7 ms·

"If you doubt this, ask around. I wager you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn’t want a safer, fairer, more just world for everyone if they could get

"If you doubt this, ask around. I wager you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn’t want a safer, fairer, more just world for everyone if they could get it." I'll take that wager. I've met a lot of people whose concern for others drops off sharply beyond their own family and friends. Then there is the deep tribal impulse that is satisfied only at the exclusion of others, almost as a principle. Suggesting they employ the starman in their discussion won't make a difference because it's not a rhetorical problem, it's just how their priorities reflect on how they act in their daily lives. The issue is in assuming the most charitable version of an opponent when we have their actions to guide us instead. For example, right now there are lots of Russians who think it's fine to invade, kill and steal, not for safety, fairness or justice for everyone. They just want better for their tribe. And we should respond as such based on their actions. And if you assume they want safety, fairness and justice for everyone, their responses will vary from 'sure, why not' to 'of course, that's exactly why we're liberating, cleansing and reappropriating'. Many of us are just selfish bastards, and that's a character flaw.

grogenaut 4y ago
As my friends from college (sample set of 10) got older I noticed where people split conservative or liberal (US centric sorry). My liberal friends are generally concerned for everyone in society and how they'll get screwed over or not. My conservative friends are very concerned about anyone they know, and very worried about how they can't backstop them because of supporting the whole of society. 2 of them would fly / drive across the country at a moments notice to help me out for weeks. But they aren't concerned with people outside that circle. Of the 2 I had deep conversations with, they both were more focused on setting up social circles to support everyone else such as churches, local community, family, which to them is the fallback, not the government. That's about as far as I got.
bravura 4y ago
Yeah. Hurt people hurt people. Many people have a spirit of benevolence, but many other people have endured trauma and deeply believe that the next generation must be hazed too.
- switchbak 4y ago
  Yes, that probably explains the majority of violence that occurs in the world. There also exist a set of people that are born with wiring that if not specifically counteracted can have them act in violent and antisocial ways, without trauma needing to have occurred.
- NoZZz 4y ago
  Yet in that hazing there is blowback. I think society needs therapy.
- WesleyJohnson 4y ago
  In a grossly, over-simplified nutshell, aren't people saying this of Clarence Thomas?
roody15 4y ago
“ For example, right now there are lots of Russians who think it's fine to invade, kill and steal, not for safety, fairness or justice for everyone. They just want better for their tribe.” I think is a way oversimplification of geopolitical situation in Ukraine and Russian motives. Just my two cents
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  Sure, but I'm not trying to capture the geopolitical situation there. It's only an example. Some people do think this way (for example displaying the Z as a tribal symbol) and that's enough reason to not just assume charitability or altruism on another's part. IMO it's an oversimplification to do otherwise.
- causi 4y ago
  Not by as much as you might think when your standards have been informed by more conventional models of state-led evil. Vranyo is a cultural disease whose impact cannot be overstated. I'll leave it to a Russian to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1pOahq4TCk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1pOahq4TCk
- deelly 4y ago
  Oversimplification from which point of view? Russians, Ukrainians, or some outside observer?
  - malwrar 4y ago
    I think OP means Russia’s actions are much better understood by their national interest and history, rather than by the individual barbarity of their troops. Russia should not be in Ukraine and should not be firing missiles into population centers, but they are. Their reasons for doing so appear more complicated than mere evil. To be explicit, if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars on the north european plains once every ~33 years. Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs and approach further by way of NATO expansion despite in some cases explicitly promising otherwise. Ukraine, a previous warsaw pact country, is a prospective NATO member who not only represents a convenient corridor into Russia but also controls a large stretch of coast (Russia wants this) and has massive plains for food production and tank conveyance. Under this interpretation, Russia seeks to resist expansion of a european alliance composed of several former enemies and retain access to key strategic locations outside its borders. Russia’s motives are much more tangible under this perspective, and who knows maybe there’s a solution we’re not seeing from that perspective than one that places outsized emphasis on individual atrocities. It’s a war, after all, and doesn’t appear to be stopping despite the upset faces of spectators.
bjt2n3904 4y ago
> a kind of platinum rule to improve upon the golden one When I read this, I scoffed a little bit. A better idea than one proposed two thousand years ago? Say it isn't so! Why haven't we thought of this before? I think you hooked rightly on the Ukraine and Russia conflict. Sometimes, there is not a "best version" of someone. The author seems to reject that outright, saying we need to recognize our opponents humanity in order to effectively argue, with the premise that there's something good in there to tease out. On what basis can the author say that there's something good inside? Their "humanity"? That reasoning is rather circular...
