[HN Gopher] Plans you're not supposed to talk about
___________________________________________________________________
Plans you're not supposed to talk about
Author : dynm
Score : 193 points
Date : 2021-12-14 17:34 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dynomight.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (dynomight.net)
| bradhe wrote:
| man that was painful to read
| 63 wrote:
| Can you expand on that? There were definitely some parts I
| didn't understand or agree with, but the main idea seemed
| interesting.
| Supermancho wrote:
| In some cases it tried to make observations in an objective
| or granular way, while at the same time mixing in sweeping
| generalizations and hand waving,
|
| > You're in love.
|
| > Critically, you get everyone to agree that it's gauche to
| discuss the strategic logic of all this.
|
| I'm thinking no. Lots of people talk about the expense of
| marriage. Some go so far as to say "it's just a piece of
| paper". Everyone doesn't agree there is strategic loss or
| that "you're in love" is a singular recognizable concept to
| justifies anything in particular.
|
| > You secretly guess that the group is sustained by a
| minority of true believers who make up critical mass for a
| larger group of people you, but you never talk about this and
| neither does anyone else.
|
| Nobody talks about this except every atheist from high school
| forward. Rather than have a nuanced or an informed insightful
| analysis we get these short statements that both seemed lazy
| and misrepresenting a supposed underlying zeitgeist.
|
| etc
|
| It's like reading an antivax manifesto.
| vmception wrote:
| I got something different out of both of your examples.
|
| Its not that many people talk about the expense of
| marriage, its that people would invalidate the people who
| talk about the financial intertwining and folly of marriage
| as both a cultural institution or contract.
|
| Just like you pointed out that only people in the religion
| of anti-religion are the ones who talk ad nauseum about it,
| instead of just being non-religious people.
| recursive wrote:
| I felt nothing, except intrigued.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| As an authorial technique starting off with a just so story about
| how marriage came to be that lasts several paragraphs and is
| obviously not at all how marriage came to be and doesn't even
| have the excuse of referencing some sort of supernatural source
| for being wrong might seem interesting but bored me too much to
| continue.
|
| I'm supposing the rest of it is also wrong and badly argued.
| gipp wrote:
| It is not talking literally about how marriage came to be. It
| is just laying out a set of incentives that probably play a
| role in the success of marriage as an institution.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| It's written in the same vein as "Body Ritual among the
| Nacirema" [1]. (Read it. Then read the Wikipedia article.)
|
| [1]
| https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Miner-1956-BodyRitualAmongTheNacir...
| danblick wrote:
| The author presents the idea that "you may be born into a culture
| with social practices that you don't understand but that work for
| your benefit; they may work better if you don't understand them!"
|
| I find this idea a little repellant, but it's something Friedrich
| Hayek wrote about too. (In my mind Hayek is the person most
| associated with distributed knowledge.) ~"You may not understand
| the forces that have led society to be organized the way that it
| is, but you should respect that sometimes the order of things
| reflects knowledge you may not have."
|
| One of his essays on this topic was "Individualism: True and
| False":
|
| """This brings me to my second point: the necessity, in any
| complex society in which the effects of anyone's action reach far
| beyond his possible range of vision, of the individual submitting
| to the anonymous and seemingly irrational forces of society--a
| submission which must include not only the acceptance of rules of
| behavior as valid without examining what depends in the
| particular instance on their being observed but also a readiness
| to adjust himself to changes which may profoundly affect his
| fortunes and opportunities and the causes of which may be
| altogether unintelligible to him."""
|
| https://fee.org/articles/individualism-true-and-false/
| jfrunyon wrote:
| > At a time when most movements that are thought to be
| progressive advocate further encroachments on individual
| liberty
|
| LOL okay I literally can't go any further than the first
| sentence. Very good much wow so projection.
|
| I like the document title, though. "Microsoft Word -
| Document1". Very classy.
| generalizations wrote:
| Didn't even bother to read the citation for that statement?
|
| > This has now been true for over a century, and as early as
| 1855 J. S. Mill could say (see my John Stuart Mill and
| Harriet Taylor [London and Chicago, 1951], p. 216) that
| "almost all the projects of social reformers of these days
| are really liberticide."
|
| > I like the document title, though. "Microsoft Word -
| Document1". Very classy.
|
| Textbook example of an ad homenim.
| jandrese wrote:
| That's pretty loaded language, but it makes sense.
|
| When an area is sparsely populated it doesn't matter as
| much how people behave. They aren't harming other people
| because there are none around.
|
| As the population density increases the same actions like
| emitting pollution of one kind or another (air, sound,
| light, etc...) becomes a problem and all of the other
| people come together to ask you to stop, thus infringing on
| your liberties.
|
| All of society is just people trying to get along with your
| neighbors. The more people you live near with the harder it
| is to stay on good relations with all of them. As the
| population continues to grow it becomes increasingly
| difficult to not live near other people, effectively
| impossible for an ever growing percentage of the
| population.
|
| Some of this may even partially explain the rural/urban
| divide in politics.
| calibas wrote:
| >Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it's
| expensive and painful.
|
| This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean
| spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the
| opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for
| every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop
| working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly
| recover. Obviously that's a bit extreme, but it's to illustrate
| that less activity, not more, is what's best for the Planet.
|
| It's so odd that all our frantic doing is what's thrown the
| Planet out of balance, and for some reason we think we're going
| to fix things by doing even more. The less active and industrious
| human beings are, the less they obsess over money and work, the
| less taxing we are on the Planet.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| >Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then
| things will quickly recover.
|
| ... after "stop eating", stop breathing will soon follow. Why
| don't you go first? Why haven't you gone first already? Is it
| because humans just don't work like that? At all?
|
| I mean, thanks. Your argument demonstrates precisely why "make
| less CO2" will never work: You believe it, and yet even you are
| still breathing.
|
| (please don't stop breathing. i don't think your suggestion is
| serious, so neither is mine).
| joshxyz wrote:
| Haha this is nice, really a question of how much we live in
| excess and if do we really have enough for everybody in a
| sustainable manner
| mdavis6890 wrote:
| This is a bit like saying that the planet would be better off
| without humans. And maybe that's what you believe, I don't
| know. It might even be true!
