Stuff

Tempted to actually put this on spotify so I can secretly stream it at work...

Source

And I’m sorry if this is how you had to find out he’s on an “apology” tour (denying everything) and promoting a new book that we are all going to very loudly ignore

Yes they do. It's just that their morals are rooted in "protect the people and things closest to me at all costs". Their values are extreme tribalism. They also believe those outside the group are constantly threatening the safety and prosperity of the in-group.

This is why so much of what they do seems contradictory and hypocritical. Yes, they want prosperity for those they consider "like them", but they are also willing to do things that harm themselves if it harms the "enemy" more. And, they blame the enemy for that harm, not themselves.

It's literally "this is why we can't have nice things". It's your fault.

A conservative may think, "welfare might be nice, and it's true all my neighbors depend on it, but those welfare queens are stealing it, so we can't have it. Public pools might be nice, and they provide a safe place for my children to play, but people I consider unclean might use them, so we can't have them."

This is how a conservative woman can justify an abortion for herself, but not for others, even though anti-abortion laws make it harder for her to get that abortion in the first place.

I (being a teenager) was confused by this because this issue is so much larger than just her daughter. So I tried again to explain how many people are harmed by sex work criminalization and how decriminalization would decrease sex trafficking and she repeated again, with a smile on her face: "I don't want my daughter to do that and decriminalization would signal that that is an acceptable thing for her to do".

the good news is you don't have to argue through it the normal way.

You’ll notice that this is how they talk to each other, too. They’ll say “facts don’t care about your feelings,” but they’ll disregard science when it comes to climate change or vaccines or LGBTQ+ identities. The basic conservative rhetoric strategy is blindingly simple, and because we have to live in the same world as them, it’s useful to know how to speak their language.

Conservative Arguments go as follows:

Identify the In Group, as relevant to the topic. It can be as broad as “all of humanity” or as narrow as “white suburban moms in the Midwest.”

Identify perceived threat to the In Group. Notably, you can convince them of almost anything if you frame it as competitive (“if X wins, we lose!”) or dangerous (“your children will get hurt!”).

Make that perceived threat PERSONAL. They don’t care about people in the abstract, so bring in their family. Don’t say “what if,” frame it as a matter of When. (ex. If we’re talking healthcare, age inherently comes with disability. Disability is a scary Out Group word to them, but age is not. The frame would be “when you’re eighty and your knees need to be replaced, that shouldn’t have to be as expensive as buying a new car!”— inevitable, personal, and based on a comparison they understand). In a carrot and stick sense, this is the stick.

After laying out the worst case scenario, provide an optimistic alternative. This is something conservatives are very good at and leftists are presently very bad at. Conservatives use nostalgic language and imagery to paint a picture of an idyllic world where the In Group is safe and the Out Group is nowhere to be seen. This is the “make America great again” and 1950s visuals that erase anyone who doesn’t fit their whitewashed worldview. A leftist alternative might be an optimistic future where billionaires— our Out Group— are no longer fiscally possible and their wealth is with the people, where people can afford homes, and where a shift to sustainability has revitalized industry. It doesn’t need to be realistic. The 1950s tradwife wet dream certainly isn’t. It just needs to meet their desire for safety from the Perceived Threat mentioned earlier. This gives them something to fight for: the carrot.

Prescribe a course of action. Conservatives are good at mobilizing, it’s why they’re in power. Specifically, prescribe action other than just voting— ways to incorporate goals into a lifestyle. For the conservatives, this has looked like participation in evangelicalism, putting their kids in private or home schools, or refusing vaccines. Leftist alternatives might be asking people to engage in mutual aid and/or gift economies (by another name, this one is too lefty for most of them— try “helping your neighbors” or “paying it forward”), joining firefighters or medics instead of the military or police (“bad apples spoil the bunch and good apples don’t make it better!”), recording law enforcement officers (“to make sure everyone’s rights are protected from Them”) etc.

As they leave their echo chambers and participate in face to face community with other people, their In Group may be widened against their will (think of college students who go from right to left wing after meeting people from other backgrounds) and their mindset may open to more intellectually honest arguments.

Of course, it doesn’t work on everyone. Many people are too far down the conspiracy hole to engage with people they see as belonging to the Out Group in any peaceable way. This is part of why it’s the responsibility of people who they might perceive as members of their personal In Group (ie other white people, other cishets, other men, etc) to try to change their mind. Even a little.

At this point, it’s less like changing someone’s perspective with reasoned debate and more like redirecting a loaded gun. But that means it matters more than ever. If your discussion can be the difference between a parent encouraging their son to join ice or telling him to reconsider, if you can convince someone to record law enforcement when they see them harassing someone, if you can get some guy to think about becoming a firefighter instead of a cop, if you can get someone to donate directly to a food bank instead of to a church group, if you can redirect their anger and paranoia towards billionaires instead of immigrants— even one change can have a ripple effect.

Hit the “thumbs down.” It’s like, what’s wrong??? Was our summary wrong? Were there offensive words? Thank you for helping us improve our AI tools :)

I selected “other.”

Text box popped up. Please elaborate!

Wrote in “I can fucking read” submit comment

Then had to spend several minutes torching all my settings with a flamethrower. Let me be clear: I’m (a lawyer) notoriously picky with my words FOR GOOD REASON (lawyering) so I overwhelmingly reject Gmail’s “helpful” little assistance. My privacy settings were set to “full paranoia” a little less than a year ago when I saw the writing on the wall and knew public defenders could become a target in the future. Better to lock it all down now.

Gemini had crept in there and turned ALL that shit back on. And showed itself by saying “Jane Doe says she’s so sorry for your loss and offers to reschedule for Thursday at 3” over an email from Jane Doe saying “I’m so sorry for your loss. We could reschedule for Thursday at 3?”

Why would I possibly need this. In what universe would I need this. I have eyes and a brain and a reading speed that twenty years ago was measured at 1500 wpm with full comprehension on dense scientific text. Furthermore! If I read a summary, I’m not reading what they actually wrote. If I’m not reading what they actually wrote, I’m not using my own judgment on the words and phrases that they used.

I literally don’t understand why this is helpful at all. This is just avoidance. Using LLMs to write is specifically Not Writing. Using LLMs to summarize is Not Reading. Using them to make art is Avoiding Making Art. Just READ! Just WRITE! I was not put on this fucking planet to not read and not write and not make art! Avoidance is an anxiety symptom and indulging it gives it more power.

If I had an AI to do my most dreaded task, answer the phone for clients, I wouldn’t use it. Because an AI cannot help them. An AI cannot hear the facts of their case, make appropriate noises, be thoughtful and insightful, and then give them a realistic estimate of what could happen in court. I am unique. I cannot be replaced by machine learning. I have style. I have expertise. I don’t hallucinate unless I’m having a really great Friday night and I’m off the clock.

When I need to outsource tasks from my own brain, I give them to people I know can do them and that I trust to do them right.