4 ms·

What I am assuming is the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated. Don't you think the general population understands that? When people ignore

What I am assuming is the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated. Don't you think the general population understands that? When people ignore it, we generally call that bad. When people don't understand that, we generally call them psychopaths. Is this really controversial? I mean, as a thought experiment, do you really not internally know that bothering other people who are bot bothering you is wrong and ugly? Most people don't agree with that? Edit: I am being downvoted, so this is apparently fairly controversial. That's unfortunate, in my mind. I personally believe that the democracy, liberty and prosperity that exists in the world today would not have been possible without America, its founders, and others who argued for this kind of liberty--most notably enlightenment figures. So I guess if you disagree with it, you're pretty lucky to happen to be here.

coldtea 8y ago
>What I am assuming is the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated. Don't you think the general population understands that? When people ignore it, we generally call that bad. When people don't understand that, we generally call them psychopaths. Is this really controversial? No, but it doesn't settle much. For one, it's not always about how people are treated, but also about stopping things you think are bad from happening. If you think e.g. that forests are good, you'd want to punish people who burn them, even if they did nothing wrong to you. Similarly, if you are an ancient citizen and think people engaging in gay sex weakens your society (e.g. because these people don't have kids and your community will have less people to continue it, and fight and protect it) you'll try to stop people from doing that. >I personally believe that the democracy, liberty and prosperity that exists in the world today would not have been possible without America, its founders, and others who argued for this kind of liberty And I believe that its influence has been overplayed and is insignificant (if not negative). Starting from the genocide of the native Americans, to slavery of blacks, way after Europe had put an end to it, to treatment of chinese and other immigrants up to early 20th century, to inheriting old European colonialism after WWII and extending it with neo-colonialism, to promoting puritanism, neoliberal policies, the "war on drugs", global interventions and befriending and establishing dictatorships and banana republics, promoting crappy mass culture, unhealthy food culture, and total consumerism without regard for the environment, and so on.). Plus the unbearable exceptionalism and nationalism.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  >And I believe that its influence has been overplayed and is insignificant (if not negative) This always comes up and it's just like the Russian phrase "and you are lynching negroes." This basically same argument from Russia to the US boils down to: it doesn't matter that you have improved upon the world, and looking to further improve on it, because you were far from perfect yourself and doing some very bad things. Those bad things should be criticized, but I am certain had you the choice to be born in the pre-enlightenment world that you would not take it.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >This always comes up and it's just like the Russian phrase "and you are lynching negroes." I find nothing wrong with that argument. In fact, the actual disingenuous Cold War practice of whataboutism was rather the accusation of whataboutism itself. It was meant as a thought stopper, to only allow one-sized criticism and to prevent putting things into perspective that doesn't flatter the first side. Knowing that both side X and Y did bad things is totally compatible with trying to fix them (in fact it's a prerequirement). It also stops you from painting Y as some uniquely evil, while letting X get away scot-free. But only hearing side X attack Y on some bad shit, and not the other side (because that would be "whataboutism"), just serves to hide what X itself does, and to portray Y as some uniquely evil figure. >Those bad things should be criticized, but I am certain had you the choice to be born in the pre-enlightenment world that you would not take it. It's more of a wash. There are tons of places and social classes I'd like to belong to enlightenment, and tons of places and social classes I'd like to avoid being enlightenment.

coldtea 8y ago

>What I am assuming is the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated. Don't you think the general population understands that? When people ignore it, we generally call that bad. When people don't understand that, we generally call them psychopaths. Is this really controversial? No, but it doesn't settle much. For one, it's not always about how people are treated, but also about stopping things you think are bad from happening. If you think e.g. that forests are good, you'd want to punish people who burn them, even if they did nothing wrong to you. Similarly, if you are an ancient citizen and think people engaging in gay sex weakens your society (e.g. because these people don't have kids and your community will have less people to continue it, and fight and protect it) you'll try to stop people from doing that. >I personally believe that the democracy, liberty and prosperity that exists in the world today would not have been possible without America, its founders, and others who argued for this kind of liberty And I believe that its influence has been overplayed and is insignificant (if not negative). Starting from the genocide of the native Americans, to slavery of blacks, way after Europe had put an end to it, to treatment of chinese and other immigrants up to early 20th century, to inheriting old European colonialism after WWII and extending it with neo-colonialism, to promoting puritanism, neoliberal policies, the "war on drugs", global interventions and befriending and establishing dictatorships and banana republics, promoting crappy mass culture, unhealthy food culture, and total consumerism without regard for the environment, and so on.). Plus the unbearable exceptionalism and nationalism.

wallace_f 8y ago
>And I believe that its influence has been overplayed and is insignificant (if not negative) This always comes up and it's just like the Russian phrase "and you are lynching negroes." This basically same argument from Russia to the US boils down to: it doesn't matter that you have improved upon the world, and looking to further improve on it, because you were far from perfect yourself and doing some very bad things. Those bad things should be criticized, but I am certain had you the choice to be born in the pre-enlightenment world that you would not take it.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >This always comes up and it's just like the Russian phrase "and you are lynching negroes." I find nothing wrong with that argument. In fact, the actual disingenuous Cold War practice of whataboutism was rather the accusation of whataboutism itself. It was meant as a thought stopper, to only allow one-sized criticism and to prevent putting things into perspective that doesn't flatter the first side. Knowing that both side X and Y did bad things is totally compatible with trying to fix them (in fact it's a prerequirement). It also stops you from painting Y as some uniquely evil, while letting X get away scot-free. But only hearing side X attack Y on some bad shit, and not the other side (because that would be "whataboutism"), just serves to hide what X itself does, and to portray Y as some uniquely evil figure. >Those bad things should be criticized, but I am certain had you the choice to be born in the pre-enlightenment world that you would not take it. It's more of a wash. There are tons of places and social classes I'd like to belong to enlightenment, and tons of places and social classes I'd like to avoid being enlightenment.