6 ms·

This is shockingly naive and biased. Forcibly changing a person's mind, their being, is arguably worse than physical violence. You'd have to be pretty creative

by movaps 6y ago

This is shockingly naive and biased. Forcibly changing a person's mind, their being, is arguably worse than physical violence. You'd have to be pretty creative to come up with something more dystopian than purging political enemies and religions via "voluntary" psychiatry.

stevula 6y ago
If all the drug does is change your political beliefs, then yes I would agree. But what if it just gives you more empathy, which then causes you to support social programs, become less nationalistic, and adopt a more open mind towards drug policy? That would probably push you to the left but only incidentally as a result of increased empathy and drug tolerance.
ByteJockey 6y ago
I'm confused by this comment. The op explicitly said: > You can't force anyone to do it And your mind immediately went to: > Forcibly changing a person's mind Mind elaborating a bit?
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Did you read the last sentence about "being allowed back into society"? Ostracism for the purpose of social thought control is perverse, tyrannical, and disturbing on every level. I'm amazed at how OP could in one sentence complain about the rise of extremism and by the end of the paragraph prescribe an extreme form of human torture to solve it. I reckon people who reason like this probably think "extremism" is some concretely defined thing rather than a subjective thing that depends on the culture, the time, and the place.
  - heartbeats 6y ago
    You can't force people to hang out with extremists, so of course those people will be shunned. Are you suggesting we should make it a crime to not hang out with people who want you dead? If they're not allowed to improve, then how are they to rejoin society again? edit: wait, are you suggesting joining ISIS or the Aryan Brotherhood is just a subjective difference of opinion?
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      What is the legal definition of extremist? And what is the legal crime they are violating? Extremism is a loaded word that has no real concrete meaning. Therefore, it can mean whatever the opinion makers want it to mean. And you can justify all sorts of abuse and torture with that sort of propaganda. This game has been played many times in human history and it never ends well.
      - heartbeats 6y ago
        Neo-Nazis, ISIS members, Proud Boys? Murder, arson, kidnapping? Hate speech, harassment, cyberstalking? Like in the 1940s, when we failed to take extremism seriously and 6+ million were killed?
        chrisco255 6y ago
        What about Communists? Socialists? Libertarians? PETA? Antifa? Twitter's executive board? Are they extremists? I can find probably millions of people that would agree that they are in fact, extremists. In fact, the Nazis argued that Jews and Communists were evil. Of course, in Soviet Russia and China, the anti-communists were the extremists...and died by the tens of millions as a result. To the extent that laws are actually broken, those crimes should be prosecuted. Speech is a natural right and needs to be protected as such. The U.S. went through the 40s all the while generally protecting the first amendment. The German Nazis went around torturing and bullying everyone who disagreed with them. Your proposal is closer to Nazism than anything I've heard of.
        4ggr0 6y ago
        You know, I'm not from the US, so I probably have a different view on free speech. People should be allowed to say what they want, BUT - If anyone thinks that they have to say or think that jews/black people/woman are evil, less worth etc., they can fuck right off. In my opinion there's no justifiable reason whatsoever to be racist, xenophobic and the like.
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    I read that as referring to people who were already ostracized for their belives having an option to get back in. You seem to have read it a completely different way. Are you by chance worried about the second order effects? Perhaps that the existence of such a pill would increase the range of believes that people are ostracized for?
heartbeats 6y ago
What are you gonna do with these kids, then? Just let them sit at home and wait for them to carry out the next terrorist attack? Many of them have bright futures. If anything, it's dystopian not to let them live their lives to the fullest extent.
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  > What are you gonna do with these kids, then? Just let them sit at home and wait for them to carry out the next terrorist attack? Talk to them. Listen to how they got there. Show compassion. https://www.ted.com/talks/christian_picciolini_my_descent_into_america_s_neo_nazi_movement_and_how_i_got_out/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/christian_picciolini_my_descent_in...
  - heartbeats 6y ago
    There's lots of people in this world who are sad. Are you suggesting we should prioritize the aggressors over their victims, just because they happen to look like you? Or because they're at a higher risk of committing terrorism? Also, that doesn't scale. Getting someone a therapist costs a good amount of money, getting them on meds is dirt cheap. Convincing someone who doesn't trust you very much they should go see a therapist is going to be a very hard sell.
    - ryukafalz 6y ago
      I never said anything about prioritizing the aggressors over the victims. Certainly not. But I think we really need to start thinking, as a society, about how and why people end up in these dark places and how we can change that. Maybe - maybe - if it were entirely voluntary, it could be okay. But I think you’ll find that convincing someone who doesn’t trust you very much they should take medication to change their minds is also going to be a very hard sell. People generally think they’re right, after all, otherwise they would have different beliefs.
    - movaps 6y ago
      Nobody said anything about what they look like. I'm not sure why you're assuming we're racists. Priority should be given to whoever would have the biggest negative impact. There's no need to bring justice into it. And sorry but, frankly, advocating for literal chemical brainwashing because it's cheaper than therapy is sociopathic.
bleepblorp 6y ago
There are some very limited situations where a pill that can change someone's ideology could have some ethical uses. Imagine a would-be ideologically-motivated terrorist concocted a plot that would kill hundreds of people but he was arrested before he could harm anyone. In the course of the plot, he committed enough crimes that he will be put in a supermax prison for the rest of his life. Is it more ethical to keep this person in a solitary confinement--allowed out of his cell only one hour a day--for the next forty years or give him the option of taking a pill that will make him stop wanting to murder people in the name of his ideology and instead put him on parole until it's clear the pill worked? I'd argue offering the pill is far more humane than life in solitary confinement. A tool like this obviously should not be used to "reform" people who are socially different (e.g. Alan Turing); the scenario I propose here is only applicable to people whose violent politics make them too dangerous to let out of prison.
- zajio1am 6y ago
  > Is it more ethical to keep this person in a solitary confinement ... for the next forty years or give him the option of taking a pill that will make him stop wanting to murder people in the name of his ideology and instead put him on parole until it's clear the pill worked? First, it is very unlikely that a person who is so commited to some idea to be ideologically-motivated terrorist, would voluntarily accept pill that forces ideological change. Second, there is already something similar. In some countries there is option for people that committed sexual crimes (e.g. chil rape) and have uncontrollable urges to accept chemical castration in order to get parole. It is generally viewed as human rights violation.

