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

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

#211

Post by kaonashi » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 3:07 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…

The topic is about violence. Feminists aren't violent; in fact they're a reaction against gender-based violence.

> Yet, I strongly oppose feminism. I believe in equality, but not equality for one gender or skin colour or sexual orientation.

That means you're a feminist. I'm sorry you're not able to get your definitions straight.

> Bullying is not required.

Calling people out on their bullshit isn't bullying.

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

#212

Post by gjm11 » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 3:11 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…

> Is an atheist sinful by definition?

In typical Christian theology, everyone is sinful -- "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves", etc.

As to whether not being Christian is itself a variety of sin, or makes you especially bad, or guarantees damnation rather than salvation, the tradition (even the particularly important subset of it called the Bible) is not perfectly consistent. A few examples:

For": the "Letter to the Hebrews" says something like "Without believing in God it is impossible to please him".

Against: one of St Paul's letters speculates that pagans' consciences will "accuse or perhaps excuse" them when they are judged.

For: There's a rather nasty idea embedded in the Christian tradition, that deep down everyone knows* that God is real and is the way Christians say he is, and therefore people who aren't Christians are being dishonest with themselves. The main source for this in the Bible is early in the "Letter to the Romans" where St Paul says something along these lines: "God's anger is being revealed against people who wickedly suppress the truth. For since the creation of the world God's existence and nature have been apparent just from looking at what he made, but some people deny it." He goes on to link this with gay sex, weirdly enough. Anyway, I think most Christians have the decency not to assume that everyone who doesn't share their religion is a liar, and most of the rest have at least enough decency not to say it out loud, but the point is that if you think that everyone really knows that Christianity (or at least something like it) is right then it becomes more reasonable to think that those who reject it are doing so out of wickedness.

(But unless my memory is deceiving me, which it might be, the Pauline letter speculating about pagans' consciences excusing them is in fact the same one as the one that says pagans are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Make of that what you will.)

Disclaimer 1: I'm not a Christian, but I'm pretty familiar with this stuff. Disclaimer 2: Christians do not all agree about any of this, and in particular some will disagree with any given bit of the above. (Probably quite a lot will disagree either with my characterization of the thinking in Romans 1 as a "rather nasty idea" or with the idea that it's "embedded in the Christian tradition".)

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

#213

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

danharaj wrote: post #133

stcredzero wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that it's a massive, massive joke for anyone to distinguish themself from this group of people who engage in 'intellectually malformed pseudo-activism' because there are no apolitical stances and being complicit members of societies that shape the world through incredible violence is no different a hypocritical perversion of morality as anyone who rustles your jimmies on the fucking Internet. So, if I un…

> 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…

When you talk about "logical discourse" you are merely saying that if you disagree with someone, they are being illogical. When you talk about "a respect for facts" you are merely saying that if you disagree with someone, they are being disingenuous about their observations. When you talk about "mental patterns of hate", which is a real mouthful for "hateful behavior", what you are saying is that if someone claims grievance or conflict that you disagree with, they are being hateful.

Thank you very much for this excellent example! Please provide prior quotes that support your assertions with regard to my speech. If you cannot, then you are making things up in your comment, which is illogical and which does not run in accordance with a respect for facts. (And no, it's clearly not "kosher" to quote the above paragraph as evidence, as it directly references your text and was written after it. But please go ahead and provide more evidence for my position!)

Also, it is patently false to say I only label positions I disagree with as "hateful behavior." I would agree that there are certain standards in our society which should be changed, but I find some of the speech and actions taken in support of my positions to be intellectually void and repellent. Please provide quotes to the contrary, or be intellectually honest and admit you just wrote that with no factual justification.

Good cannot come of activism if hate is the driving force behind it. Expecting otherwise is like giving advice while being motivated by anger, then being surprised when some harm has resulted. Expecting good to come of activism that's guided and motivated by anger is like being a parent while working out your anger from childhood traumas, then being surprised when some harm comes of this.

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

#214

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 3:33 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #165

stcredzero wrote: post #95

I find that the most anti-intellectualism, cheap-shot emotional abuse, and stereotyping on the Internet is motivated by moral sentiments through online pseudo "activists" who are really working out their anger and self-esteem issues under the supposed imprimatur of one cause or another. This goes for select subsets of both ends of the political spectrum, and select subgroups on both sides of any hot-button issue. Att…

>>I find that the most anti-intellectualism, cheap-shot emotional abuse, and stereotyping on the Internet is motivated by moral sentiments through online pseudo "activists" who are really working out their anger and self-esteem issues under the supposed imprimatur of one cause or another. I'm starting to come round to the Joe Rogan theory of these people - they are deeply unhappy, angry people with issues, but findin…

But certainly, entire causes can't be reduced to being only such behavior. And while they all "brand" themselves under the name of a cause, it's often easy to tell the difference through the anti-intellectualism, bad use of logic, and inability to justify their actions other than through relative comparison to the sensational evil they are supposedly opposing. (But which they are actually indirectly fueling through their promulgation of hate.)

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

#215

Post by maldusiecle » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 3:34 PM UTC

option_greek wrote: post #193

7952 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both womens rights and LGBT right sit at a strange point in history. The bad behaviour has largely become socially unacceptable, but a lot of the people who committed crimes are still extant in society. We have collectively decided to forgive and forget without any kind of process. Why should we expect the anger to just disapear?

