posted on August 06, 2019 03:29 PM by
u/completely-ineffable
26
u/DELETED13 pointsat 1565115767.000000
I’m pretty sure Tyson would tell you that the thing he and I have in
common is something he cares about more than our respective chromatic
reflectance spectra.
It is not irrational to have different reactions to different deaths.
It is not merely “spectacle” that makes us–and the legal system–react
differently to 100 deaths from obesity versus 100 deaths from a single
mass shooter. If the point is “We should be paying attention to these
other issues, too,” then fine, but that in no way makes it irrational to
react differently to atrocities than to public health emergencies.
I hate to invoke Godwin’s law, but just re-formulate Tyson’s Tweet to
be reacting to crimes against humanity versus deaths from cancer (or
whatever) and it’s clear what a terrible statement it really is.
Sidenote, I really like that he stepped in and basically invalidated his own namesake because the times demanded it. Godwin's law had been used for too long to shut down legitimate comparisons (even though, strictly speaking, it's just a prediction about thread length vs. likelihood of Nazi comparison) and outlived any usefulness it may have once had as a meme.
I don’t see how that’s a “terrible statement”. If you could flip a switch and eliminate deaths from cancer or deaths from crimes against humanity, you’d be a monster to pick the latter. The matter of death is pretty irrelevant. The only reasonable argument against what NDT said is that perhaps it’s much easier to stop gun related deaths than cancer, which might be true, (as a pro-gun socialist I disagree in principle on gun control and in practice as well), but it doesn’t mean he’s wrong about the entirely disproportionate focus on gun violence by the media.
Do I really have to actually do it for you to understand why this is a terrible statement? Here's NDT's statement re-formulated with a different atrocity and using precisely the same logic:
> From 1941-1945, the Jewish people horrifically lost six million people to death camps.
> On average, across any 4 years, we also lose…
> 1 million to Medical errors
> 2 million to the Flu
> 5.2 million to Car Accidents
> 1.5 million to Homicide via handgun
> Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.
It's not just "disproportionate focus on gun violence by the media" that makes people react strongly to mass murders. It is because mass murder is a terrible, intentional crime, and people--along with the law--react more strongly to terrible, intentional crimes.
It is true that we should pay more attention to other ways people die. But you need not do that by minimizing an atrocity.
Lmao your example is once again, terrible. If we hasn't stopped the Nazis, it is an absolute certainty they would have killed millions perhaps tens of millions more. Direct military action was the only possible solution, and it is and was highly effective at ending regime led genocide. Endeavors into savings people's lives regarding healthcare are not so prominent.
Let's go back to gun violence - what is it, like 254 people died of mass shootings? What is that compared to preventable deaths in America? Like a drip in an ocean? None of the proposed legislation has been shown conclusively to affect that at all. Giving a generous 20% reduction in deaths to new gun control legislation (not focused on the actual issue: right wing extremism and mental health problems) we would save 50 lives. If I had more of a stake in this discussion, I don't feel like I woule be in the wrong to be disgusted by your comparison of the Holocaust to something that could at Max save 25-100 lives, if you accept certain parameters.
Gun control will just Target minorities and the undertrodden. You have to disarm police and everyone else, but even then I still think it's a had idea, since it's going to leave the US military as the sole proprietor of force in the country.
What’s wrong with the logic of the statement.
NDT- it’s not a good idea to focus so heavily on an issue that in the end, doesn’t have nearly as large a negative impact compared to other preventable causes of death.
You (trying to accurately capture your point) - we wouldn’t stop focusing on the Nazis because people died from the flu
Me- That example is inherently not getting the point. It’s all about proportion/efficacy at stopping the problem. The Nazis were a ginormous proportion threat that had a clear way to stop through imminent military action. Mass shootings are a small problem which has no clear way to stop (the proposed stuff wouldn’t have stopped most of the shootings, and even if it would it would barely impact it overall). In addition, there are certain secondary effects that are to be considered (all the numerous leftist critiques of gun control, for instance).
