WesternInfidels

I believe the whole free-will vs. no free-will argument has to be more subtle, more nuanced, more complicated and less obvious than the debates I’ve seen on internet message boards make it out to be, but I’m not familiar with any background material or explainers that would deepen my understanding.

Because, you know, the facile response to the entire question is something like “If there is no free will, then I have no choice about whether or not I believe in free will,” which would seem to short-circuit any possible change in our behaviors and attitudes. Probably the serious thinkers on this question have something less self-defeating in mind.

So, can anyone recommend some specific resources?

There are a lot of problems with this, but a pretty telling one, I think, is: That’s not even what “vindication” means. The global-warming-denial position would be vindicated – proven, justified, confirmed – by years or decades worth of data showing that the environment isn’t heating up.

Demonstrating that you have the political power to change the rules in spite of the data is not vindication, it’s just gloating.

Any dictionary could straighten this out for him, if he were interested in expert opinions, in being correct. But they’re not. Flouting the definitions is part of the bully strategy: “My will is your reality, peasant.”

A wonderful series of photo-heavy blog posts about Ashgabat, Turkmenistan can go some way to answering this question.

…like, how sexy are we talking?

It would be so easy to write this off as a “Florida” problem that the author knew we all might:

Lest readers assume this is some kind of Florida exceptionalism, it is far from it. State governments and university administrations in Texas, Indiana, North Carolina, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Wyoming, Tennessee, North Dakota, Georgia, and likely other states too are currently involved in similar efforts. In New Hampshire, the House just passed a bill named after Charlie Kirk that bans the teaching of “critical theories or related practices that promote division, dialectical world-views, critical consciousness or anti-constitutional indoctrination.”

“ChatGPT, please rewrite this inflammatory post full of libelous accusations using the rhetorical style of my worst enemy.”

In a sane world, the computer’s calculation would be used to guide a real investigation, which would find real evidence. The statistics wouldn’t be used as proof of anything.

I disguise my internet writings by doing them left handed.

I wouldn’t mind reading some background on this, if anyone has a link to share?