|
| But I don't care: I'm a human and I love other humans and I
| want humans to prosper as much as possible. Which requires
| activity which contributes to our shared prosperity. Ideally
| that prosperity would also include a nice planet to live on
| though. Earth is a reasonable choice.
| gumby wrote:
| > The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every
| human being to do nothing at all.
|
| Actually the planet doesn't give a shit either way. People have
| been busy changing it, and it has simply reacted. Now they are
| selfishly unhappy with it because it's less congenial than it
| used to be for vertebrates, or specifically humans. They just
| want an earth that will support them in continuing to do the
| things they want.*
|
| Perhaps in 30 megayears the cockroach archeologists will marvel
| at all the weird endoskeletal animals in the fossil record and
| wonder if any of them were intelligent.
|
| * this is why I don't like population-based arguments about the
| climate. If you believe the earth should be optimized for
| humans, how can you simultaneously say "but only for these
| ones?" Making people is an activity some people choose to do.
| abyssin wrote:
| The practical issue for me is: how to do less and still feel
| like I'm a member of a functional group of people? Doing less
| is easy. Being part of a group of people that do little is
| doable. But I've yet to find such a group that isn't made of
| crazies or depressive people.
|
| Doing stuff and consuming resources and _spending_ is a
| religion. We don't have temples to make offerings. Our entire
| cultural environment is dedicated to the symbolic activity of
| producing and sacrificing. Taking part in it is a requirement
| to be recognized as a legitimate member of society. Problems
| that are seen as legit are all related to this religious
| endeavour.
| kragen wrote:
| We can divide possible strategies into four groups: those that
| help the ecosystem and hurt humans in the short term (like your
| extreme example), those that hurt the ecosystem and hurt humans
| in the short term (like nuclear war or Agent Orange), those
| that help the ecosystem and help humans in the short term (like
| moving from fossil fuels to solar), and those that hurt the
| ecosystem and help humans in the short term (like expanding the
| use of fossil fuels). (And of course there are many things that
| are on the borderline.)
|
| You are setting up an opposition between strategy groups 1 and
| 4, but ignoring the existence of the other two groups. But
| group 3, the Bright Green group, is where all the action is!
| majormajor wrote:
| Let's get even more pedantic!
|
| "Save the planet" is misleading entirely: the planet isn't
| going anywhere. It will survive extinction events.
|
| "Preserve nonhuman species and the current state of the
| environment" is where your "get rid of all the humans and their
| activity" proposal would fit.
|
| But is that actually what anyone wants? The real goal for most
| people would be, I wager, much more like: "Preserve both human
| and non-human life, with 21st-century-wealthy-country-
| standards-of-living, and also preserve the current state of the
| environment."
|
| In short: you're making "save the planet" into a very
| particular strawman that misrepresents what people who say it
| mean.
| calibas wrote:
| So when people say "save the planet" they also mean
| preserving a completely unsustainable standard of living? I
| disagree, but if I wanted a strawman to shoot down that's a
| good one.
|
| To be clear, I meant protecting the current ecosystems and I
| don't believe we need to regress or eliminate the human race
| to do that either.
| jandrese wrote:
| How about transforming an unsustainable standard of living
| into a sustainable one?
|
| "Kill all humans" is so defeatist. So is "kill most humans
| and go back to being hunter/gatherers". That's not even
| trying. That is flipping the board because you think you're
| losing.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| > The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every
| human being to do nothing at all.
|
| The planet doesn't care what lives on it or if anything lives
| at all. There is no best for the planet outside of goals humans
| set for it.
|
| > It's so odd that all our frantic doing is what's thrown the
| Planet out of balance
|
| The planet has never been in balance. And even if we stop
| anthropogenic climate change something else will throw the
| planet out of balance again too.
| calibas wrote:
| FYI, when people are talking about helping "the Planet"
| they're not talking about lifeless rocks, they're talking
| about preserving the diversity of life on the Planet.
|
| And by balance I mean not precipitating another extinction
| event. Sure, they're going to happen anyway eventually, but
| we probably shouldn't cause an extra one if we don't have
| to...
| tshaddox wrote:
| Humans might indeed cause one or more large extinction
| events, but there are also several known causes (and
| perhaps many more unknown ones we could discover) of large
| extinction events which seem to be unpreventable except
| through the actions of humans (or another intelligent and
| technological species). If you were to permanently halt all
| technological progress now, or perhaps revert to before
| nuclear weapons or even before the industrial revolution,
| you could prevent extinction events from, say, human-caused
| climate change, nuclear war, or Skynet. But you'd also
| effectively guarantee some other eventual extinction event,
| perhaps from an asteroid impact, a supernova, or any number
| of phenomena we haven't even discovered yet.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| After the dinosaurs were wiped out, millions of new species
| evolved. So causing a climate disaster that wipes out
| humans scores higher on the "diversity of life" scale than
| keeping humans alive. Live evolves. The Planet, "Planet"
| here as Gaia, will survive our extinction.
| mrfusion wrote:
| > they're talking about preserving the diversity of life on
| the Planet.
|
| Do we know for sure that climate change will decrease
| diversity? I'd imagine making colder areas of the planet
| warmer would allow more life to thrive. I mean compare now
| to the last ice age. Surely there's more life now.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm totally on board with team climate
| so I hope this doesn't come across as blasphemy.
| vasco wrote:
| > FYI, when people are talking about helping "the Planet"
| they're not talking about lifeless rocks, they're talking
| about preserving the diversity of life on the Planet.
|
| I disagree, I think this is the virtue signaling projection
| but most people only care about global warming because they
| think there's a non negligible chance they'll see real
| impacts _on their own quality of life_ either during their
| life or during the life of their direct offspring. I think
| there's likely plenty of individuals who truly value
| biodiversity but with all the evidence around us I'm pretty
| sure the majority doesn't actually care about saving even a
| non-cute mammal, much less actual diversity like thousands
| of species of insects or bees or whatever.
| JackFr wrote:
| > Sure, they're going to happen anyway eventually, but we
| probably shouldn't cause an extra one if we don't have
| to...
