"It's not my job to educate you" - asymmetries in accessibility

[Cramulus]

comic is a bit crass but makes the broad point:


Not infrequently, I hear some surprising news... I google it, and the top hits are NY Times, Washington Post, and Fox News. The first two articles are behind a paywall, and the Fox news framing is not. And I think this is a bit of a synecdoche.

I see it online all the time too - there's a common attitude that if you don't already get it, you're not gonna get it, so go get fucked. The long-arc consequence being that the right wing perspective is more accessible. And the world is confusing and oversaturated with information, so accessibility is, all by itself, a powerful persuasive force.

To be clear, I'm not talking about the phenomenon where some bad-faith jagoff is "just asking questions" and demands a bunch of answers and citations that they're not going to read anyway.

Also to be clear, I'm not putting myself in this lofty position of judgment, but of self-criticism...  I'm observing this phenomenon in myself via a childhood friend with Bad Opinions who really wants to chat my ear off. I don't want to talk to him, I think he's an asshole. But we're in a special moment right now. If I did the work, I might be able to get through to him. I don't want to though!

[LMNO]

I wouldn't dismiss the bad faith "just asking questions" sea-lioning so easily.

That's precisely the reason this behavior occurs so much, especially in marginalized spaces, and it's not just because of trolling.  Think about it like when some new kid shows up on PD and starts in with Reality Tunnel 101, or wants to talk about quantum ESP.  While it may be new to them, I really don't want to go through the fundamentals of the Standard Model and decoherence yet again; I want to talk about the next thing, whatever that is.  Combine that with the ubiquitous presence of sea lions, and it's really difficult to muster the energy to respond other than dismissively.

There will occasionally be someone who sounds generally curious about the basics, and I'll do my best to explain stuff, but if I get even a whiff of willful ignorance, it's over.

[altered]

The more progressive you are, the harder it is to get away from bad faith arguments. You start out shiny and hopeful: yes! I can get everyone on board, it's so simple, of course they'll agree once they understand!

After the thousandth chud with a trollface grin who is engaging entirely in bad faith, you get worn down and you cannot, cannot summon that enthusiasm up.

Also, some experiences literally cannot be explained. If you have never been through actual, factual trauma, you absolutely cannot understand what it does to you. This isn't even a "kinda" thing. A "maybe" thing. You can't understand. Explaining it in a way that gets across just how damaging having had a traumatic experience is is impossible. Words fail.

And when you talk about things that can cause trauma, you sound silly. Because trauma is everywhere, waiting to be stumbled across.

So no, in some cases you literally cannot understand.

This may cause an accessibility gap, but there is no real fix for that. People are broken and wounded from years and years of failure, and summoning up that courage just to get slapped down again? When you might be talking about things that are impossible to describe to someone who hasn't experienced them, or talking to a chud and not know it?

People should instead get used to relying on non-human resources. I mostly point people to RationalWiki these days, and tell them to ask questions there, since I didn't write it.

I have gotten to the point where I just don't have the energy to engage with people I don't know on these subjects. And the only chuds I have to deal with are other leftists. Being on the front lines of that discussion would kill me as surely as a gun, those people deserve to be able to say "no, I will not explain to you on this thing today." Even if it causes an "accessibility gap".

Especially especially when most of the arguments you can make boil down to "have a little fucking empathy, you tool."

[P3nT4gR4m]

As a sweeping generalisation, based on observation. The right tend toward, the exact, over simplistic interpretations that uneducated people crave. "The simple truth". Much more compelling and easy to swallow than a whole bunch of complex and nuanced shit that takes decades to fully understand. The left on the other hand, are generally supercilious twats who look down their noses at anyone with the audacity to espouse a point of view that has a rational counterargument.

The right operate on a more basic and visceral primate level where might=right and the application of physical violence is the ultimate trump card to solve any difference of opinion. The right generally abhor violence and, as a result, on aggregate, aren't very good at it. They prefer the psychological equivalent, belittling, demonising and dehumanising verbally until the point is driven home.