Also, the media coverage is a zero sum game. For a problem that causes a blip in the total amount of deaths that we can do shit about, it gets an absolutely enormous amount of coverage. So it actually is problematic for that.
What on earth are you talking about. My little blip about what NDT is exactly what he said, why are we focusing on this cause vs others. My larger comment is *my* defense against all the ridiculous straw mans and stupidity you guys are saying, which is more thorough than NDT’s tweet. I never said NDT said that, once.
>Lmao your example is once again, terrible. If we hasn't stopped the Nazis, it is an absolute certainty they would have killed millions perhaps tens of millions more.
So if you knew they would stop at, like, 1 million or something, would you be cool with it be more die of cancer?
Purely in terms of the death toll of Iraqi and Afgani civilians, I
suppose he’s correct that the reaction to 9/11 was several magnitudes
worse than the original catastrophe.
But 1. I get the sense that’s not what he’s referring to and 2. no
one is talking about going to war and killing millions in response to
mass shootings, so it’s hard to see how the reaction to the shootings
could possibly be worse than the shootings.
I suppose the most charitable interpretation would be that by people
being upset about it and demanding action, we’re diverting attention
away from other things that kill at higher rates. That’s the
interpretation that makes him sound the least stupid, and it still makes
him sound very stupid.
My sense though is that he just saw NDT getting negative feedback for
being a well-actually contrarian twerp and thought, “I must defend my
kind!”
>no one is talking about going to war and killing millions in response to mass shootings,
Actually I have seen tweets which kinda do talk about that :(
> But 1. I get the sense that’s not what he’s referring to and 2. no one is talking about going to war and killing millions in response to mass shootings, so it’s hard to see how the reaction to the shootings could possibly be worse than the shootings.
1. Wait why do you get that sense? Yud’s pretty clueless, but I don’t get the impression that he is one of those imperialists who see only the lives of the American soldiers who died in those wars as relevant.
2. People are absolutely trying to use this in order to further their political agendas, whether that be to classify antifa as a terrorist organization or to disarm American citizens. It’s not hard to imagine that in a state with such militarized police forces, federal agencies which detain citizens indefinitely without trial and separate children from their families, that the precedent of focusing “antiterrorism” measures against political dissidents opposed to fascism is justifiably unnerving to many. Yud is probably just worried they’re going to ban violent video games though.
I don’t think Yud has anything interesting to say since he approaches these two unrelated issues (the 9/11 terrorist attacks and spontaneous mass shootings) with an identical categorical skepticism and not a proper analysis of the events which actually transpire, but that’s not to say that the skepticism is wrongheaded— just lazy.
What u/forgettableworse said. You don't have to be an imperialist per se to recognize only the death toll of US soldiers--just clueless. Which he is. But I'd be glad to be wrong on this point.
>that’s not to say that the skepticism is wrongheaded— just lazy
Why not both? I'm not really sure where you're going, all I can really glean is "I can imagine action in response to these tragedies leading to bad outcomes, and both sides want action of some sort so action bad." How is that substantively different from the categorical skepticism that you criticize in the next paragraph, except for being a bit more nuanced and left-slanted?
And in any case, we seem to agree that these are likely not Yud's concerns, in fact he's terrifically lacking in specifics about what his concerns are, other than diversion of attention away from heart disease and car crashes. Oh and he also alludes in the thread to how wanting action on gun control might lead to another trillion dollar war?
>What goes around, comes around, and if that is the rhetoric you advocate, good luck stopping the next trillion-dollar war.
> Oh and he also alludes in the thread to how wanting action on gun control might lead to another trillion dollar war?
Why would he think that? How would that even work? Why would he think it would be a good idea to say that? What an absolute dumbass. I can't believe I ever thought he was this really intelligent person.
> I’m not really sure where you’re going, all I can really glean is “I can imagine action in response to these tragedies leading to bad outcomes, and both sides want action of some sort so action bad.”
