[ExI] Betting on the end of the world

[Adrian Tymes]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's an idea, though xenophobic-inclined folks might get suspicious of
> anyone or anything spouting ideas they don't like. Kind of like now when I
> try to talk to Trumpsters, they're first take us to call me an ideological
> purist (as if that's a great crime) and then shout me down.

In many debates, it is not those speaking for the other side you
should aim to convince, but the (mostly) silent audience.  Those
yelling their points and refusing to consider yours are beyond
convincing...but those they claim to speak for often are not.  A
leader without followers, a bully with no backup, a Trumpster who
finds his neighborhood's support for Trump just dropped from 65% to 4%
- these are people who are no longer effective.

But sometimes you need the patience of a saint - or of a machine - to
endure until you get your chance to speak.  Blowhards can't speak
forever.  (We have evidence from the US Congress itself, in the form
of the filibuster.  There exist plenty of filibusters, on topics seen
as just as dire in their day as many of Trump's policies are seen
today, that eventually ended by the speakers just giving up, even
knowing the subsequent vote would still go against their desired
position.  Were indefinite speech possible, there would be no reason
for this to have happened.)

> (Of course, an
> indefatigable AI or n would likely do orders of magnitude better than me
> with orders of magnitude more people.)

That is part of the point, yes.