Turns out the pen is not actually the best weapon to be holding in a sword fight so the left are generally trampled by the right in any deadlock situation, their main defence being to retreat away from the gunfire and write toothless, scathing criticism from a "safe space"

The balanced approach would be to accept that there's a time to impart words of wisdom and a time to kick a hole in the other guy's face. The belittling, demonising and dehumanising thing? That's intellectual wanking. Feels good and might well get you laid if some patchouli scented substitute teacher happens to overhear you laying on a verbal smackdown but, ultimately it doesn't solve anywhere near as many problems as the other two bullets in your arsenal.

[LMNO]

There's also something to the context of the two scenarios.  In the first, the marginalized group is in a confrontation.  These typically begin with either noticing and trying to correct perceived bad behavior (not respecting pronouns), or by being challenged ("why can't white people use the n-word?"), or simply commenting on some injustice.  The so-called Obvious Answer Which Has Been Available Online Through Hundreds Of Articles is easy to find, and it's exasperating to have to go back again to square one. 

The second scenario is recruitment.  They aren't being challenged, they aren't challenging, they're feeding the person's head with misdirections and fallacies to get them to follow along with their bad behavior.  It's way easier to do that.

Lastly, especially speaking from a political POV, it's easier to win when you don't give a shit about cheating.  This is an over generalization, but they way it seems to play out is the Left tends to be reluctant to flatly lie to people and contradict previous positions.  Yes, 'both sides do it', but one side accepts Mitch "fuck your standards of decency" McConnell as a respected peer.

[Cramulus]

As a sweeping generalisation, based on observation. The right tend toward, the exact, over simplistic interpretations that uneducated people crave. "The simple truth". Much more compelling and easy to swallow than a whole bunch of complex and nuanced shit that takes decades to fully understand. The left on the other hand, are generally supercilious twats who look down their noses at anyone with the audacity to espouse a point of view that has a rational counterargument.

Was just talking to a friend whose mother bombards him with youtube links from antivax channels.

He told her that YET AGAIN, she's listening to conspiracy theory bullshit which is 100% false.

She said that he's closed minded, he's dismissed it before listening to it--which is not critical thinking.


so neither of them got anywhere, it's a net zero


But I couldn't help notice that within their relationship, the effort to convince the other only goes one way. The mom sends her son bullshit conspiracy theories, but the son is not sending the mom "good info" or trying to discuss it with her.

I don't know that sending her "good info" would change anything--but I wonder how common this dynamic is.

[Cain]

We need more resources like The Non-Libertarian FAQ. http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html

Because the sealioning and so on is so tiresome, having the arguments collected together in such a way provides not only easy reference, but it means if someone is acting in bad faith, the opportunity cost of responding is much lower.

I know a lot of people are doing good work on Youtube, but it's much harder to reference a Youtube lecture when halfway through a comment section on Facebook or Reddit.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Lastly, especially speaking from a political POV, it's easier to win when you don't give a shit about cheating.  This is an over generalization, but they way it seems to play out is the Left tends to be reluctant to flatly lie to people and contradict previous positions.  Yes, 'both sides do it', but one side accepts Mitch "fuck your standards of decency" McConnell as a respected peer.

Great point. Especially in a climate where the truth is generally a pretty bitter pill for a lot of people to swallow. I've been telling left leaning people to fight bullshit with bullshit for decades now. It's falling on deaf ears. I'm actually doing some pretty epic work right now with facial capture and photorealistic digital humans. I have a few ideas for shorts and one that sprung to mind was Trump reminiscing about this one time he was fucking ivanka in the ass... My thinking is that, although it would be instantly discredited as fake, the deeper human psyche would find itself in a - can't unsee - scenario. Use the root of prejudice against the fuckers for a change.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Lurk more isn't hard and people shouldn't be offended when they're told to do it. Bite me.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Lurk more isn't hard and people shouldn't be offended when they're told to do it. Bite me.

Whenever I hear "people shouldn't" I immediately think of Hans Christian Andersen

[Doktor Howl]

Lurk more isn't hard and people shouldn't be offended when they're told to do it. Bite me.