|
| Honestly why not?
|
| (To be clear, I don't think we should, but I know my
| reasons. They're not science based, because the question
| "Should we care if humanity causes an extiction event?"
| can't have a scientific answer.)
| cesaref wrote:
| I'd suggest you dig out and read a copy of James Lovelock's
| Gaia Hypothesis. It's obviously all new age whackery, but the
| more you read about it the more sense you'll see in it.
| Definitely worth tracking down.
| sieabahlpark wrote:
| > Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then
| things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit extreme,
| but it's to illustrate that less activity, not more, is what's
| best for the Planet.
|
| How do I get the food without a currency I earn at work?
|
| Will I be given perpetually free stuff from some benevolent
| government? I believe I've heard that pitch before and it
| hasn't ever worked and never will.
|
| This is a nonstarter and completely disregards just how the
| world actually works.
| dejj wrote:
| If by:
|
| > do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating
| entirely, and then things will quickly recover.
|
| you mean: let humans go extinct. Then yes, that would work. It
| has the elegance of Multivac's answer to Asimov's "The last
| question"
|
| "And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the
| direction of entropy.
|
| But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of
| the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration --
| would take care of that, too."
| sushisource wrote:
| IMO this is technically true in a totally uninteresting way.
|
| People aren't going to stop doing stuff. That's just fairly
| obviously not really on the table, despite the minority of
| people who are into ideas of going back to some pre-modern
| agrarian societal model.
|
| So, how do we let people continue to do stuff without totally
| messing up the planet? That's the crucial question humanity is
| interested in solving (or, maybe more accurately, needs to
| solve).
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I mean we could do _less_.
|
| COVID showed that (a lot of us ) really don't need to be
| commuting and flying all that much. It's tragic that
| 'society' wasted a perfectly good pandemic by not learning
| any of the things it showed us.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _COVID showed that (a lot of us ) really don 't need to
| be commuting and flying all that much. It's tragic that
| 'society' wasted a perfectly good pandemic by not learning
| any of the things it showed us._
|
| I'm flying a lot more post Covid. It showed me how precious
| travel and meeting people face to face and experiencing new
| cultures is. Based on current air travel statistics, I'm
| not alone.
| rkk3 wrote:
| If anything I was more surprised at the lack of impact.
| Emissions only fell by around 6.4%
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3
| haswell wrote:
| I think it's interesting, and here's why.
|
| Think about this as it relates to other common problems
| humans face like debt or the need to lose weight.
|
| I can put all of my energy and focus into making more money
| so I can get my debt under control, but that won't matter if
| I have really bad spending habits.
|
| I can put all of my energy into exercising more and burning
| the calories I take in, but that won't matter if I'm eating
| more calories than I can reasonably burn in a day.
|
| I'd argue that doing less is still doing something. It's just
| looking for a solution in a different place. It's focusing on
| the cause, instead of trying to put a band-aid on the effect.
|
| This falls into the category of "low hanging fruit", and one
| of the easiest potential sources of meaningful change.
| Inventing new things, increasing energy efficiency, etc. are
| all possible optimizations, but are not guaranteed. Eating
| less, spending less, and burning less energy are all but
| guaranteed to have a positive result.
|
| The real question of interest is now: how much are people
| willing to not do?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| For something like spending or calories, you probably have
| to cut back under 20% or under 10%, and even that is hard
| enough on its own.
|
| Trying to simply cut back for CO2 needs something like a
| 90% reduction to actually solve things. It could
| theoretically work but it very quickly hits diminishing
| returns and becomes a bad allocation of effort. Projects
| like actively replacing all our power plants, and making
| sure all cars have a minimum electric range, are much more
| "low hanging fruit" than trying to directly cut consumption
| that far.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Well I'll take a stab at this one:
|
| Privileged folks like those on HN will not cut back much.
| Folks who are _already_ being forced to cut back will
| continue to do so, and with massive amounts of suffering.
|
| Really a simple solution!
| haswell wrote:
| This is rather pessimistic, trivializes the argument and
| assumes that it's directed only at individuals.
|
| Doing less doesn't have to mean it's only an individual's
| responsibility. Applying this more broadly, doing less is
| a category of potential solutions to much bigger
| problems.
|
| Relying on individuals will never move the needle very
| far.
| ethanbond wrote:
| This is the opposite of assuming it's directed only at
| individuals. I'm saying we are _already_ doing this,
| systematically, at massive scale. What it looks like is
| people fleeing particular regions, turned from farmer or
| industrial worker to... "doing less." It looks like mass
| migration and failed states. This happens either because
| the economics cease to make sense (the sort of levers any
| systematic solution would have available), or ecological
| facts require it (the sort of solution that will be
| forced upon us in lieu of action).
|
| In either case, it's clear that the "doing less"
| approaches are bound to start with the people who are
| already doing the least.
| calibas wrote:
| This seems to be the standard response, I've certainly heard
| it before, but all I'm suggesting is doing less. I'm not a
| luddite, I'm not arguing for a "pre-modern agrarian societal
| model", I'm arguing for a post-modern agrarian society that
| balances technology, industry and the ecosystem.
|
| We consume enormously more than we need, and far more than
| the Planet can handle. I feel like the one of the few sane
| people when I'm saying it's imperative that we lower our
| consumption right now.
| slg wrote:
| Funny enough you are falling into a similar situation as
| item 5 from that list. You are "pushing a view that has
| absolutely no advantage to anyone". You feel like one of
| the few sane people because you are of course technically
| right. However no one will listen to you because "even if
| that's true, there's no profit in thinking about it" as it
| is currently impossible from a societal standpoint. There
| is no way to get a critical mass of people to return to an
| agrarian society until they have no other real choice
| because collectively modern consumption makes our
| individual lives more enjoyable. That is why reducing
| emissions is expensive and painful because the cheap and
| easy answer of just not consuming isn't feasible.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Some part of modern consumption however is not really
| making lives any more enjoyable at all, for instance all
| the low quality clothes and items sold in large
| quantities to fill some internal void for people for a
| short while.
