Lex Friedman (inadvertently?) interviewed EV hater

[KidsEyeDr]

No one is trying to 'control' the narrative. Did libel laws make things worse? I don't think it's too much to ask for people to show a little more respect for objective reality. Lumborg isn't an idiot. He almost certainly knew what he said wasn't true but the truth didn't support his narrative.

I think it’s great you want open dialog and not to control the narrative.

“Asking” is only whining that will turn people off from your goal unless you A) effectively convince/educate or B) you really mean forcing people (which turns people off from your good, logical goal. see: vax mandates).

If you try to establish a legal objective reality you will end up with the dustbin of history of top down control that obstructs true progress. Govt officials are far from being in touch nor can they be, as their main goal is to appease and get re-elected. As we’ve seen even recently, party platforms don’t mean real stances (e.g., Tesla the FACTUAL market leader ignored for a long time by Biden.) That’s in the best case scenario, if the populace has an actual vote. But even THEN all it takes is an effective salesman and suddenly the accepted facts switch, if you let the govt set the definitions. And if the populace doesn’t ACTUALLY have a vote, look at Galileo who had to conform to the Powers of the time which were grossly mistaken on Astronomy.

So you’ve gotta tolerate idiots, and strive to help people see the light you’ve seen.
Keeping in mind that you (and all humans) FACTUALLY are an idiot in your own blind spots can help. People are at times not perfectly logical or fair, and you can’t change that. I’m just saying, which I think you would understand, that in open dialog you have to know how to wield your sword effectively so your point isn’t missed in people’s fight-flight response (emotions, arrogance, etc).

So yeah Lex really dropped a great opportunity. More opportunity for you and me.

 

[nwdiver]

You have conceded you were wrong now instead of moving on you turn your attacks toward me?

How exactly are no opinions based/supported by facts? If you decide you need to get groceries because you're out of milk is that not an opinion based/supported by a fact? If you actually have milk but you were wrong is your opinion that you need groceries still valid? Sure seems like I've conceded only that I'm correct

 

[nwdiver]

Keeping in mind that you (and all humans) FACTUALLY are an idiot in your own blind spots can help.

Are you really unable to differentiate between not knowing everything and claiming 2+2 is 6 when it's clearly 4? Or worse, telling everyone how math is wrong and 2 + 2 really is 6.

Misinformation creates no opportunities. Just waste. The fact Americans spend $20B/yr on magic pills is pretty convincing evidence of that.

 

[KidsEyeDr]

Are you really unable to differentiate between not knowing everything and claiming 2+2 is 6 when it's clearly 4? Or worse, telling everyone how math is wrong and 2 + 2 really is 6.

Misinformation creates no opportunities. Just waste. The fact Americans spend $20B/yr on magic pills is pretty convincing evidence of that.

There are people who are very effective salesmen who DO NOT KNOW that 2+2 =4; or they do not care. And they get elected.

You are right the world is awash in noise. It is EXTREMELY difficult to work effectively with humans who refuse to abstract away from fear, greed, selfishness, ego, and so forth.

However, people can, with a lot of tongue biting reflective relational work (on the part of the well-informed), be convinced and see things from a new perspective.

cheers

 

[nwdiver]

However, people can, with a lot of tongue biting reflective relational work (on the part of the well-informed), be convinced and see things from a new perspective.

I wish that were true. But that's generally as false as 2 + 2 = 6. The only effective way to reduce the harm caused by misinformation is to reduce misinformation.

The Backfire Effect: Why Facts Don’t Always Change Minds​

 

[KidsEyeDr]

I wish that were true. But that's generally as false as 2 + 2 = 6. The only effective way to reduce the harm caused by misinformation is to reduce misinformation.

The Backfire Effect: Why Facts Don’t Always Change Minds​

That’s a truism though. The question was how, not what needs to be done.

To err is human; to forgive (or, in modern lingo “tolerate/work with“) divine (or in modern lingo, “aid human progress”)

 

[KidsEyeDr]

That’s a truism though. The question was how, not what needs to be done.

To err is human; to forgive (or, in modern lingo “tolerate/work with“) divine (or in modern lingo, “aid human progress”)

And I should have said “sometimes” people can be convinced.

Some people smoke until they die of COPD. Freedom has to mean freedom to be dumb.

 

[nwdiver]

That’s a truism though. The question was how, not what needs to be done.

To err is human; to forgive (or, in modern lingo “tolerate/work with“) divine (or in modern lingo, “aid human progress”)

For starters stop providing a platform to lies. Next libel laws should be broadened beyond proving damages or harm, a lie is a lie. Why did it take the parents of those children being tormented for Jones to pay for his lies? A lie is a lie and there needs to be consequences for repeating a lie. Sure... some truths are grey but there's a lot that are black and white. There needs to be a mechanism for Lomborg to pay for repeatedly spouting fiction just as there was for Jones.

Like I said, opinions are fine so long as the facts they're based on are true. If someone decides that a 15% risk of COPD is worth the joys of smoking. Fine. Some random podcaster with a large following saying that smoking is great because it reduces the risk of COPD. Not Fine.

 

[David_Cary]

A lot of semantics on facts and opinion.

Nothing is as simple as 2+2=4.

Unfortunately, when issues are complicated, the facts can easily be interpreted to fit a narrative. So what is one person's fact is another's opinion. Throw in a lot of unknown variables that exist in most complicated arguments and the world becomes even fuzzier.

It might be said that free discourse will eventually weed out "incorrect" opinions and we will gravitate towards a better future. So more debate is always a good thing because as humans we are so clever that we will figure it all out. Smart people will make good arguments and everntually overcome the bad arguments.

