7 ms·

C.S. Lewis once wrote: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live unde

C.S. Lewis once wrote: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."

cjslep 9y ago
Someone forgot to take their soma. A gramme is better than giving a damn.
rajacombinator 9y ago
A nice quote and it sounds true - certainly robber barons are preferable to sjws - but doesn’t tell the whole story. The sjw tyrant he’s describing forms the “useful idiot” phalanx of the ones pulling the strings. Those kind of people (sjw types) simply aren’t clever enough to orchestrate the kind of long term plots needed to take control. The ones in charge are fully aware of what they’re doing, and they exhibit a cold calculating efficiency that seems inhuman.
- malnourish 9y ago
  Please stop with this "SJW" nonsense
  - autismo 9y ago
    Despite some questionable uses of that word, I have to admit that it's a useful classifier for what has essentially become a consolidated political movement. Everyone seems to know the ideology it's describing when they hear it, and I don't know of another term that does that. On another tangent: "SJW" was originally coined by social justice warriors as a way to describe themselves. It only became an offensive word once people started lampooning it, but it's still a fair term to use given its history and original intent.
    - brokencog 9y ago
      The preferable term to "SJW" is regressive-left. These are the people who blindly espouse an idea without understanding.
      - Domenic_S 9y ago
        Preferred by whom?
        IAmLiterallyAB 9y ago
        Let's be real, it's a more descriptive term. Plus it isn't slang like SJW (and in many circles a slur). So yeah it's a better term when discussing these things.
        esrauch 9y ago
        Calling them "regressive" seems to be intended as an insult to me.
        justAnotherNET 9y ago
        Perhaps it is insulting. One such example of “regressive left” is left wing BLM-like groups arguing for “People of Color” only dorms to protect from white oppression. It sounds crazy, but I promise you there are actual groups that are so far left they somehow end up supporting segregation. In this situation “regressive” is both politically expedient and accurate.
        cup-of-tea 9y ago
        Regression is a very well-defined concept. What would be a non-insulting way to refer to someone who advocates regression?
        esrauch 9y ago
        I don't think any SJW would characterize their position is the dictionary definition of regression, and nor would I (despite not characterizing myself as one). Do people you consider SJW really say "life was better before?", I instead hear "life was bad before and is better now but hasn't gone nearly far enough: the trajectory of political correctness and minority rights needs to progress drastically further forward on that same line drawn from 1950 to 2018". It seems very difficult to attribute that sentence to the textbook definition of "regressive". If a political position was literally "let's go back to how things were" then it would be fair to call that regressive. The closest thing I can think of is MAGA though, and for most other cases the goal of calling something regressive seems to clearly be "your politics will make things worse" not "your politics will return things to a previous state".
- mung 9y ago
  He is not describing SJWs, which is a fairly modern concept and usually used idiotically by people who don't have the brain power to understand issue X. He's talking about those that might describe themselves as moral majority. People that get described as SJWs are usually arguing against oppression. By contrast, oppressors will happily force their morals on others (but not always themselves) and tell you that it's for your own good. Usually backed by some religious doctrine.
  - justAnotherNET 9y ago
    In my experience “SJWs” have their own religion and overwhelmingly seek out moderator positions on subreddits, forums, positions on the school paper’s editorial team, etc etc as their ideology fails when faced with the free flow of information. You can see this in just about any internet community, the only ones that are “left wing” are the ones that enforce strict moderation rules. Anything open course corrects right very fast. The “Warrior” in SJW comes from their perpetual fight to ban, shadowban, moderate, de-rank, and delist opposing views. You can deflect by suggesting these people are simply authoritarian, and not true social justice/left wing advocates. I would challenge you to investigate everything from reddit’s super mods to Wikipedia’s editor cartels. You’ll find they systematically infiltrate open communities and once in positions of power purge opposing views from leadership and begin to enforce ideological conformity. The people doing this are exclusively left wing soc jus types. Outside of the internet I’ve seen this behavior in academia as well. It’s pretty amazing how downright fascist some of them will get when they think they’re in like company.