|
| If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw
| materials and transport then I'm fairly sure the price
| difference between high quality and low quality items
| would become minimal so people would start buying more
| sensibly for the planet because our systems would make it
| more sensible for them individually.
| slg wrote:
| >to fill some internal void for people for a short while.
|
| You just answered your own point there. It makes people
| happy. Maybe that feeling is fleeting, but it is still a
| good feeling that people will not give up voluntarily
| unless there are no other options.
|
| >If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw
| materials and transport then I'm fairly sure the price
| difference between high quality and low quality items
| would become minimal so people would start buying more
| sensibly for the planet because our systems would make it
| more sensible for them individually.
|
| I don't disagree, but a carbon tax is in the expensive
| and painful bucket above not the cheap and easy one. It
| makes the low quality goods more expensive so people
| consume less of them. That is not people voluntarily
| giving up those good for the benefit of the planet.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Nah, I don't buy that. People wouldn't be "giving up"
| anything for the benefit of the planet by not buying a
| new pair of shoes every month or something. It would
| actually be for their own benefit to be more content.
|
| That's kind of the whole problem, the people who would
| lose are the sellers and advertisers who cultivate the
| insecurities in discontent people for their own benefit,
| not the consumers.
| calibas wrote:
| >You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage
| to anyone".
|
| Really? I'm of the opinion that doing less, working less,
| and doing things like having your own garden would lead
| to much greater health and happiness for the average
| person. The only way I can see "no advantage" is when
| viewed through the lens of modern capitalism, then my
| suggestions are certainly blasphemous.
| strictured wrote:
| You're ignoring his more important point that you will
| not be able to get the critical mass necessary to make it
| useful and true on a collective/societal level. Believing
| that you can ask people to work less, and that the lost
| income (and subsequently access to critical resources
| like food) can somehow be supplemented with a garden that
| many people wouldn't even have access to the space
| necessary to implement, betrays a lack of understanding
| of the economic situation of most people. How many proles
| rent rather than own, and how may have access to fertile
| ground?
| rpdillon wrote:
| It's not they're blasphemous, it's that there's no clear
| way to incentivize a critical mass to change their
| behavior. Put another way: the destination is clear
| enough, but how to get there isn't. Reminds me a bit of
| nuclear disarmament.
| slg wrote:
| Exactly, it is more the transition that is impossible
| rather than the end state. You can't tell people to give
| up international travel, visiting family members, eating
| non-local foods, air conditioning, and the overwhelming
| majority of society's leisure activities and replace it
| all with gardening. Maybe that is a desirable end result
| that would be healthier for both humanity and the planet,
| but there is no way to get there voluntarily. That is
| just asking people to give up too much.
| [deleted]
| mrfusion wrote:
| Neat article. I don't understand what he's saying for number 4
| though.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| This article is a sad way to look at the world
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| Executing strategy #5, I see.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| No, it's empathy. There is something human about our
| irrationality. Rising above that, we lose a bit of that magic
| that makes us unique.
| javajosh wrote:
| Regarding plan 1, the prenup is the most romantic idea of all.
| Why? Because you stay together not out of fear, but out of love.
| Sadly, there are limits to what prenups can do (they can't apply
| to time-sharing the children, in most states). Note that not
| getting married is not enough; common law marriage applies if you
| live together long enough.
|
| As for the rest, it's disturbing and I don't want to think about
| it. So I won't.
| didibus wrote:
| Most of these seem to imply you don't remember the plan while
| still following it, so in a sense, you don't have a good reason
| not to talk about them, since you actually wouldn't know what to
| talk about.
|
| That means the only thing I take from this is that you get really
| good followers by indoctrination which is a combination of
| leading by example, shaming/rewarding people at a social level,
| and possibly force or power, and that requires you to be sleazy
| about it, by never divulging the real motives to others. Maybe
| you can get yourself to believe in it as well to a point and
| forget, but that seems less likely to me, most likely you just
| got others indoctrinated to follow your plan without knowing the
| real reasons why, which eventually get forgotten to history.
| tpoacher wrote:
| This reminded me of today's Dilbert strip:
| https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-12-14
| h2odragon wrote:
| So when you find yourself reading "They're _internment camps_ ,
| not 'concentration camps'" as a serious, honest defense of
| involuntary quarantine, just relax, go with the flow, and hope
| your betters are following one of these plans. Surely everything
| will turn out OK and my individual reservations are not just
| meaningless, but possibly ultimately antisocial...
| bsedlm wrote:
| this is the best explanation I've even seen for a positive aspect
| to secrecy.
|
| yet I still distrust secretive practices on principle, because
| evil deeds require secrecy 99% of the time
| vmception wrote:
| transparency is a deflection and most of the implementation is
| based on lies
|
| many forms of good deeds also rely on secrecy
| mjlawson wrote:
| This reminds me of a set of poems, Knots, by R.D. Laing, the
| first of which goes:
|
| > They are playing a game
|
| > They are playing, at not playing a game
|
| > If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they
| will punish me.
|
| > I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
|
| It's a lovely collection, and though I haven't thought about it
| recently, I think there's a lot of value in considering these
| kinds of unspoken self/group contradictions.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| I lost the game.
| janlaureys wrote:
| Same here. Had such a long streak going as well.
| JALTU wrote:
| Thanks for sharing! Knots has lovely metre, which feels/sounds
| like the famous Bene Gesserit litany against fear.
|
| I must not reveal the game / Revelation makes me the rule
| breaker / Revelation means alienation that brings total
| ostracization
| not1ofU wrote:
| I shall break the rules and they will punish me ~Julian Assange
|
| Edit: To the downvoters, :wave: - if I was to change the name
| to Chelsea Manning would you have downvoated anyway? If so why,
| educate me. I dont see the problem here.
| https://scheerpost.com/2021/12/13/hedges-the-execution-of-ju...
| Lets discuss this ^
| vmception wrote:
| I keep my tax plans secret.
|
| A) Because I paid alot for the CPAs, tax lawyers, private letter
| rulings and case law.
|
| B) Actually talking about it to those struggling with taxes would
| result in them noticing they can't participate any more than
| driving to the neighboring municipality for cheaper gas tax,
| instead of anything more convenient, and could result in the tax
| laws changing from their widespread annoyance.
|
| C) tax clickbait publishers like ProPublica won't figure it out
| for them for another two decades, which is long enough.
