Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
Ok. And yeah to be very clear, I don't want to put words in David's mouth, this is my application of what he said to a different (but imo related) topic.
My answer is to critique them in terms of how well they solve the problems they purport to solve
That’s thinking exclusively in terms of outcomes again, although you agreed that “the outcome isnt all that matters, how we get there matters as well.”
...in psychological suffering and countless more problems. Coercion steamrolls over people. A solution to a problem means everyone involved prefers the solution. It’s not a solution unless that happens.
the fact that a policy is coercive does not mean that it isnt solving the problem that it is aimed at solving
Coercion, by definition, doesn’t solve a problem, because it means there are parties affected by the coercion that do not want to be subjected to it, which results...
its common for policies to be put in place to solve certain problems that are at least somewhat coercive…
That coercion is common doesn’t mean it’s good.
Ok but if you think it's easy to vary it's best not to agree with it or think it's true. I don't think easy-to-vary explanations could possibly be true.
@MartvMegen @HeuristicAndy
Survival rates don't change my argument, but should change that of lockdown advocates. I'll make it easier: let's say the survival rate was only 1%. That would make it easier to persuade people of the necessity to stay home. I know I would. So, still no place for coercion.
@ForwardIsGood @liberty_deity @ibuildfreedom
There's no vote to end taxation. And those who don't vote aren't exempt from taxation.
The people who are working on a vaccine and other ideas are indeed working toward a solution. But politicians who are coercing us are not working on solutions because they're coercive.
takingchildrenseriously.com/node/50#Coerci… vs takingchildrenseriously.com/node/50#Common…
Bringing coercion back into the equation: "some precautions, with variable degree, are being undertaken" is a gross understatement of the amount of coercion that's being applied.
I have given the example before of forcing one's child to give up smoking. Even assuming the child will be healthier for it, it is unacceptable to coerce him. Persuasion is preferable. If people were persuaded to stay home instead of forced I wouldn't have an issue with it.
I haven't focused on coercion much because @falibilista requested to put that aside (twitter.com/falibilista/st…). But it's a huge part of the problem. Even if coercion led to a better outcome, I'd still oppose it because it is coercive.
That's a pretty good start, yeah. I'd add that lockdown effects on knowledge creation are also unpredictably bad.
What's missing is that it's not only about the outcome, but also about how one is getting there—whether it is coercive or not.
...I don't know yet if you agree with my modification of Deutsch's tweet.
...then I don't think keeping "soft" lockdown policies is an option. Even if it's true that my criticism is too easy to vary, there's no other way out. You stated that you agreed with the first and last point from my previous tweet...
In any case, if you agree that any amount of lockdown policy reduces freedom, and you agree with my modification of Deutsch's point (twitter.com/dchackethal/st…), and you agree that freedom is required to solve problems (including vaccine development)...
I then clarified more here twitter.com/dchackethal/st… and twitter.com/dchackethal/st….
I'll respond to that here: twitter.com/DorfGinger/sta…
For clarity, you asked for specificity here (twitter.com/DorfGinger/sta…)—twitter.com/dchackethal/st… and twitter.com/dchackethal/st… were my attempts to be more specific, so I believe I have done what you've asked.
Maybe that's what's going on here. To those who despise coercion, they never, ever want to use it. It's just not an option for them. To those who think that some coercion can sometimes be appropriate, that seems like overkill. Could that be the core of our disagreement?
You raise an interesting problem I have wondered about in the past, which is that sometimes an explanation can seem universally applicable to some—it has great reach to them—and to those who disagree with the explanation it can seem easy to vary externally because of that reach
@HeuristicAndy
You’re being really sneaky with this shitty argument of yours.
That’s unnecessarily hostile and derails the conversation. It’s also not the strongest move. I suggest you calm down, deescalate a bit and maybe we can continue the conversation later.
@HeuristicAndy
Bars are closed = Science is dead.
I also never said that.
@HeuristicAndy
Lockdowns don’t solve the problem. Doing nothing doesn’t solve the problem either. So we need to come up with something else.
@HeuristicAndy
People are also dying because of the shutdown. Livelihoods are being destroyed. For a virus whose survival rate is like 99%. I think that’s unacceptable. Do you not care about those people?
@HeuristicAndy
People dying = “Ok so?”
That’s a misrepresentation. By “Ok so?” I meant that I didn’t understand what you were getting at. You could have just clarified. Instead you chose the least charitable interpretation possible.
@HeuristicAndy
I am not asking for a foundation and you know it.
I don’t know that. And this wasn’t an insult, btw, but you seem to have interpreted it as one.
Any amount of restriction of any lockdown policy reduces freedom. And those stricter lockdowns you prefer would reduce freedom more (because they're stricter).
Is that the most charitable summary of my criticism that you can come up with?
Replace "holding an idea immutable" with "restricting the services industry."
Do you see how those statements conflict?
Not just any libertarian's, it turns out, but from the one and only @ChipkinLogan.
