💾 Archived View for yujiri.xyz › argument › what-if-everyone.gmi captured on 2022-07-16 at 14:32:05. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-06-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A common argument raised against many good ideas is some variation of "if *everyone* thought that way, X would happen". For example, when I was young and indoctrinated with conservatism, I was taught to think, "it might not seem like my vote makes a difference, but if no one voted, the system would fall apart, therefore I should vote". This is just a blatant non-sequitur.
Defining political left and right
My decision is causally independent of everyone else's. Whether I vote doesn't affect whether everyone else does, so if it really is true that my vote is not an efficient way for me to create change, then I shouldn't vote, no matter what would happen if no one voted.
One version of the Wikipedia donation ad said:
If you donate juts $2.75, the price of your Tuesday coffee, Wikipedia could keep thriving.
Dear Wikipedia admins, look I understand (from making non-scarce goods) the frustration of being a volunteer and not getting paid, but that's blatantly false. $2.75 will make no discernible difference. A truthful version of this would say "if *a whole bunch* of people donated just $2.75, Wikipedia could keep thriving".
Obviously, if one Y happens for each X, you can say that one X causes one Y, or you can say that a thousand Xs causes a thousand Ys. What you can't say is that one X causes a thousand Ys. That's what their ad said.
It's also exactly the argument I heard many people make for the COVID-19 lockdowns enforced in 2020, outlawing most economic activity and grossly violating the rights of innocents.
https://twitter.com/rechelon/status/1251940898969010176
But I dunno, maybe your personal entitlement to Baskin Robbins is worth killing millions.
There are so many other mistakes involved there, like picking out only the least important casualty of the lockdowns and portraying the protests as about just that, grossly exaggerating the death toll, and of course dismissing silently the thought that the lockdown is killing more people than it's saving.