![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Complexity
Back in 2000, I was approached, at a Muni station, by a supporter of a fairly hardline candidate for Attorney General. "No thanks," I said, "I don't think more jails is the answer." "Well, what do you think the answer is then?" he asked, indignantly, "Less jails?"
This is the sort of thinking that is holding us back as a state (and, on a larger scale, as a nation). If you don't want more jails, you must want less jails. If you don't want cuts in education, you must want tax hikes. If you don't support the death penalty for one person on death row, you must be anti-death penalty. If you didn't support the preemptive invasion of Iraq, you must have supported Saddam Hussein. If you support gay marriage, you must support pederasty.
Malarkey. This is simplistic thinking, suitable to simpletons, and I for one am sick of it. The world is not binary. Human beings are not binary. We are capable of complexity, and it's about damn time we started to embrace it.
Complexity has become a dirty word in politics these days. It's become a way of tuning out the average person, of perpetuating the status quo. When we ask why we have crime in our cities, we're told it's complicated, and we let it go at that. Who wants to dive into the complexities of race relations, the urban family unit, economic depression, urban blight? It's much easier to just assign blame and say it's complicated. Why don't kids do well in school? Obviously it's because the teachers aren't doing their jobs. Or it's because parents aren't concerned about their children's education. Or because the Man is keeping Mama's baby-daddy from getting a real job and making the child-support payments. Can't fix that-- it's complicated.
And the problem never gets solved.
You want to know whose fault it is? I'll tell you, so we can get on with fixing it. It's my fault. Yep, it's all my fault. My bad, me to blame, I'm the one, I did it. Have we got that out of the way yet? Good. Now let's get going on fixing it.
Start by figuring out where we can make a change, the biggest change on the smallest level. Recognize that whatever the problem is (schools, teen pregnancies, kids smoking stupid amounts of dope), you're going to need to spend more money before you can afford to spend less money. Recognize that the price you pay to live in a somewhat safe society is the taxes that go to build the programs that keep the kids from ripping off the stereo in you car. Recognize that if you buy a luxury car, you're at higher risk and ought to pay more.
Remember, though, when you feel like grousing and moaning, that a small, cost-effective prevention plan will trump a more expensive fix-it plan later on.
So when the politicians start circling like vultures, saying, "We must return to basics!" or "More taxes will drive more business out of the state!" or "Welfare just encourages more welfare!" take a deep breath and take the plunge into complexity. Figure out for yourself that nothing is simplistic enough to fit into a soundbyte.
If we all did that, we'd be one step closer to getting through this mess.
This is the sort of thinking that is holding us back as a state (and, on a larger scale, as a nation). If you don't want more jails, you must want less jails. If you don't want cuts in education, you must want tax hikes. If you don't support the death penalty for one person on death row, you must be anti-death penalty. If you didn't support the preemptive invasion of Iraq, you must have supported Saddam Hussein. If you support gay marriage, you must support pederasty.
Malarkey. This is simplistic thinking, suitable to simpletons, and I for one am sick of it. The world is not binary. Human beings are not binary. We are capable of complexity, and it's about damn time we started to embrace it.
Complexity has become a dirty word in politics these days. It's become a way of tuning out the average person, of perpetuating the status quo. When we ask why we have crime in our cities, we're told it's complicated, and we let it go at that. Who wants to dive into the complexities of race relations, the urban family unit, economic depression, urban blight? It's much easier to just assign blame and say it's complicated. Why don't kids do well in school? Obviously it's because the teachers aren't doing their jobs. Or it's because parents aren't concerned about their children's education. Or because the Man is keeping Mama's baby-daddy from getting a real job and making the child-support payments. Can't fix that-- it's complicated.
And the problem never gets solved.
You want to know whose fault it is? I'll tell you, so we can get on with fixing it. It's my fault. Yep, it's all my fault. My bad, me to blame, I'm the one, I did it. Have we got that out of the way yet? Good. Now let's get going on fixing it.
Start by figuring out where we can make a change, the biggest change on the smallest level. Recognize that whatever the problem is (schools, teen pregnancies, kids smoking stupid amounts of dope), you're going to need to spend more money before you can afford to spend less money. Recognize that the price you pay to live in a somewhat safe society is the taxes that go to build the programs that keep the kids from ripping off the stereo in you car. Recognize that if you buy a luxury car, you're at higher risk and ought to pay more.
Remember, though, when you feel like grousing and moaning, that a small, cost-effective prevention plan will trump a more expensive fix-it plan later on.
So when the politicians start circling like vultures, saying, "We must return to basics!" or "More taxes will drive more business out of the state!" or "Welfare just encourages more welfare!" take a deep breath and take the plunge into complexity. Figure out for yourself that nothing is simplistic enough to fit into a soundbyte.
If we all did that, we'd be one step closer to getting through this mess.
rarr
The excluded middle fallacy?
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILLDREN??
Re: rarr
no subject
Re:
Re:
Re:
no subject
For example, I am opposed to legal euthanasia. This position causes people to assume all kinds of things about my other opinions. But these assumptions come from their initial assumption of why I'm against it. As it happens, my position does not come from concepts on the sanctity of life, but rather from practical considerations. I am concerned about murder disguised as euthanasia and my concern is borne out by problems in countries that do have legal euthanasia.
But because everything is so polarized, unless I explain my practical concern about the issue, people assume that I hold a ton of other beliefs that I wasn't even talking about. They begin to argue based on those assumptions.
This is what happens with the DA candidate who wanted to increase the number of jails.
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re:
Binary?
A 1 means "I would" and a 0 means "I wouldn't."
Re: Binary?