9 ms·

I took a class in college that only covered genocide, and if there is one single lesson I took away from that, it is that all of the worst atrocities in the his

by ksdale 8y ago

I took a class in college that only covered genocide, and if there is one single lesson I took away from that, it is that all of the worst atrocities in the history of the world grow out of a seed of convincing people that there are other people out there who are (for whatever reason) less than them and should be defeated. If those people are less than us, then the normal rules of decency surely don't apply and we should do all we can to win. In the time since I took that class, I've made a giant effort to never attribute what I believe are wrong opinions or bad behavior to some inherent trait. No matter how reprehensible I think someone's opinion, I try to remember that they are a human and deserve decency. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for things we believe are right, but the second we start believing that we are fighting monsters, we become willing to do monstrous things. In the US, there seems to be a growing urge to attribute most political opposition to some sort of ingrained difference and it seems impossible that this attribution could ever lead to any sort of resolution short of armed conflict.

xfc120 8y ago
Communism started with the idea that all people are equal. Every time it was tried a dictator quickly emerged, and suddenly people were not so equal. The problem in general is group behavior; groups are dumb and primitive. Strengthening the power of individuals is the only countermeasure.
daenz 8y ago
>all of the worst atrocities in the history of the world grow out of a seed of convincing people that there are other people out there who are (for whatever reason) less than them and should be defeated. If those people are less than us, then the normal rules of decency surely don't apply and we should do all we can to win. To piggyback onto this, I think it's important to clarify that this can happen to anyone's political side, and when it does, it is tempting to turn a blind eye to it. For extremists on the right, it's blatant when they hate or hold prejudices against minorities, religions, etc. But if you're on the left, it's easier to rationalize and ignore prejudices or hatred from left extremists against "all white people" or "all men", etc, because, well, that attitude may just be a means to the end that you support. The only difference between the two, though, is one is easier for you to rationalize. That commonality of demonizing an individual person based on physical traits or "otherness" knows no ideology and emerges whenever individuals are willing to sacrifice their own personal decency to achieve tribal goals. If we don't squash that specific kind of behavior whenever and wherever we see it, we'll be repeating it forever. It's not enough to crush one manifestation of tribalism if it means creating a new and just-as-potent version of it.
Udik 8y ago
> the worst atrocities in the history of the world grow out of a seed of convincing people that there are other people out there who are (for whatever reason) less than them and should be defeated. Not really. It's more convincing people that there are other people who are an existential threat to you and your society. While heated rhetoric about immigrants is certainly bad, real atrocities start when you spread the message that "it's us or them", if we'd let them have their way they'd kill us all. And this is something I've heard in the West a lot recently, especially coming from Israel and its supporters when referring to Palestinians.
- ksdale 8y ago
  I think wars happen because of perceived existential threats, genocide happens because of believing some people are subbuman.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Red Terror was entirely about a perceived existential threats, and didn't make any claims of sub-humanity of those targeted. Was it not a genocide?
    - ksdale 8y ago
      This is a quote from the wikipedia page about the Red Terror, from the chief of the Ukrainian Cheka: "Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror." You're right, it's not literally saying they're subhuman, but it seems pretty close. Actions are irrelevant, only identity matters. That doesn't have anything to do with perceived threats. Only a crazy person would think that someone of a certain class was a threat regardless of their actions unless they believed that there were implicit differences that basically amounted to those of different class not deserving life. And yeah I think it's definitely a genocide. It's very similar to the genocide in Cambodia where they killed people who wore glasses (in addition to all the others) because they assumed that if they wore glasses it must be because they were literate, and all intellectuals were the enemies of the working class. We read an account of a man who had been a leftist but was sent to a camp because of his glasses. Once again, they didn't literally say people were subhuman, but they sought to attribute fundamental differences to something as superficial as eyesight. In my first comment, I was mostly talking about people coming to believe that a group of people was fundamentally different in a way that common decency no longer applies, that you no longer give them even the consideration you would give criminals, you just send them off to die because they are irredeemable for something as stupid as what family they were born into or whether or not they wore glasses.
late2part 8y ago
one single lesson I took away from that, it is that all of the worst atrocities in the history of the world grow out of a seed of convincing people that there are other people out there who are (for whatever reason) less than them Isn't that what most Police espouse? That there is a 'blue line' and they judge who is good and who is less than good? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line
- ksdale 8y ago
  I don't think there's a conflict between being realistic about the fact that some people will do bad things and the belief that we can still be compassionate toward those people. Obviously the main problem I'm talking about is more about when you decide a priori that whole groups of people will definitely do bad things and are therefore worthy of bad treatment regardless of whether they have actually done anything, but I think there are lots of police entities out there that carry out their duties professionally and compassionately.
- exolymph 8y ago
  Yes, and this is one of the big problems with the police.
baud147258 8y ago
> If those people are less than us, then the normal rules of decency surely don't apply and we should do all we can to win. I too took a class on the Holocaust, even if it was more broad, looking first at the industrialisation of society which enabled the industrialisation of a genocide: by killing at industrial scale, you don't need many executionners, but you'll need a lot of good paper-pusher making sure that the trains run on time and that the camps are well-supplied in fuel, bullets and gas. > I try to remember that they are a human and deserve decency That's a good idea.