Not sure why you think this is in my imagination when the president has literally claimed that he intends to classify antifa as a terrorist organization in order to “make it easier for police to do their job.” Actually I have no clue whatsoever where you got any “both sidesing” from me, or the insinuation that I think no actions should be taken. Whether you’re being deliberately obtuse or are legitimately confused about why the specific actions I’ve mentioned are troubling, I’m not sure there’s reason for me to continue the conversation.
>It’s not hard to imagine
>Not sure why you think this is in my imagination
I was asking for clarification because I was confused as to what point you were trying to make. Yud is basically telling the left to chill out about massacres because they're not as big a deal as other leading killers, plus emotions are bad and lead to wars and stuff (this is apparently his position, I feel dumb just typing the words).
You mention both disarmament (generally a leftist position) and Trump labeling antifa as terrorist (an authoritarian right position) as a list of ways in which the reaction to shootings could be worse than the shootings themselves (that's the numbered point you appear to be responding to anyway), while not advocating or condoning for any specific action. It sounds like a boilerplate slippery slope argument in that context, and your actual position is unclear, and that's why I said I'm not sure where you're going with it; I'm legit confused as to why you would respond to my #2 point with that.
> Wait why do you get that sense? Yud’s pretty clueless, but I don’t get the impression that he is one of those imperialists who see only the lives of the American soldiers who died in those wars as relevant.
He might be, but I think it's more likely that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never even crossed his mind. The overreaction Yud was talking about was probably the post-9/11 airport security theater or, less charitably, people being upset that a lot of people died, even if they didn't personally knew any of the victims.
In the Sane Earth, sober non-shouty civic leaders are standing in
front of Tyson’s tweet saying, “Let’s take this chance to consider the
annual toll of gun suicides - and homicides, we suppose - which are well
worth a twentieth of the attention we all pay to heart disease…”
There is no pro-heart disease lobby, Yud. To fight heart disease we
don’t need politicians, we need medical researchers and specialists, and
those are already on the case.
Politicians are the ones who need to deal with the firearm
proliferation.
Of course the idea of specialization is inconceivable to men like EY
and NDT who believe they know everything.
> There is no pro-heart disease lobby, Yud.
[well...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2548255)
but at this point we're putting too much more thought into it than Yudkowsky did in the first place; he's just saying "lol fuck your sympathy and outrage", certainly not expressing any actual concern about his whatabout issues
E: Saying ‘people are going to overreact to this, just like with
9/11’ is also such bs, as these kinds of shootings have happened a lot
recently, and there hardly has been any reaction, it took 4+ events for
8chan and stormfront to be shut down. This doesn’t compare to the
invasions of Afghanistan or Irak where an immense number of people died.
The biggest reaction we will see due to these events is the GOP blaming
atheists and video games, and the trump administration signaling the
number 88 in reaction to the shootings (by accident of course). All of
this gets even stupider, when you realize the shootings themselves are
an overreaction to the imagined threat of immigration/great
replacement/minorities etc.
Holy shit, did he just vaguely imply that the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars
were bad? You’ll be persona non grata with the rest of the rationalists
acting like that mister.
>Holy shit, did he just vaguely imply that the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars were bad?
don't get too excited; he thinks they're bad because they [wasted money and wrecked our international reputation](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1158680254983966720)
Yudkowsky on some level sees more of himself in the STEM pedant than
the other side, so he goes to bat for that position, even if it’s not as
rational as he claims.
In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass
shootings.
On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…
500 to Medical errors
300 to the Flu
250 to Suicide
200 to Car Accidents
40 to Homicide via Handgun
Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.
EY’s tweets:
On the morning of 9/11, I thought, “The overreaction to this will be
ten times worse than the original disaster.” 10x was a comic
underestimate. The “overreactionaries” (Caplan’s term) are a vast threat
in both political parties. Count me among those who think this must be
said.
