= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on A bit of word-dissolving in political discussion - 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 (40)
Do not ask whether a politician Believes in Global Warming. Ask whether that politician would want their kids to inherit a nice house in South Miami.
(But beware: if this trick gets around, politicians will buy or sell their Florida real estate in order to signal tribal allegiance.)
New business model - marketing land vulnerable to climate change or sea level rise specifically to people who want to signal that they don't believe those things will happen.
Warning: implementing this may cost you one (1) soul.
Why not market housing in "vibrant" and "diverse" neighborhoods to people who are politically supportive of immigration?
Oh wait, we tried that already, and it didn't work - they all want to live in "safe" places with "good" schools. Bummer.
In Berlin plenty of people want to live in vibrant neighborhoods.
I believe "vibrant" is a euphemism for has plenty of low-IQ-high-crime sub-populations. In particular I doubt Germans want to live in the Muslim neighborhoods.
Berlin Kreuzberg has a high migrant population and is somewhere where people want to live.
Why would it cost you a soul? This is Prediction Markets 101 - people buy and sell possessions that have different values based on predictions of future outcomes based on their belief in those outcomes.
Sure, and the people on cigarette marketing teams are just informing people to help them make rational choices in the market.
Assuming they follow truth in advertising rules, that is an unironically correct statement. Different cigarettes differ, and I see no reason to believe that advertising can't help one tobacco company poach customers from another. Some people choose to start smoking as well, and they're legitimate targets for advertising. Advertising isn't all about convincing new customers to start your product category at all.
So by that standard almost no politicians believe in global warming.
Notice how all the rich actors who show up at charity events to "fight global warming" are also lining up to buy beach front property. (They also tend to fly around in private jets, but that's a separate issue.)
Edit: The reason I didn't use politicians in the above example is that not all politicians can afford beachfront property and the ability to do so correlates with other things that may be relevant to whether you want him in power.
Evidence?
Who needs evidence when you've got bile and cynicism?
As a possibility, buying current beach-front property is consistent with believing in global warming if you also believe that it is hard enough to predict where the new beach-front will be that it is cheaper (say, per future-discounted year of residence) to buy property on the current beach and then at the new location of the beach, than it is to buy any combination of properties today.
The inheritance question is actually rather different, as it is about buying beach-front-property-futures in the present.