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| I am very susceptible to this kind of thing. Most of my life I
| have read articles about most tax shelters being dodgy, watched
| by the IRS, and concluded all I can really do is 401k and tax
| loss harvesting. But now that you mention it, this feels the
| same way as me not realizing all the effort people to to look
| better on camera, because they don't really talk about it. So I
| end up not competing in the areas of tax avoidance,
| presentability, or clout, giving those who kept their plans
| secret an even bigger advantage.
| vmception wrote:
| Sadly it is a factor of exposure. I have read many tax ideas
| that were non-compliant or under heavy scrutiny by the IRS,
| and I have read many tax ideas that are very compliant and
| actively helped by the IRS. From my observation and
| experiences, the IRS cares more about compliance than the
| actual revenue which is in their name. They should really be
| called the Tax Compliance and Collections Department, but
| their name is really homage to the idea that the Federal
| government can raise and collect revenues from many other
| sources, which predates the income tax dragnet and the
| constitutional amendment that was required to go down that
| path.
|
| Different people at the IRS understand different things, and
| different tax professionals interface with different parts of
| the IRS (and judiciary).
|
| Congress and the White House would not be able to keep up,
| despite being able to espouse an opinion of the government
| about the amount of money that winds up subject to tax
| collection, they are not the IRS which has the only relevant
| opinion. Although good tax lawyers and judges can have a more
| relevant opinion.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| I don't talk about my side gig for the same reason.
|
| If it was widely hyped among the people who have the capital to
| enter it all the money would be driven out of it.
| xupybd wrote:
| As one of the church goers that genuinely believes in God and the
| afterlife I'm surprised and saddened to hear people attend in
| disbelief. It's a shame the same community can't be found amongst
| others that hold similar beliefs. It's sad that someone can't be
| true to their own beliefs.
| temptemptemp111 wrote:
| Stop with the chemtrails already! That isn't engineering, that's
| pollution.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| You're the (US) government. You want to prevent deaths from
| Covid. Research keeps generally concluding that previous Covid
| infection natural immunity is roughly as good as vaccine induced.
| You realize if you message this to the public and allow equality
| to vax-passes, never-vax people will be incentivized to now try
| and get covid so they can be restriction-less without being
| vaxxed, further spreading covid. You decide not to message this,
| leaving some astute researchers perplexed.
| seoaeu wrote:
| Is anyone really surprised by this? All evidence suggests that
| getting the vaccine strictly increases your immunity to Covid,
| even if you've already had the disease.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| The underlying issue, and one that bugs the hell out of me, is
| Policy vs Truth.
|
| You can say true things all day, and convince nobody. You can
| enact policy based completely on Truth (e.g., Trust the Science),
| and completely fail. People don't care about Truth, they care
| about what changes they need to make, and who is asking them to
| make them.
|
| Good policy is only partially based on truth, it's more based on
| easy implementation and high acceptability. In the article, you
| _don 't talk about the real reasons (truth)_, you do what you
| need to do to steer the ship. That probably includes
| bullshitting, compromise, apparent-hypocrisy, etc.
|
| I'm afraid we've completely forgotten to separate the means from
| the end goal.
|
| I've tried to explain this to people, and I've been met with
| blank stares from even the most intelligent folks.
|
| As suggested though, it works wonders if you're at least a little
| good at magical thinking or self deception. (If I run these 3
| miles, I'm much more likely to get that raise)
| [deleted]
| 63 wrote:
| >I've tried to explain this to people, and I've been met with
| blank stares from even the most intelligent folks.
|
| That's definitely an experience I've had with similar topics. I
| particularly remember talking to a friend who I generally
| respect and admire about something that isn't socially
| acceptable for no obvious reason, and upon explaining my
| thoughts and asking what the deal was with it, they completely
| shut down and acted like I was totally insane.
|
| It's just particularly annoying that so many people claim to be
| for truth or actions based on some ultimate moral value, but
| then act totally differently because all they were ever really
| for was tradition which includes hypocrisy about what it's for.
| jollybean wrote:
| There's a term for this and it's called 'Public Communications'
| sometimes into the domain of propaganda.
|
| This is not a 'new' concept it's as old as time and 100% of
| people with real power have an awareness of this, it's almost a
| defining feature of an elite class.
|
| Policy should obviously be guided by 'Truth' and we need
| transparency, at the same time, irrespective of how smart
| individuals are, as crowds, we act with a lowest-common-
| demoninator IQ and things need to be communicated effectively.
|
| A great example of 'Truths We Cant't Handle' are vaccination-
| caused deaths.
|
| All the vaccines cause death, and AZ is particularly tricky.
| But it's really hard to find exact data on that because it's
| very well suppressed. I suggest it's probably available with
| some digging but if you imagine a 'chain of communications'
| from the doctors, to health officials, to politicians to media,
| all of whom are ostensibly trying to act in the interest of the
| 'Public Good' - it's not going to come out.
|
| Bonnie Henry in BC is a great Public Health official, I listen
| to her communications almost weekly, very smart, generally
| open, data-driven, smart journalists asking good questions -
| but they have never broached the subject of 'How many have died
| form vaccines'. The information is just too explosive. So they
| don't talk about it. We're learn more about it after the
| pandemic.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| > I'm afraid we've completely forgotten to separate the means
| from the end goal.
|
| I'm afraid we've completely forgotten "the ends don't justify
| the means". ;)
| sieabahlpark wrote:
| You know science is inherently flawed? Making policy on
| kneejerk reactions to "science" is no better than being a
| tyrant. Especially when you consider how specific studies are
| funded (like oil being environmentally friendly).
|
| A majority of studies are just outright wrong and are trying to
| reach for conclusions for grant money.
| lkrubner wrote:
| This is related to an issue I've studied a lot and recently
| written about. In "Don't make a fetish of having a flat
| organization" I try to address this in the context of business,
| making clear that a well-designed bureaucracy can empower an
| organization to be more flexible at scale, but for various
| reasons we don't often think of it this way:
|
| https://demodexio.substack.com/p/dont-make-a-fetish-of-havin...
|
| But perhaps more relevant, in the context of government and
| policy, I've tried to make the point that we should think of
| government and bureaucracy as machines that produce policy.
| Every machine is optimized to produce certain kinds of
| policies. If you advocate for a great policy, and you've the
| facts on your side, and yet no one will listen to you, then you
| need to think about the structure of that machine, because it
| will take a change in the machine to get that machine to start
| producing the kinds of policy that you want:
|
| https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part...