Also this.

[The Johnny]

Right now I'm talking to some person that knows im an analyst, asking me if i like Freud or Jung, what i think of evolutive tarot, gestalt and Jodorowskian psychomagic.

And I'm playing along till I get tired/bored or see clearly what theyre looking for.

The framing of their questions already tells me it's doomed, but eh, it doesnt cost me too much energy or sanity so its ok.

In the sea of knowledge, there's the lost, there's the misguided, many many sealions and the confirmation bias autists... and we cant tell from the start what a given subject is.

[Pergamos]

The more progressive you are, the harder it is to get away from bad faith arguments. You start out shiny and hopeful: yes! I can get everyone on board, it's so simple, of course they'll agree once they understand!

After the thousandth chud with a trollface grin who is engaging entirely in bad faith, you get worn down and you cannot, cannot summon that enthusiasm up.

Also, some experiences literally cannot be explained. If you have never been through actual, factual trauma, you absolutely cannot understand what it does to you. This isn't even a "kinda" thing. A "maybe" thing. You can't understand. Explaining it in a way that gets across just how damaging having had a traumatic experience is is impossible. Words fail.

And when you talk about things that can cause trauma, you sound silly. Because trauma is everywhere, waiting to be stumbled across.

So no, in some cases you literally cannot understand.

This may cause an accessibility gap, but there is no real fix for that. People are broken and wounded from years and years of failure, and summoning up that courage just to get slapped down again? When you might be talking about things that are impossible to describe to someone who hasn't experienced them, or talking to a chud and not know it?

People should instead get used to relying on non-human resources. I mostly point people to RationalWiki these days, and tell them to ask questions there, since I didn't write it.

I have gotten to the point where I just don't have the energy to engage with people I don't know on these subjects. And the only chuds I have to deal with are other leftists. Being on the front lines of that discussion would kill me as surely as a gun, those people deserve to be able to say "no, I will not explain to you on this thing today." Even if it causes an "accessibility gap".

Especially especially when most of the arguments you can make boil down to "have a little fucking empathy, you tool."

Perhaps we should sealion the nazis more so they get burnt out too?

[Doktor Howl]

Hey Jim,

Remember the privilege threads?  Sure you do.  It was a hoot.  People would line up and scream at you for privilege, without explaining what it meant.  If you reacted badly, even with good intent, you were "part of the problem," and if you reacted properly, you were a "cookie seeker."  No bastard would explain what anything meant until Corbet Et Renard took literally less than three sentences to explain it...But that seemed to suck all the fun out of the situation (almost , so all that was left was a bunch of miseryguts sitting around lamenting the state of the world and their role in it.

So I've been looking at this whole MAGA business and giving it a second thought.  And then a third thought.  And speaking as an old school discordian, I have to say that it does not suit my interests for these knucklefucks to actually, you know, get the point.  I hate them and they hate me, and we're all very comfortable with that arrangement. 

You have your discordia, I have mine.

Love,
Vern

[P3nT4gR4m]

Hey Jim,

Remember the privilege threads?  Sure you do.  It was a hoot.  People would line up and scream at you for privilege, without explaining what it meant.  If you reacted badly, even with good intent, you were "part of the problem," and if you reacted properly, you were a "cookie seeker."  No bastard would explain what anything meant until Corbet Et Renard took literally less than three sentences to explain it...But that seemed to suck all the fun out of the situation (almost , so all that was left was a bunch of miseryguts sitting around lamenting the state of the world and their role in it.

So I've been looking at this whole MAGA business and giving it a second thought.  And then a third thought.  And speaking as an old school discordian, I have to say that it does not suit my interests for these knucklefucks to actually, you know, get the point.  I hate them and they hate me, and we're all very comfortable with that arrangement. 

You have your discordia, I have mine.

Love,
Vern

This! We have a over supply of dumb, programmable fucknuggets and I'm not even bordering on liberal or humanitarian so I have significantly less than zero compunctions about exploiting their gullibility to make them give me money or inject weedkiller in their carotid, just for the lulz.