I understand that crimes have been committed against the LGBT community (including prosecution of Turing). But crimes based on women's right ? Do we base them on the same scale ? (genuinely curious)

This kind of argument kind of baffles me. Surely you're aware that women have suffered violence as a result of their lack of rights, aren't you? For large parts of history, domestic violence against women has been ignored or joked about, or in some places explicitly made legal. Until relatively recently, spousal rape wasn't even considered a crime.

I guess there's this notion that, pre-feminism, women had fewer rights but were otherwise left alone and unharmed, in peaceful domestic spaces. But that's really the wrong way of looking at it. Prisoners in solitary confinement are left and alone and not physically harmed, but no one would say they aren't suffering. The way women have historically been denied access to the public sphere and convinced of their inferiority is itself a kind of imprisonment, and it's a massive crime.

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

#216

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 3:42 PM UTC

kaonashi wrote: post #211

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…

The topic is about violence. Feminists aren't violent; in fact they're a reaction against gender-based violence. > Yet, I strongly oppose feminism. I believe in equality, but not equality for one gender or skin colour or sexual orientation. That means you're a feminist. I'm sorry you're not able to get your definitions straight. > Bullying is not required. Calling people out on their bullshit isn't bullying.

Calling people out on their bullshit isn't bullying.

When the effect is merely to pressure, and not to convince, then in that particular context, people who may have been legitimately oppressed have (temporarily) become the oppressors.

The difference between calling people out on their bullshit versus bullying is this: In "calling people out" -- people are shown their self-contradiction in such a way that they are given a chance to better live up to their moral system. It becomes bullying when people are only vilified, placed in an irredeemable category, then effectively punished in some way.

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

#217

Post by knieveltech » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 3:45 PM UTC

logicallee wrote: post #153

ddingus wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It's not that I prefer to validate those comments. No, it's more about understanding. Personally, I would rather see the context and know something about the conflict than see [flagged] and see worthy rebuttals out of context.

I third this opinion. I didn't / wouldn't upvote it but primarily due to the tone: it should be edited down and a bit more civil. That's it. No major objection from me. The note from Dang is good, it can help steer the commenter for the future.

Well I strongly disagree with this. I see no reason to believe civility and meaningful communication are directly correlated. Quite the contrary. Forcing others to maintain a tone you find pleasant (poorly defined variable) strips an entire sideband from a conversation. What's up with the insistence that everyone be warm and fuzzy at all times anyway?

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

#218

Post by kaonashi » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 3:48 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #216

kaonashi wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic is about violence. Feminists aren't violent; in fact they're a reaction against gender-based violence. > Yet, I strongly oppose feminism. I believe in equality, but not equality for one gender or skin colour or sexual orientation. That means you're a feminist. I'm sorry you're not able to get your definitions straight. > Bullying is not required. Calling people out on their bullshit isn't bullying.

Calling people out on their bullshit isn't bullying. When the effect is merely to pressure, and not to convince, then in that particular context, people who may have been legitimately oppressed have (temporarily) become the oppressors. The difference between calling people out on their bullshit versus bullying is this: In "calling people out" -- people are shown their self-contradiction in such a way that they are gi…

> When the effect is merely to pressure, and not to convince, then in that particular context, people who may have been legitimately oppressed have (temporarily) become the oppressors.

Putting pressure on someone to behave themselves isn't oppression. You can't possibly have gone through life without seeing actual oppression.

> It becomes bullying when people are only vilified, placed in an irredeemable category, then effectively punished in some way.

Nobody is irredeemable; but some people don't want redemption. When people refuse to behave themselves, they get shunned. This is a normal human defense mechanism.

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

#219

Post by belorn » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 4:01 PM UTC

throwaway7767 wrote: post #190

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…

Now you're elevating a vocal subset of "feminists" to represent the entire group. There are plenty of old-school feminists, from when feminism was about equal rights. They just don't create as much internet drama as the other kind, so you hear about them less.

Its hard to disregard that subset here in Sweden when there a government that self-identify itself as feminist.

Several years ago there was a initiative to create equality in education. Any student that was a minority in their class received a minor bonus as an incentive. The initiative was however deemed a failure when it was realized that the majority of student fulfilling the requirement was men and not women. Afterward it was sent to the courts which promptly declared the initiative as discriminative against students who weren't minorities. Now only a short time ago a new initiative was suggested by a government study, with the primary difference from the old one being that it will now only apply in studies where men are the majority.

So excuse me for having a hard time finding those old-school feminists that talks about equal rights. The only time I saw one was in a opinion piece a year ago where equal rights was described as the "old" feminism movement, and I saw a lot of hatred directed at her rather than support in the comments.

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

#220

Post by tomjen3 » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 4:04 PM UTC

kaonashi wrote: post #211

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…

The topic is about violence. Feminists aren't violent; in fact they're a reaction against gender-based violence. > Yet, I strongly oppose feminism. I believe in equality, but not equality for one gender or skin colour or sexual orientation. That means you're a feminist. I'm sorry you're not able to get your definitions straight. > Bullying is not required. Calling people out on their bullshit isn't bullying.

>The topic is about violence. Feminists aren't violent; in fact they're a reaction against gender-based violence.

This is board with many nerds. It is fair to say that we have all been bullied to some degree. Bullying may not be violent to the degree that it physically hits people over the head, but it is far more violent than anything feminism complains about.

And Doctor Matt Taylor was bullied for what clothing he choose to wear. By feminists.