I did, but can you answer "yes" or "no" to this one?
Do I understand correctly that you're saying both that you prefer more restrictive lockdowns and you that agree that freedom and wealth are required to solve problems (which includes developing a vaccine)?
@HeuristicAndy @DorfGinger @falibilista
It is one example of millions of chains of dependencies in the economy that can lead (among other things) to serendipitous encounters that spark creativity.
This is in conflict with the Deutschian notion that wealth and freedom are required to solve problems. Do you have a refutation of that notion?
Also, do you see the moral problem with (both more and less restrictive) lockdowns?
@HeuristicAndy
A person having to work all day is artificial & arbitrary.
Not really. Why would it be?
A family losing their breadwinner to covid is arbitrary too.
Ok so?
@HeuristicAndy
You didn't ask for decisive evidence. Or insurmountable evidence. You asked for evidence. I gave you some.
"Baseless" isn't Popperian criticism, btw. Criticize the claim by showing that it can't be true, not by claiming that it has no base.
Eigentlich kein schlechter Begriff.
RT @ClimateWarrior7:
Before 1929, women were thought to be a kind of mineral or possibly a fish.
He’s doing the same thing though. What does it matter that the TA was white?
@HeuristicAndy
Well, not evidence of the "lending credence" kind you seem to be looking for.
There's always constraints on what one wants to do.
Sure, but when they are imposed artificially and arbitrarily, that makes all the difference, does it not?
I had given explanations of the effects of lockdown policies.
I don’t like lockdowns, particularly the less restrictive ones [...]
Meaning you’d prefer more restrictive ones?
@Mona99299788 @truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Ich empfehle uebrigens, bei mehreren Kommentaren auf einmal untereinander zu kommentieren, nicht nebeneinander – ist einfacher zu lesen und nachzuvollziehen.
@Mona99299788 @truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Ja, sicherlich ist das eine wundervolle Wertschaetzung. Aber sie kann natuerlich nur etwas bedeuten, wenn sie freiwillig erbracht wird.
Wenn ein Lehrer Schueler zwingt, aufzustehen, ist das wie wenn ein Diktator seine Untertanen zwingt, ihn anzubeten. Ekelhaft.
@auwsmit
That’s assuming that animals actually do suffer, which is a big if. Plus, we already don’t have a moral obligation to help other people, so we especially don’t have an obligation to help animals. Downside would be that animals don’t get as much benefit from planet as people do.
RT @MichaelKitson:
This is untrue. If you lockdown young people because of Covid-19 with little support, then you should expect that they s…
@HeuristicAndy
A single scientist showing there were things he was unable to do due to the lockdown.
But, more importantly, some explanations:
twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
Well "coerced against one's preferences" is a bit tautological.
If it's imposed on him against his will, that means his mind is being coerced to do something against his preferences. This adds a bunch of new problems for him that he otherwise would not have needed to deal with, thereby hindering his ability to develop a vaccine.
Yes, there is a difference. If he does so voluntarily, it means it's in line with his preferences, and therefore doesn't impede his growth of knowledge. His mind does not need to deal with any dissonance, and he can freely pursue his plans.
Maybe I misunderstood. From what you said, and also reading between the lines, it seems to me you dislike lockdowns somewhat, but you don't think they're a big deal in terms of outcome or anywhere near a moral catastrophe. Am I wrong about that?
@Mona99299788 @truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Das ist keine Antwort auf meine Frage. Auch Frau Weise ignoriert meine Frage.
Der Unterschied ist, dass man freiwillig ins Fitnessstudio geht, und Kinder & Jugendliche gezwungen werden, in die Schule zu gehen. Vor diesem Hintergrund wirkt die Aufstehpflicht ziemlich übel.
Well, as I alluded to, it doesn’t depend so much on that, because there are chains of dependency in the economy that are unpredictably affected by lockdowns.
In any case, this is the moment in the conversation where I have to ask: how could one change your mind?
Millions of people have been placed under house arrest in 2020. There must have been some scientists among them. And on the off chance no scientists were among them, there were people among them who could have developed tools for scientists. Or who could have helped do so. Etc.
@ks445599 @ConceptualJames @SwipeWright
So what do you mean by "social equality"?
When, say, scientists are placed under house arrest, that must hurt the development of vaccines, yes?
Developing a vaccine, like all creative endeavors, requires freedom and wealth. Regulations impede creative endeavors, reduce freedom, and destroy wealth. The stricter they are, the more they do so.
A libertarian saying goes: "You can't coerce your way to a better world."
@ks445599 @ConceptualJames @SwipeWright
I guess it depends on what you mean by "social equality"?
@ks445599 @ConceptualJames @SwipeWright
I used to think so, too, until recently. How would one tackle social inequality?
One can’t be both pro-individual and pro-equality. Individuals are different and develop in different directions.
