The obvious examples are all political, think “why anyone would feel their own identity was threatened by someone else making a different decision about X” with X being any of (more loaded—because they deal with identity-loaded issues) marriage, abortions, etc.
We seem to differ mostly about how important (not for functional, but signalling/identity—which I see as self-signalling—purposes) cars are to the average American. Is that correct? The market for fast luxury cars (Porsche et al) seems to indicate there is something not strictly functional going on. How many would buy an autonomous 911 versus one you drive yourself?
(Also, it would’ve been hard to quote “chaffeur” without having read the c, the h, the a, the f, another f, the e, the u and the r. I did miss a “u”, sorry for that. Still, 8 out of 9! Hopefully that’s settled then.)
We seem to differ mostly about how important (not for functional, but signalling/identity—which I see as self-signalling—purposes) cars are to the average American. Is that correct?
No, that is not the crux of our disagreement. I do disagree somewhat, but that is a side-argument.*
The main disagreement we have is rooted in this:
However, I’ve seen the more general pattern all too often: “I personally object to X, therefore X should be forbidden for everyone.” Gay marriage, abortion, THC, you name it.
and this:
The obvious examples are all political, think “why anyone would feel their own identity was threatened by someone else making a different decision about X” with X being any of (more loaded—because they deal with identity-loaded issues) marriage, abortions, etc.
Do you also think that liberals oppose guns, GMOs, and fission power plants out of a desire to protect their personal identities? Or do they actually have some reasons to be concerned?
You are really assuming the worst about the people you disagree with. I think the reason some people are wary of self-driving cars is that they are actually afraid of harm caused by self-driving cars. My position has the benefit of simplicity: people are saying what they mean. Your position is based on woo about gender identity and subconscious motivations.
Personally I disagree with the people who are afraid of self-driving cars.
I disagree with the dichotomy you’ve set up—not everything is about utilitarian function or signalling. Many car drivers enjoy their fast cars because they are fun—in the same way puzzles, action movies, drugs, roller coasters, and cooking are fun. Because of the kick of endorphins they get from going 150 mph, etc. But certainly signalling is also a major part of car decisions.
While I am claiming that A: “I personally do not like / object to X based on subconscious etc. reasons” leads to B: “X should be illegal” all too often, I am not claiming that B: “X should be illegal” necessarily implies A:”(...) because of subsconscious etc. motivations”.
Does that explanation help?
Do you also think that liberals oppose guns, GMOs, and fission power plants out of a desire to protect their personal identities? Or do they actually have some reasons to be concerned?
In part, yes. Nothing better for building group identity than a common enemy to rally against. There are legitimate actual reasons, but looking at protestors chaining themselves to train tracks to stop trains with fissile material, I’d doubt they are driven mostly by rational reasoning.
Personally I disagree with the people who are afraid of self-driving cars.
So do I. I’d be happy to be an early adopter.
I didn’t aim to set up an absolute dichotomy, I’ll reread my previous comments for clarity. It was merely a reason among many (two of which I expounded upon).
The obvious examples are all political, think “why anyone would feel their own identity was threatened by someone else making a different decision about X” with X being any of (more loaded—because they deal with identity-loaded issues) marriage, abortions, etc.
We seem to differ mostly about how important (not for functional, but signalling/identity—which I see as self-signalling—purposes) cars are to the average American. Is that correct? The market for fast luxury cars (Porsche et al) seems to indicate there is something not strictly functional going on. How many would buy an autonomous 911 versus one you drive yourself?
(Also, it would’ve been hard to quote “chaffeur” without having read the c, the h, the a, the f, another f, the e, the u and the r. I did miss a “u”, sorry for that. Still, 8 out of 9! Hopefully that’s settled then.)
No, that is not the crux of our disagreement. I do disagree somewhat, but that is a side-argument.*
The main disagreement we have is rooted in this:
and this:
Do you also think that liberals oppose guns, GMOs, and fission power plants out of a desire to protect their personal identities? Or do they actually have some reasons to be concerned?
You are really assuming the worst about the people you disagree with. I think the reason some people are wary of self-driving cars is that they are actually afraid of harm caused by self-driving cars. My position has the benefit of simplicity: people are saying what they mean. Your position is based on woo about gender identity and subconscious motivations.
Personally I disagree with the people who are afraid of self-driving cars.
I disagree with the dichotomy you’ve set up—not everything is about utilitarian function or signalling. Many car drivers enjoy their fast cars because they are fun—in the same way puzzles, action movies, drugs, roller coasters, and cooking are fun. Because of the kick of endorphins they get from going 150 mph, etc. But certainly signalling is also a major part of car decisions.
While I am claiming that A: “I personally do not like / object to X based on subconscious etc. reasons” leads to B: “X should be illegal” all too often, I am not claiming that B: “X should be illegal” necessarily implies A:”(...) because of subsconscious etc. motivations”.
Does that explanation help?
In part, yes. Nothing better for building group identity than a common enemy to rally against. There are legitimate actual reasons, but looking at protestors chaining themselves to train tracks to stop trains with fissile material, I’d doubt they are driven mostly by rational reasoning.
So do I. I’d be happy to be an early adopter.
I didn’t aim to set up an absolute dichotomy, I’ll reread my previous comments for clarity. It was merely a reason among many (two of which I expounded upon).