I don’t even think there is a real epistemic crisis yet. We’re learning that we need consensus reality only in a few critical cases like vaccination where there are material consequences (loss of herd immunity) to epistemic pluralism.
Conversation
Most of the time, you don’t need a belief monopoly to act. Just enough relevant agency, and a sort of Straussian contempt for the outgroup.
“I don’t have to persuade you I’m right, I just have to make sure you can’t stop me from acting or roll back my consequences”
2
2
I’m fascinated by the possibilities of fait accompli + irreversibility action orientation over deliberation and mutual persuasion before action. I think *this* will be biggest long-term effect. The role of mutual persuasion among adversaries in collective action will diminish.
1
2
We’ve already seen a big example. Trump doesn’t need to persuade opponents of anything, with or without deepfakes. Just roll back Obama programs and ensure his own are harder to undo. Future politicians will run this playbook better.
3
Tldr of my position: Persuading opponents is now for poor people.
2
4
Replying to
I don’t disagree but merely point out that naked coercion follows as the inevitable defining feature of a post-persuasion, post-consensual order.
2
2
In addition to Venkat's argument that
"it's always been that way", I want to point out that "naked coercion" doesn't have to always be the inevitable feature.
In a power game between asymmetrical players (let's use Athens and Melos as an example) then Nils you're right.
1
...Naked coercion is necessary consequence of that dynamic.
But...assuming more parity between the players, and the result is not best described as "coercive" (although it does indeed have some of that feeling-tone)
1
I'm not actually sure the best English word I'd use to describe the result, but it's just not quite "naked coercion"
It ends up being highly contested attempts to constrain the freedom of action of a near-peer rival within a shared domain
Like Carlsen and Caruana locked...
1
1
...in a long classical chess match
1
Something like narrative coercion perhaps; a species of verbal violence with immediate benefits for preserving institutions but gradually diminishing ability to uncover enduring knowledge, as alliance with power and closed boundaries corrupts the intellectual vigor.


