Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments • Hacker News Board

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#201

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:43 PM UTC

rustynails wrote: post #177

TeMPOraL wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Toxoplasma Of Rage", an excellent essay[0] by Scott Alexander, points out that sadly there are only two choices for activists today - behave nicely, gather universal agreement to their cause and then get completely ignored, or draw attention to their cause by being so hated by everyone, that half of the audience starts working against the cause just in spite. [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxopl…

I know what you're saying but it isn't true. Let's look at 2 examples, the LGBT community and Feminism. LGBT celebrates its differences. It welcomes everyone. It is open minded and tolerant. Feminism bullies, ridicules, excludes, creates us/them divides and is continually hypocritical. You could not have 2 more different different approaches. You don't need to be a bully. You don't need to threaten or ridicule or div…

Actually, in addition to the sibling comments notes about plenty of non-bullying feminists that just perhaps aren't as visible, there are plenty (and highly visible) LGBT activists who will be just as bullying as you claim feminists, distinct from LGBT activists, are. The same is true of.pretty much any movement that has a political, or more generally "how people should act", aspect.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#202

Post by tobbyb » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:46 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #145

danharaj wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lastly: From the tenor of your comment, it would seem that my writings have touched a nerve. Let's establish one thing first, and it's that I'm not a teenager and therefore my command of language is such that I have some degree of control over the tone I convey in writing. It does not take a struck nerve to litter someone's writing with fucks and write pointedly. Your writing style is as artificial as mine and I fi…

Please stop posting inflammatory ideological rants to Hacker News. Please also stop posting personal attacks, which this comment crosses into and which you've done before. Those are not allowed here.

I have often appreciated your quick interventions to stop snark and abuse on this message board. But this doesn't seem right.

This thread by its definition is controversial and lends itself to subjective option and heated discussion, more than others. At what point does opinion become 'ideology' as every single comment can be described as such, who decides the thin line between ideology and opinion and worse cross it to label and dismiss a 'comment' in this context as an 'inflammatory ideological rant'? This is extremely subjective and dangerous territory.

Abuse, snark and insult do not lend themselves to subjectivity and are easily flagged. But in this case I think the comment makes a genuine attempt to engage, reason and articulate a point of view, and is not dismissive or abusive but veers slightly to the personal as did the original commentator. But still deserves to be heard and not hidden. The warnings about abuse or bad language is not subjective and hold.

But it would be unfortunate to want to hide away articulated and reasoned responses one may not agree with as that inevitably leads to an echo chamber bereft of diversity, pushing away diverse opinions, and in effect making discussion pointless. In my case, rightly or wrongly, it discouraged me from reading the rest of the thread, as it appears anything diverse will be flagged and leave behind a sterile and uninteresting discussion.

Perhaps Hacker News is not the right forum for this discussion. How does one discuss violence against people and sometimes entire populations for political or other ends with a distant and dispassionate tone without coming off as passive and unfeeling, unlike a more technical subject in which passion may be misplaced and derail discussion.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#203

Post by kbutler » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #127

Xcelerate wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My morals don't necessarily match up with what I would do in certain situations.

That's like saying you don't believe in monsters, yet refusing to open the closet. Your morals match exactly what you would do. What you say about your morals doesn't. What you are is what you do , after all, not what you imagine yourself to be.

Our morals guide what we hope to become, but aren't always reflected by what we are today.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#204

Post by brlewis » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 2:29 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #145

danharaj wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lastly: From the tenor of your comment, it would seem that my writings have touched a nerve. Let's establish one thing first, and it's that I'm not a teenager and therefore my command of language is such that I have some degree of control over the tone I convey in writing. It does not take a struck nerve to litter someone's writing with fucks and write pointedly. Your writing style is as artificial as mine and I fi…

Please stop posting inflammatory ideological rants to Hacker News. Please also stop posting personal attacks, which this comment crosses into and which you've done before. Those are not allowed here.

I agree, there are parts of the comment that get personal.

I disagree with the "ideological rant" part. Yes, Western military action in the Middle East is a classic flamewar topic, but for an article about violence that the perpetrators think is the moral thing to do, it's very much on-topic. Also, nobody else seems to be talking about the Overton window with regard to "extremes".

Ideally, everyone would steer clear of personal attacks regardless of the topic and regardless of provocation. (I see "it would seem that my writings have touched a nerve" as provocation.) But that's an awfully high bar to hold people to.

I vouched for the flagged comment because of its unique contribution to the discussion, even though I didn't like all the "you" parts.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#205

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 2:30 PM UTC

kelukelugames wrote: post #130

stcredzero wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone said it makes up a large portion of activism, or even implied it. However, such pseudo-activism makes enough noise, that I have seen the following: There are young people out there that have labeled in their minds some pretty unsavory activities as being somehow noble or intellectually worthy. There are young people out there who believe such shallow notions, like that the use of certain phrases…

What are some causes that you personally agree with but think are marred by hateivism?

