One fun thing to remind conservatives is that there is no group of humans on Earth more obsessed with gender than children themselves. Children code male and female and transgressions thereof incessantly, in all modes of play, dress, object choices, social relations and so on. Children cannot shut the fuck up about gender. In this, they share a quality with conservatives.

Of course the only time these people - especially the men - tend to actually be around children is when they are actively trying to fuck them, so the oversight is somewhat understandable.

Remember when it was the parent’s job to teach their children about sexuality? — NOS4A2

Yes, and often they did nothing.

The government has done such a great job.

Congratulations are on your immunity to influence (I wonder how you make any purchase decisions if you avoid all external influence), but that doesn't dispute what I said, as a broad, general rule.

Must be nice latching onto slogans, cult-like, all of your life. "Government is the problem." Easy, safe, and designed as to be impossible to falsify.

Except when Trump is in office. Then government isn't the problem. Then it's the deep state.

As Reagan said, government is the enemy.

As Reagan said, government is the enemy. — Jackson

I assume you'll decline accepting Social Security payments from the "enemy".

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.

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?

I didn’t mention you NOS. I’d get more out of talking to a fork. Carry on railing against big government — you’re doing noble work.

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. — NOS4A2

Of course we make conscious decisions, and bear responsibility for those decisions. But an optimal decision making process consists of a deliberation based on information that has come to our attention. This information comprises an external influence - it is a factor. In the absence of certain information, the specific decision would not have been made. It is therefore part of the causal chain.

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.

Government is nothing but words, with the implicit threat of violence.

I don’t go out and buy something whenever I see an advertisement for it. — NOS4A2

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.

Philosophically, it’s magical thinking. Speaking cause little more than the movement of air. Speech is an act but words are not actors. — NOS4A2

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.

I haven't disagreed about agency - of course everyone is accountable for their own direct acts - irrespective of their information environment. But this doesn't negate the fact that information has influence.

Suppose your next door neighbor has a swastika tattoo, a number of guns, and you often hear him ranting about (n-word)s. Would you share with him complaints about negative encounters you'd had with specific black individuals - knowing that he might take aggressive action against them? If he murders a 10 year old who threw rocks at your car, were your complaints not a factor that led to the murder?

Why we need to understand Republicans:

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.

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. — NOS4A2

There's no such thing as a self that's distinct from brain activity. There's no ghost in the machine. Our decisions just are brain activity, and such brain activity is a consequence of prior physical events which must originate from outside itself.

Your decision to post the above was directed in part by reading my post. You wouldn't have posted it had I not posted mine. My post influenced your post. That's all there is to the matter. Whatever kind of causal role you're arguing against is a strawman.

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. — NOS4A2

So if I am carrying a gun and threaten to kill you unless you kill someone else, and if you then kill someone else under such duress, then you should be prosecuted for murder and I should be left alone because I didn't kill anyone and because words cannot be justified as a criminal act?

@NOS4A2 be ghost'n. :razz:

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.

Words don’t have the kind of causal power you claim they do. — NOS4A2

They have exactly the kind of causal power I claim they do; the kind such that you would not have done/said X if I had not said Y.

It might not have the kind of strawman causal power that you're arguing against, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

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.

You chose to by your own volition. — NOS4A2

Choices don't occur in a vacuum. They're influenced by our environment, including the things other people say. I might choose to turn left instead of right, but I only choose to turn left because you told me that it's the fastest way to reach my destination. Your words have influenced my decision making.

And if it then turns out that turning left has led me onto what you knew to be a dangerous, collapsing road, then you bear some degree of moral responsibility for my accident, just as in the previous example of me threatening you I bear some degree of moral responsibility for the murder and can rightfully be prosecuted.

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.

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. — NOS4A2

Who said anything about force? I'm not arguing that words are compulsive. I'm just talking about the sense already mentioned: you would not have done/said X if I had not said Y. That's really all is meant when we talk about influence and incitement, and that's really all that is required for moral responsibility to be shared. If I threaten to kill you if you do not kill someone else then I share (perhaps even the majority) of the moral responsibility for you then killing someone.

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.

Influence means effect. Incite means to stir up. But there is no effect or stirring involved. — NOS4A2

Of course there is. My words have an effect on you. That's precisely how we are able to engage in conversation and share knowledge.

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.

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. — NOS4A2

It's not just the effect of my learning, it's also the effect of your speech. We cannot converse or share knowledge if we just sit in silence and stare at each other. Us actually talking is an essential component. I'm not going to pass you the butter unless you ask me to.