You *do not* want to demoralize the helpers. You want to encourage them to keep going, not get burned out, support each other. You want to make helping look *accessible* so more people do it. You want to recognize that different kinds of people can help.
-
Show this thread
-
Secondly, and relatedly, “just put someone better in charge” is not that simple. The people who are currently in charge have their jobs for reasons. Someone chose to hire, elect, or appoint them. Those people probably don’t agree with you on who would be “better.”
5 replies 1 retweet 35 likesShow this thread -
It is a valuable informational service to accurately identify who fucked up. We used to call that “journalism.” It helps people decide whom they can trust and whom they can’t.
1 reply 3 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
It is not valuable, but rather wishful thinking, to say “someone should do X” unless you are specifically advertising to the potential someones.
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
This is a really good thing about
@robinhanson’s style of activism that more people should emulate: he makes actual, novel, positive proposals. “We could do this, and here’s why it would be better than the status quo.” Right or wrong, it contributes new information.2 replies 7 retweets 112 likesShow this thread -
A *serious* proposal, even if it’s a rough draft, is written to and for the people you’re trying to recruit to do the thing. It says “here’s something you might want to do.” It’s constructive in that sense.
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
You can identify a problem without putting forward a proposal. Some problems, e.g. general complacency, require abstract solutions that cannot be boiled down into a policy proposal. My work on charter cities is very specific. We're not at that stage for political change
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MarkLutter
Complacency just seems like a weird word for it. Why choose that one?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
I'm adapting Tyler's word to describe our institutions. Another word which has been gaining traction in certain circles is decadent, which I think is a good descriptor too.https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class-Self-Defeating-Quest-American/dp/1250108691 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MarkLutter
I didn’t like Tyler’s choice of rhetoric either tbh. It’s memetically fit but it seems subtly bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You’re essentially framing it as “people who are lousy at things need to shape up” rather than “we need to free the people who are good at things”. This biases towards aggressive rather than constructive directions.
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin
While bans and prohibitions are a problem, I do not believe they are the core problem. The core problem is failed institutions. The solution is building new institutions, but a pre-requisite is ending the old institutions. This does require a degree of 'aggression'
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.