Live data from Hacker News

On Disbelieving Atrocities (1944)

pastebin.com

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: On Disbelieving Atrocities (1944)

#41
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, maybe pretend e.g. the Nazis were convinced of the errors of their ways -- rather than defeated first militarily, and then shamed socially. I'd say, "what you should do" is to organize with others and enforce boundaries on those who are in the "bubble" of not giving a (meaningful) fuck of continued organized existence of the human race. Deal with the mote in your own eye, just to shut Jesus up, and then…

> I'd say, "what you should do" is to organize with others and enforce boundaries on those who are in the "bubble" of not giving a (meaningful) fuck of continued organized existence of the human race. Dumb question here: why should I give a fuck about literally anything that happens after I die?

Because people (or even projects) you love may outlive you? It can provide immediate visceral satisfaction to try to help boost them even if you won't see the benefits. Children are a good example of this, but there are many others (legacies, societies, proteges, lovers).

Re: On Disbelieving Atrocities (1944)

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insofar those unjust outcomes undermine democracy itself, they're opposed to democracy. Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process", and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly? As opposed to non-democracies, or to citizens who don't care about atrocities elsewhere? Those also "can lead to bad outcomes", and when you have some…

> Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process" Fine: It is important to realize that democracy and following the will of people can result in bad and unjust outcomes. There, doesn't make a difference. > and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly [...] I haven't got a slightest idea what you're saying. You don't have to sell me…

The responsibility as democratic citizens to be aware of atrocities elsewhere, because the polticians we elect deal with foreign countries in which they take place, isn't cherry picking a definition. That's directly related to what democracy is. They also said

> Real freedom, and real democracy, come from an educated and aware populace

Would you disagree with that? If not, would you agree that part of being educated and aware is being not myopic and navel gazing, and caring about genocide elsewhere? If so, what are you even arguing?

If not, how can one be educated and aware, yet so shortsighted and selfish? Do you know an example of a person you would consider educated and aware, who shrugs off atrocities elsewhere?

> But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem unethical

Who did though? Someone said "real democracy" and you don't even ask them what they mean with that. While I don't know what they meant with "real democracy", if I had used those words in that context, I would have meant that you can't really have values such as free speech, freedom of assembly, right to due process -- in spirit, in daily practice, in the socialization and character of people, not just on paper -- and then just turn them off when people outside of your jurisdiction get brutalized, and not care at all. It's like I would say "a real feminist" doesn't just care about their own jurisdiction, but also about the plight of women in third world countries, and so on.

With democracy especially, this kind of half-assedness then comes back to bite us, too. I don't want to derail, but I'll just say "arms exports, allies who are kind of assholes, or in turn allied with assholes, refugee crisis".... not to mention global warming and the projected hundreds of millions of refugees that warming oceans could, probably will lead to. Caring about that stuff and about democracy elsewhere does benefit me, too, "in a globalized world". Just like helping another person can help me in my own life, since that life takes place in a world wherein that other person lives as well.

> If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?

-- Hillel the Elder

That guy probably didn't have "democracy" in mind, but still. If I believe in democratic ideals, human rights, and all that, I might be cool with, say, a monarchy that's not a tyranny, if people elsewhere want that, fine... but I MUST be against people just being murdered. I certainly must be against my own government being in bed with murderers. Otherwise, I'm not a "real" democrat, I'm not "really" for the human rights I myself enjoy, but just paying lip service.

Re: On Disbelieving Atrocities (1944)

#43
post #15
post #14

The trouble with this - I can sympathize with the frustration of watching atrocities happening in your homeland and not being able to get people in another country far away to care. But I can also sympathize with the ordinary people in these countries far away wanting to live their lives and not wallow in every tragedy that happens around the world. Because there's quite a lot of things happening all the time, even n…

Yes to all, and I think it’s our responsibility as democratic citizens to be aware of them. What’s the point of having the right to vote and having people represent us if we’re not aware of what they should be dealing with wrt foreign policy, say? If everyone buries their head in the sand or only considers domestic issues, we don’t really have democracy. It becomes a charade that helps us feel reassured that we have…

I have learned, painfully, over the years that no matter if you are aware or not, atrocities continue and that there is very little you can do about them.

Theoretically you may be able to do more, if you are able to vote in US elections, but in practice those seem to be won by the candidate most voters would prefer a beer with, or who looks best on television, etc.

Re: On Disbelieving Atrocities (1944)

#44
post #8

At first nobody believed because there really was no concrete evidence. This was changed by Witold Pilecki: > During World War II, Pilecki volunteered for a Polish resistance operation that involved being imprisoned in the Auschwitz concentration camp in order to gather intelligence and later escape. While in the camp, he organized a resistance movement and informed the Western Allies of Nazi Germany's Auschwitz atro…

Pilecki was one tough dude. I always thought he got in, looked around and quickly left. But his biography describes how he participated in camp life for more than 2 years like other prisoners and with the same risk to his life. This guy was a true hero.

Which biography is that (I assume he never got a chance to write his own?)

Re: On Disbelieving Atrocities (1944)

#45
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes to all, and I think it’s our responsibility as democratic citizens to be aware of them. What’s the point of having the right to vote and having people represent us if we’re not aware of what they should be dealing with wrt foreign policy, say? If everyone buries their head in the sand or only considers domestic issues, we don’t really have democracy. It becomes a charade that helps us feel reassured that we have…

That just seems to be redefining the word "democracy" so that it produces the outcomes you desire. I don't think that's helpful. It is important to realize that democratic process and following the will of people can result in bad and unjust outcomes.

Democracy presupposes an informed populace.

Re: On Disbelieving Atrocities (1944)

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process" Fine: It is important to realize that democracy and following the will of people can result in bad and unjust outcomes. There, doesn't make a difference. > and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly [...] I haven't got a slightest idea what you're saying. You don't have to sell me…

The responsibility as democratic citizens to be aware of atrocities elsewhere, because the polticians we elect deal with foreign countries in which they take place, isn't cherry picking a definition. That's directly related to what democracy is . They also said > Real freedom, and real democracy, come from an educated and aware populace Would you disagree with that? If not, would you agree that part of being educated…

I have nothing great to add, other than I found that post excellent and meritorious. I wish more people felt and thought like you do

Re: On Disbelieving Atrocities (1944)

#47
post #44
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pilecki was one tough dude. I always thought he got in, looked around and quickly left. But his biography describes how he participated in camp life for more than 2 years like other prisoners and with the same risk to his life. This guy was a true hero.

Which biography is that (I assume he never got a chance to write his own?)

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/books/review/the-auschwit...
Post reply on HN