guajalote
1yr ago
Anecdotes can trump statistics in the context of a specific type of argument, of the following form: "I don't give a shit about how 'the economy' is doing, I care about how me and my family are doing, so aggregate economic indicators are of no interest to me when I have my own lived experiences." Similar types of arguments could be made about other subjects, like policing.
I think quite often, even when people don't explicitly make this argument, it's what they're really saying. For obvious reasons, most people support or oppose policies based on how they think those policies will impact them personally, regardless of whether the policy is "good" or "bad" in the aggregate.
The reason this works is because it's much easier to come up with a false theory that agrees with existing data than it is to come up with a true theory that appears to contradict existing data, so contradiction provides much more useful information for updating priors that confirmation does. And if your theory is consistent with all conceivable data (i.e. is unfalsifiable), then the theory doesn't have any predictive value because it is consistent with all possible outcomes.
What I don't understand is how she thought this one random dude isn't "really" non-binary on the basis of his toxic mansplaining, but a trans woman who commits a violent crime (up to and including raping a female person) is still a woman.
I think if you gave her a specific example of a trans person committing a sex crime, she would likely use the "they're not really trans" argument. But because you quoted statistics she can't do that as easily; it would imply large numbers of people who claim to be trans aren't really trans.
Also, as @Pynewacket alludes to, statistics don't hit "the feels" the way anecdotes do, so she didn't have the same emotional reaction to the statistics that she had in the case of her male NB friend. If she doesn't feel the same way about both situations, she won't interpret them as analogous and therefore won't feel the need to be logically consistent. This is a pretty common way for normal, average IQ people to behave. For example, people like this will often reject arguments by analogy they disagree with by saying something like "those two situations are totally different" without being able to articulate why they are different in any relevant way. They simply feel differently about the two situations and therefore refuse to see them as analogous.
guajalote
1yr ago
While I'm just as guilty of using "true" and "false" in a colloquial manner as anyone else, at the end of the day the issue lies in the fact that Popperian notions of falsifiability simply don't work.
You're right that true and false are not binary (pun intended), but falsification absolutely does "work" in the sense that data which contradicts a theory should generally lead to a much stronger updating of priors than data which agrees with a theory.
guajalote
1yr ago
I think your sister's stated explanations are simply an attempt to rationalize her feelings. They're not a description of her actual underlying reasoning.
I think for a lot of everyday liberals who haven't thought carefully about this stuff, the reasoning goes like this: trans/NB people are oppressed, and oppressed people are good and virtuous. Therefore if someone (in my estimation) is not good and virtuous, then they are not "really" trans/NB.
You see this a lot. When a trans person is in the news doing something bad, then they're not really trans, they're faking it. Similarly, if a member of an oppressed minority group doesn't hold the right opinions or vote the right way, they're self-hating or not "really" an authentic member of their race, etc.
guajalote
1yr ago
I think you can find examples of Trump supporters saying Bernie and the far left in general were "right" about certain topics, like tariffs and economic protectionism, that used to be extremely unpopular among Republicans.
guajalote
1yr ago
It seems like everything is political if the standard is "can be interpreted as related to a political issue." Posting a picture of yourself wearing Nikes would be political because Nikes are made in sweatshops. Posting a picture with your kids is political because the decision to have or not have kids is politically salient. Etc.
guajalote
1yr ago
Item 1 seems impossible to realistically enforce. If someone posts a selfie that has a pride flag in the background, is that political? If someone argues that the Bible forbids homosexuality, is that political?
guajalote
1yr ago
In my experience most high-level US politicians have an unreal level of charm in person that is almost impossible to fully describe unless you've experienced it firsthand. I've met several politicians who I intensely disliked from afar, only to find myself instantly charmed by them in person. Never met Clinton, but he probably takes this to another level.
guajalote
1yr ago
I haven't read the full transcript of the order so perhaps I have an incorrect impression of it, but I think it is overbroad, yes. According to the article you linked "Justice Engoron said that his statement should be considered a gag order forbidding any posts, emails or public remarks about members of his staff." Being able to speak out against government officials in a proceeding is an absolutely core aspect of what the 1st amendment protects. The right to say things like "the judge's law clerk is politically motivated and out to get me" should be inviolable, even though in this case it's an incredibly stupid thing to say. If the gag order was narrowly tailored to allow protected speech, e.g., Trump can criticize the law clerk but can't call on his followers to harass the clerk, I would feel differently.
guajalote
1yr ago
I again completely agree with you. Trump's decision to go after a clerk was profoundly stupid and improper. Still, the gag order seems constitutionally overbroad and it would have been wise for the judge to exercise more restraint, given that this is a high-profile case and the gag order involves a fundamental constitutional right. I expect federal judges to exercise more judgment than cops or journalists in responding to these kinds of provocations, even if the provocation is clearly way over the line.
guajalote
1yr ago
I clerked for a federal judge and I agree with your assessment, but it doesn't change the fact that a broad gag order has constitutional problems.
guajalote
1yr ago
How you dress is never an invitation to be mugged, but that doesn't make it a good idea to wear a flashy diamond Rolex in a bad neighborhood. You have every right to do so, and if you're robbed the perpetrator is still 100% at fault, but that doesn't make it a smart idea.
guajalote
1yr ago
Same way I make peace with any other set of mutually exclusive choices I have to make. Say you choose to become a doctor instead of a professional musician. Certain doors are opened by that decision, and certain doors are closed. You gain certain experiences, you lose out on others. If those tradeoffs aren't ones you can live with then you need to make a different choice. Otherwise, you have to accept the tradeoffs. Nobody can have everything. You have to choose what you care about most and decide accordingly.
guajalote
1yr ago
I mean that's kind of my point. In text form this exchange can be read many different ways by different people.
