5 ms·

I disagree with this take fundamentally and that's because I want to see the whole world grow kinder. Maybe your goals are different. I'd rather weed out "the a

I disagree with this take fundamentally and that's because I want to see the whole world grow kinder. Maybe your goals are different. I'd rather weed out "the assholes" than clamor to them for whatever skillset they possess. If they want to learn the ability to work with others, kindly (also a skillset), while contributing their knowledge, welcome them. But if they continue to harm others on their solo trip to glory, they should be struck down, admonished, called out. What's kind about that? Well, you've just saved tens, hundreds, thousands more from enduring their harm. We can imbue these qualities of kindness into our workplaces, our families, our communities by saying, "No, you will not," to the narcissists of the world. Human progress is good. It does not require the sacrifice of our innocent or benign to Moloch to fuel its engine.

DonnyV 5y ago
Not sure why the above comment by @emptysongglass is being downvoted. This is what we should be striving for.
- wrnr 5y ago
  It might not be grandiose narcissism at display it does have a little hint of vulnerable narcissism.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Because it's envisioning a false utopia where no one gets their feelings hurt, which is a subjective measurement. This reality doesn't exist, nor will it ever. What one person sees as narcissistic or asshole behavior the other person might not. Sometimes whether it makes people feel bad is irrelevant.
nickysielicki 5y ago
I would just argue that sometimes the ends justify the means. Had Patton been given more authority and given less reprimands (eg: for slapping lower soldiers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_inci... ), the war could very well have ended a year earlier. Everyone else was fine with fighting a war of attrition, whereas Patton recognized that aerial support had the potential to dramatically change the calculus of war. The Nazi camps could have been cleared months (if not years) earlier. You're speaking about tens, hundreds, thousands, but in this case we're talking about hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives could have been saved. It's nice to imagine a world where someone would have that sort of insight and also would be a nice person, but I think history teaches us that the two are inextricably tied together. Bill Gates built Microsoft while being ruthlessly cruel to people. Patton slapped soldiers. I don't think we can will these people out of existence. I think if we could, it would have already happened.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > Had Patton been given more authority and given less reprimands … the war could very well have ended a year earlier. The war started because another arsehole was given more authority and less reprimands. The Enabling Act of 1933 was pitched as a temporary measure to "to Remedy the Distress of People and the Reich"" So no: its never worth giving a chop too much power. [1] https://www.dw.com/en/the-law-that-enabled-hitlers-dictatorship/a-16689839 https://www.dw.com/en/the-law-that-enabled-hitlers-dictators...
  - nfw2 5y ago
    Here are the data points: - giving Hitler authority caused WWII and Holocaust, killing millions of innocent people (bad) - giving Patton authority could have ended WWII early, saving millions of innocent people (good, hypothetically) The first data point alone only proves that giving authority is SOMETIMES bad, which no one would argue with. If the second data point is a true statement, then it clearly counters the assertion that giving authority is ALWAYS bad Maybe granting authority is never worth the risk, but I think it required a more nuanced analysis than just bringing up Hitler.

DonnyV 5y ago

Not sure why the above comment by @emptysongglass is being downvoted. This is what we should be striving for.

wrnr 5y ago
It might not be grandiose narcissism at display it does have a little hint of vulnerable narcissism.
CountDrewku 5y ago
Because it's envisioning a false utopia where no one gets their feelings hurt, which is a subjective measurement. This reality doesn't exist, nor will it ever. What one person sees as narcissistic or asshole behavior the other person might not. Sometimes whether it makes people feel bad is irrelevant.

nickysielicki 5y ago

I would just argue that sometimes the ends justify the means. Had Patton been given more authority and given less reprimands (eg: for slapping lower soldiers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_inci... ), the war could very well have ended a year earlier. Everyone else was fine with fighting a war of attrition, whereas Patton recognized that aerial support had the potential to dramatically change the calculus of war. The Nazi camps could have been cleared months (if not years) earlier. You're speaking about tens, hundreds, thousands, but in this case we're talking about hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives could have been saved. It's nice to imagine a world where someone would have that sort of insight and also would be a nice person, but I think history teaches us that the two are inextricably tied together. Bill Gates built Microsoft while being ruthlessly cruel to people. Patton slapped soldiers. I don't think we can will these people out of existence. I think if we could, it would have already happened.

throwaway210222 5y ago
> Had Patton been given more authority and given less reprimands … the war could very well have ended a year earlier. The war started because another arsehole was given more authority and less reprimands. The Enabling Act of 1933 was pitched as a temporary measure to "to Remedy the Distress of People and the Reich"" So no: its never worth giving a chop too much power. [1] https://www.dw.com/en/the-law-that-enabled-hitlers-dictatorship/a-16689839 https://www.dw.com/en/the-law-that-enabled-hitlers-dictators...
- nfw2 5y ago
  Here are the data points: - giving Hitler authority caused WWII and Holocaust, killing millions of innocent people (bad) - giving Patton authority could have ended WWII early, saving millions of innocent people (good, hypothetically) The first data point alone only proves that giving authority is SOMETIMES bad, which no one would argue with. If the second data point is a true statement, then it clearly counters the assertion that giving authority is ALWAYS bad Maybe granting authority is never worth the risk, but I think it required a more nuanced analysis than just bringing up Hitler.