3 ms·
The issue is that this behavior doesn't come out of some inborn bloodthirst, but rather a scenario akin to, "We're taking you're stuff." "I'll kill you if you
by bsanr 7y ago
The issue is that this behavior doesn't come out of some inborn bloodthirst, but rather a scenario akin to,
"We're taking you're stuff."
"I'll kill you if you try."
"Well then we must defend ourselves."
Inevitably, stuff is appropriated and the mob, in its losses, learns to pull the trigger first.
"Society" is this but both sides knowing when to stop before the shooting begins.
- Udik 7y agoI don't think it works like that at all. I think the cognitive process is more like "they have all the stuff, and we have nothing. They have it because they're stealing it from us. And they know we're starving and they don't care, so they're existential enemies to us, and they deserve to die". Thus the process is completely one-sided, and there is very little the other side can do.
- bsanr 7y agoI can see how someone on the other side would view things this way, deaf as they are to the protest of the lower half of the wealth pyramid. However, if the conversation is one-sided, it's not because poor people are quiet, but because they've been rendered voiceless by the inattention and apathy of the upper classes. They'll still be surprised when the people who have been posting guillotine memes for half a decade start killing rich people. There was always an explicit, if ignored, desire to avoid that by having the system change before it was necessary.