= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dlthomas comments on Is anyone else worried about SOPA? Trying to do anything about it? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (88)
I'm not completely sure what you mean about the bias fairy sprinkling Green-Blue dust over party labels. Not that I object to the use of metaphor, it's just I'm not sure what you are attributing to me. I think it's completely plausible that I expressed myself in a confusing way, so I'm going to try again.
I think we both agree about the politics-is-the-mind-killer thing in principle. With that said, I'd suggest that politics exercises its mind killing power over some issues more than others, at any given time within a society. Some issues inflame political loyalties, but some do not. Race and sexuality are ideologically charged issues in the U.S. right now. But whether it's raining outside is not. To use another example, there are differences of opinion regarding how often you need to change the oil in your car. It's not an entirely subjective preference, either. Factual evidence regarding engine wear is important. But it's not a politically charged issue, at least not yet.
I read the abstract and most of the text of the study you linked, but I think it explicitly applies particularly to opinions explicitly endorsed by a green-or-blue team. In other words, politically-charged issues.
Right now, I'm under the impression that copyright enforcement law simply is not a highly-charged partisan issue for the overwhelming majority of people in the United States. Neither is it a religious sectarian issue, or a regional issue, or a racial issue, or a sexual preference issue. These are the types of issues that inflame people's emotions and kill their minds, at least for the great majority of the population. A few individuals may strongly identify as stamp collectors or wearers of corduroy pants, or fans of copyright law, but these would be outliers.
For most people, intellectual property law is only a mind killer in that it is so boring that it puts them to sleep.
ADBOC, a bit. I think that is accurate in terms of a description of society. I think it is misleading if you interpret it causally. Issues do not inflame political loyalties in an individual because the issues are possessed of some properties with respect to society. They inflame political loyalties in an individual because of attributes of that individual. A part of this may be an expectation that society at large cares about the issue (I think this is likely in some cases) but I don't think that is essential - I expect that it applies to identification with any particular group that is likely to have a strong opinion on the topic.
Probably not. But I would say that it is absolutely a highly-charged (non-partisan, but that's my point) issue for, say, the overwhelming majority of people on Slashdot or Reddit. Would you disagree?
Given our demographics, how do you think LW compares?
That's interesting. I initially parsed "copyright enforcement law simply is not a highly-charged partisan issue for the overwhelming majority of people in the United States" as meaning that it's almost universally agreed to be bad. That reading was reinforced by "A few individuals may strongly identify as[...] fans of copyright law" (if it had been "fans or opponents" maybe that would have straightened me out). I'm pretty sure that most people who have been directly affected by some kind of copyright enforcement mechanism or copyright enforcement law did not enjoy the experience, and I am sceptical that they are a tiny minority.
Of course, positions on copyright and its enforcement in general are entirely distinct from positions on SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, et al. (as evinced by the many anti-SOPA statements that begin with announcements of approval of copyright enforcement in general).
In any case, I quite agree---especially after seeing the development of this thread---with your main point that LW is part of the community in which strong opinions on the present topic are ubiquitous. (I don't know about opinions on copyright and its enforcement in general.) But to be more precise, we are part of the community in which the opinion that SOPA is bad is ubiquitous---like many other opinions, such as that elaborate theological arguments are a waste of time. That isn't enough to make it controversial, and that's why I thought perhaps we could discuss it rationally. But of course we are afraid, and perhaps that fear is more salient and more immediate than the fear of various existential dangers and similarly scary things we discuss.
I'm happy to say I do not disagree with you about the prevailing opinions at Slashdot or Reddit. However, I don't think that either Slashdot and Reddit now act as a strong political force. Perhaps they could or should be, but I don't think they are in practice at all. Personally, I wish they were. But, it has been said, our kind cannot cooperate. I'd like to take this statement as a challenge, rather than as a law. I would suggest to you, and everyone else, that our kind must find a way to cooperate to some degree on many issues, including public policy issues. Not all political issues, but some.
I don't disagree. I just dispute the relevance. Is your stipulation that it's likely we are only mind-killed by our association with politically effective groups?
I agree whole heartedly.
I agree, but we do that by tackling the mind killing, not by tackling the issues, and certainly not by thinking that the mind killing doesn't apply to us, or to our pet issue - indeed, the fact that this is our pet issue makes us far more vulnerable.
Again, I'm certainly not saying "not at all," I'm saying "not here, not like this."
I find this argument persuasive. You have changed my mind.
Huh. I agree with both of you, up to
At least, if 'tackling the issues' means 'coming to any kind of conclusion|decision as to what to think or even what to do. Obviously a rational approach is a prerequisite for that, but doesn't replace it. I also agree in general with
but vulnerable to what in this case? Irrationally believing that SOPA would be a bad thing?
I can only speak for myself, of course. At one point, though dlthomas asked:
I never got around to posting it, but I could have truthfully said that that I no longer consider myself to be tech-savvy. I was at one point, but what I once knew is now either forgotten or obsolete.
However, on closer introspection, I'd have to admit that I still am a bit biased towards what may be a "tech-savvy" view of the world. I hadn't thought of it (and still don't think of it) as a major part of my identity, but it may be all the more insidious for being unseen. So I must correct for that.
Now, I tentatively think that SOPA is probably bad public policy. This tentative opinion is supported by the fact (and it is a fact) that it is opposed by a great many learned people in many fields, particularly experts in American law, as well as internet technology.
However, before I turn my tentative opinion into a firm opinion, I will have to do a little homework by learning just a bit more about the issues in general, noting particularly the arguments supporting the view I'm leaning against. I don't have all the time in the world, and I'm not planning to become an expert in copyright law, first amendment law, and the foundational technology supporting the internet any time soon. I don't even plan to read the full text of the proposed legislation. However, my ignorance is a reason to be cautious, not bold, in my opinions.
(Parenthetically, as a U.S. citizen, I'd really like to think that my representatives in Congress would take as least as much trouble simply to understand the laws they enact.)