by movaps 6y ago

stevula 6y ago

If all the drug does is change your political beliefs, then yes I would agree. But what if it just gives you more empathy, which then causes you to support social programs, become less nationalistic, and adopt a more open mind towards drug policy? That would probably push you to the left but only incidentally as a result of increased empathy and drug tolerance.

ByteJockey 6y ago

I'm confused by this comment. The op explicitly said: > You can't force anyone to do it And your mind immediately went to: > Forcibly changing a person's mind Mind elaborating a bit?

chrisco255 6y ago
Did you read the last sentence about "being allowed back into society"? Ostracism for the purpose of social thought control is perverse, tyrannical, and disturbing on every level. I'm amazed at how OP could in one sentence complain about the rise of extremism and by the end of the paragraph prescribe an extreme form of human torture to solve it. I reckon people who reason like this probably think "extremism" is some concretely defined thing rather than a subjective thing that depends on the culture, the time, and the place.
- heartbeats 6y ago
  You can't force people to hang out with extremists, so of course those people will be shunned. Are you suggesting we should make it a crime to not hang out with people who want you dead? If they're not allowed to improve, then how are they to rejoin society again? edit: wait, are you suggesting joining ISIS or the Aryan Brotherhood is just a subjective difference of opinion?
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    What is the legal definition of extremist? And what is the legal crime they are violating? Extremism is a loaded word that has no real concrete meaning. Therefore, it can mean whatever the opinion makers want it to mean. And you can justify all sorts of abuse and torture with that sort of propaganda. This game has been played many times in human history and it never ends well.
    - heartbeats 6y ago
      Neo-Nazis, ISIS members, Proud Boys? Murder, arson, kidnapping? Hate speech, harassment, cyberstalking? Like in the 1940s, when we failed to take extremism seriously and 6+ million were killed?
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        What about Communists? Socialists? Libertarians? PETA? Antifa? Twitter's executive board? Are they extremists? I can find probably millions of people that would agree that they are in fact, extremists. In fact, the Nazis argued that Jews and Communists were evil. Of course, in Soviet Russia and China, the anti-communists were the extremists...and died by the tens of millions as a result. To the extent that laws are actually broken, those crimes should be prosecuted. Speech is a natural right and needs to be protected as such. The U.S. went through the 40s all the while generally protecting the first amendment. The German Nazis went around torturing and bullying everyone who disagreed with them. Your proposal is closer to Nazism than anything I've heard of.
        4ggr0 6y ago
        You know, I'm not from the US, so I probably have a different view on free speech. People should be allowed to say what they want, BUT - If anyone thinks that they have to say or think that jews/black people/woman are evil, less worth etc., they can fuck right off. In my opinion there's no justifiable reason whatsoever to be racist, xenophobic and the like.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  I read that as referring to people who were already ostracized for their belives having an option to get back in. You seem to have read it a completely different way. Are you by chance worried about the second order effects? Perhaps that the existence of such a pill would increase the range of believes that people are ostracized for?