Does anyone really believe that? Covid has taught us that people are relatively easily manipulated away from facts - even when there are no big winners when people are fearful of vaccines. I mean who benefits from death and disease? Ok - someone always benefits but I find it hard to believe that we can find a party that benefitted from the increased mortality that was spreading anti-vax information. But am open to be informed....

Now, switch the topic to climate change. Now we have really big incentives to minimize the impact of climate change or minimize the changes to mitigate the change. Literally the wealth of the world has incentives to look the other way or delay delay etc. Now throw in the complexity and the timeline (as compared to the simple issue of covid measures/vaccines). It is an order of magniture or two more complicated are harder to understand the impacts.

With Covid - taking a vaccine and your chance of death goes down. With climate change - change your entire lifestyle so that billions of people can live a better life (and this obviously includes voting for things like carbon tax that will likely slow growth and maybe lead to driving a smalller car or, gasp, having to take public transportation). A much harder "sell".

 

[Operator64]

A lot of semantics on facts and opinion.

Nothing is as simple as 2+2=4.

Unfortunately, when issues are complicated, the facts can easily be interpreted to fit a narrative. So what is one person's fact is another's opinion. Throw in a lot of unknown variables that exist in most complicated arguments and the world becomes even fuzzier.

It might be said that free discourse will eventually weed out "incorrect" opinions and we will gravitate towards a better future. So more debate is always a good thing because as humans we are so clever that we will figure it all out. Smart people will make good arguments and everntually overcome the bad arguments.

Does anyone really believe that? Covid has taught us that people are relatively easily manipulated away from facts - even when there are no big winners when people are fearful of vaccines. I mean who benefits from death and disease? Ok - someone always benefits but I find it hard to believe that we can find a party that benefitted from the increased mortality that was spreading anti-vax information. But am open to be informed....

Now, switch the topic to climate change. Now we have really big incentives to minimize the impact of climate change or minimize the changes to mitigate the change. Literally the wealth of the world has incentives to look the other way or delay delay etc. Now throw in the complexity and the timeline (as compared to the simple issue of covid measures/vaccines). It is an order of magniture or two more complicated are harder to understand the impacts.

With Covid - taking a vaccine and your chance of death goes down. With climate change - change your entire lifestyle so that billions of people can live a better life (and this obviously includes voting for things like carbon tax that will likely slow growth and maybe lead to driving a smalller car or, gasp, having to take public transportation). A much harder "sell".

So what your saying shut down free speech to stop anyone from using common sense to make their own decisions.

 

[nwdiver]

So what your saying shut down free speech to stop anyone from using common sense to make their own decisions.

So what you're saying is get rid of libel laws, anyone can say ~anything and let god sort it out?

 

[Operator64]

So what you're saying is get rid of libel laws, anyone can say ~anything and let god sort it out?

I see you have not fixed that reading comprehension problem we recognized in previous interactions.

 

[nwdiver]

I see you have not fixed that reading comprehension problem we recognized in previous interactions.

If libel laws are fine why not apply an equal standard to other forms of speech? Why should proving harm be necessary for there to be a legal deterrent to lies?

 

[Operator64]

If libel laws are fine why not apply an equal standard to other forms of speech? Why should proving harm be necessary for there to be a legal deterrent to lies?

I’m not here to educate you on common sense, you have proven the inability to have a discussion.

 

[nwdiver]

I’m not here to educate you on common sense, you have proven the inability to have a discussion.

Why don’t you want to answer a simple question? Should libel be ok? Is Alex Jones being unfairly persecuted for his ‘free speech’?

 

[Operator64]

Why don’t you want to answer a simple question? Should libel be ok? Is Alex Jones being unfairly persecuted for his ‘free speech’?

It all comes down to your ability to comprehend what I may say, you have demonstrated your inability to comprehend the simplest of words placed together to make a sentence to convey an opinion, therefore common sense dictates I refrain from any further interaction with someone who’s abilities may be brought into question therefore branding me a bully.

 

[nwdiver]

It all comes down to your ability to comprehend what I may say, you have demonstrated your inability to comprehend the simplest of words placed together to make a sentence to convey an opinion, therefore common sense dictates I refrain from any further interaction with someone who’s abilities may be brought into question therefore branding me a bully.

How is asking if libel laws make sense ‘bullying’? Simply attempting to make sense of your perspective.

 

[Operator64]

How is asking if libel laws make sense ‘bullying’? Simply attempting to make sense of your perspective.

READING COMPREHENSION

 

[nwdiver]

READING COMPREHENSION

Why do you have to be such a bully?

Simple question. Do libel laws make sense?

 

[David_Cary]

I never would have guessed that "free speech" could become so controversial. It is almost like the concept is being usurped by some to promote a particular agenda. Kind of like freedom of religion is being interpreted to allow someone to impose their religion on someone else.

Sometimes, we have to agree to disagree. The problem comes in when things that person A does or says effects everyone else in a negative way. Then it becomes really hard to just accept what that person did. When the negative way involves bringing on a mass extinction event - or even just 50% reduction - then the tolerance has to be less.

I think all reasonable people believe there are limits to free speech. The courts have decided there are. I know of no country that doesn't put some limits on speech. Nothing is entirely black and white. There will be disagreements on where the lines are. It is very simple.

Twitter banning someone is not a 1st amendment issue. Calling out a journalist who does a terrible job of presenting facts is not a 1st amendment issue. Calling out someone's opinion as misinformed is not a 1st amendment issue. Having consequences in public discourse is not .....

There needs to be a counter to the the lies and mistruths propagated by the oil and gas companies. One potential remedy is legal - if they lie in public statements or filings in order to sell a product, that is actionable. If they pay people to do the same, it is actionable.

Saying EVs are just as bad as ICE cars and never recover the increased carbon in production is incorrect. It is not an opinion. It is a mistatement of fact.