[FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

At first it seemed like these are separate questions: 1) grounding of willful ignorance and 2) is there a thresholding that separates influence from coercion. But maybe they're the same question, rooted in one's capacity to reflect ... to qualify one's ignorance, including the differences between how one's self interacts with the world and how others interact with the world.

We see the grounding in micro with bullying and macro with war, e.g. a kid used to violence thinking it's no big deal to punch a kid who's not used to violence in the former, and asymmetric responses in the latter. I suppose it comes down to training. For example, how *could* Trump have known the consequences of dropping the MOAB back in 2017? In principle, the professionals he commanded would go to great lengths to *explain* the potential consequences, even though they had little data to work with themselves. Trump had the choice to be willingly ignorant or unwillingly ignorant. Let's assume Mr. Shortattentionspan did his level best to pay attention to their brief between burger bites, then pulls the trigger. Was that enough effort on his part to understand the consequences or not?

I honestly don't know. So, perhaps you're right in smearing my artificial distinction.

On 11/25/20 5:05 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> As you said, practical considerations often limit how much time can be spent understanding an adversary.    Thus it isn't clear how to me the abstract possibility of Evil is actually grounded?  At some point action must/will be taken because the other guy is will make the "vanquish" move.    All this poking and prodding is all very interesting up to medium levels of violence, but where's the line.  Is there a line?  (I think there isn't one.)


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