That's what's known as 'influence' in this context.

I think the idea of “influence” is the sort of magical thinking I’m talking about. It implies an action at a distance I’m very uncomfortable with.

A necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. Leaving the counterfactuals aside, we can examine the video and see that Will Smith animates himself, with no outside force or condition lifting him into the air, no strings attached to his limbs walking him up onto stage to slap Chris Rock.



No wonder you want this thread to disappear: It’s basically an embarrassing compendium of your belief in hoaxes and fake news.

It doesn’t follow that the circumstances are a part of the cause. The fact that it was the Oscars does not mean the Oscars were a cause of Will Smith’s assault on Chris Rock.



Nope.

I see nothing wrong with that.

I can’t disagree with that. At best a gun can serve as an equalizer in such situations, giving the weak and vulnerable an upper hand in the admittedly rare chance violence occurs to them. But of course there is no guarantee of a favorable outcome, and the risks of carrying one is endless.

Right, I do not think the circumstances caused Will Smith to assault Chris Rock, for instance.

I’m finding it hard to remember where we disagree.

Ukrainian authorities had to effectively beg for weapons, and of course had to make it legal for civilians to walk around with guns for self-protection. It’s amazing the desire for firearms and weapons when it finally comes down to it.



I understand that. All I know is that if I am ever confronted with an armed robber or murderer, I would like to have a gun.

The police don't carry guns here because they don't need them and neither do we because we don't have a gun culture. So, it's not an issue.

There is no violent crime where you live?

Do you believe Chris rock caused Will Smith to hit him?

NOS4A2 is conflating causation with moral accountability, and has an extreme view of libertarian free will (LFW).

LFW implies there is a degree of choice independent of the external environment, not that there is a complete absence of external environment.

Chris Rock was part of the Will Smith's external environment. Had Chris not made the joke, Will would not have hit him. Chris played a causal role. This does not eliminate or lessen Will's moral accountability, but clearly Will was reacting (inappropriately) to Chris.

After this therefor because of this. The post hoc fallacy lets one believe in a false cause without having to prove its effect. Every act of Will Smith began and ended with Will Smith. Chris Rock didn’t cause Will Smith to rise from his chair any more than he caused the rest of the audience to remain seated. Will Smith caused Will Smith to slap Chris Rock.

Who is to blame for you paying taxes? You or the government? The existence of a law and the threat of punishment doesn't force you to do anything; that would (apparently) be magical thinking. You choose to pay taxes. If you choose to pay taxes then taxation isn't theft. Will you accept that conclusion?

I do choose to pay taxes. I choose to pay because if I don’t the government punishes me. But it also skims from every purchase. It takes from every paycheck before I even see my money. It steals my capital gains, my property, whatever I can save up for my family should I die. Not only is it theft, but also robbery, extortion, slavery.

I just can’t imagine being so trusting as to put faith in others with guns to protect my life.

Not if I spoke a different language. Same meaning, same knowledge, different symbols. You understand these words because you’ve spent time learning the language. It is the effect of your learning, your self.

Influence means effect. Incite means to stir up. But there is no effect or stirring involved. Setting a precedent based on magical thinking is a very bad idea.

I understand the folk psychology of “influence”. You make decisions based on information you pick up from the environment and believe the information has effected you in some way, somehow forcing you to turn left. But there is zero physical evidence of this cause and effect.

No, I get it. If I had not started talking about this you would not have responded. But your argument is redundant. I did not influence you to read, think about it, or respond. You chose to by your own volition.

How do the neutered propose to protect themselves without guns? They call upon others who do have guns.

I don’t think there is a ghost in the machine. I also don’t believe in a brain in a vat. The self extends beyond the brain and it’s activity but not beyond the skin. We’re organisms, not brains, not brain activity. So no; no decisions or prior states occur outside the self.

I saw and read your post. I’m not denying that. But your influence and persuasion neither influenced nor persuaded me. You came across my posts, decided to engage with them by your own volition. I didn’t influence you to do anything. Words don’t have the kind of causal power you claim they do.

OK.

But it's still an empirical fact that advertising increases sales. That's why companies spend so much money on advertising. And it's an empirical fact that campaigning increases votes. That's why political parties spend so much money on campaigning.

It is an empirical fact that our decisions are influenced by our environment, including the things other people tell us.

That you, personally, don't succumb to such influences every time is a strawman.

I was disputing the argument that “Words/information cause reactions”, and that this is the reason that advertising works. I wasn’t saying advertising doesn’t work.

So you're saying that persuasion/incitement is a (meta)physical impossibility? That advertising and campaigning work would prove you wrong.

And if we were to take a more technical view, the libertarian concept of free will is inconsistent with what I think is the more reasonable account that the human mind (and any associated decision making) is a product of brain activity which is subject to the same deterministic (and occasionally stochastic) physical processes as everything else. We don't have anything like a "soul" that is able to transcend these influences.

It doesn’t prove me wrong. Ads and campaigns hardly work. They are better than nothing, though.

The physical processes that produce brain activity are nonetheless that of the individual, and therefor determined by him. Until you can show that a human’s action is determined by some outer or foreign force, it seems to me your view is without merit.

Yes; we hear articulated sounds and observe marks on paper, among a seemingly infinite deluge of other details, all of which are factors. But this is activity we perform. We hear, we look, we read, we understand, we act, and so on. We are the agent of this activity at every moment. We may act upon those particular marks and sounds more or less than others, but they hardly act upon us more or less than any other detail.

I’ve never used your slogan. No need to make stuff up.

Governments are large employers, even corporate in nature, but you don’t like when someone speaks ill of it. Why is that?

A connection, influence, the words caused me to go buy something—it’s all figurative. None of it negates the conscious, decision-making process, which is the true cause of one’s activity. Words cause none of it.

The government has done such a great job.

Remember when it was the parent’s job to teach their children about sexuality?

Words/information cause reactions. That's why advertising works.

I don’t go out and buy something whenever I see an advertisement for it.

What is the connection?

Alienation isn’t the feeling of estrangement, but an act of hostility that causes someone to feel estranged. So an unalienated worker is someone who doesn’t face such hostilities.

They are crimes according to some species of legalism, but they wouldn’t be if people refused to do what they were ordered. So despite the legal theories the fact remains: whether people obey or disobey an order is not determined by the words.

Good. Repubs are equally as evil, in my mind.

I appreciate free speech too much to punish someone for speaking.

Bullets can tear through a person’s body. Shooting someone is justifiably a criminal act. Words possess no such force, have zero connection to another’s actions, and thus speaking cannot be justified as criminal act. I think your view is magical thinking.

Anyways, have a good one. Be free.

For what?

Slavery was once legally sound. Philosophically, it’s magical thinking. Speaking cause little more than the movement of air. Speech is an act but words are not actors.

Then it’s their stupidity that led them to do it, not the words of someone else.

Do you go out and kill cops if a politician says such things?

Because words do not cause any such crimes

Nope

People should not be prosecuted, jailed or impeached for the sounds that come out of their mouths. But, as that era has proven, the bar has already been set.

The COVID pandemic proved who the fascists were, and it wasn’t Trump. Now they have all the power they need.

I have zero faith in the American justice system, but some hoaxers are finally being put through it.

Michael Sussmann: Clinton lawyer 'lied to manipulate FBI over Trump'

Unfortunately the useful idiots that fell for it and promulgated it every chance they could will never learn from their stupidity. Tales like this and others reminds me that Anti-Trumpism and it’s supporters have shaped the world to what it is today—war, inflation, division on a mass scale.