I mostly agree with you but I think it’s interesting that you make an additional assumption that I think is incorrect: You say "You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further left or right.” Which misses another possibility: that the overton window can shift when one side moves further to the center.
The democrats’ economic stances are a good example of this: they've moved towards neoliberal economic policy since the 80s, to the point where the democrats and republicans have a materially indistinguishable stance on unions, workers rights, public benefits, Wall Street, etc.
This may seem like nit-picking but I think it’s important to clarify that some policies that lie outside the overton window are “extreme” because those in power want them to seem extreme, not because they are actually unpopular or unrealistic.
This may be wrong, but when I think of centrists I think of people who decide where they stand on each policy on a spectrum that extends from what the Dems deem acceptable to what the Republicans deem acceptable. If you’re someone who decides where they stand on an issue regardless of these arbitrary endpoints I think “independent” or “non-partisan” fits better.
Are you referencing something specific? I watched that whole clip you linked, and there’s nothing in it that would “pervert” a child’s mind.
It’s a clip explaining what protesting is, and what racism is. Both seem like valid things to explain on a kids show. Is your issue that it’s lightly in support of the BLM protests?
I’m going to conflate packaging with advertising here but I think it’s the same idea and a little easier to visualize:
Our cogniitive biases act as shortcuts to save energy when making decisions, and advertisers exploit those shortcuts. If you’re on high alert while shopping, catching and recalibrating for your biases at every step of the way then yeah you can probably escape most marketing but for most people that doesn’t come naturally.
If you’re not careful I bet you too slip up sometimes. I know I’ve caught myself at the grocery store reaching for one product over another just because it’s in unbleached cardboard packaging (signaling to me that it’s somehow more local or organic or whatever).
These tricks become obvious when you consciously work through them (ex: obviously some megacorp can package their items in cardboard the same way mom and pop small businesses can) but most of the time we aren’t processing consciously, and that’s how marketing works.
My Instagram ads seem to be laser-focused on my insecurities. I don’t buy the shit they’re selling by they definitely make me feel bad about myself, so mission half accomplished!
The stalking is the problem, but the ads are too. Ads have been a problem well before tracking was a thing.
Since at least the 1920s (I’m thinking of Edward Bernays but there are probably earlier examples) the goal of advertising is to manipulate consumers into making irrational decisions. The majority of ads make us feel inadequate to get us to buy something, like the only the thing that will make us whole is a new instant pot or whatever.
Long commutes are something most bike-enthusiasts want to fix too! That means more affordable housing, usually.
But I agree, weather and disability issues definitely require some kind of supplemental modes of transportation. Even then I’d rather we invested in public transportation instead of cars.
Market forces do make for optimal software over the long-term, but it’s only optimal as an engine for generating capital. If what you want out of software isn’t aligned with what generates capital you’re not going to be happy.
I’m guessing most our our personal metrics for what makes software “good” are only somewhat aligned with capital.
Can we stop using verbiage like “better” men? Attractiveness isn’t a linear scale from 1-10, and it’s harmful to perpetuate that myth. It’s multi dimensional and unique to each person.
I mostly agree, but that’s not always been the case, and it’s something we can change! The US has become more atomized in the last 40 or so years (by design). We need more public spaces, community organizations, and general in-person connection (post-pandemic obv) to solve it.
Far right is 100% in bed with corporations as well. Free speech arguments by those in power on the right are mostly symbolic, and will never get close to _actually_ threatening capital in any way.
You’re right, I shouldn’t have said “At the same time” but the point still stands: your other comment was talking past the OP, not addressing their point.
You’re talking about it as a macro optimization problem while the OP was explaining a rational decision at the level of the individual.
This person is saying that on an individual level, they are not willing to cede control to an “average” AI when they know (or believe) themselves to be above average.
You’re talking about it at a societal level, as if everyone switched over to robot cars at the same time.
Genuine question: Does that work if you use the different browsers for different purposes? Like chrome for work, firefox for personal stuff, safari when on mobile, firefox private mode for… other personal stuff.
Seems like the browsing patterns would be very different depending on browser.
Individualistic thinking is a hallmark of american culture, so I don’t blame you!
You’re right that society is made up of individuals, but it’s also made up of rules, incentives, and resource distribution that influence the behavior of those individuals. That’s what I (and most SJWs or whatever you want to call them) want to change.
We want to change the systems over the individual for two reasons:
1. generally, changing the systems is more impactful
2. changing individuals’ behavior en masse without touching the systems that influence their behavior is next to impossible.
For an example of trying and failing to do #2, look at how unsuccessful we’ve been at trying to save the planet by altering consumer choices. It’s been 20+ years and what do we have to show for it? Compostable straws and reusable bags? Compare that to something like a carbon tax which attacks the problem at the systemic level and would start making change immediately.
As for your point about the systemic and individual levels colliding and causing unfair effects at the individual level, I’d guess that we have different perspectives on what is fair at the individual level.
The democrats’ economic stances are a good example of this: they've moved towards neoliberal economic policy since the 80s, to the point where the democrats and republicans have a materially indistinguishable stance on unions, workers rights, public benefits, Wall Street, etc.
This may seem like nit-picking but I think it’s important to clarify that some policies that lie outside the overton window are “extreme” because those in power want them to seem extreme, not because they are actually unpopular or unrealistic.
This may be wrong, but when I think of centrists I think of people who decide where they stand on each policy on a spectrum that extends from what the Dems deem acceptable to what the Republicans deem acceptable. If you’re someone who decides where they stand on an issue regardless of these arbitrary endpoints I think “independent” or “non-partisan” fits better.