“Only a [insert terrible name here] would disagree with me” is a rhetorical tactic for getting weak-minded people to passively go along with you. It’s not a way to attract competent people to actively buy in and help you.
Conversation
It’s kind of like — I find it skeevy to guilt-trip people into giving to charity. “You SHOULD be more generous.” The reality is, people are already pretty generous. You can provide donors *value* by offering them unusually good opportunities to help.
1
1
16
“Put more effort/attention into MY favored project or I’ll withdraw my approval from you” is a song anyone can sing, and the loudest, nastiest voices are the best at it. I don’t think it’s a smart tactic for those whose causes are actually good.
1
1
23
Yes, I admit I’m sensitive about this personally. I think shaming people for not being good enough causes a lot of toxic side-effects. I know sometimes the right thing to do *is* to try harder, but there are ways to encourage effort that install less malware, I think.
1
22
Good exhortatory content makes doing a hard thing look necessary, exciting, and *doable by you*. Skip the last part and you just demotivate people.
3
22
Replying to
I suspect almost all the failures can be attributed to funding cuts over the years rather than incompetence. It is highly disingenuous of small government types to undermine state and international agency funding and then attribute failures to incompetence.
2
8
I mean of course shit us going to fail if you cut it to the bone over a decade or more. Even actual incompetence can be blamed on funding cuts, you get the talent you lay for.
I assume you’ve seen this classic riposte to this general line of argument? davidbrin.com/nonfiction/idi
1
7
I’m generally a market-based solutions guy myself, but it truly pisses me off to see holier-than-thou private enterprise shills acting like their world is peopled by an entirely superior species. It’s the same species.
2
7
Same incompetence levels, just different incentives that lead to different patterns of failure (cf Boeing). Intelligence or competence is rarely even the bottleneck. Integrity and caring is. Absent that, you’ll cause failures whether you sit in public agencies or private corps.
2
4
Computer science types like Yarvin are peculiarly vulnerable, even more so than other engineers. They inhabit spherical cow worlds and assume that because they can make what amounts to a video game of a problem as a map, they can solve the problem qua problem on the territory.