In the Sane Earth, sober non-shouty civic leaders are standing in
front of Tyson’s tweet saying, “Let’s take this chance to consider the
annual toll of gun suicides - and homicides, we suppose - which are well
worth a twentieth of the attention we all pay to heart disease…”
See, put a single number on it, and you can think clearly about it!
Deaths from gun violence are lower than other forms of death, and
therefore less deserving of mitigation! What? Why should I care about
assessing things in terms of ease of mitigation, redeeming benefits of
the activity, or the relative impact the deaths have on the fabric of
society?! Those things don’t fit into the number, so they can’t be that
important, you overreactionary, you!
It is not irrational to have different reactions to different deaths. It is not merely “spectacle” that makes us–and the legal system–react differently to 100 deaths from obesity versus 100 deaths from a single mass shooter. If the point is “We should be paying attention to these other issues, too,” then fine, but that in no way makes it irrational to react differently to atrocities than to public health emergencies.
I hate to invoke Godwin’s law, but just re-formulate Tyson’s Tweet to be reacting to crimes against humanity versus deaths from cancer (or whatever) and it’s clear what a terrible statement it really is.
Purely in terms of the death toll of Iraqi and Afgani civilians, I suppose he’s correct that the reaction to 9/11 was several magnitudes worse than the original catastrophe.
But 1. I get the sense that’s not what he’s referring to and 2. no one is talking about going to war and killing millions in response to mass shootings, so it’s hard to see how the reaction to the shootings could possibly be worse than the shootings.
I suppose the most charitable interpretation would be that by people being upset about it and demanding action, we’re diverting attention away from other things that kill at higher rates. That’s the interpretation that makes him sound the least stupid, and it still makes him sound very stupid.
My sense though is that he just saw NDT getting negative feedback for being a well-actually contrarian twerp and thought, “I must defend my kind!”
oh boy this is going to be bad
oh no, this is going to be terrible
this is going to be even worse than i thought
There is no pro-heart disease lobby, Yud. To fight heart disease we don’t need politicians, we need medical researchers and specialists, and those are already on the case.
Politicians are the ones who need to deal with the firearm proliferation.
Of course the idea of specialization is inconceivable to men like EY and NDT who believe they know everything.
ARGH
Double ARGH, stop misusing the word reactionary…
E: Saying ‘people are going to overreact to this, just like with 9/11’ is also such bs, as these kinds of shootings have happened a lot recently, and there hardly has been any reaction, it took 4+ events for 8chan and stormfront to be shut down. This doesn’t compare to the invasions of Afghanistan or Irak where an immense number of people died. The biggest reaction we will see due to these events is the GOP blaming atheists and video games, and the trump administration signaling the number 88 in reaction to the shootings (by accident of course). All of this gets even stupider, when you realize the shootings themselves are an overreaction to the imagined threat of immigration/great replacement/minorities etc.
Don’t you know that you shouldn’t wear a seatbelt because you’re more likely to die from heart disease than a car accident.
Of course he does. Same kind of cold, emotionless ‘rationality’..
Holy shit, did he just vaguely imply that the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars were bad? You’ll be persona non grata with the rest of the rationalists acting like that mister.
Also, shut up.
What’s he doing for himself these days, anyway? Still sucking Thiel’s teat?
“There are no narrow cases. There can be complicated general cases.”
If I need enough special cases to cover gunning dozens of people down in cold blood, I shall consider trying to formulate my epistemology without it.
Jay Heinrichs calls this the ‘Identity Strategy’.
Yudkowsky on some level sees more of himself in the STEM pedant than the other side, so he goes to bat for that position, even if it’s not as rational as he claims.
The NdGT tweet:
EY’s tweets:
See, put a single number on it, and you can think clearly about it! Deaths from gun violence are lower than other forms of death, and therefore less deserving of mitigation! What? Why should I care about assessing things in terms of ease of mitigation, redeeming benefits of the activity, or the relative impact the deaths have on the fabric of society?! Those things don’t fit into the number, so they can’t be that important, you overreactionary, you!