GCSAQCMIYI

>That herd immunity prevents the regular epidemics & pandemics common before vaccines

Like Scarlet fever?

Do you have some personal insight into the minds of WP employees? Do you have first-hand knowledge that the identity of the owner of the business has had no impact on any of their decisions, like who to hire or what to publish?

Leaders like Bezos don't have to write down a memo to make sure people carry out their will.

The reasons he gives for buying it don't tell us anything. His net worth is in the 12 figures. Everything he says publicly is crafted by a well paid and highly competent PR team.

If he bought it to gain political influence, which seems to me the only reason that makes any sense whatsoever, or for any other reason that would put him in a bad light, he would not in a million years come out and say that openly.

>DoD couldn't care less about Bezos' mansion or HQ2's impact on the city's economy.

How do you know that?

>And running a newspaper that continuously annoys a President doesn't really fit the apparently popular idea that Bezos is spending money to get favourable treatment from politicians.

At least from outward appearances, most of the ruling class and permanent government isn't particularly fond of the current President.

Do you think he bought it because he really likes journalism?

Not to mention the newspaper.

>That might be true, but so what? Keep your identity small. That doesn't say you shouldn't cooperate with people who don't keep their identities small. You can cooperate with people who strongly identify as members of a group without identifying as a member of that group yourself.

You're suggesting acting parasitically toward the group, in that you are gaining the benefits of others sacrificing their own goals for group goals, while not sacrificing your own goals for group goals. That sort of behavior is quite destructive to the group, and groups have (of course imperfect) mechanisms to punish people that behave that way. If you can get away with behaving that way, so be it, but the group has a strong incentive to stop you from doing so.

>It's a property of groups that if they believe the group is beneficial, they'll make compromises to maintain the existence of the group. Each compromise takes them farther from their ideals, until they're no longer really serving their original goals. As a result, I would argue that all groups tend toward not really being in the interest of the members, unless careful measures are taken to prevent that.

In the long term, sure I could buy that. But the short term benefits could easily make it worth it overall to form the group. By the time the group degenerates as you describe, the members could be vastly ahead of where they would have been otherwise.

I'm curious why you see it as "dangerously mistaken". What is the danger in making that mistake?

>Group identification is not a necessary component of cooperation.

I didn't say or suggest it was.

>if you identify as part of a group, then you will have the human impulse to take actions that achieve the goals of the group, even if those goals are incompatible with your own goals.

Sure, but the goals that you have in common with your group are more likely to be achieved if members of your group strongly identify as members of that group.

Of course, it's certainly possible for groups that aren't really in the interest of the members of the group to form.

I certainly agree that everyone's values are ultimately arbitrary, but that's pretty far outside of this discussion. Most people are self-interested, and the person I originally replied to was talking about normal people. "This phenomenon is root of all evil in modern day America. People identify with political parties as though they are sports teams."

I wonder if he is confusing the security of the nation with the security of the government.

He suggests keeping your identity small. There is only so much you can do on that front. Some potential government policies are beneficial for people with certain characteristics, including immutable ones or ones that are difficult to change, and harmful for other people. Why would it not be rational for people to align politically along the lines of those characteristics to push for policies that benefit them on that basis, especially if they believe people who don't have those characteristics are aligning to push against them?

Why do you believe that is not a rational way to act in this environment?

According to the article's sources, how many students or teachers were injured in a school shooting in, say, March 2006?