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| The power and foolishness of democracy lies therein. A good
| story is more motivating that the complicated truths of life.
| It is probably better for all of us to link every tornado and
| hurricane to climate change in a neat little story than refrain
| from doing so because we cannot link the particular storm on
| man-made climate change. The story has power to effect positive
| change.
| UnFleshedOne wrote:
| While practical and maybe inevitable, this approach will
| alienate exactly the kind of people you want on your side if
| you want to _actually_ reach your goal and course correct when
| needed.
|
| Instead you will attract people who will happily pretend to be
| on the right path and will keep performing rain dances on
| titanic.
|
| What you propose can work if it is a technocratic conspiracy
| where people who know what's going on maintain power and can
| update direction relatively easily (we were always at war with
| Eurasia). Then again, there is always a risk of losing real
| power to one of the mid-rank rain-dancing activists and screw
| up the whole project, maybe for good.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| The real fun is talking about other peoples' plans they aren't
| supposed to talk about. That's the best part about the internet
| -- there aren't any real consequences for doing so.
| jollybean wrote:
| Like discovering the ancient concept of 'Public Communications'
| by accidental recourse of self aware rhetoric.
|
| Every single thing we do, if the public were to have access to
| the raw facts, it would cause 'outrage'. The entirely of
| leadership is putting the difficult facts into the difficult
| context and making the trade offs.
|
| We 'don't talk about' the fact that we don't give medical aid to
| COVID patients past a certain point because we have to put a
| dollar figure on it (i.e. triage), similarly the fact we have
| $1200 'solutions' to COVID that could probably wipe it out
| without vaccines if we could get everyone the tech, but we can't
| 'afford' it, or that masks do not protect you like wearing a gas
| mask through a chlorine cloud, rather, they're minimally
| protective but nevertheless we believe 'do make difference' and
| we want people to wear them, so we don't talk about it in detail,
| rather, just suggest or require them as policy in some locales.
|
| Because people make decisions based on the emotive strength of
| the rhetorician, the magnitude of impressions, emotions, group
| consensus, 'opposition', politics, their instinct for the
| validity of the source ... and not conscientious and
| dispassionate civic reasoning ... we worry about what is said on
| 'mass media'. People will do largely what their favourite
| 'talking head' say to do ... so we have to be careful about what
| 'talking heads' say, at least in some situations.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| We don't talk about this stuff because we've lost the ability
| to have honest adult discussions about the cost/benefit of
| anything that involves not just harm, but risk of harm, let
| alone death.
|
| There's a classic engineering ethics problem involving an
| overpass. Build a cheap overpass with a support in the median
| and eventually someone may die crashing into it. The odds are
| low and the cost of a bridge with no support is high.
|
| Modern, western, white collar society is unable to look itself
| in the mirror and say "we're building the cheap bridge" for
| anything but the most ludicrously extreme cases.
|
| If it wasn't Covid that made this clear it would have been
| something else.
| jollybean wrote:
| It has little to do with 'Modern' 'Educated' or 'White
| Collar'.
|
| 'Public Communications' is more ancient than as the joke goes
| 'the oldest profession'.
|
| PR is probably the oldest profession.
|
| Even Egyptian Pharaohs were overwhelmingly concerned with
| their perception among the Plebes, the Nobles, and their
| Enemies, and almost everything they did was oriented towards
| that. Every group or individual in a position of power since
| then has that as a fundamental concern.
|
| Imagine writing a Constitution that says 'Everyone is Created
| Equal' and then still having slaves, you need some serious
| narrative formation to keep that paradox from bubbling up.
| (FYI I'm not taking a postmodern view of history here, just
| saying the issue is real).
|
| COVID is a gigantic example.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I think Covid handling is an example where the public has
| extensive access to the raw facts; it's quite surprising just
| how much data is available to the public. I can get time series
| of covid cases, hospitalisations, vaccination rates, by area
| and by age... It's really surprising how much info we have.
| motohagiography wrote:
| What I can't quite tell is whether the mental alarm bells of
| people with ostensibly responsible mainstream views
| legitimately aren't going off at all, or they too know what
| this whole thing is, and they just think their complicity
| will spare them.
| jollybean wrote:
| We do, but at the same time, we can't contextualize it very
| well necessarily.
|
| For example 'spikes' can mean all sorts of things. CFRs and
| test positivity rates have to be hugely contextualized.
|
| We also have 'studies' about Ivermectin some of which are
| good, some of which ar flawed, that lack context i.e. 'study
| shows Ivermectin works! - if that's all they see, well, then
| they might be inclined to believe it.
|
| And a huge amount of anecdotal data that is very misleading
| as well.
|
| It's good the data is out there, but we also need sources to
| make sense of it.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > We 'don't talk about' the fact that we don't give medical aid
| to COVID patients past a certain point because we have to put a
| dollar figure on it (i.e. triage)
|
| That's not how triage works.
|
| > similarly the fact we have $1200 'solutions' to COVID that
| could probably wipe it out without vaccines if we could get
| everyone the tech, but we can't 'afford' it,
|
| What is this mysterious cure?
|
| > or that masks do not protect you like wearing a gas mask
| through a chlorine cloud, rather, they're minimally protective
| but nevertheless we believe 'do make difference' and we want
| people to wear them, so we don't talk about it in detail,
| rather, just suggest or require them as policy in some locales.
|
| That's a known fact. Masks don't really protect the wearer
| unless it's a properly fitted N95. They reduce the aerosol
| emitted which reduces the chances of transmitting it to other
| people. They protect a group of people if most wear them by
| limiting transmission.