  - cup-of-tea 9y ago
    I think your understanding of the term "SJW" is out of date. SJW now refers to someone who forces their morals on other people and advocate silencing and censorship to achieve this. He is describing these people.
  - hueving 9y ago
    >usually used idiotically by people who don't have the brain power Please don't sink to this level >People that get described as SJWs are usually arguing against oppression That might be your description but many also include the people going around to open source projects to change the genders of code comments while simultaneously accusing the project of being sexist at the same time. They might be against oppression but their approach is so misguided it's destructive.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- csa 9y ago
  FYI, I vouched for this post that was dead. For the record, I don’t personally agree with raja’s assessment of the situation, but I think it’s important to have an open discussion around these topics rather than just silencing a dissenting view via downvotes.
naiveai 9y ago
Why is this happening? I see the argumnent that these organizations are private companies and can do whatever they see fit, including censorship, I see no reason why these should not be opposed on principle. Global expression of ideas should not be controlled by any one jurisdiction or board of directors. When will we ever find a solution? Decentralisation is fun to talk about but almost impossible to accomplish in practice. So how do we create a compromise scenario that protects the free spread of ideas? I have no idea. I am so sick of all this.
- crowbahr 9y ago
  It's happening because the USA has declared it illegal for any website to knowingly host any content that might be illegal. As such they're pulling down anything and everything that might be even possibly illegal.
  - kazen44 9y ago
    what about websites which are not hosted in the US, but for instance, in europe or asia? This law wouldn't be in effect for them?
    - Asooka 9y ago
      It would if the USA has an extradition agreement in place, which we do with a majority of countries. So while you do not commit a crime domestically, if an American can access illegal content on your site, you can be sued in the USA and extradited.
      - singularity2001 9y ago
        are there cases when this really happened?
      - LouisSayers 9y ago
        @singularity2001 yes, Kim dotcom with MegaUpload
Roritharr 9y ago
This is the most fitting quote I've seen for all the things that irk me most today in politics and business. Thanks, will reuse a lot.
- singularity2001 9y ago
  same. is there a shorter version too?
- ihsw2 9y ago
  Indeed, progressive supremacists and feminist supremacists that seek to cleanse the world of "oppression" and "correct" past oppression are just puritans of a different flavor. Decrying rape and helping actual victims is one thing, attacking all heterosexual males as privileged oppressors is something else.
  - nezzle 9y ago
    There is great irony here. These supremacists are the same type of bully they are seeking to correct for: people who abuse socially acceptable ways to oppress others. In the Middle East accidental innocent casualties create more enemies and terrorists, such that the army often displays greater restraint than our police. The animosity being generated in the 1/3rd of the population (white males), who also happen to own most of the guns, is already being politically leveraged. I worry that someone will find a way to harness it further.
ksec 9y ago
This rhymes with "Evil is created by those who think themselves are so righteous."
danjc 9y ago
Lewis just turned in his grave at the context to which you've applied his quote
tfuop 9y ago
Who the fcuk is cs lewis!!!! If he says "stick your head in the hole" will u do it dumbass
specialist 9y ago
"Scolds" is my go to pejorative for those who are certain they know what's best for me. "Moral busybodies" is better, I'll steal it.
- bluetwo 9y ago
  I'm going to steal it, too. Unfortunately it describes moderation on this site recently. Seems like there are many moral busybodies trying to protect to greater good.
zombieprocesses 9y ago
> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies Check out the HN thread where self-purported google employees are proclaiming google exists to improve society. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668375 In the past, it was the church and the priests who decided what was good for us. Going forward, it will be google and their employees apparently.

