by Henry Farrell on September 13, 2013
Just a quick post to point to some good technology writing that I’ve come across in the last few days. Ann Friedman’s “piece”:https://www.thebaffler.com/past/all_linkedin_with_nowhere_to_go on LinkedIn at _The Baffler_ is excellent. The closing line of this paragraph is beautiful and damning.
bq. This frenetic networking-by-vague-association has bred a mordant skepticism among some users of the site. Scott Monty, head of social media for the Ford Motor Company, includes a disclaimer in the first line of his LinkedIn bio that, in any other context, would be a hilarious redundancy: “Note: I make connections only with people whom I have met.” It’s an Escher staircase masquerading as a career ladder.
Also good is “Susan Faludi’s article”:http://thebaffler.com/past/facebook_feminism_like_it_or_not on Facebook and feminism, and Jacob Silverman’s piece (not online) on the corporate humping social scene at SXSW. For a different but complementary view of Facebook, that builds on personal experience of what it’s like to be a woman in Silicon Valley that Faludi doesn’t have, “Melissa Gira Grant’s piece”:http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/girl-geeks-and-boy-kings at _Dissent_ is pretty awesome. Further nominations welcome in comments …
by John Q on September 13, 2013
I’ve always been envious of John Holbo’s discovery of the two-step of terrific triviality, a manoeuvre we’d all seen, but never properly identified. I’d like to solicit names for a manoeuvre I run into all the time in debates over climate policy which goes along the following lines
A: The planet is doomed unless we abandon industrial civilization/adopt my WWII-scale emergency program
B (me): On the contrary,we could cut emissions by 50 per cent quickly and with minimal effects on living standards.[^1]
A: What about cars, methane from ag production, air travel etc?
B: (me) We could cut vehicle emissions in half just by switching to the most fuel-efficient cars now on the market, methane by eating chicken instead of beef, air travel by videoconferencing and taking one long holiday in place of two short ones. The same for most other sources of emissions.[^2]
A: That’s absurd. No one would ever stand for that.
So, does anyone have a name for this manoeuvre, or, alternatively, a defense of this kind of argumentation
[^1]: Actually, we need a 90 per cent reduction by 2050. That would be a bit harder, but once you accept the idea that we could greatly reduce emissions without harming living standards, we’re down to arguing about parameter values in economic models. All economic models yield the conclusion that we could decarbonize the economy over 40 years while still improving living standards greatly.
[^2]: I’ll leave aside the question of whether it’s better to bring this about using prices (eg a carbon tax) or direct controls. My preferred answer is a bit of both, but either will work for the purposes of this example.