"They're out to get us!" The science behind conspiracy addicts, and a possible cure

#127
#127
Velo Vol said:
I don't know that this applies for marijuana, but the general way it happens is that you have a small group of people that strongly cares about something on one side of an issue, while most of the public doesn't care at all. Or not enough to bother changing things.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the problem of representative government and it's why society doesn't actually decide these things in some cases. The few decide and rule society on a variety of matters. A Tennessee alumnus won the Nobel prize in economics for his public choice theory, and a big part of it was the idea that we have concentrated benefits and diffused costs. So the people that care deeply take the time to lobby and the vast majority of people who have an opinion but it's not a priority for them lose because the incentive system is ****ed. This is literally the textbook explanation of the problem with lobbying and why it will always be a problem.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#128
#128
Velo Vol said:
The rules change during a pandemic, as they should. Same happened during big wars. When the crisis passes, you revert back to the old order.
That's why we periodically have elections. If the system is functioning properly, they are always a check on central power.

I watched very little of the X-Files. I did see the movie a few months ago.
Click to expand...
The pilot episode for X-files is one of the best pilots you'll ever see, along with the Twin Peaks one. The last two seasons of the X-files were pretty top notch as well, including their first 4 or 5.

While my X-files comment is mostly tongue in cheek it really did bring the whole conspiracy thing to a much wider audience which may or may not have influenced a greater interest in that subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#130
#130
AM64 said:
BS. There are 530+ members of congress you can't do a damn thing about, and only 3 you have a chance at changing.
Click to expand...
You're focused on the individual, I'm focused on society at large.............
but thanks for proving my point.
 
#131
#131
luthervol said:
You're focused on the individual, I'm focused on society at large.............
but thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

How do you define "for the society at large" when society is made up of individuals?

Example of both. On the way home I had to reroute twice because streets were torn up to benefit developers. Since one is at the entrance to my own subdivision and there is only one entrance, it's a compromise currently. Nobody in my subdivision is going to benefit from a development some guy decided to plant across the street - especially since he cut down a steep wooded slope to build - we'll see if his retention pond works. Seems like planners focused on the individual and not the society at large. I hope everyone else where I live is as irate about the street demolition as I am.
 
#132
#132
AM64 said:
How do you define "for the society at large" when society is made up of individuals?

Example of both. On the way home I had to reroute twice because streets were torn up to benefit developers. Since one is at the entrance to my own subdivision and there is only one entrance, it's a compromise currently. Nobody in my subdivision is going to benefit from a development some guy decided to plant across the street - especially since he cut down a steep wooded slope to build - we'll see if his retention pond works. Seems like planners focused on the individual and not the society at large. I hope everyone else where I live is as irate about the street demolition as I am.
Click to expand...
I think you have perfectly illustrated that it is a balancing act.
What get's me is the obsessive focus that some have on their individual rights while ignoring the impact that the exercise of those rights may have on others.
The developer is the perfect example. What's best for him individually in the short run may not be what is best for numerous other individuals. It benefited him economically to cut down a steep wooded slope. Does he have that right? Who says if he does or if he doesn't?
 
#133
#133
luthervol said:
I think you have perfectly illustrated that it is a balancing act.
What get's me is the obsessive focus that some have on their individual rights while ignoring the impact that the exercise of those rights may have on others.
The developer is the perfect example. What's best for him individually in the short run may not be what is best for numerous other individuals. It benefited him economically to cut down a steep wooded slope. Does he have that right? Who says if he does or if he doesn't?
Click to expand...

OK, but you're focusing on some selfish people who favor individual rights instead of taking on the arguments of do-gooders who favor individual rights. You can rightfully obsess over individual rights specifically because of what you believe about how the choices of one, or the few, can affect the many.
 
#134
#134
luthervol said:
I think you have perfectly illustrated that it is a balancing act.
What get's me is the obsessive focus that some have on their individual rights while ignoring the impact that the exercise of those rights may have on others.
The developer is the perfect example. What's best for him individually in the short run may not be what is best for numerous other individuals. It benefited him economically to cut down a steep wooded slope. Does he have that right? Who says if he does or if he doesn't?
Click to expand...

Obviously he has that right because he did it. Part of being a leader, something you have no idea whatsoever about, is realizing that every decision you make won’t please everyone and being ok with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and FLVOL_79
#135
#135
FLVOL_79 said:
The pilot episode for X-files is one of the best pilots you'll ever see, along with the Twin Peaks one. The last two seasons of the X-files were pretty top notch as well, including their first 4 or 5.