cjslep 9y ago

Someone forgot to take their soma. A gramme is better than giving a damn.

rajacombinator 9y ago

A nice quote and it sounds true - certainly robber barons are preferable to sjws - but doesn’t tell the whole story. The sjw tyrant he’s describing forms the “useful idiot” phalanx of the ones pulling the strings. Those kind of people (sjw types) simply aren’t clever enough to orchestrate the kind of long term plots needed to take control. The ones in charge are fully aware of what they’re doing, and they exhibit a cold calculating efficiency that seems inhuman.

malnourish 9y ago
Please stop with this "SJW" nonsense
- autismo 9y ago
  Despite some questionable uses of that word, I have to admit that it's a useful classifier for what has essentially become a consolidated political movement. Everyone seems to know the ideology it's describing when they hear it, and I don't know of another term that does that. On another tangent: "SJW" was originally coined by social justice warriors as a way to describe themselves. It only became an offensive word once people started lampooning it, but it's still a fair term to use given its history and original intent.
  - brokencog 9y ago
    The preferable term to "SJW" is regressive-left. These are the people who blindly espouse an idea without understanding.
    - Domenic_S 9y ago
      Preferred by whom?
      - IAmLiterallyAB 9y ago
        Let's be real, it's a more descriptive term. Plus it isn't slang like SJW (and in many circles a slur). So yeah it's a better term when discussing these things.
        esrauch 9y ago
        Calling them "regressive" seems to be intended as an insult to me.
        justAnotherNET 9y ago
        Perhaps it is insulting. One such example of “regressive left” is left wing BLM-like groups arguing for “People of Color” only dorms to protect from white oppression. It sounds crazy, but I promise you there are actual groups that are so far left they somehow end up supporting segregation. In this situation “regressive” is both politically expedient and accurate.
        cup-of-tea 9y ago
        Regression is a very well-defined concept. What would be a non-insulting way to refer to someone who advocates regression?
        esrauch 9y ago
        I don't think any SJW would characterize their position is the dictionary definition of regression, and nor would I (despite not characterizing myself as one). Do people you consider SJW really say "life was better before?", I instead hear "life was bad before and is better now but hasn't gone nearly far enough: the trajectory of political correctness and minority rights needs to progress drastically further forward on that same line drawn from 1950 to 2018". It seems very difficult to attribute that sentence to the textbook definition of "regressive". If a political position was literally "let's go back to how things were" then it would be fair to call that regressive. The closest thing I can think of is MAGA though, and for most other cases the goal of calling something regressive seems to clearly be "your politics will make things worse" not "your politics will return things to a previous state".
mung 9y ago
He is not describing SJWs, which is a fairly modern concept and usually used idiotically by people who don't have the brain power to understand issue X. He's talking about those that might describe themselves as moral majority. People that get described as SJWs are usually arguing against oppression. By contrast, oppressors will happily force their morals on others (but not always themselves) and tell you that it's for your own good. Usually backed by some religious doctrine.
- justAnotherNET 9y ago
  In my experience “SJWs” have their own religion and overwhelmingly seek out moderator positions on subreddits, forums, positions on the school paper’s editorial team, etc etc as their ideology fails when faced with the free flow of information. You can see this in just about any internet community, the only ones that are “left wing” are the ones that enforce strict moderation rules. Anything open course corrects right very fast. The “Warrior” in SJW comes from their perpetual fight to ban, shadowban, moderate, de-rank, and delist opposing views. You can deflect by suggesting these people are simply authoritarian, and not true social justice/left wing advocates. I would challenge you to investigate everything from reddit’s super mods to Wikipedia’s editor cartels. You’ll find they systematically infiltrate open communities and once in positions of power purge opposing views from leadership and begin to enforce ideological conformity. The people doing this are exclusively left wing soc jus types. Outside of the internet I’ve seen this behavior in academia as well. It’s pretty amazing how downright fascist some of them will get when they think they’re in like company.
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  I think your understanding of the term "SJW" is out of date. SJW now refers to someone who forces their morals on other people and advocate silencing and censorship to achieve this. He is describing these people.
- hueving 9y ago
  >usually used idiotically by people who don't have the brain power Please don't sink to this level >People that get described as SJWs are usually arguing against oppression That might be your description but many also include the people going around to open source projects to change the genders of code comments while simultaneously accusing the project of being sexist at the same time. They might be against oppression but their approach is so misguided it's destructive.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
csa 9y ago
FYI, I vouched for this post that was dead. For the record, I don’t personally agree with raja’s assessment of the situation, but I think it’s important to have an open discussion around these topics rather than just silencing a dissenting view via downvotes.

naiveai 9y ago

Why is this happening? I see the argumnent that these organizations are private companies and can do whatever they see fit, including censorship, I see no reason why these should not be opposed on principle. Global expression of ideas should not be controlled by any one jurisdiction or board of directors. When will we ever find a solution? Decentralisation is fun to talk about but almost impossible to accomplish in practice. So how do we create a compromise scenario that protects the free spread of ideas? I have no idea. I am so sick of all this.

crowbahr 9y ago
It's happening because the USA has declared it illegal for any website to knowingly host any content that might be illegal. As such they're pulling down anything and everything that might be even possibly illegal.
- kazen44 9y ago
  what about websites which are not hosted in the US, but for instance, in europe or asia? This law wouldn't be in effect for them?
  - Asooka 9y ago
    It would if the USA has an extradition agreement in place, which we do with a majority of countries. So while you do not commit a crime domestically, if an American can access illegal content on your site, you can be sued in the USA and extradited.
    - singularity2001 9y ago
      are there cases when this really happened?
    - LouisSayers 9y ago
      @singularity2001 yes, Kim dotcom with MegaUpload

Roritharr 9y ago

This is the most fitting quote I've seen for all the things that irk me most today in politics and business. Thanks, will reuse a lot.

singularity2001 9y ago
same. is there a shorter version too?
ihsw2 9y ago
Indeed, progressive supremacists and feminist supremacists that seek to cleanse the world of "oppression" and "correct" past oppression are just puritans of a different flavor. Decrying rape and helping actual victims is one thing, attacking all heterosexual males as privileged oppressors is something else.
- nezzle 9y ago
  There is great irony here. These supremacists are the same type of bully they are seeking to correct for: people who abuse socially acceptable ways to oppress others. In the Middle East accidental innocent casualties create more enemies and terrorists, such that the army often displays greater restraint than our police. The animosity being generated in the 1/3rd of the population (white males), who also happen to own most of the guns, is already being politically leveraged. I worry that someone will find a way to harness it further.

ksec 9y ago

This rhymes with "Evil is created by those who think themselves are so righteous."

danjc 9y ago

Lewis just turned in his grave at the context to which you've applied his quote

tfuop 9y ago

Who the fcuk is cs lewis!!!! If he says "stick your head in the hole" will u do it dumbass

specialist 9y ago

"Scolds" is my go to pejorative for those who are certain they know what's best for me. "Moral busybodies" is better, I'll steal it.

bluetwo 9y ago
I'm going to steal it, too. Unfortunately it describes moderation on this site recently. Seems like there are many moral busybodies trying to protect to greater good.

zombieprocesses 9y ago

> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies Check out the HN thread where self-purported google employees are proclaiming google exists to improve society. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668375 In the past, it was the church and the priests who decided what was good for us. Going forward, it will be google and their employees apparently.