heartbeats 6y ago

What are you gonna do with these kids, then? Just let them sit at home and wait for them to carry out the next terrorist attack? Many of them have bright futures. If anything, it's dystopian not to let them live their lives to the fullest extent.

ryukafalz 6y ago
> What are you gonna do with these kids, then? Just let them sit at home and wait for them to carry out the next terrorist attack? Talk to them. Listen to how they got there. Show compassion. https://www.ted.com/talks/christian_picciolini_my_descent_into_america_s_neo_nazi_movement_and_how_i_got_out/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/christian_picciolini_my_descent_in...
- heartbeats 6y ago
  There's lots of people in this world who are sad. Are you suggesting we should prioritize the aggressors over their victims, just because they happen to look like you? Or because they're at a higher risk of committing terrorism? Also, that doesn't scale. Getting someone a therapist costs a good amount of money, getting them on meds is dirt cheap. Convincing someone who doesn't trust you very much they should go see a therapist is going to be a very hard sell.
  - ryukafalz 6y ago
    I never said anything about prioritizing the aggressors over the victims. Certainly not. But I think we really need to start thinking, as a society, about how and why people end up in these dark places and how we can change that. Maybe - maybe - if it were entirely voluntary, it could be okay. But I think you’ll find that convincing someone who doesn’t trust you very much they should take medication to change their minds is also going to be a very hard sell. People generally think they’re right, after all, otherwise they would have different beliefs.
  - movaps 6y ago
    Nobody said anything about what they look like. I'm not sure why you're assuming we're racists. Priority should be given to whoever would have the biggest negative impact. There's no need to bring justice into it. And sorry but, frankly, advocating for literal chemical brainwashing because it's cheaper than therapy is sociopathic.

bleepblorp 6y ago

There are some very limited situations where a pill that can change someone's ideology could have some ethical uses. Imagine a would-be ideologically-motivated terrorist concocted a plot that would kill hundreds of people but he was arrested before he could harm anyone. In the course of the plot, he committed enough crimes that he will be put in a supermax prison for the rest of his life. Is it more ethical to keep this person in a solitary confinement--allowed out of his cell only one hour a day--for the next forty years or give him the option of taking a pill that will make him stop wanting to murder people in the name of his ideology and instead put him on parole until it's clear the pill worked? I'd argue offering the pill is far more humane than life in solitary confinement. A tool like this obviously should not be used to "reform" people who are socially different (e.g. Alan Turing); the scenario I propose here is only applicable to people whose violent politics make them too dangerous to let out of prison.

zajio1am 6y ago
> Is it more ethical to keep this person in a solitary confinement ... for the next forty years or give him the option of taking a pill that will make him stop wanting to murder people in the name of his ideology and instead put him on parole until it's clear the pill worked? First, it is very unlikely that a person who is so commited to some idea to be ideologically-motivated terrorist, would voluntarily accept pill that forces ideological change. Second, there is already something similar. In some countries there is option for people that committed sexual crimes (e.g. chil rape) and have uncontrollable urges to accept chemical castration in order to get parole. It is generally viewed as human rights violation.