If you imagine it as a verbal conversation where both parties statements are dripping with playful sarcasm, then it's clear they're flirting. If you imagine it as a verbal conversation where both parties are being dead serious, then they're both being pieces of shit to each other. It's impossible to create a neutral set of rules to decide which is which, especially when it's happening via text.
guajalote
1yr ago
I think it's a feature, not a bug, in more ways than you're giving it credit for. Saying stuff that makes the other person slightly uncomfortable is an important component of flirting for both sexes. It's a way of testing the other person a little to see how they perform.
It's similar to how a job interviewer might ask "what are your three greatest weaknesses?" That's a completely batshit insane thing to ask in the context of a normal conversation, but it's typical in an interview. The point is to see how the other person responds to an uncomfortable question - can they stay focused and give a socially appropriate response instead of getting flustered?
A woman saying "I hate your first date idea" is basically the same thing. It's (often) not a literal statement. It's about seeing the quality of the response from the other person and communicating that she isn't desperate for a date. "You're scared you'll lose" is basically the same thing. It's a little jab back designed to get a reaction and communicate a certain sense of aloofness. It's a delicate dance because you have to push a little but not push too much, and everyone will screw it up at some point given a long enough timeframe.
guajalote
1yr ago
No, it makes it even less legible. Is this "pressure" or is it playful banter that both parties are enjoying:
Him: "Let's have our first date at XYZ Mini Golf."
Her: "No way, I hate Mini Golf. And if that's your idea of a good first date then you aren't getting a date at all."
Him: "You're just saying that cause you're scared you'll lose."
Her: "Ugh. Fine. But I'm only agreeing because you're being such an asshole about it."
guajalote
1yr ago
guajalote
1yr ago
But even this "unjust" world is ultimately just in their belief system. Otherwise the concept of being "on the right side of history" would be incoherent. The good guys are destined to prevail in their eschatology.
guajalote
1yr ago
It seems like one of those situations where people go through a superficially logical chain of thought but commit a bunch of fallacies along the way without noticing.
- For a woman to be attracted to a man he must be a good person.
- Women are not attracted to incels.
- Therefore if a man is an incel he must be a bad person (fallacy of denying the antecedent).
- Therefore if a man is a bad person he must be an incel (fallacy of affirming the consequent)
guajalote
1yr ago
If we do the same for opioids, usage will go through the roof - as will overdoses.
Usage would go up, but overdoses would plummet because people could dose accurately.
guajalote
1yr ago
Housing is hard because no one knows what to do.
Just be like Houston and don't have zoning or red tape. Housing is affordable and it has an absurdly low homelessness rate, lower than Denmark.
guajalote
1yr ago
But, in my mind, the biggest thing that turns a type 1 down-on-their luck person into a type 2 pants pooper is the wide availability of fentanyl and heroin on the streets today.
I think it's meth much more than opiates. Opiates can kill you and make you unproductive, but they don't fry your brain and give you psychosis like hardcore simulants do.
And before anyone says "War on Drugs didn't work", we should take a look at the overdose stats. Overdoses deaths in the U.S. are up 1000% since the 1980s. The correct take, IMO, is that the war on drugs did work. We just didn't do it hard enough and gave up too soon.
The main reason overdoses are up is that fentanyl is really potent and easy to overdose on, but it's also the most popular illegal opiate because it's cheap to make and can be smuggled across the border in large quantities because it's so concentrated. If lower potency opiates (and narcan) could be purchased legally over the counter, fentanyl use and fentanyl deaths would plummet.
Could you call it a "taboo" if most people were capable of calmly and dispassionately discussing the topic? By definition, what makes something a taboo is that most people will have such a strong emotional reaction to it that rational discussion is impossible. I'm surprised that you're surprised to see people behaving this way.
Because we live in such a complex world, most people are not capable of giving due thoughtful consideration to most topics. Taboos are a way of preventing people from reasoning on first principles about certain topics and arriving at socially harmful conclusions. Not all taboos do this job well, but I think some do. "Don't commit murder" works better as a rule than "don't commit murder unless you're able to determine that doing so would increase the net wellbeing of society." "Don't commit fraud" works better than "don't commit fraud unless you believe you can get away with it and you plan to donate your earnings to effective charities, thereby increasing the net utility of society." If people are allowed to engage in "thoughtful consideration" on these topics, they will often find ways to justify bad behavior as being for the net good of society. Because this kind of reasoning is so often self-interested and unreliable, it's sometimes better to just have a "no exceptions" taboo that forbids any reasoning about the topic.
More options
Context Copy link