This is a motivated reading/projection. I think the ease of habit formation when the rules are simpler (“wear masks in public” as opposed to complex if-then-else rules about outdoor/indoor/crowded/not crowded) explain thus better than “obedience” for most people https://twitter.com/ConnerHabib/status/1295335690717278211 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
It is revealing that he’s turned off replies
Demanding obedience to the viewpoint in the replies while accusing everybody who masks broadly instead of learning a finicky algorithm of unthinking “obedience”
Some sort of authoritarian projection/overcompensation?2 replies 2 retweets 34 likesShow this thread -
I stop at stop signs when driving even when streets are empty. I signal when I turn even if nobody is behind me. Lazy-efficient low-cognitive-effort habit formation, not sheep-like obedience. Thinking/decision-making costs more than adopting a worst-case defensive habit.
7 replies 12 retweets 106 likesShow this thread -
A lot of Americans in particular have serious issues and knee-jerk reactions about this stuff. Any uniformity and conformity at all must be craven submission to authoritarians. All rules must either serve you by an OCD algorithm of a million if-then clauses or King George wins
5 replies 3 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
I hate wearing masks, so my solution is to simply not go out much. When I do, when I get a chance I take it off for a stretch in an uncrowded outdoor space sometimes. The Kolmogorov complexity of my algorithm is not as minimal as “always mask outside home” but it’s close.
3 replies 0 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted Venkatesh Rao
And no, litigation is not the answerhttps://twitter.com/vgr/status/1295406092063711232?s=21 …
Venkatesh Rao added,
Venkatesh Rao @vgrReplying to @BaronBeeGangstaThis would be a cure worse than the disease. Litigiousness is not the answer. Most American problems are made much worse by defaulting to the vetocracy and litigation backstops. Go to Supreme Court because you can’t give an inch of benefit of doubt to others.3 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Shocking but true: collective responsibility with some free-riding is nearly always net cheaper than individual responsibility plus litigiousness. Only really weird environments with extreme variety in contexts flips the equilibrium.
1 reply 1 retweet 42 likesShow this thread -
Trust your neighbors. Give them the benefit of doubt sometimes where nobody has all the data and your gut points elsewhere. Gut feelings are not gospel.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
The Amazon “disagree but commit” principle is the bedrock of real high trust cooperation and high leverage collective action. A fetish for radical and radically suspicious individualism is a very, very expensive preference.
1 reply 3 retweets 30 likesShow this thread
This is why smart libertarians repeatedly get asses handed to them by high-trust, high mutual-benefit-of-doubt soft collectivists on both right and left who don’t feel an acute need to stand apart from crowd 110% of the time. Blending into crowd for 5 minutes isn’t death sentence
-
-
Of course, 90% of American libertarians are actually closet authoritarian-collectivist sheeple vigorously overcompensating for inability to actually stand out as individuals while worshipping King Koch and chanting the holy word of St. Ayn while shamefacedly applying for PPP
pic.twitter.com/WTr9Sl3DUu2 replies 3 retweets 41 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.