While my X-files comment is mostly tongue in cheek it really did bring the whole conspiracy thing to a much wider audience which may or may not have influenced a greater interest in that subject.
Click to expand...
E.B.E. was one of my favorite episodes. Of course, most of the X-Files' episodes centered on conspiracies involving alien activity covered up by the government
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#136
#136
C-south said:
Obviously he has that right because he did it. Part of being a leader, something you have no idea whatsoever about, is realizing that every decision you make won’t please everyone and being ok with it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I do this pretty much on a weekly basis. Some douchebags that work for me just cannot handle being told what to do by someone younger (and more handsome) than them and have infantile hissy fits...and I'm always ok with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol and C-south
#137
#137
n_huffhines said:
This is exactly the problem of representative government and it's why society doesn't actually decide these things in some cases. The few decide and rule society on a variety of matters. A Tennessee alumnus won the Nobel prize in economics for his public choice theory, and a big part of it was the idea that we have concentrated benefits and diffused costs. So the people that care deeply take the time to lobby and the vast majority of people who have an opinion but it's not a priority for them lose because the incentive system is ****ed. This is literally the textbook explanation of the problem with lobbying and why it will always be a problem.
Click to expand...
Well, how can it be improved?
 
#138
#138
luthervol said:
What get's me is the obsessive focus that some have on their individual rights while ignoring the impact that the exercise of those rights may have on others.
Click to expand...
I kind of get it for some things. But when you have the possibility of catching a deadly disease merely from being in the same room as another person, it really changes the equation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#139
#139
Velo Vol said:
I kind of get it for some things. But when you have the possibility of catching a deadly disease merely from being in the same room as another person, it really changes the equation.
Click to expand...

The chances, based on modeling from the CU-Boulder, CBDNA, and NAfME joint study is 1 in 200,000 chance from being in a room unmasked for an hour at three foot intervals.
 
#140
#140
Velo Vol said:
Well, how can it be improved?
Click to expand...

One way to improve it is we have to get the people benefitting from the current playoff voting system to support ranked-choice voting so that we can then vote them out of office. Good luck to us with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
#141
#141
AshG said:
The chances, based on modeling from the CU-Boulder, CBDNA, and NAfME joint study is 1 in 200,000 chance from being in a room unmasked for an hour at three foot intervals.
Click to expand...
Do you have the all coveted "masked" data?
 
#143
#143
n_huffhines said:
One way to improve it is we have to get the people benefitting from the current playoff voting system to support ranked-choice voting so that we can then vote them out of office. Good luck to us with that.
Click to expand...
Not sure that would help unless (maybe) it brought minor parties into the mix.
 
#145
#145
Velo Vol said:
Not sure that would help unless (maybe) it brought minor parties into the mix.
Click to expand...

Right now, the only realistic options are two people who are filtered through a party system. I think we would agree that we want the guy who best represents American voters, but our only two options are a guy who supposedly best represents Democrats and a guy who supposedly best represents Republicans. Not only does RCV give 3rd party people a chance, it gives Republicans who can't win a primary a chance. It gives Democrats who can't win a primary a chance.

For whatever reason my Mom loved Phil Graham, but he lost the party nomination and she held her nose for Bob Dole because he was the lesser of two evils. In ranked-choice voting, she can cast that vote for Graham and ultimately have her vote count for Dole if it comes down to that.

Ron Paul couldn't win the R primary but there was a time where he was polling better against Hillary Clinton than Romney was. This is 2008 and I'm relying on my memory, but the point is he was doing well against an establishment candidate in a national but getting crushed in the primary.

We'd be going from a system of voting for the lesser of two evils where people waste their votes to a system where no votes are wasted and mitigates the problem of the lesser of 2 evils.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey X and USAFgolferVol
#146
#146
Let’s take the political party designators off election ballots and out of elections in general. We’ll have folks voting for the best name, the female, every third name, whatever it may be. We’ll end up with some odd variety of representation that has to be better than the uni-party crap we have now and if not better it will at least be more interesting to watch. 😁
 
#150
#150
n_huffhines said:
We'd be going from a system of voting for the lesser of two evils where people waste their votes to a system where no votes are wasted and mitigates the problem of the lesser of 2 evils.
Click to expand...
How many candidates do you want on a ballot? If someone can't win a primary, why should they be in the general election?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top