|
| That's high school level biology.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| > Masks don't really protect the wearer unless it's a
| properly fitted N95. They reduce the aerosol emitted which
| reduces the chances of transmitting it to other people. They
| protect a group of people if most wear them by limiting
| transmission.
|
| Many people seem to respond to this with a line of thought
| akin to _Why would I take on a minor inconvenience merely to
| help save the lives of other people?_ Surprisingly few seem
| to think _I 'd better get some N95 masks then_. They've been
| in ready supply for months.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Wearing a properly fitted one isn't comfortable at all.
|
| Regular masks work great if everyone is wearing them
| correctly.
| jollybean wrote:
| --- "That's not how triage works."
|
| Triage: "the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or
| illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number
| of patients or casualties."
|
| Seems exactly like triage.
|
| --- "What is this mysterious cure?"
|
| Monoclonal Antibodies are a very effective treatment that we
| would use almost ubiquitously were it not for the cost.
|
| If they were $1 and easily administered, they are in some
| ways as effective as vaccines, and pragmatically 'could be
| the first order solution'
|
| " there was a significant reduction in COVID-related
| hospitalization or death of 71.3% (1.3% vs. 4.6%; p<0.0001)
| in the 2,400 mg group and 70.4% (1.0% vs. 3.2%) in the 1,200
| mg group, as compared to placebo." [1]
|
| 70% effective, taken at onset of symptoms, is more protective
| than my current AZ vaccine.
|
| But at $1200 ea. we can only use it in specialized scenarios.
|
| FYI - 100% of 'Rich Americans' will have access to this if
| they contract COVID and want to take it - but only a minority
| of poor and middle class Americans will.
|
| If the Media ever wanted to highlight this discrepancy, there
| might be a revolution, but it's not in anyone's best interest
| at this point, i.e. 'We Don't Talk About It'.
|
| --- "Mask Protection Are a Known Fact"
|
| No, it's not, in the minds of most people, and the specific
| facts are purposefully avoided in the interest in the simple,
| basic communication of: "Wear Your Mask" which is in the
| public interest.
|
| My parents and everyone in my family get jitters if 'one
| person in vicinity' isn't wearing a proper mask, because
| their 'instinct' is more along the 'N95 belief'.
|
| 'One person without a mask' is along the lines of 'working in
| a smokey nihgtclub for a week'. While not good, it's probably
| not going to hurt you. If _everyone_ worked in smoke-filled
| nightclubs, it wold cause harm for sure, just like if we all
| didn 't wear masks, R0 would nudge up.
|
| The 'Public Communication' on masks has definitely not been
| nuanced to the point wherein they spend time going into the
| details, and so the resulting 'common understanding' isn't
| perfectly consistent with reality.
|
| And it gets much better:
|
| Vaccines kill.
|
| We knew this, and we have a better understanding of it now,
| but even the most 'transparent' Public Health communicators
| completely avoid the subject. The visceral impact of 'So and
| So Died from a Vaccine', even as we know that on the whole,
| the vaccines are effectively safe and we want people to take
| them, is just to much. A single anecdote of 'someone dying'
| is easily enough for anti-vaxxers to propagandize and
| misrepresent the materiality of risk.
|
| Go ahead and try to get the 'hard data' on exactly where
| vaccines have materially caused death, good luck, it's hard
| to find. That is basically a level of 'transparency' that is
| basically a problem for the 'Public Good' and basically that
| information is actively suppressed. Maybe not 100% hidden,
| but absolutely suppressed i.e. 'We Don't Talk About It'
|
| [1] https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real-time-learning-
| networ...
| newaccount74 wrote:
| > Go ahead and try to get the 'hard data' on exactly where
| vaccines have materially caused death, good luck, it's hard
| to find.
|
| The Paul Ehrlich institute for example publishes exact
| numbers of possibly vaccine related deaths. What more do
| you want? Do you want them to publish names and photos of
| every person that died after getting vaccinated?
| crmd wrote:
| They lost me at the dangers of ultrasonic humidifiers.
| not2b wrote:
| I think you misinterpreted that part. It's talking about how
| cults who believe in weird stuff grow, despite there being no
| real danger of ultrasonic humidifiers or whatever.
| rkk3 wrote:
| There is a non-zero risk of aerosolizing bacteria/mold etc if
| you don't maintain an ultra-sonic humidifier properly, which
| doesn't exist with other methods. Of course with a boiling
| humidifier, you've got a container of scalding hot water
| laying around.
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| The author is a part of that 'cult': -
| https://dynomight.net/air/ -
| https://dynomight.net/humidifiers/
|
| So from context I think that the Hobo-Dyer projection and
| using bromine are both supposed to be superior to current
| common approaches, but, like ultrasonic humidifiers, normies
| don't accept these superior new facts even though the
| arguments for them are strong and infalliable.
|
| I still don't get the point of the last two paragraphs in
| that part.
| mikewarot wrote:
| If you put tap water in an ultrasonic humidifier, there
| actually is a level of danger created.
|
| Here's what appears to be a fair and balanced google search
| result - https://www.childrenscolorado.org/conditions-and-
| advice/pare...
| mherdeg wrote:
| Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes
| something like:
|
| You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can
| be avoided by getting a shot.
|
| Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't
| want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about
| a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the
| shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group talks
| about having everyone get the shot.
|
| You realize that if the other tribe keeps acting this way, a lot
| of them will die -- 1% of them overall, and as many as 10-15% of
| the oldest members of the tribe, with them having a fresh chance
| to die with every mutation and reinfection every 12 months.
|
| You realize that smugly insisting that those people should "get
| the shot" will make them dig in their heels and insist they will
| never do any such thing. This will, in turn, kill them. This will
| diminish their tribe's size and political influence. Is this a
| plan? Is it a thing you are doing on purpose?
| vmception wrote:
| 1% decrease doesn't diminish their size and political influence
| substantially, even of the disproportionate elderly population.