by ksdale 8y ago

xfc120 8y ago

Communism started with the idea that all people are equal. Every time it was tried a dictator quickly emerged, and suddenly people were not so equal. The problem in general is group behavior; groups are dumb and primitive. Strengthening the power of individuals is the only countermeasure.

daenz 8y ago

>all of the worst atrocities in the history of the world grow out of a seed of convincing people that there are other people out there who are (for whatever reason) less than them and should be defeated. If those people are less than us, then the normal rules of decency surely don't apply and we should do all we can to win. To piggyback onto this, I think it's important to clarify that this can happen to anyone's political side, and when it does, it is tempting to turn a blind eye to it. For extremists on the right, it's blatant when they hate or hold prejudices against minorities, religions, etc. But if you're on the left, it's easier to rationalize and ignore prejudices or hatred from left extremists against "all white people" or "all men", etc, because, well, that attitude may just be a means to the end that you support. The only difference between the two, though, is one is easier for you to rationalize. That commonality of demonizing an individual person based on physical traits or "otherness" knows no ideology and emerges whenever individuals are willing to sacrifice their own personal decency to achieve tribal goals. If we don't squash that specific kind of behavior whenever and wherever we see it, we'll be repeating it forever. It's not enough to crush one manifestation of tribalism if it means creating a new and just-as-potent version of it.

Udik 8y ago

> the worst atrocities in the history of the world grow out of a seed of convincing people that there are other people out there who are (for whatever reason) less than them and should be defeated. Not really. It's more convincing people that there are other people who are an existential threat to you and your society. While heated rhetoric about immigrants is certainly bad, real atrocities start when you spread the message that "it's us or them", if we'd let them have their way they'd kill us all. And this is something I've heard in the West a lot recently, especially coming from Israel and its supporters when referring to Palestinians.

ksdale 8y ago
I think wars happen because of perceived existential threats, genocide happens because of believing some people are subbuman.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Red Terror was entirely about a perceived existential threats, and didn't make any claims of sub-humanity of those targeted. Was it not a genocide?
  - ksdale 8y ago
    This is a quote from the wikipedia page about the Red Terror, from the chief of the Ukrainian Cheka: "Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror." You're right, it's not literally saying they're subhuman, but it seems pretty close. Actions are irrelevant, only identity matters. That doesn't have anything to do with perceived threats. Only a crazy person would think that someone of a certain class was a threat regardless of their actions unless they believed that there were implicit differences that basically amounted to those of different class not deserving life. And yeah I think it's definitely a genocide. It's very similar to the genocide in Cambodia where they killed people who wore glasses (in addition to all the others) because they assumed that if they wore glasses it must be because they were literate, and all intellectuals were the enemies of the working class. We read an account of a man who had been a leftist but was sent to a camp because of his glasses. Once again, they didn't literally say people were subhuman, but they sought to attribute fundamental differences to something as superficial as eyesight. In my first comment, I was mostly talking about people coming to believe that a group of people was fundamentally different in a way that common decency no longer applies, that you no longer give them even the consideration you would give criminals, you just send them off to die because they are irredeemable for something as stupid as what family they were born into or whether or not they wore glasses.

late2part 8y ago

one single lesson I took away from that, it is that all of the worst atrocities in the history of the world grow out of a seed of convincing people that there are other people out there who are (for whatever reason) less than them Isn't that what most Police espouse? That there is a 'blue line' and they judge who is good and who is less than good? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line

ksdale 8y ago
I don't think there's a conflict between being realistic about the fact that some people will do bad things and the belief that we can still be compassionate toward those people. Obviously the main problem I'm talking about is more about when you decide a priori that whole groups of people will definitely do bad things and are therefore worthy of bad treatment regardless of whether they have actually done anything, but I think there are lots of police entities out there that carry out their duties professionally and compassionately.
exolymph 8y ago
Yes, and this is one of the big problems with the police.

baud147258 8y ago

> If those people are less than us, then the normal rules of decency surely don't apply and we should do all we can to win. I too took a class on the Holocaust, even if it was more broad, looking first at the industrialisation of society which enabled the industrialisation of a genocide: by killing at industrial scale, you don't need many executionners, but you'll need a lot of good paper-pusher making sure that the trains run on time and that the camps are well-supplied in fuel, bullets and gas. > I try to remember that they are a human and deserve decency That's a good idea.