3 ms·

Putting the blame on the political instrumentation of tribal instincts, rather than on a peculiar tribe, seems like a good idea actually.

by pygy_ 10y ago

thriftwy 10y ago
It's very convenient to put blame on something so immaterial as "instrumentation" and "instincts". You can feel good, moralize as long as you like, take stabs at political opponents. But it does nothing towards avoiding repeat of tragic events. How would anyone learn on "crime without punishment"? And that's exactly it, you're not punishing any people, not proportionally to damage done anyway, and ideas don't feel pain.
- pygy_ 10y ago
  Contemplating the fact that you could be manipulated to perform similar misdeeds may not be pleasant, but it is very important. We all have tribal instincts, and we are "predictably irrational", meaning that we can be manipulated by skilled pupetteers. Tribalism is on the rise once again right now and I find it unsettling. Edit: >But it does nothing towards avoiding repeat of tragic events. How would anyone learn on "crime without punishment"? And that's exactly it, you're not punishing any people, not proportionally to damage done anyway, and ideas don't feel pain. I totally disagree. The punishment of Germany post WW1 lead directly to WW2. The extended hand that followed WW2 is largely responsible of the peace we've had for 70 years in Europe. It turns out that punishment and preventing recidivism do not always go hand in hand.
  - thriftwy 10y ago
    Contemplating the face that if I perform similar misdeeds I might go without accountability or punishment may lead to conclusions, but not the ones that you would like. Moralizing people doesn't prevent them from behaving badly when it's convenient to them. The perspective of punishment works much better. For the Holocaust, very few people were punished. For Turkish genocide, noone was punished. Makes genocide a low-risk tool on a political table, if you ask me. > It turns out that punishment and preventing recidivism do not always go hand in hand. I utterly fail to understand how do you imagine it to work. Imagine I'm a politician in power and I have an idea that some of my country's residents are eligible for genocide. What's there to deter me and my fellow citizens? Certainly not the perspective of punishment. Then what? Hell, in recent history, Croats got away with ethnic cleansings. You just have to be buddies with right countries.
    - pygy_ 10y ago
      The edit to my previous post addresses your comment. More generally, the possibility of punishment does little to diminish violence, because people who perform it generally expect not to get caught.
      - thriftwy 10y ago
        I don't understand how this is supposed to work. People look very closely to what happens in their neighboring countries when deciding what to try and what to avoid. It is not true that one politician, who does not expect to get caught, is a sole responsible and everybody else is passive. "Country Y had revolution and country X didn't. Turns out country Y never recovered economically and didn't make much progress. I will probably cut down on protests" "Country C had ethnic cleansings and country B had reasonable ethnic policy. Country C did not suffer any punishment and is now successful. Country B suffers serious ethnic tensions and is an undesirable place. I would demand going harder on minorities" You may be shielded from those narratives, living in a stable country. Guess what, not all of us do.
        pygy_ 10y ago
        Your understanding of tribal psyche is wrong. 1) Human bonding (mother-child, family, and extended, symbolic tribes) is mediated in the brain by oxytocin. It turns out oxytocin also boosts xenophobia. Someone who claims to hail patriotism without being racist is therefore full of shit. They are two sides of the same coin, enlarging one enlarges the other. 2) Stigmatizing people for belonging to a group strengthens their tribal attachment to said group [a]. By punishing or threatening to punish a group of people, you enhance their tribal bonds and, per 1) their xenophobia, the very thing you're trying to rein in. It's not about being moral, it's about effectiveness. The only way to dispel tribal identity is to dilute it in a larger, weaker one, by being open to their members. --- a. Which is why laws against "the public display of religious signs" are counterproductive. Likewise, ostracizing people who vote for extreme, hateful politicians is counterproductive.
        10y ago

Putting the blame on the political instrumentation of tribal instincts, rather than on a peculiar tribe, seems like a good idea actually.

by pygy_ 10y ago

Putting the blame on the political instrumentation of tribal instincts, rather than on a peculiar tribe, seems like a good idea actually.

thriftwy 10y ago

It's very convenient to put blame on something so immaterial as "instrumentation" and "instincts". You can feel good, moralize as long as you like, take stabs at political opponents. But it does nothing towards avoiding repeat of tragic events. How would anyone learn on "crime without punishment"? And that's exactly it, you're not punishing any people, not proportionally to damage done anyway, and ideas don't feel pain.

pygy_ 10y ago
Contemplating the fact that you could be manipulated to perform similar misdeeds may not be pleasant, but it is very important. We all have tribal instincts, and we are "predictably irrational", meaning that we can be manipulated by skilled pupetteers. Tribalism is on the rise once again right now and I find it unsettling. Edit: >But it does nothing towards avoiding repeat of tragic events. How would anyone learn on "crime without punishment"? And that's exactly it, you're not punishing any people, not proportionally to damage done anyway, and ideas don't feel pain. I totally disagree. The punishment of Germany post WW1 lead directly to WW2. The extended hand that followed WW2 is largely responsible of the peace we've had for 70 years in Europe. It turns out that punishment and preventing recidivism do not always go hand in hand.
- thriftwy 10y ago
  Contemplating the face that if I perform similar misdeeds I might go without accountability or punishment may lead to conclusions, but not the ones that you would like. Moralizing people doesn't prevent them from behaving badly when it's convenient to them. The perspective of punishment works much better. For the Holocaust, very few people were punished. For Turkish genocide, noone was punished. Makes genocide a low-risk tool on a political table, if you ask me. > It turns out that punishment and preventing recidivism do not always go hand in hand. I utterly fail to understand how do you imagine it to work. Imagine I'm a politician in power and I have an idea that some of my country's residents are eligible for genocide. What's there to deter me and my fellow citizens? Certainly not the perspective of punishment. Then what? Hell, in recent history, Croats got away with ethnic cleansings. You just have to be buddies with right countries.
  - pygy_ 10y ago
    The edit to my previous post addresses your comment. More generally, the possibility of punishment does little to diminish violence, because people who perform it generally expect not to get caught.
    - thriftwy 10y ago
      I don't understand how this is supposed to work. People look very closely to what happens in their neighboring countries when deciding what to try and what to avoid. It is not true that one politician, who does not expect to get caught, is a sole responsible and everybody else is passive. "Country Y had revolution and country X didn't. Turns out country Y never recovered economically and didn't make much progress. I will probably cut down on protests" "Country C had ethnic cleansings and country B had reasonable ethnic policy. Country C did not suffer any punishment and is now successful. Country B suffers serious ethnic tensions and is an undesirable place. I would demand going harder on minorities" You may be shielded from those narratives, living in a stable country. Guess what, not all of us do.
      - pygy_ 10y ago
        Your understanding of tribal psyche is wrong. 1) Human bonding (mother-child, family, and extended, symbolic tribes) is mediated in the brain by oxytocin. It turns out oxytocin also boosts xenophobia. Someone who claims to hail patriotism without being racist is therefore full of shit. They are two sides of the same coin, enlarging one enlarges the other. 2) Stigmatizing people for belonging to a group strengthens their tribal attachment to said group [a]. By punishing or threatening to punish a group of people, you enhance their tribal bonds and, per 1) their xenophobia, the very thing you're trying to rein in. It's not about being moral, it's about effectiveness. The only way to dispel tribal identity is to dilute it in a larger, weaker one, by being open to their members. --- a. Which is why laws against "the public display of religious signs" are counterproductive. Likewise, ostracizing people who vote for extreme, hateful politicians is counterproductive.
        10y ago