6 ms·

> If witches are actually doing damage, then by all means hunt them. Thank you for confirming my point: there are people who believe McCarthy was wrong only b

> If witches are actually doing damage, then by all means hunt them. Thank you for confirming my point: there are people who believe McCarthy was wrong only because he picked the wrong targets. If he had picked other targets, the resulting witch hunts would have been acceptable.

Pxtl 10y ago
> there are people who believe McCarthy was wrong only because he picked the wrong targets. "Actually doing damage" is a fairly good discriminator, imho.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  C.S. Lewis: "One man said to me, 'Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?' But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did -- if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather -- surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did?"
  - btschaegg 10y ago
    Very interesting quote. That statement underlines an important point: Witch hunts are commited by people who are convinced that their reaction is justified. Then, it was because that evil witch had cursed your cousin, now it is perhaps because someone made a joke you didn't get[1]. And obviously, no single person holding the digital pitchforks would ever think of themselves doing the same thing as a superstitious peasant a couple hundred years ago. Is there something productive anyone could do in this regard? I would guess in the most cases, the trenches are almost instantly dug way too deep for a sensible discussion... [1]: To resort to an example Jon Ronson talked about in various talks. Well worth a Google query.
    - maxlybbert 10y ago
      In the US, these kinds of reactions are often called "moral panics" (according to Wikipedia, the term has a slightly different meaning in Britain). It's much easier to identify them when you aren't involved. I don't know any way to avoid them, but I believe a good first step is to acknowledge that you may not be immune to overreaction, even if you are open minded and hold all the correct political positions.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - manarth 10y ago
    if we really thought that there were people who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers then surely it would be a terrible idea to attack them, and in fact, the only people who could be successfully attacked, were the ones innocent of the charge?
- Kalium 10y ago
  You're right! It's a great discriminator! Actual damage done as a standard makes things exceptionally clear. Assuming, of course, one has an objective way to determine when damage has been done. It's perhaps possible that this isn't always as easy as it sounds.

Pxtl 10y ago

> there are people who believe McCarthy was wrong only because he picked the wrong targets. "Actually doing damage" is a fairly good discriminator, imho.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
maxlybbert 10y ago
C.S. Lewis: "One man said to me, 'Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?' But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did -- if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather -- surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did?"
- btschaegg 10y ago
  Very interesting quote. That statement underlines an important point: Witch hunts are commited by people who are convinced that their reaction is justified. Then, it was because that evil witch had cursed your cousin, now it is perhaps because someone made a joke you didn't get[1]. And obviously, no single person holding the digital pitchforks would ever think of themselves doing the same thing as a superstitious peasant a couple hundred years ago. Is there something productive anyone could do in this regard? I would guess in the most cases, the trenches are almost instantly dug way too deep for a sensible discussion... [1]: To resort to an example Jon Ronson talked about in various talks. Well worth a Google query.
  - maxlybbert 10y ago
    In the US, these kinds of reactions are often called "moral panics" (according to Wikipedia, the term has a slightly different meaning in Britain). It's much easier to identify them when you aren't involved. I don't know any way to avoid them, but I believe a good first step is to acknowledge that you may not be immune to overreaction, even if you are open minded and hold all the correct political positions.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- manarth 10y ago
  if we really thought that there were people who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers then surely it would be a terrible idea to attack them, and in fact, the only people who could be successfully attacked, were the ones innocent of the charge?
Kalium 10y ago
You're right! It's a great discriminator! Actual damage done as a standard makes things exceptionally clear. Assuming, of course, one has an objective way to determine when damage has been done. It's perhaps possible that this isn't always as easy as it sounds.