6 ms·

An important difference from the comparison to the Maoist movement and the like (besides degree), is that historically these spirals had at their heart, at leas

by _bxg1 7y ago

An important difference from the comparison to the Maoist movement and the like (besides degree), is that historically these spirals had at their heart, at least at the beginning, a premeditated ploy for power. The posturing was conscious and malicious. It's really important to point out that that's not usually the case with the internet version. People aren't setting out to build an instagram moral empire; in fact they may set out with genuine, legitimate concern for the real moral issues. The problem comes from that "ratchet effect", where the only way to stay safe is to keep escalating things. The internet abstracts away people's humanity, dampening any compassion/charity, and the temperature rises on its own. Seeing this lack of (original) malice makes it easier to forgive and to step outside of the cycle.

nate_meurer 7y ago
> The internet abstracts away people's humanity, dampening any compassion/charity, and the temperature rises on its own. I've heard this said many different ways, but yours might be my favorite so far.
sequoia 7y ago
> a premeditated ploy for power. The posturing was conscious and malicious. Do you really think that Mao was completely cynical and didn't believe that what he was doing was "the right thing" that would improve the lives of his countrymen? Most people think they are doing "what's right," and some are willing to overlook unethical acts (or actions that let them accrue power to themselves) if it serves the greater good. I tend to believe both these folks, and Mao for that matter, intend to do what they think is right & what will make the world better–and if you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, so be it. It's a comforting thought that there are "bad people with bad intentions who do bad things on purpose" and "good people with good intentions who do good things (and occasionally do bad things by accident)" but in reality these two groups are not that distinct. (It goes without saying that these folks are not "as bad as Mao" I mention it only because it was already brought up as an example.)
- spangry 7y ago
  I agree that these folks are probably acting with good intentions. And that can actually make the situation worse. This CS Lewis quote comes to mind: "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."
  - watwut 7y ago
    But CS Lewis was wrong as history of genocides and purges show. None of them started for the good of victims and they were definitely in the category of worst oppression.
    - gwd 7y ago
      I think Lewis had in more in mind something like what happens to Winston in George Orwell's 1984, where it wasn't enough for the Party for him to obey them but not agree with them; it wasn't enough for the Party to discover that he didn't agree with them and kill him; they were only satisfied once they'd tortured him into agreeing with them as well. I'd much rather be under killed for disagreeing than tortured until my captors are satisfied that I really agree with them.
      - watwut 7y ago
        Afaik, all genocides involved a lot of torture - both of targets and of those who refused to cooperate or talked against it. Sometimes it was to gain information, force agreement, force compliance etc. It also involved quite a lot of petty rule making to keep those who were being oppressed in line. And quite a lot of it was basically for fun or hate. -------------- Besides original quote is about motivation. People who organized genocides were fully ok with their own conscience. They were in fact proud over their own good work. And as fun it sounds and as easy it is to use against certain disliked people, it is not true in the sense of how world really works when things go bad.
Animats 7y ago
The start may be a semi-random event. It's the escalation that gets it out of hand. Someone did this as a joke in 1959. See "Society for Indecency to Naked Animals"[1] They got the purity cycle going. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Indecency_to_Naked_Animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Indecency_to_Naked...
- rolandog 7y ago
  Well, it's a relief that the world has always been absurd.
  - HenryBemis 7y ago
    Monty Python came to mind when I read the above wiki article, but the use of the word "absurd" was the nail! :)
dcolkitt 7y ago
> The problem comes from that "ratchet effect", where the only way to stay safe is to keep escalating things. This reminds of accounts I've read of the Khmer Rogue. Nobody, including Pol Pot, started out intending to kill nearly 50% of Cambodia's population. But the communist zealotry created an environment of extreme paranoia. Capitalists and counter-revolutionaries were suspected of being everywhere and sabotaging everything. Even the shakiest unsubstantiated accusations were enough to put someone on the execution block. The result is that people became so fearful that they started preemptively lobbing accusations at everybody and anybody. Even if you think your neighbor might possibly accuse you in the future, you're better off putting in a call to the secret police about him before he gets the chance. Trust is a social phase state. One that's easier to fall out of than we think. We take it for granted that we encounter thousands of people in our lives and vanishingly few try to cause us harm in any way. But that's an accomplishment that took countless of generations of hard and careful work.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Now I know why I never could watch Survivor and similar shows! It's like Kindergarten Khmer Rogue. (Damn people will be primed for it when the time is right...)
- c3534l 7y ago
  Pol Pots vision was pretty dark, though, and the horror rather immediate. His ideology was extreme for communist standards well before he got into power.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
> It's really important to point out that that's not usually the case with the internet version. I don’t believe this at all. Taking over online communities with puritanism and forcing out any non-compliant participants is a very easy pattern to see, and is very obviously a play for power (especially when the new moral authority comes from outside the community to begin with). Throw a patreon/Kickstarter... on top, and you have a play for power and wealth. I have no doubt there are naive participants in all of this, but there are a long list of incredibly successful sociopaths who have built entire careers on top of this, and a much longer list of moderately successful sociopaths who have done the same.

