Comment by DavidPiper
1 year ago
My favourite related blog: https://squareallworthy.tumblr.com/post/163790039847/everyon...
> If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just...” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
I kind of disagree with that. Everyone has "just started doing" a ton of things in history. For example:
* Brushing their teeth, about a hundred years ago
* Regularly washing their hands, maybe 150 years? Less?
Etc.
Of course you can find people who still don't/do all of these and any other examples you come up with. But the point is that society as a whole has changed their view of these things, and what was abnormal is now normal. Which I'm pretty is what the "if people would just" folk really mean. Nobody is dumb enough to expect 100% of people to change 100% of the time, and it's unfair to their intelligence to assume that's what they mean.
Edit: removed one example that was too emotional and distracted from the point.
The core message of "everybody will not just" is that you need to think about why people haven't already just, and address that.
With tooth-brushing and hand-washing people actually didn't know it was that good for you. So massive public health education campaigns about how they prevent acute illnesses turned out to be enough to get significant adherence. That both are very low-cost / low-burden / low-effort activities are also reasons that education on the benefits was enough.
(And educating the next generation of children to instill proper tooth-brushing and hand-washing as habits remains a perpetual ongoing effort; kids do not "just" either, they need to be educated the same way.)
Compare this to many "why won't everyone just" issues where the information is already out - merely re-proclaiming stuff already known by the audience that-will-not-just, and expecting that to turn the needle, is nonsensical.
I don't do either of those things.
* I don't think there's actually any scientific studies proving brushing works, but the toothbrush definitely sheds microplastics into your body. Same with flossing.
* I don't see the need to completely obliterate all bacteria living on the surface of a part my body just because I touched my penis for a minute.
* I don't use shampoo either, it was brought from India just 200 years ago. Anti-dandruff shampoo isn't real and we don't even know exactly what causes it.
Outwardly I'm a pretty normal person.
Here's one that looked at caries in children who brushed compared to those who didn't brush: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20116887/
> but the toothbrush definitely sheds microplastics into your body
You can use miswak, which is a type of twig.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miswak
The goal isn't to nuke the bacteria. The goal is to deny them a growth medium which could let their population explode. Cleaning not disinfecting.
Alcogel for hands and alcoholic mouthwash are things to be sure but they aren't nearly as common.
Washing your hands is good hygienic practice. Maybe you aren't a dirty slob but others are.
Hey! Always so cool to meet the main character.
> I don't see the need to completely obliterate all bacteria living on the surface of a part my body just because I touched my penis for a minute.
It's not because you touched your penis, it's because you're going to touch things in the world that other people will also touch and you respect other people's preference not to touch your penis bacteria because you're not a sociopath. Right?
9 replies →
Brushing your teeth is the opposite of an "if everyone would just" problem. You do it for yourself, you benefit from it, and you aren't affected much by whether everyone else is doing it or not.
Some people just don't do that.
Aren't you relying on the "recently" definition of just here rather than the "simply" definition?
"If everyone would just brush their teeth."
"If everyone would just wash their hands."
The four words every software developer dreads:
"Why can't you just..."
My mind automatically filled in "...add a button to"
What non technical people think is easy is usually inversely proportional to what programmers think is easy. Making things easy for the user is really fucking hard most of the time.
This reminds me of an anarchist article I recently read against voting.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-gillis-the-c...
> The argument for voting is very Kantian: “act so that if everyone acted so…” and “if no literally one voted then voting would matter again” but if literally no one voted the government wouldn’t maintain legitimacy. And in any case this is not an actual causality. When you vote you don’t magically cause everyone else like you to vote, you are a distinct agent with distinct internal thoughts. Your individual actions have only very weak externalities beyond the direct consequences of your choice/vote.
> Unfortunately the delusional thinking behind voting crops up in leftist inclinations in general. They want to build giant organizations, giant armies, with individuals all acting in low return-on-investment ways, in hopes of aggregate impact. They don’t search for opportunities of high impact individual direct action.
