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

Nothing is more dangerous than a well-read dictator

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Nothing is more dangerous than a well-read dictator

#21

Post by sheer_audacity »

d0mine wrote: post #19
sheer_audacity wrote: post #11

Please don’t post unherd here - it’s a bunch of U.K. journalists who want to write for the telegraph but can’t because they’re not rich enough, and the majority is tedious far right talking points you could hear anyone in a crappy pub spout off about after a few drinks.

It is like saying: don't post from internet here--it is full of garbage/trolls (it is true but irrelevant unless your point that all articles are garbage or all users are trolls). The cancel culture is cancerous.

I’m just hearing Charlie Brown teacher muah muah muah noises here, what did you say?

Let’s just have no moderation at all then - HN for people who believe in the market of ideas (that’s what you lot like calling it, right? Some nerd shit like that)

Re: Nothing is more dangerous than a well-read dictator

#22

Post by sheer_audacity »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #20
sheer_audacity wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, ideas should always be stated with the context they were produced in, including the people who made it. You can’t publish a physics paper without context (why are we checking this equation, what is the theory behind it, who are the authors behind previous papers and what have they said), let alone a boring online news article. Ideas do not create themselves spontaneously, they need a mind behind them. Don’t be te…

I believe in Pythagoras' Theorem despite the considerable uncertainty about the context in which that idea was produced

Sure, but why do you have to know it? Who taught you it? Why is it important? Do you just absorb things without context?

Re: Nothing is more dangerous than a well-read dictator

#23

Post by Ataraxiaist »

AndyMaleh wrote: post #2

People overexagerate the perils of dictators forgetting that everyone's dad and mom were dictators in their lives, the authories dictate things all the time, and every manager, president, and prime minister is a dictator of sorts. I guess, what people mostly worry about is having the wrong dictator they do not like, but truly, everybody is being dictated in one way or another, whether they admit it or not. Dictators…

I have absolutely no interest in being a dictator at all. What an utterly insane statement.

Some people are actually really secure in themselves believe it not.

Re: Nothing is more dangerous than a well-read dictator

#25

Post by carrionpigeon »

I doubt that biographical details about Stalin's erudition and connection to his political actions generalize. It's entirely possible for a well-read dictator to perform quite admirably. Take, for example, Pedro II of Brazil. He was the closest I've ever encountered to the Platonic ideal of the philosopher-king.

World leaders are highly idiosyncratic people, I think. Taking empirical psychological results that apply to general populations (more likely Western college students in practice) and expecting prominent historical figures to conform to them is a mistaken approach.

Re: Nothing is more dangerous than a well-read dictator

#26

Post by dgut »

AndyMaleh wrote: post #2

People overexagerate the perils of dictators forgetting that everyone's dad and mom were dictators in their lives, the authories dictate things all the time, and every manager, president, and prime minister is a dictator of sorts. I guess, what people mostly worry about is having the wrong dictator they do not like, but truly, everybody is being dictated in one way or another, whether they admit it or not. Dictators…

You start your argument by watering down the definition of dictator. Parents aren't dictators, they're people with authority above their offspring. This authority comes with enormous heart-felt responsibility. Being rejected by somebody doesn't make that person a dictator. Everybody is free to reject you and vice versa. If you're looking for no rejections at all, you might not be psychologically fit. Yes, the world is full of BS, this isn't a bug it's a feature - humans are creative.

> We need more dictators who can take charage and kick the wrong kind of people into prison.

Are you trolling?

Re: Nothing is more dangerous than a well-read dictator

#28

Post by picsao »

sheer_audacity wrote: post #22
spacebanana7 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in Pythagoras' Theorem despite the considerable uncertainty about the context in which that idea was produced

Sure, but why do you have to know it? Who taught you it? Why is it important? Do you just absorb things without context?

No post body was provided.

Re: Nothing is more dangerous than a well-read dictator

#29

Post by YorkshireSeason »

sheer_audacity wrote: post #11

Please don’t post unherd here - it’s a bunch of U.K. journalists who want to write for the telegraph but can’t because they’re not rich enough, and the majority is tedious far right talking points you could hear anyone in a crappy pub spout off about after a few drinks.

Have you got substantial comments about the content of the article, the relationship between literary erudition, empathy, dictatorship and violence? Interestingly Mussolini was a writer too (he published a novel), and Mao worked (like me) as a librarian.

Aside, the author of the text was the literary editor of The Independent. I imagine that could be compatible with being too poor to write for the Telegraph, who knows ...

Re: Nothing is more dangerous than a well-read dictator

#30

Post by icegreentea2 »

I think the article invites us to think of how strongly we couple the concepts of empathy and ethics. I think the article makes a reasonable argument that really empathy and ethical behavior are only related, and that one does not lead to the other (or that one is required for the other really). And that's even before we consider that ethics is essentially an axiomatic system - you create an ethical framework by setting up axioms about what is good and bad (or what is better or worse), and then extrapolate.

In fact when we look a bit closer, we can easily see the divide. Empathy is about your ability to relate, understand, feel the circumstances of another individual. Ethics is about determining what are better and worse courses of actions. They are nothing at all alike.

Another point that the article brings up that I think it very much worth re-iterating is that boxing away Stalin (and related figures...) away as being psychopaths is a cop-out to ourselves. It's a way for us to cut off our own empathy.

Post reply on HN