I very rarely agree wholesale with a cause nowadays. Most often, I can be sympathetic to certain elements of a cause. That said, here are some key examples: There are some parts of Feminism that I agree with, but I also find some feminists to be hateful and repellent. There are select points made by Men's Rights activists I also agree with, though I find some Men's Rights supporters to be hateful and repellent.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#206

Post by stillsut » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 2:33 PM UTC

cousin_it wrote: post #183

vlehto wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go bit further. Let's assume everybody agreed with the "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" and everybody would have 100% similar general picture of what is moral. Two people still interpret a situation from two points of view. Both making the judgement that the other guy is out of bounds. Which justifies some apprehension. But they both experience wrongful apprehension, which justifies pretty big apprehension. Wh…

My favorite example: 1) Randomly divide people into two groups. 2) Ask everyone in the first group this question: "If someone sues you and loses, is it fair that they should pay your legal costs?" Most people will say yes. 3) Ask everyone in the second group this question: "If you sue someone and lose, is it fair that you should pay their legal costs?" Most people will say no. Even though it's the same fucking questi…

I like this example and might steal it.

But I'd offer you a [bayesian] counter-argument: Say an HIV test is 99% accurate and responds positive on a randomly selected person. What's the chance they actually have HIV? About 5%! [0]. However, if you have prior reasons to believe you may have HIV, the chances are a lot higher than 5% given a positive test.

To tie that back to lawsuits, your participants in the study have their priors set so that they don't expect to engage in frivolous lawsuits towards anyone. However they will likely recognize that they could fall victim to a frivolous lawsuit, and if they're normal, then the only type of lawsuits they could imagine being forced on them is a frivolous suit.

Another way to say that is: probably 90% of the ridiculous lawsuits originate from 1% of the population. Then 99% of your participants will mentally model themselves as a sincere plaintiff (thus they shouldn't have to pay even if they lose), while a 1% frivolous rate is certainly high enough to make plausible the threat of being the defendant, and thus worthy of protection through legal fee reimbursement.

[0]: http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs199/lectures/34-bayes-rule.html

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#207

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 2:36 PM UTC

karmacondon wrote: post #166

stcredzero wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most human beings and human societies agree on the same general points of morality. - Killing -- Try really, really hard not to do this! - Lying -- Please try really, really hard not to do this! Or there's George Carlin's formulation: "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" I think everyone has a pretty good idea of what this means, and most people agree on the broad outlines. The devil is in the details, of course. Then…

I feel like you missed the point of the article. While the world agrees that killing, or generally being a jerk is bad, we are hopelessly divided on the issues like the death penalty, honor killing of rape victims, applying the death penalty to the mentally disabled, use of drones in armed conflicts, etc. As the grandparent comment pointed out, there is no objective source of morality on any issue. As the OP pointed…

How about, "The ends don't justify the means?"

What was done under the leadership of MLK and Gandhi had an acute awareness of how the instincts around "othering" could take hold of an activist group. I wish there was much more of that today.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#208

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 2:39 PM UTC

ordinary wrote: post #171

humanrebar wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have opinions, of course, but I aspire to have them grounded in scripture. However, you asked, so I'll try to share my take on violence and sin. Keep in mind that I'm not an expert theologian. I'm willing to be wrong on these points if someone can show me how I'm missing some detail or theme in the teaching of the Bible. Also, since the importance of sin is in the intention behind the thoughts and actions and not i…

First of all, thank you for your contributions to this thread. They've been very interesting. I noticed a couple of points in this post that I would like some clarification on, if you have the time and inclination. Christians are supposed to submit to their government, even oppressive ones. There are quite a few references for this (b) (c). Finding more examples isn't difficult if you want more. Where does this senti…

[deleted]

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#209

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 3:01 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #201

rustynails wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what you're saying but it isn't true. Let's look at 2 examples, the LGBT community and Feminism. LGBT celebrates its differences. It welcomes everyone. It is open minded and tolerant. Feminism bullies, ridicules, excludes, creates us/them divides and is continually hypocritical. You could not have 2 more different different approaches. You don't need to be a bully. You don't need to threaten or ridicule or div…

Actually, in addition to the sibling comments notes about plenty of non-bullying feminists that just perhaps aren't as visible, there are plenty (and highly visible) LGBT activists who will be just as bullying as you claim feminists, distinct from LGBT activists, are. The same is true of.pretty much any movement that has a political, or more generally "how people should act", aspect.

[deleted]

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#210

Post by cousin_it » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 3:06 PM UTC

stillsut wrote: post #206

cousin_it wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite example: 1) Randomly divide people into two groups. 2) Ask everyone in the first group this question: "If someone sues you and loses, is it fair that they should pay your legal costs?" Most people will say yes. 3) Ask everyone in the second group this question: "If you sue someone and lose, is it fair that you should pay their legal costs?" Most people will say no. Even though it's the same fucking questi…

I like this example and might steal it. But I'd offer you a [bayesian] counter-argument: Say an HIV test is 99% accurate and responds positive on a randomly selected person. What's the chance they actually have HIV? About 5%! [0]. However, if you have prior reasons to believe you may have HIV, the chances are a lot higher than 5% given a positive test. To tie that back to lawsuits, your participants in the study have…

Yes, fair enough.