3 ms·
Given the data we have now, you’re right— if humans were rational we’d be focusing topics that affect the masses. Using minority groups (BLM, LGBT, Immigration,
by kyle_martin1 5y ago
Given the data we have now, you’re right— if humans were rational we’d be focusing topics that affect the masses. Using minority groups (BLM, LGBT, Immigration, etc.) as shields for larger agendas is an effective defense strategy.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago> if humans were rational we’d be focusing topics that affect the masses Are there any academic articles on ethics that you could cite to back up that assertion?
- kyle_martin1 5y agoWell, communism is heavily documented in history books.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y agoI’m not familiar enough with communist theory to understand the empirical underpinnings of its historical or modern use as a form of government. Do you have any reference material on the successes and failures of communism that would be worth bookmarking?
- perl4ever 5y agoThis is more nuanced than you think. If you choose one variable that describes people, and assume for simplicity it's approximately bell shaped, then sure, most people are in the middle, which is "average" or "normal", and if we want to help the most people, it seems logical to focus on them. But if you start adding independent variables, it becomes increasingly unlikely that any given person is in the middle on all of them. Even with three, let alone dozens. So you, or any other randomly chosen person, are probably very like "the masses" in some respects, but given, say, ten dimensions, nobody is average. Which is why disregarding minorities in general isn't a viable way to run a society. (I got this idea from an item on HN, which I think was more or less this: https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...)