82,890
edits
Averagarianism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Did every Conservative voter read the party’s manifesto? Almost certainly, no. Did every Conservative voter who did read it subscribe to every line? Again, almost certainly no. Did ''anyone'' subscribe to every line in it? Perhaps, but by no means certainly. So, can we legitimately infer uniform support for the Conservatives’ manifesto from all who voted Conservative? ''No''. We only do by dint of the political convention that those who vote for a party are deemed to support a manifesto (if one is published). But even that convention is a spectre. And where your vote is an issue-based referendum, there is not even a manifesto. Who knows why 33 million people voted for Brexit? Who could possibly presume to aggregate all those individual value judgments into a single guiding principle? There were 33 million reasons for voting leave. They tell us nothing except... ''leave''. | Did every Conservative voter read the party’s manifesto? Almost certainly, no. Did every Conservative voter who did read it subscribe to every line? Again, almost certainly no. Did ''anyone'' subscribe to every line in it? Perhaps, but by no means certainly. So, can we legitimately infer uniform support for the Conservatives’ manifesto from all who voted Conservative? ''No''. We only do by dint of the political convention that those who vote for a party are deemed to support a manifesto (if one is published). But even that convention is a spectre. And where your vote is an issue-based referendum, there is not even a manifesto. Who knows why 33 million people voted for Brexit? Who could possibly presume to aggregate all those individual value judgments into a single guiding principle? There were 33 million reasons for voting leave. They tell us nothing except... ''leave''. | ||
But yet we draw battle lines and attack based on | But yet the delaminated [[Onworld]] — especially as it feeds back its simplified “signal” and thereby amplifies it — we draw our battle lines and attack based on these, invented, signals. We take them, and make them our own. We truck in archetypes of our own devising.<ref>Our personal conceptualisations of archetypes never quite map to the world: the “Google Disappointment Effect” when an image search (or AI prompt) never quite returns the image you had in mind. This is the variation of the “no average fighter pilot” effect. </ref> Trans activists fight for the rights of — and here, I confess immediately, I am doing ''exactly'' what I complain of — exotic, beautiful, fragile, elfen, teen-age dolphin-like creatures of beguiling androgyny and harmlessness, as if all trans-identifying people are like that. On the other hand, gender-critical activists fight against middle-aged male sex-offenders operating under cover, as if all trans people are like that. | ||
Yet such a patently ludicrous argument animates the public square. This is no more real than vampires fighting werewolves. Why do we take it anymore seriously. | Yet such a patently ludicrous argument animates the public square. This is no more real than vampires fighting werewolves. Why do we take it anymore seriously. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
*[[Correlation]] | *[[Correlation]] | ||
*[[Parable of the squirrels]] | *[[Parable of the squirrels]] | ||
{{Ref}} | |||