- kubanczyk 4y ago
  Side remark maybe, but I prefer "benevolence" over "humanity" in this context. The former is (1) less etymologically confusing (ekhem...) and (2) applicable to other species.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  > When I read this, I scoffed a little bit. I did as well, and then paused because I've said to myself that I've come up with something like this before (facepalm emoji). > On what basis can the author say that there's something good inside? Their "humanity"? I can't speak for him, however when I do this, it's not about knowing for sure there's something good inside someone, it's choosing to believe that there is. I don't know if I will ever know someone's deepest intentions, and I have seen that when I believe they have bad intentions towards me, I can feel sad, angry, afraid, lonely, and more. However, when I believe they have good intentions towards me, I can feel grateful, safe, free, hopeful, etc. Given that I may never know how they're feeling, I therefore think I can choose what to believe, and by choosing to believe they have good intentions, I feel better. Secondly, if I believe they have bad intentions, I often treat them poorly—ignore them, distrust them, attack them, etc. If I believe they have good intentions, I often treat them kindly—appreciate them, help them, show them how much I care, etc. So if I choose to believe they have good intentions, they may also be more likely to believe that I have good intentions for them based on my actions. This logic may fall apart if one believes that we can know for certain another's deepest intentions, I just currently believe we cannot.
- 4y ago
nonrandomstring 4y ago
"you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn’t want a safer, fairer, more just world for everyone if they could get it" As an optimist and humanist, a shocking revelation for me was hearing of the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" in South Africa. (I think via a talk by Chomsky or Zizek) Many atrocities were committed by both sides during the Apartheid era. Enough said. Years later the Government of National Unity wanted to heal the country, to bury festering resentments and feuds. Perpetrators and victims were brought together under supervision to talk openly and work toward forgiveness. It's a great idea in principle. Although the commission is widely considered successful, a strange thing occurred, something that we also buried at the Nuremberg trials. A quite small but significant group were not merely unrepentant, they used the commission as a platform to attack and abuse their victims again. "I'm really glad I tortured your children, let me tell you about how they screamed", and so on. Sure, always aim to "star man" in debate, but one must be hard enough underneath to expect occasionally to be shot out of the sky, not by an uncharitable or entrenched interlocutor but by an plain old evil asshole. They exist. They're not "psychopaths" or even "trolls", but get a thrill out of acting so as to add chaos and pain to the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commi...
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  "A quite small but significant group were not merely unrepentant, they used the commission as a platform to attack and abuse their victims again." It's interesting. Do you have a source for further reading?
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    It was very probably Zizek who talked about this. And definitely a talk rather than words I read. Sorry I can't be more helpful. For the Nuremberg angle then see Adam Curtis's "Pandora's Box" in which the trial of Eichmann is centre stage of one episode. Eichmann effectively cannot comprehend there was anything morally questionable about the 'final solution' and instead of apologies or reflection he repeatedly doubles down and hammers home his reasonable justification for the slaughter.
Aunche 4y ago
That's true, but at the same time, calling a Russian soldier a selfish bastard isn't going to stop him from invading Ukraine. Presumably, your goal is to motivate somewhat neutral people to support Ukraine or condemn Russia. In that case, the only thing you can do is to refute rationalizations used to justify the invasion.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  My point isn't to build support for either side (it was just an example), nor is it to accuse Russian soldiers of selfishness. It's to say that we can't just assume his (or anyone's) motivation is not selfish, or that there must be a middle ground we will surely find through improvement to our rhetorical approach.
cratermoon 4y ago
Even when individuals act with charity and compassion, they act according to their beliefs, interests, and needs. As Reinhold Niebuhr described in Moral Man and Immoral Society, a group of individuals acting according to shared interests, even when doing so compassionately, will inevitably come into conflict with other groups, socially or militaristically, when those interests conflict.
