Nellie Bowles discovers "food neutrality"; Rob Henderson on another Jordan Peterson episode; Noah Smith on the Internet and communities; Matt Taibbi on a media hoax
I rather suspect you don't. There is no reason to think one can build a country out of disparate people who want different things, who despise each other's behavior, at least not without killing most of them. The more we want government to do, to rule more facets of our lives, the more real diversity of opinion and preferences will cause discord and tend to tear things apart.
"In such a world, how will government get anything done?"
Simple. The "permanent government" (in Charles Peters' words) will decide and do it. After all, they're the ones who have the knowledge and tell the politicians what the possibilities are, and the costs and benefits of each. Of course, most possibilities are excluded and the predicted costs and benefits do not have a one-to-one connection with reality.
Noah has it backwards on human behavior (a fairly common mistake he makes). People don't hate each other in person when you meet, its being online that fosters the hate and division. Jordan Peterson, who is subject to a lot of lets say negative online reactions to him, says he has roughly 3 negative in person reactions over the past 6 years of being famous/infamous. Joe Rogan recounts roughly the same thing in the interview. Being in person forces you to confront more of the opposing parties humanity, and naturally bridges some of the gap between you. This is why stuff is constantly getting done in the real world despite long histories of fractured politics between people (especially consider how old/young political splits are typical and how old/young employee/employer relationships exist in the millions).
Come on. Trust your body? No, definitely not. Our dietary instincts were refined ling before concentrated sugary foods existed. This is terrible advice. I can’t stand busybodies as much as the next libertarian but I think I might viscerally prefer the technocratic socialist progressives to this brand.
Noah sounds bad, but just how does this work? I hang out online, partially, with folks who think we need a tax on net CO2 emissions. A lot of my neighbors think we should subsidize e-bikes. If we disagree at the neighborhood association meeting, is this the fault of social media?
Food neutrality: Morally yes of course. Nutritionally yes, otherwise it would not be "food." But one can ask if systematic cognitive errors in individual judgements about consumption of certain foods are worth trying to off set with taxes. In principle why not tax soda as one does alcohol? This does not settle the cost benefit issue, but I think is MAKES it a cost benefit issue.
>How can we build a country together… [when] we no longer share any sort of common bond?
Despite living in many parts of the country, including the ghetto areas of South Central Los Angeles, the DMV, the South, and the Midwest, I still didn’t score amazingly well on Charles Murray’s “how thick is your bubble” test from Coming Apart. And it’s obvious to me that most people I know under 30 would do much worse.
"Translating the first sentence into Henrich terms, when prestige hierarchies break down, they turn into dominance hierarchies. As Fauci loses respect, he becomes more domineering (“I am the science”)."
I get the impression that Fauci was always this way, but it took COVID to bring it to the forefront for all to see, and some to understand. Get used to this, though- competence is falling away all over the world today.
RE: Building a country together:
I rather suspect you don't. There is no reason to think one can build a country out of disparate people who want different things, who despise each other's behavior, at least not without killing most of them. The more we want government to do, to rule more facets of our lives, the more real diversity of opinion and preferences will cause discord and tend to tear things apart.
"In such a world, how will government get anything done?"
Simple. The "permanent government" (in Charles Peters' words) will decide and do it. After all, they're the ones who have the knowledge and tell the politicians what the possibilities are, and the costs and benefits of each. Of course, most possibilities are excluded and the predicted costs and benefits do not have a one-to-one connection with reality.
Noah has it backwards on human behavior (a fairly common mistake he makes). People don't hate each other in person when you meet, its being online that fosters the hate and division. Jordan Peterson, who is subject to a lot of lets say negative online reactions to him, says he has roughly 3 negative in person reactions over the past 6 years of being famous/infamous. Joe Rogan recounts roughly the same thing in the interview. Being in person forces you to confront more of the opposing parties humanity, and naturally bridges some of the gap between you. This is why stuff is constantly getting done in the real world despite long histories of fractured politics between people (especially consider how old/young political splits are typical and how old/young employee/employer relationships exist in the millions).
“Food neutrality”
Come on. Trust your body? No, definitely not. Our dietary instincts were refined ling before concentrated sugary foods existed. This is terrible advice. I can’t stand busybodies as much as the next libertarian but I think I might viscerally prefer the technocratic socialist progressives to this brand.
Noah sounds bad, but just how does this work? I hang out online, partially, with folks who think we need a tax on net CO2 emissions. A lot of my neighbors think we should subsidize e-bikes. If we disagree at the neighborhood association meeting, is this the fault of social media?
Taibbi: There was no Russian online influence on the 2016 elections? Or none except the DNC emails?
Food neutrality: Morally yes of course. Nutritionally yes, otherwise it would not be "food." But one can ask if systematic cognitive errors in individual judgements about consumption of certain foods are worth trying to off set with taxes. In principle why not tax soda as one does alcohol? This does not settle the cost benefit issue, but I think is MAKES it a cost benefit issue.
>How can we build a country together… [when] we no longer share any sort of common bond?
Despite living in many parts of the country, including the ghetto areas of South Central Los Angeles, the DMV, the South, and the Midwest, I still didn’t score amazingly well on Charles Murray’s “how thick is your bubble” test from Coming Apart. And it’s obvious to me that most people I know under 30 would do much worse.
The bubble quiz:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2
"Translating the first sentence into Henrich terms, when prestige hierarchies break down, they turn into dominance hierarchies. As Fauci loses respect, he becomes more domineering (“I am the science”)."
I get the impression that Fauci was always this way, but it took COVID to bring it to the forefront for all to see, and some to understand. Get used to this, though- competence is falling away all over the world today.
"Banning sugary drinks? I guess that’s last year’s progressivism."
Concerns about factory farming, too, it would seem.