Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

campbellramble.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 203 posts

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#181

Post by NoGravitas »

handoflixue wrote: post #80
throwaway27448 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, ineffective action will be counterproductive. I recommend effective action.

That's exactly the point every prominent member of the "Doomer" community is making: Violence isn't an effective action; it is a counterproductive action. It is actively destructive.

Lenin called this kind of individualistic, unorganized violence "revolutionary adventurism", and strongly condemned it. The lesson is not that violence isn't effective, it's that unorganized violence isn't effective. Sufficiently organized violence can be very effective indeed.

That said, the same is true of nonviolence.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#183

Post by JKCalhoun »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #53
MostlyStable wrote: post #8

It is completely coherent to both think that an extremely bad thing is coming, and yet that does not justify any particular action. "The ends don't justify the means" and literal entire religions have been built on this concept. It is not irrational or incoherent to believe that even something as serious as extinction does not justify arbitrary action. Someone _may_ decide that it does, but it is not a necessary conc…

The older I get, the more I get the sneaking suspicion that statements like "the ends don't justify the means" and "violence is always the wrong answer" are, at best, wildly logically inconsistent in any society at any time, and at worst, designed to ensure only a very few people in power can commit violence. An ongoing conflict has resulted in the violent deaths of literally many thousands of children. The people wh…

"But our country (and a lot of them) were literally founded on political violence. How do people square those 2 ideas?"

That's easy enough. Your presumption is that the U.S. (and other countries) would not exist were it not for political violence. We don't know if that is the case as we have only the violent timeline.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#184

Post by jjk166 »

pembrook wrote: post #135
jjk166 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The is just survivorship bias. Violence sits at the root of ALL human societies. The vast majority throughout history have failed or are currently failing. That only strengthens the argument that violence is sometimes the answer. It doesn't matter that it's not always the right answer, the fact is sometimes it has been, and no society has ever managed to survive without choosing it at some point or another. Indeed,…

Sure, you can't monopolize violence under the state (and enforce laws) without the state demonstrating its willingness to use said violence (ie. forcibly put people who violate in prison or use actual violence against them if they resist). But OP was referring to political violence...which...how do I put this delicately...let's just say political polarization has led certain very-online members of the US populist-lef…

I am also talking about political violence. Specifically I'm arguing against monopolizing violence under any entity, as it leads to injustice.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#185

Post by thrance »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #179
thrance wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that the suffragettes were mentally ill?

I think they're implying that the suffragettes who set buildings on fire were mentally ill.

Hmm, maybe. Even then, there are causes worth burning buildings over, I think, and the right to vote is probably one of them.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#186

Post by [deleted] »

thrance wrote: post #174
nitwit005 wrote: post #50

Mentally ill people often have a justification for their actions which is vaguely rational, but you'll notice the vast majority of people aren't doing what they're doing. These people just get attracted to political causes somehow. Even the woman's suffrage movement had some people setting buildings on fire.

Are you implying that the suffragettes were mentally ill?

[deleted]

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#187

Post by nitwit005 »

thrance wrote: post #174
nitwit005 wrote: post #50

Mentally ill people often have a justification for their actions which is vaguely rational, but you'll notice the vast majority of people aren't doing what they're doing. These people just get attracted to political causes somehow. Even the woman's suffrage movement had some people setting buildings on fire.

Are you implying that the suffragettes were mentally ill?

[flagged]

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#189

Post by arduanika »

handoflixue wrote: post #173
arduanika wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If the only people that reach your conclusion are ones that don't actually subscribe to the philosophy, then it doesn't matter, because no one is actually acting on those conclusions." What an odd thing to say right after young Mr. Moreno-Gama reached that conclusion and did subscribe to the philosophy, when it does matter, because he did actually act on those conclusions. How odd to introduce a hypothetical that…

Every major philosophical group has killed people. Whatever beliefs you profess to hold, people have killed for them. If the presence of one or two deranged outliers is enough to reach reasonable conclusions about a group, then we can write off absolutely every single major contribution to philosophy, and conclude that having a philosophy leads only to violence and murder. You have to understand basic statistics: is…

None of this is responsive to my point in the comment you're responding to.

My point is, why would you be talking about a counterfactual world where people did not attempt to kill for this philosophy? Why would you be entertaining a categorical claim like, "the only people that reach your conclusion are ones that don't actually subscribe to the philosophy", when that claim is manifestly violated by a violent act just a few short days ago? How is it inconceivable to you that someone might read the dire doomer rhetoric in the way that Moreno-Gama did?

The only way you could write something like that is if your head is in the sand. I am willing to entertain your relativism, your base rate logic, your analogy to Jesus, sure, obviously there's some merit to that line of argument... but first you need to please pull your head out of the sand.

We can only talk about base rates if you stop trying to invalidate the data.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#190

Post by TuringTest »

vrganj wrote: post #163
TuringTest wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue plenty of significant societal changes were caused by the behavior of relatively small number of people Specific breaking points in history yeah, maybe. But that's possible because they're well connected people near the center of the network. Those breakpoints are possible because either those few people share a viewpoint held by a large number of their peers, or benefit from knowledge accumulated thr…

Nah, think of Lenin or Mao as direct counterexamples.

You think Lenin and Mao didn't have behind them an ideology in their societies that supported them? Why did people follow their orders then, mind control?
Post reply on HN