts grow wealth inequality. That's what they want. > And they look at me the same way, I imagine as an astonishing waste of potential They don't look at you at all, unless they think they can make a caricature of you to parade on the news and use as a straw-man punching bag. Otherwise they barely know or care that you exist at all. They certainly don't give a shit about your "potential". Obviously everyone knows exactly which half of people I'm talking about.

feoren 3y ago

> Rather than just trying various policies in simulation, we argue about them dogmatically until the end of time. That may be because what people argue about is very often not what they actually care about, because what they care about is outside the Overton window. You can't really argue that we should just harm black people for being black in order to make miserable white people feel a little better about their lives in comparison, so instead you argue about drug laws and being "tough on crime". You can't really argue that the poor and sick should just die on the streets (although this did get an applause at a Republican convention) so instead you argue about people taking advantage of the welfare system. You can't really argue that men should have utter dominion over women, so you instead argue about killing unborn babies. These things move the Overton window in the direction you want, so that next time you can argue the more extreme version. Who would want to simulate these things? That would just open up the possibility of being proven wrong. Wrong or right has nothing to do with it: they just want to hurt and control people. > After a lifetime of witnessing tax cuts grow wealth inequality and burden the poor and middle classes, I view people in favor of them with concern. I wonder if they're able to extrapolate cause and effect to understand the ramifications of their choices. But they know that tax cuts grow wealth inequality. That's what they want. > And they look at me the same way, I imagine as an astonishing waste of potential They don't look at you at all, unless they think they can make a caricature of you to parade on the news and use as a straw-man punching bag. Otherwise they barely know or care that you exist at all. They certainly don't give a shit about your "potential". Obviously everyone knows exactly which half of people I'm talking about.