7 ms·
> I think the mere act of getting her involved scared him enough to undo everything he did. He was not happy I had figured that out. Most people only act evil
by Scapeghost 7y ago
> I think the mere act of getting her involved scared him enough to undo everything he did. He was not happy I had figured that out.
Most people only act evil under anonymity, thinking they can get away with it, and can't withstand the risk of public shaming.
This applies not only to the internet, but government officials, entertainment industry execs, etc, anyone who thinks themselves safe from scrutiny.
- yowlingcat 7y agoAmazing how much this applies inside of standard corporate situations that are technically within the letter of the law. The savvier managers and executives, if they want to act in such a manner, tend to do it outside the watchful gaze of anyone else and browbeat peers and subordinates into silence.
- eloff 7y agoI think you can formalize this statement with game theory around how reputations work among social organisms. This applies even to dolphins and chimpanzees. It doesn't mean you can't be evil in public, but it does mean it's a suboptimal strategy for your own best interest. Scarily if the public moral compass gets warped enough, then you can be evil in public and get away with it because according to the public you're not doing evil. Like Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. The definition of evil itself changes.
- Scapeghost 7y ago> Scarily if the public moral compass gets warped enough, then you can be evil in public and get away with it because according to the public you're not doing evil. The definition of evil itself changes. Luckily their social superset, the rest of the world, saw them as evil. Makes you wonder, what are we currently doing that is evil but the entire world supports it? China's treatment of Hong Kong and minorities comes to mind. And all the wars and massacres going on that have the full support of the first world and its media.
- eloff 7y agoYeah, and it constantly changes. Like slavery in recent history, or discrimination by race or sexual orientation. I also wonder what I just take for granted that future generations will see as evil. Probably eating meat, and not being responsible for negative externalities (burning hydrocarbons).
- chillacy 7y agoPG has a pretty good essay on this: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html?viewfullsite=1 http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html?viewfullsite=1
- koolba 7y agoThe evolution of society to eliminate slavery and discrimination can be boiled down to a fundamental equality across all of mankind. I don’t see eating meat ever getting to that level. It’d take the elevation of the rest of animal world to our level.
- blotter_paper 7y agoI think that as we automate more things we can comfortably afford to model more beings as being worthy of our consideration. People of the past divided humanity into subcategories they could more easily rationalise the exploitation of. We do the same to other parts of the biosphere. I'm not saying the two things are of equal ugliness, but I think they exist on the same continuum.
- senderista 7y agoI recommend Peter Singer’s writings about widening circles of empathy as a description of moral progress.
- brigandish 7y ago> It’d take the elevation of the rest of animal world to our level. In my estimation they're already there. I'd be interested to here how you measure the level upon which you gain the right not to be killed for food, as we obviously measure it differently. Seriously, how would it be measured?
- hutzlibu 7y agoI agree to your statement, but just want to add, that also Hitler had to try hard pretending. Germany was allways only self defending. And people believed that. Some still believe it. Even though "Mein Kampf" was pretty plain speaking, in the concept of conquering the east.
- BOOSTERHIDROGEN 7y ago> I think you can formalize this statement with game theory around how reputations work among social organisms. This applies even to dolphins and chimpanzees. Interesting, any references about this reputations ?
- Yajirobe 7y agoDoes anonymity change us, or does it reveal our true selfs?
- dghughes 7y agoWhen I first got on the Internet it was great for me since I was ultra shy. I felt like I could reveal my true self. But now 25 years later I see the Internet as a tool to allow people to be downright evil. I can't believe people are or would act this way in real life.
- nscalf 7y agoThat doesn’t feel like the right question to me. I’d say you’re your “true self”, given your environment, in each situation.
- Yajirobe 7y agoEven if one is under the influence of alcohol/drugs?
- nothrabannosir 7y agoAll the more so, if you ask me :)
- nothrabannosir 7y agoThis implies the existence of one true self. It might be defined as a function of many parameters, many situational. One might even be the degree of anonymity you’re currently experiencing.
- CM30 7y agoYeah, people's behaviour and personality tend to change based on the setting they're in, and the audience they're with. You probably all act very differently around your colleagues than your friends, and either of those and your boss, parents, spouse, etc. Which is where a lot of issues on social media are coming from. People are seeing behaviour that would previously be fine among friends/with one audience broadcast to all these others, and it's revealing everyone's flaws and multiple sided behaviour to the world.
- dang 7y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21491777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21491777.