by _bxg1 7y ago

nate_meurer 7y ago

> The internet abstracts away people's humanity, dampening any compassion/charity, and the temperature rises on its own. I've heard this said many different ways, but yours might be my favorite so far.

sequoia 7y ago

> a premeditated ploy for power. The posturing was conscious and malicious. Do you really think that Mao was completely cynical and didn't believe that what he was doing was "the right thing" that would improve the lives of his countrymen? Most people think they are doing "what's right," and some are willing to overlook unethical acts (or actions that let them accrue power to themselves) if it serves the greater good. I tend to believe both these folks, and Mao for that matter, intend to do what they think is right & what will make the world better–and if you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, so be it. It's a comforting thought that there are "bad people with bad intentions who do bad things on purpose" and "good people with good intentions who do good things (and occasionally do bad things by accident)" but in reality these two groups are not that distinct. (It goes without saying that these folks are not "as bad as Mao" I mention it only because it was already brought up as an example.)

spangry 7y ago
I agree that these folks are probably acting with good intentions. And that can actually make the situation worse. This CS Lewis quote comes to mind: "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."
- watwut 7y ago
  But CS Lewis was wrong as history of genocides and purges show. None of them started for the good of victims and they were definitely in the category of worst oppression.
  - gwd 7y ago
    I think Lewis had in more in mind something like what happens to Winston in George Orwell's 1984, where it wasn't enough for the Party for him to obey them but not agree with them; it wasn't enough for the Party to discover that he didn't agree with them and kill him; they were only satisfied once they'd tortured him into agreeing with them as well. I'd much rather be under killed for disagreeing than tortured until my captors are satisfied that I really agree with them.
    - watwut 7y ago
      Afaik, all genocides involved a lot of torture - both of targets and of those who refused to cooperate or talked against it. Sometimes it was to gain information, force agreement, force compliance etc. It also involved quite a lot of petty rule making to keep those who were being oppressed in line. And quite a lot of it was basically for fun or hate. -------------- Besides original quote is about motivation. People who organized genocides were fully ok with their own conscience. They were in fact proud over their own good work. And as fun it sounds and as easy it is to use against certain disliked people, it is not true in the sense of how world really works when things go bad.

Animats 7y ago

The start may be a semi-random event. It's the escalation that gets it out of hand. Someone did this as a joke in 1959. See "Society for Indecency to Naked Animals"[1] They got the purity cycle going. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Indecency_to_Naked_Animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Indecency_to_Naked...

rolandog 7y ago
Well, it's a relief that the world has always been absurd.
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  Monty Python came to mind when I read the above wiki article, but the use of the word "absurd" was the nail! :)

dcolkitt 7y ago

> The problem comes from that "ratchet effect", where the only way to stay safe is to keep escalating things. This reminds of accounts I've read of the Khmer Rogue. Nobody, including Pol Pot, started out intending to kill nearly 50% of Cambodia's population. But the communist zealotry created an environment of extreme paranoia. Capitalists and counter-revolutionaries were suspected of being everywhere and sabotaging everything. Even the shakiest unsubstantiated accusations were enough to put someone on the execution block. The result is that people became so fearful that they started preemptively lobbing accusations at everybody and anybody. Even if you think your neighbor might possibly accuse you in the future, you're better off putting in a call to the secret police about him before he gets the chance. Trust is a social phase state. One that's easier to fall out of than we think. We take it for granted that we encounter thousands of people in our lives and vanishingly few try to cause us harm in any way. But that's an accomplishment that took countless of generations of hard and careful work.

jacobush 7y ago
Now I know why I never could watch Survivor and similar shows! It's like Kindergarten Khmer Rogue. (Damn people will be primed for it when the time is right...)
c3534l 7y ago
Pol Pots vision was pretty dark, though, and the horror rather immediate. His ideology was extreme for communist standards well before he got into power.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

> It's really important to point out that that's not usually the case with the internet version. I don’t believe this at all. Taking over online communities with puritanism and forcing out any non-compliant participants is a very easy pattern to see, and is very obviously a play for power (especially when the new moral authority comes from outside the community to begin with). Throw a patreon/Kickstarter... on top, and you have a play for power and wealth. I have no doubt there are naive participants in all of this, but there are a long list of incredibly successful sociopaths who have built entire careers on top of this, and a much longer list of moderately successful sociopaths who have done the same.