I was getting into an argument with some people who were yelling at me for voting third party in the USA federal election. Because I'm a Texas voter it's my fault the state won't turn blue. "If all Texas non voters voted, and if all third party voters voted democrat, the state would turn blue." And if only people would just stop committing crime, if only people would just not steal from their employees, if only people would just Do The Right Thing...
Anarchist: "If everyone would just stop forming governments"
>but if literally no one voted the government wouldn’t maintain legitimacy
This is why no one takes anarchists seriously.
Now, the problem is not voting for first parties. It's lack of mandatory voting, and FPTP voting. Change it to ranked choice and suddenly third party votes wouldn't be wasted votes.
Thanks for the link. As someone who feels disenfranchised with a countercultural thread running through, a lot of it resonated with me. I do tend to vote third party as well (maybe not this election given the state of the GOP) — after all, it’s your vote, why give it to someone you don’t agree with?
Though I will say that if you didn’t vote, then you don’t get to complain about the system because after all by not voting you’re rejecting a core tenet of the system. I gotta read more things out of this library, this is fun to noodle on.
> Though I will say that if you didn’t vote, then you don’t get to complain about the system because after all by not voting you’re rejecting a core tenet of the system. I gotta read more things out of this library, this is fun to noodle on.
As a previous water-carrier for this form of “if you don’t vote you don’t get to complain” propaganda, it’s crap. If there isn’t one single person you want to vote for on the ballot, you’re fully entitled to not vote and complain loudly about it. Making the choice to not exercise the one right does not preclude anyone’s use of the other.
14 replies →
Comment below not intended as direct rebuttal to parent comment.
It is just a relevant riff on the tired if you don't vote, don't complain BS.
Soap box mode = 1
Yes you do get to complain same as anyone does whether you or anyone voted or not.
Never let anyone tell you otherwise.
In the US, voting is not mandatory.
Casting voting as a condition of redressing ones grievances with government is actually just a psyops version of manufactured consent.
If you are inclined to consent, and you feel a vote is worth casting, by all means vote!
Maybe you think the whole thing lacks legitimacy? And you want to vote indie or third party or maybe even participate in ratfucking by voting for the very worst candidate a given party could get stuck with?
By all means vote.
Otherwise you are not required to vote and not voting is just fine.
You remain a citizen. The Constitution still applies and all that stuff we know and expect is exactly the same whether we vote or not.
Encouraging others to vote for many other reasons is fine too. Don't get me wrong there.
I am very specifically calling out the idea of ones participation in this US society being predicated on a vote.
That is just not true, and I really dislike advocacy rooted in falsehoods like this kind of advocacy always is.
Soap box mode = 0
Maybe I will take a look at this library myself!
Deciding not to murder and not to steal have measurable real-world effects. Voting in a way that results in no change does not. Voting on principle only works when you have proportional representation.
You should vote in a way that moves the needle the way you want it to move.
It is possible to get everyone to just, it’s just that it only works with smaller sets of everyone. Everyone everyone would certainly never going to just, but you could just pick a smaller everyone (like everyone in this room or something).
It's difficult for me by myself to just, and if the stars align I might be able to get a second person to just, but any group of N>2 it is impossible.
> any group of N>2 it is impossible
Not true.
I can get a few people to do a lot of things, and a lot of people to do a few things, but it's rarely 'just'. You have to acknowledge that it isn't free and it might not be easy, but convince them the rewards are worth the effort often and significantly enough that if once in a while they aren't, it still comes out in the wash.
so as long as it's not everyone, it just works.
No one really means everyone when they say “if everyone could just”. There is always an implied scope. The problem is only when scope is too large. Reduce it and everyone could literally just.
Authoritarians actually do implement "if everyone would just". Don't pretend like they don't.
Except they don't. They aren't sitting up in their ivory towers thinking: "if everyone just did X, then everything would be better". No, they are executing plans to get to that outcome. They are recruiting people, coercing people, killing people, manipulating people, seizing power, etc. All working toward their goal.
They claim to. Their advisors, lieutenants, and propagandists report great success. Their people just know better than to talk about it.
If the world could just get rid of authoritarians…
Except for the "just" part.
The world of politics needs some of this sober thinking.
That said, Lopatin below also makes a valid counterpoint.