If you're forced to work out every day, you'll be physically fitter after a year. The outcome is the same (well, probably better) if you do so voluntarily. But the mental and physical abuse during that year makes all the difference. Morals aren't just about outcomes.
But if, for the sake of argument, a voluntary "lockdown" had somehow had the same results, my criticism would not be the same, because it would mean that people wanted to lock down, so there's no moral issue. That's why we can't just ignore coercion and focus only on results.
Well, if it's voluntary, it's not really a lockdown, because no-one but the government has the power to lock things down on such a scale. That's a big problem to begin with: that those with the monopoly on violence have this kind of power.
@Mona99299788 @truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Ich habe noch nie gehört, dass in einem Fitnessstudio der Lehrer darauf besteht, dass Leute zur Begrüßung aufstehen. Aber nehmen wir mal an, das ist wirklich so. Dann gibt es dennoch einen entscheidenden Unterschied zwischen Fitness- & Kochstudios etc und Schulen, oder nicht?
So, if it is true that the lockdown did not hinder that project “significantly,” that implies that it hindered it at least a little bit?
@truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Es hat schon mit der Unterrichtssituation zu tun, denn das Szenario ähnelt in mancherlei Hinsicht einer Schule für Erwachsene. Also bleibt die Frage, wenn Sie gerne möchten.
@truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Das beantwortet leider meine Frage nicht. Sie ist nicht rhetorisch - mich interessiert wirklich, wie Sie sich dabei fühlen würden.
@truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Stellen Sie sich vor, Sie werden bei der Steuerbehörde vorgeladen. Sie dürfen dort im Büro Platz nehmen, bis Sie drankommen, und sobald Ihr Sachbearbeiter eintrifft, besteht er gegen Ihren Willen darauf, dass Sie zur Begrüßung aufstehen. Wie würden Sie sich dabei fühlen?
RT @joebosphilos:
My live report from Hillary Clinton's abortive victory party in 2016: youtu.be/_XplhB9HIrU
RT @joebosphilos:
It's an odd fact, isn't it, that we live in an age in which using the wrong gender pronoun is thought to traumatise someo…
@truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Das war hypothetisch gemeint. Wenn naechstes Mal einer nicht aufsteht.
Do you think that freedom and wealth are conducive to creative endeavors such as vaccine development or counterproductive?
@truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Welche Konsequenz ziehen Sie, wenn einer Ihrer Schueler nicht aufstehen moechte?
@HeuristicAndy @tomhyde_
Yes, true. Sleep helps solve some problems. Hopefully whatever it does can be automated and run subconsciously while awake.
I don't think Deutsch's sustainability critique applies to this pandemic as it stands.
Right, but why not?
No. I think it would have been reasonable to advise people to wear masks, keep a distance, stay at home, etc. Those willing to take the risk would then have been able to take it, and to continue working. Others could still have stayed home.
That sounds amazing. One thing I look forward to is the ability to temporarily turn off auditory and visual channels for a complete sensory-deprivation experience.
"Temporary" government measures often don't remain temporary because it's much harder to win back control once it's surrendered.
Lockdowns are like when children are grounded. Allegedly for their own good. Objectively disgraceful.
Those people don't work in a vacuum. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if their work would be greatly aided by having everyone else work normally. We cannot predict what discoveries might be made by others currently locked down that would help develop a vaccine.
@realchrisrufo @realDonaldTrump @RussVought45
You’re crushing it hard!!
Agreed. Though I love sleep, it’s one of the few areas in which our genes exert near-total control over us. Places a limit on how much progress one can make in a single period. And could still be optionally available once we transfer to machines!
Lockdowns keep us from pursuing those things. Therefore, lockdowns are counterproductive in our fight against the virus—let alone utterly immoral.
Right there, through that one elegant paragraph, it becomes clear how much lockdown thinking is really static-society thinking. People are hoping that a lifestyle—lockdowns—will protect them. In fact, only the creation of knowledge and wealth and the freedom to pursue them can.
"...But note that this lifestyle did not, when it was tried, prevent the Black Death. Nor would it cure cancer."
— David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity
"...A society which did this would not be able to afford the kind of scientific research that would lead to new [medicine]. Its members would hope that their lifestyle would protect them instead..."
Prescient lines re the pandemic:
"The prophetic approach can see only what one might do to postpone disaster, namely improve sustainability: drastically reduce and disperse the population, make travel difficult, suppress contact between different geographical areas..."
👇
What’s the big deal? Even assuming animals are conscious, the animal picked up the cigarette itself and “decided” to smoke it. There was no coercion or cruelty. The worst that happened here was littering.
It's not quite new to see it seeping into tech, either—given the major tech companies' location and demographics, it's not surprising that they'd be left-leaning. But having political messages shoved down your throat while programming is a whole different ballpark. It's nasty.
Google and Apple are perhaps the two most powerful companies on the planet right now. They don't have to signal this stuff. I highly doubt anyone would stop buying their products for lack of such signals. Yet they signal it anyway. Which means they must actually believe it.