PeepinGoodArgs @ PeepinGoodArgs @reddthat.com

Check out my digital garden: [The Missing Premise](https://publish.obsidian

---

Read more

Posts

64

Comments

1,626

Joined

2 yr. ago

So why doesn't Biden talk about what he's going to do to help people?

I'm reading a book titled "Hit 'Em Where It Hurts" that explains why this this doesn't work anymore. Basically, and contrary to you, not everyone knows that Biden isn't Trump. Often these low-information voters just catch whatever vibes they happen to come across since they're generally uninterested in politics.

So, imagine you're one of these people.

From the Republicans you'll hear, "Biden and the radical leftists want turn your kids away, make you pay more for energy, raise your taxes, and strip you off your freedom! They can't be allowed to continue with their dangerous agenda that rips the future from patriots like you!"

From Democrats, if they focus on what they'll do to help, "We're going to forgive student loans, make the wealthy pay their fair share, and do more to invest in under-served communities. We want everybody to have a real shot at thy American Dream."

Which do you think is more convincing? It does not help that Republicans have a massive media infrastructure that repeats their political messages while Democrats don't.

The book I'm reading suggests using the Republican strategy against them. After all, it's proven to be effective for Democrats (remember the Red Wave in 2022 that never was). And emphasizing the threat of the Republican party to American democracy is just true.

You know how Haley is now saying she'll vote for Trump after heavily criticizing him during her campaign?

I truly feel like most Democratic voters are going to end up doing the same for Biden. And they say Trump is making headway into other demographics, but I find that incredibly unlikely.

From Words That Work, by a prominent conservative political messaging consultant:

Americans know what they believe, even if they don’t know or can’t explain why they believe it or give you any evidence to prove it.

But if your beliefs lack justification, then you're dumb.

Americans are dumb.

There. I said it.

No. It's a Republican talking point and this is a demonstration of how well they toe the line like their wealthy donors have a gun to their head.

It's not organic, as you suggest, but politically motivated repetition so that Republicans voters have something to uncritically believe to preserve their beliefs in the face of the ICC's actions.

What would change what you said? How can I change your mind?

It'll be awful for them too when Trump insists that climate change is a hoax as their pale white grandma becomes the ghostly anachronism she appears to be.

This is a variation of Republican fearmongering: If they do X to someone else, they could do X to you!

Frankly, I think the proper response to Speaker Johnson is to call him a fear mongering impotent bitch, but that's just me.

The more nuanced follow up, however, is that it’s only worth the work if you’re putting in the right amount of work.

Yeah...this is why I abandoned by privacy journey a few years ago. It felt like it took a lot of work, created hiccups for very little reason, and was overall just not enjoyable. But I was able to get Bitwarden out of it, which, I think, is a pretty swell privacy-focused app.

Amen. Get futons instead so you can sleep anywhere in your home.

You've already lost. The poster is intentionally spreading misinformation. What matters is that the headline gets read, the association that Biden is incompetent gets triggered, and a voter sits out or votes for the other guy by default when the time comes.

A fact-filled refutation only matters if the reader cares about facts and will adjust their views based on them. But the target audience of the article couldn't care less.

There could be so many miracle tips or tricks online that really work

“You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.” ― Tim Minchin

I'm not really sure you understand just how complicated being a doctor is and making the correct diagnosis is. Sure, it might be something small if you feel sad in the evenings. It might also be a brain tumor. Home remedies might work in both cases, and they might not.

But you know what will probably work more often that not? A doctor's prescription.

Talk to you doctor.

Actually, that's a good point! I brought it up in another comment, but there are mathematical geniuses, piano geniuses, scientific genius, etc. But everybody know and can agree on what math is, what a piano is and how difficult it is to play well, what science is and the long road to mastery of a sliver of human knowledge that entails.

But not with morality.

Personally, I think you've suggested an answer that satisfies me: people have no idea wtf morality or spirituality are. Plato and Aristotle once may have been able to point to someone and say, "So and so is more virtuous than us!" or "The king of a foreign nation is full of vice and worth less than coward who turns to bravery." But it's like modern American society cannot conceive of such a concept as moral superiority.

I mean, some people can, and then often go on to be significantly worse than normal people. They are often the definition of immoral. But, as a general rule, saying that you're morally superior to others barely makes any sense and, even if it did, would demand an impossible type of proof.

Damn. U.S. conservatives are at stage 6 or 7 with trans people.

Since you wrote this post, you probably have some idea of what a moral genius is supposed to be. Can you describe what makes a person a moral genius and maybe give an example?

I mean, that's interesting in and of itself. The concept of a moral genius isn't clear. Others have brought this up, too.

A genius is someone who generally displays some exemplary skill. Terrence Tao, for example, attended university-level mathematics courses when he was nine. Most people couldn't have possibly have done what he did. In contrast, Pablo Picasso was also a genius, creating artistic masterpieces, among his many other talents. Many of his contemporaries didn't achieve what he did.

So, at least we know that geniuses can be recognized as such at any point in their life, and it seems more about achieving a level of mastery or insight into their field or practice that others aren't privy to, even other practitioners.

People keep saying morality is subjective, which is true, but so is art. Still, Picasso was recognized as genius. Still, there are widely recognized universal moral values, like don't kill other people. So, I'm not sure moral subjectivity is sufficient to dismiss what I'm asking.

Other commenters have brought up various moral philosophers like Kant and St. Augustine. Different moral frameworks, both geniuses. Sure. The same commenter brought up Buddha, and I think that's closer to what I'm after. Buddha attained "enlightenment" and then everybody and their god came to him for moral guidance.

I think it's this beacon of guidance as a genius that really captures my concept of a moral genius. Like, if you're a professional mathematician and you get stumped on a proof, you may turn to Terrence Tao to see what he thinks about resolving the apparent problem. Similarly, if you're trying to understand some aspect of art that eludes you but you see in Picasso paintings, you might engage in-depth study of his artwork until you get what you're trying to find.

But let's say you're widely understood to be at least a good person, then who do you turn to? Who is widely understood to be a morally superior person that exceeds even the normal best to which they turn? Such a person would fit my understanding of a moral genius.

And while children are often lauded for being innocent and pure, it's like their untainted understanding of morality isn't recognized as proper moral decision-making. In contrast, the Dalai Lama is often respected as spiritual leader, but I think that stems more from what the Dalai Lama is and the tradition around him rather than the inherent goodness of whoever is the Dalai Lama. The same goes for preachers/the Pope/etc. That might be unfair to discount them, though...idk.

Yeah, but who is today's Buddha?

Art is subjective too, but artistic genius is a thing (but takes longer to develop, I guess. I can't recall any young artistic geniuses)

So, LLMs aren't suitable for brainstorming new directions at the frontier. That seems like a pretty specific limitation that is only applicable in a very small percentage of cases. Like, LLM brainstorming won't be useful if you're trying to improve LLMs in a new way unless that new way is what most people are already doing. But it'd still be useful to help a COO brainstorm how to improve operations since there are tried and true methods of operations management.

I feel like "Republican" is its own derogatory category now.

"Don't be a Republican, care about your neighbor" or "Don't be a Republican, check the facts" feel like completely reasonable things to say because Republicans have basically stereotyped themselves.

I knew they wanted to be slavers again. I called it from the beginning.

Especially the 5th circuit. That's where Matthew Kacsmaryk punts the dumbest cases to Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas, who then shit all over the law.