| > It's vanishingly unlikely that the incumbents wouldn't win the election (get their way) when they've been propagandizing to the people. Could be! > It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual. How's that? All I've said is people's interpretation of facts drives votes, not facts themselves. I don't see how that is spiritual. It's as mathematical as anything. >> People make up their own minds. > So no, they really don't. On this, I cannot agree, unless you want to argue for determinism and against free will, in which case I'd reconsider it. You feel people are puppets. I say they vote based on interpretation of facts, that propaganda can be influential, and that ultimately they make up their own minds. > That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours. Eh, I don't really care if they're offended, I'm just saying what I think is likely to win your argument. I'm actually neutral here, and don't favor U/L or the city. Believe it or not, I'm just arguing for what I think constitutes the most effective strategy and methods. I think the city happens to have a better bead on good strategy than U/L in some ways. > You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful. Actually, I don't believe that. All of us are unknowledgeable about something at one point or another. We're not born all-knowing. Applying shame for lack of knowledge or understanding is wasted effort. > Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason. Okay. It sounds like winning every penny that you feel you deserve matters more to you than making a deal that's anything less than ideal. I'm not privy to the financials of U/L so I really couldn't say what's reasonable. Plus as you note it's complicated since there could be a ripple effect. Again, I'm just speaking in support of tactics and strategy that I think are likely to be effective. I'm not necessarily siding with the city. I think the ripple effect could happen in either direction, and that by not discussing things with Austin, U/L are allowing that city to create their own version of a ripple. That ripply could go in a direction that U/L likes even less than one in which U/L were more directly involved. U/L could be more a part of the collective stone that's tossed into the water along with the residents and city officials. By disengaging, they lose some of their influence. If they want to come back they'd be best served working on the relationship first, however corrupt the officials are perceived to be, so long as it's legal. City officials cannot compel U/L to break the law. I don't doubt there's shady stuff happening in Texas in regards to tech companies. The situation with patents there is horrid for many entrepeneurs. That said, it is what it is, and everyone needs to either work with the law as it is written, risk a bit of civil disobedience, campaign for some changes, or walk away from it like you say. In the case of software patents, they're tough to walk away from in the US. Walking away from the US is difficult from an investor perspective. I'd applaud anyone who does so to diversify their efforts. Personally, I'm in Taiwan. I think most people agree that the US is about as good as it gets. > And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.) Do you really think this strategy will get U/L somewhere with voters? Does it help you win arguments with your partner, or in friendships when you tell them they're unreasonable? What if I called you unreasonable or started calling you names? I believe that's considered bad form on HN. Feel free to let the crap fly if you prefer. I'm not offended by any of it. You can call me spiritual, hand wavy, factless, ignorant, or whatever suits you. Names would not change my feeling about how effective campaigns are run. I'll do my best to listen to arguments despite name calling. Respect for my intellect might win a bit more with me, as I imagine it would with most people. I would still try to look out for the reason in your argument. > No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices. > If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think. I agree with that. You've changed my mind here. That said, "easy" is pushing the button that says "spend more taxes on security". Even far right republicans who want small government will spend a boat load on defense. The far-far right want a giant metaphorical wall inside which they can operate freely. In practice, for better or for worse, that doesn't happen in a democratic republic, or any other society I've seen. There are always internal regulations that some people hate and some people love. > It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us. It's always been this way. Every tool can be used for good or evil, we just try to elect who we think are fair minded guys/gals and cross our fingers they're not ideologues. It's tough. Even elected officials can't be certain of supreme court nominees. Nominees' entire lives are examined and it can still take weeks or months for officials to confirm them. I do think, on the whole, our democratic republic is better than the alternatives that exist elsewhere. What do you think? |
No, you keep appealing to objective morality, and/or the lack of it. Facts are facts. They're what doesn't go away when you close your eyes. That's all.
It's not an appeal to an objective morality to predict that the coyote will fall when he walks off the cliff.
> On this, I cannot agree, [...] You feel people are puppets.
Oh? People pay for advertising because it doesn't work? That's news.
Ditto propaganda. It plainly works. We decry posting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion not because it's right, but because it doesn't matter if it's right for it to have a very-clear effect in driving violence against innocent people.
