And yet, it seems to me that those Chinese who don’t know that it’s safe to go around the government firewall may have no good way of finding out that it’s safe.
Paranoia about how if they do they will get caught may be cultivated in them. How do they know what methods the government has.
Also, they may be made to think that there is something dirty or illicit, wrong or ugly about going outside official sources.
I am reminded of how effectively government propaganda in the US works on those teenagers who least need it and how ineffectively on those who most need it.
Also, penning in sheep is a lot easier than penning in wolves.
In fact, this reminds me of the magnetic traps (Penning traps?) that are used to cool a couple of hundred atoms down to near-absolute zero. There is a potential barrier that keeps most of the atoms inside. Occasionally, one atom is jostled enough to gain enough energy to escape. This has the effect of carrying energy away from the group, cooling it as a whole.
I think the analogy is compelling. An activism that works off of a discontented fringe only serves to strengthen the current regime. To get real change, one needs to energize the populace as a whole, and often the only forces capable of such widespread influence have economic and deep cultural foundations. Both Gandhi and MLK knew this.
I think the Chinese government also knows this, but I am not sure they can exploit this in the long term.
Yes, but instead of the mechanism making the beliefs more radical in the context of the whole society, it acts to make beliefs more mainstream. Though, one could argue that a more jingoistic China would be more radical in the analogous larger context.
An activism that works off of a discontented fringe only serves to strengthen the current regime. To get real change, one needs to energize the populace as a whole,
This is one of my, perhaps the, best justification for being mostly vegetarian rather than strictly vegetarian. (Aside 1: I probably wouldn’t phrase it quite as strongly as you. Aside 2: I look forward to commenting about something unrelated to vegetarianism).
This is one of my, perhaps the, best justification for being mostly vegetarian rather than strictly vegetarian.
Well, but unlike the atom-cooling example, becoming a strict vegetarian doesn’t cut off your communication with non-vegetarians.
I suppose being just mostly vegetarian might make a vegetarian lifestyle seem more approachable to others, but I’d have to see evidence to go either way on that question. Off the cuff, it also seems plausible that being a strict vegetarian would make the possibility of strict vegetarianism seem more attainable to others.
For eating at people’s houses: usually people will have enough side-dishes that if one does not make a big deal of it, one can fill up on non-meat dishes. At worst, there’s always bread.
For going to steakhouse—yes, but at every other place, there’s usually a vegetarian option, if one tries hard enough.
It does make a good case for being an unannoying vegetarian...but being a strict-vegetarian is a useful Schelling point.
These lines of thinking seem to be a pretty big rationalization risk. Does human political behavior really act like cooling atoms? Sure, if thinking that way makes me feel good about my political choices!
These lines of thinking seem to be a pretty big rationalization risk.
I agree with this, but am confused by your criticism of the evaporative cooling metaphor. Rationalization and mechanisms for a group to become more extreme are not the same topic.
And maybe it should, at least if you’re a vegetarian for ethical reasons, you’d probably also value signalling to your social circle that they are, in your opinion, supporting sentient suffering. If the minimizing of which is the reason for you (in the impersonal sense) being a vegetarian.
And yet, it seems to me that those Chinese who don’t know that it’s safe to go around the government firewall may have no good way of finding out that it’s safe.
Paranoia about how if they do they will get caught may be cultivated in them. How do they know what methods the government has.
Also, they may be made to think that there is something dirty or illicit, wrong or ugly about going outside official sources.
I am reminded of how effectively government propaganda in the US works on those teenagers who least need it and how ineffectively on those who most need it.
Also, penning in sheep is a lot easier than penning in wolves.
In fact, this reminds me of the magnetic traps (Penning traps?) that are used to cool a couple of hundred atoms down to near-absolute zero. There is a potential barrier that keeps most of the atoms inside. Occasionally, one atom is jostled enough to gain enough energy to escape. This has the effect of carrying energy away from the group, cooling it as a whole.
I think the analogy is compelling. An activism that works off of a discontented fringe only serves to strengthen the current regime. To get real change, one needs to energize the populace as a whole, and often the only forces capable of such widespread influence have economic and deep cultural foundations. Both Gandhi and MLK knew this.
I think the Chinese government also knows this, but I am not sure they can exploit this in the long term.
This is a lot like evaporative cooling of group beliefs
Yes, but instead of the mechanism making the beliefs more radical in the context of the whole society, it acts to make beliefs more mainstream. Though, one could argue that a more jingoistic China would be more radical in the analogous larger context.
This is one of my, perhaps the, best justification for being mostly vegetarian rather than strictly vegetarian. (Aside 1: I probably wouldn’t phrase it quite as strongly as you. Aside 2: I look forward to commenting about something unrelated to vegetarianism).
Well, but unlike the atom-cooling example, becoming a strict vegetarian doesn’t cut off your communication with non-vegetarians.
I suppose being just mostly vegetarian might make a vegetarian lifestyle seem more approachable to others, but I’d have to see evidence to go either way on that question. Off the cuff, it also seems plausible that being a strict vegetarian would make the possibility of strict vegetarianism seem more attainable to others.
It does make it more difficult to go to the steakhouse with them, or eat over at their house.
For eating at people’s houses: usually people will have enough side-dishes that if one does not make a big deal of it, one can fill up on non-meat dishes. At worst, there’s always bread.
For going to steakhouse—yes, but at every other place, there’s usually a vegetarian option, if one tries hard enough.
It does make a good case for being an unannoying vegetarian...but being a strict-vegetarian is a useful Schelling point.
These lines of thinking seem to be a pretty big rationalization risk. Does human political behavior really act like cooling atoms? Sure, if thinking that way makes me feel good about my political choices!
I agree with this, but am confused by your criticism of the evaporative cooling metaphor. Rationalization and mechanisms for a group to become more extreme are not the same topic.
I wasn’t responding to the evaporative-cooling metaphor.
And maybe it should, at least if you’re a vegetarian for ethical reasons, you’d probably also value signalling to your social circle that they are, in your opinion, supporting sentient suffering. If the minimizing of which is the reason for you (in the impersonal sense) being a vegetarian.
As a strict vegetarian, that’s never been a problem for me. I’m pretty sure fubarisco is right.
Very insightful.