| Then only a fraction of the remainders that lose a loved one
| would re-evaluate, a large fraction of them would still be
| bounced back when they realize the other ideas "your group"
| inherits is even harder to accept as a personality trait. Most
| of them will inherit just enough to not think further about the
| matter.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| It's 1% of the whole population, but a much larger percentage
| of certain political ideologies.
| vmception wrote:
| well, sure yeah.
|
| far left spiritualists and naturopaths are a tiny
| population, far right people occupy sparsely populated
| areas.
|
| funny application of horseshoe theory.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| IIRC some swing states were decided by less than 1%?
| bsedlm wrote:
| but why are you so adamant on making everybody so perfectly
| safe?
|
| there used to be something about freedom and risk; heck, about
| life and risk.
|
| it's risky to be alive but it was more risky live way back in
| the day
|
| at what point does safety begin to stifle the drive to live?
|
| we as humans originally evolved in a risky environment, we
| thrived in it, we made it safer for ourselves; but maybe, just
| maybe, we also acquired a need for this risky behavior and
| without it our lives feel emptier?
|
| the point I am trying to make (granted not very eloquently)
| starts out from this idea [1] that humans are kind of crazy,
| and that maybe this crazyness is what makes us so successful;
| so I put that too much safety may undo this crazyness, it puts
| it to sleep?
|
| see also anti-fragility
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97jBvbmY03g&t=252s
| agentdrtran wrote:
| sure, but on one hand, you have being mildly inconvenienced
| by a shot, and on the other hand, you have conspiracy
| theories that can get loads of people filled. People are
| crazy, we should embrace that, but that doesn't mean you let
| everyone drive drunk.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| > the point I am trying to make (granted not very eloquently)
| starts out from this idea [1] that humans are kind of crazy,
| and that maybe this crazyness is what makes us so successful;
| so I put that too much safety may undo this crazyness, it
| puts it to sleep?
|
| You are blurring the lines between taking a personal risk in
| one occasion at a specific time and taking the risk of not
| wearing a mask or washing hands or cooking meat every day all
| year long.
|
| Craziness for the sake of craziness is just random trial and
| error.
| handrous wrote:
| What does this have to do with the actual topic of the parent
| post?
| guidoism wrote:
| Less about making those people safe and more about making you
| safe by making those other not spread the disease to you.
|
| For example: Go ahead and drive drunk, I don't care, just do
| it on your private property so you don't kill me.
|
| Similarly: Go and don't get vaxed, honestly I don't care. But
| viruses don't respect borders like cars do, so if you are
| going to do it then make sure you are isolated on a private
| island where you don't leave, or Antarctica, or mars or
| something.
| EB-Barrington wrote:
| "Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue
| to work well for Delta with regard to severe illness and
| death - they prevent it, but what they can't do anymore is
| prevent transmission,"
|
| CDC Director Rochelle Walensky
| [deleted]
| arrow7000 wrote:
| Ok but what's the point of taking risks for its own sake? It
| makes sense to take risks if you stand to gain something. But
| a risk with only downside is just a bad idea.
| yongjik wrote:
| You had me until the last paragraph. If "smugly" insisting X
| would make them dig in their heels, what are we supposed to do?
| Say "Oh of course it's totally in your rights, please send your
| unvaccinated children to the same school my kids go to"?
| Because I don't think it will change their minds either.
|
| What happened to "personal responsibility" that these people
| like so much? If the whole country tells these people to get
| vaccinated, they don't, and they die, then I don't think I
| should be held responsible for being smug, or snarky, or
| whatever.
| taejavu wrote:
| The vaccines don't prevent catching covid, or spreading it to
| other people, so what exactly is the problem with
| unvaccinated kids going to schools with yours?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| The vaccines don't _prevent_ those things. They do _lower
| the probability_ - or at least, that 's the claim. That's
| not perfection, but it's not nothing, either.
|
| As to whether the claim is accurate... that's outside the
| scope of this comment.
| [deleted]
| guidoism wrote:
| Yikes don't say that out loud!
|
| But seriously, the left needs to think more like this. The
| right plays dirty and if the left plays like this they get the
| same outcomes of playing dirty but is not saying anything bad
| or wrong.
| exolymph wrote:
| You do realize that you're responding to a comment reframing
| the USA left-establishment's covid vaccine rhetoric, right?
| Point being, how do you know the left _isn 't_ playing like
| this?
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| The comment you are replying to is not a novel take. This
| stuff has long since been thought of by some strategists on
| pretty much every side of every issue for about as far back
| as we have record of this sort of thing. Heck, revise the
| wording a little bit and it could pass for something some
| enlightenment thinker half a century ago would have said
| about whatever issue they were talking about that minute.
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| I like the thought experiment, but i would counter that i
| suspect the 1% that would die would be replaced by a larger
| volume of new group members - due to the divisive nature of "us
| vs them", everyone has to choose, and so the forced unity ends
| up increasing overall members. Forcing people to choose
| increased membership of both parties.
|
| Not a statement, just a thought.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Consider that causing 1% of the group's population to die might
| not weaken the group and in fact might make the group stronger.
| willob33 wrote:
| He's effectively describing Trump's leaked plan to let covid
| ravage blue urban areas before the election, but here framing
| it as a liberal plot as a narrative device
|
| Maybe he's a Republican astroturfer
|
| Someone just learned the root language of real human
| economics taught to us as abstractions through story and pie
| chart.
| XorNot wrote:
| Disease doesn't kill "weaker" members of a group, it kills
| susceptible ones.
|
| The Spanish Flu notably had a much higher mortality amongst
| younger, healthier people.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I didn't mean some sort of darwinian thing where the
| average strength goes up. I mean that the strength of the
| group as a whole could very well increase.
| jandrese wrote:
| COVID however is most fatal to the eldery. Letting it
| simply rage out of control could push back the social
| security crisis a few years.
|
| I don't think anything as Machiavellian as this is going
| on. I think it was all just a culmination of decades anti-
| expert propaganda and knee-jerk obstructionism coming to a
| head in a terribly fatal way.
| EB-Barrington wrote:
| Correction - it's not 1%, it's 100%. Of both tribes.
| [deleted]
| willob33 wrote:
| It's just business
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-14 23:00 UTC)