Being easily led is the default state and takes constant work to avoid. It's not unreasonable to predict that at any time most everyone involved in a decision is phoning it it - especially in heavily propagandized scenarios.
> I say they vote based on interpretation of facts, that propaganda can be influential, and that ultimately they make up their own minds.
Sure, without electrodes implanted, anything that happens in their head is "their own mind" by definition.
But you won't get a useful answer to anything from a group of people who've already heard a lopsided view of an issue. Not even representative of their broader opinions.
> All of us are unknowledgeable about something at one point or another. We're not born all-knowing. Applying shame for lack of knowledge or understanding is wasted effort.
And yet you've repeatedly put derogatory words in my mouth for the people of Austin, as if I must believe them to be mindless to think that they've decided wrongly.
You're dehumanizing me, as a way of combatting the dehumanization and disrespect you assume I must have for others. It's funny to watch.
> I don't really care if they're offended, I'm just saying what I think is likely to win your argument.
Oh okay.
> Do you really think this strategy will get U/L somewhere with voters? Does it help you win arguments with your partner, or in friendships when you tell them they're unreasonable?
Ahh yes, you do care.
You're moving the goalposts. The issue is that the city made the wrong decision because the elected officials spent taxpayer money to lie to the people. You suggest that now I'm failing to win the hearts of the voters.
I'm not trying to "win" with the voters. That would take propaganda and lots of money. I'm showing why their decision was wrong, and how it was manipulated, and why people spent time and money (but not their own) to make it happen.
> What if I called you unreasonable or started calling you names?
Again, an argument by appeal to offense - and offense that you've gone out of your way to create.
I'm not trying to win you over so I frankly don't care, but I haven't called you or the residents of Austin any names. All the slights are actually yours, that you're suggesting I try out. (Puppets, etc.)
> > Concessions are as good as cash.
> Okay. It sounds like winning every penny that you feel you deserve matters more to you than making a deal that's anything less than ideal.
Why don't you ask what I feel as opposed to telling me? Does that win you any arguments with friends and family? :P
No, I'm saying that being wrongly forced to concede anything is the same, ultimately, as being forced to make a cash payment. You act as if non-financial concessions wouldn't be damaging to their business, etc. "Oh, it's a non-financial concession, whatever." Like a non-financial concession to fingerprint drivers, for example.
You keep coming back to the fallacy of the middle-ground, implying that the right thing to do is seek consensus with all viewpoints, and that some amount of concessions must always be closer to correct than any starting point.
> By disengaging, they lose some of their influence.
The decision was made in the propaganda phase - a game they could play just as well from outside if they choose to. FWIW, their influence comes from providing a better service in more areas. A lack of Uber is more damning to Austin than a lack of Austin is to Uber, and Uber(/Lyft) makes their best argument for helping Austin simply by providing the best service in SF.
By disengaging they simply refuse to validate the elected officials and waste time in a rigged process.
> Respect for my intellect might win a bit more with me, as I imagine it would with most people. I would still try to look out for the reason in your argument.
Respect, respect, respect. You sound like Cartman on an authority trip. "Respect Mah Intelligence!" But you don't have any disrespect to point to; it's a demonization tactic not real advice.
You've put words in my mouth, told me what I though, and slighted the people of Austin for me. Please don't.
> That said, "easy" is pushing the button that says "spend more taxes on security".
No, 'easy' is pushing the button you've been told to push by the advertising. It's absolutely unrelated to the actual outcome picked because the point is that the easy solution is to bypass even considering the issues, let alone choosing something.
If security sold then people would have enough smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.
> It's always been this way. Every tool can be used for good or evil, we just try to elect who we think are fair minded guys/gals and cross our fingers
The "it's always been this way" defense. I don't understand your need to pull that out or what you think it accomplishes.
"But throughout history we've always mugged and killed people, your Honor. I don't see how this is any worse."
It's meaningless when dealing with specifics. It doesn't matter if Nixon wasn't that unusual, he was still a crook... It doesn't matter if many cities have corrupt officials, it matters that we can point them out when it happens without hand-waving and denials.