5040 4y ago
>I've met a lot of people whose concern for others drops off sharply beyond their own family and friends. This is why Hierocles the Stoic had the right idea when he pushed people to move one circle over. This is a far more practical goal than striving for a "just world". Each one of us is as it were entirely encompassed by many circles, some smaller, others larger, the latter enclosing the former on the basis of their different and unequal dispositions relative to each other. The first and closest circle is the one which a person has drawn as though around a centre, his own mind. This circle encloses the body and anything taken for the sake of the body. For it is virtually the smallest circle, and almost touches the centre itself. Next, the second one further removed from the centre but enclosing the first circle; this contains parents, siblings, wife, and children. The third one has in it uncles and aunts, grandparents, nephews, nieces, and cousins. The next circle includes the other relatives, and this is followed by the circle of local residents, then the circle of fellow-tribes-men, next that of fellow-citizens, and then in the same way the circle of people from neighbouring towns, and the circle of fellow-countrymen. The outermost and largest circle, which encompasses all the rest, is that of the whole human race. Once these have all been surveyed, it is the task of a well tempered man, in his proper treatment of each group, to draw the circles together somehow towards the centre, and to keep zealously transferring those from the enclosing circles into the enclosed ones ... It is incumbent on us to respect people from the third circle as if they were those from the second, and again to respect our other relatives as if they were those from the third circle. For although the greater distance in blood will remove some affection, we must still try hard to assimilate them. The right point will be reached if, through our own initiative, we reduce the distance of the relationship with each person.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  I think we can try to improve kinship and simultaneously strive for a more just world. They probably enhance each other. The problem with nationalism is the effort stops once the circle encompasses 'your' people (or in the Ukraine/Russia conflict, forces those outside to accept they are on the inside).
  - mcguire 4y ago
foobiekr 4y ago
I may be unlucky, but I have met a number of people who are not just selfish or tribal but actively sadistic. They would do something that does not benefit them if it meant discomfort and disadvantage for their outgroup. This is a little beyond just disinterest or lack of consideration, they actively prefer it. These are people who are constrained only by the rule of law, such as it is. One of the companies I worked for seemingly attracted this type of personality. Of the people like this I've met (and been actually very cautious around), maybe 90% worked at that specific company.
- pstuart 4y ago
  "The cruelty is the point" is very real. Hurts my heart.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    yeah :-( I see it as "I'm hurting so much, I want you to also hurt." or "I want you to know the pain I feel." I think we underestimate how much other people are suffering (mostly because most cultures I know teach us not to cry) and feel our own pain, therefore inflicting pain on them to try to equalize it. I think an easier (and less pain-inducing) way is for us to just get better at sharing our suffering.
- kmacdough 4y ago
  I've found this tends to come from life experience suggesting this is the only way to survive. It can be incredibly difficult to come at this from a place of compassion, but I've found that when I do - when I create real value in their lives through acts of community and cooperation - I can slowly open a door for them to see other ways. It takes time and a lot of compassion. But it's totally doable, and it can feel real good to see people build compassion from nothing.
  - foobiekr 4y ago
    Perhaps it didn't come across, but when I say they are sadistic I mean things like I wouldn't trust my pets around them. One of them, and I will use this as an example and let it be, is the nephew of an insanely rich family, not as rich as some but quote wealthy and grew up privileged. One afternoon he was raging about the dog park near his condominium, and was describing his plan to scatter hard boiled eggs with needles inserted in them to discourage the dog owners from using it. Sure, he needed help. Who knows, maybe his family, though affluent, was abusive. I had no interest in finding out.
panarky 4y ago
> right now there are lots of Russians who think it's fine to invade, kill and steal, ... It's not even that the Russians who think this are especially evil people, or irrational people, or people who are unlike us in any fundamental way. The reason they think this way, and that you do not, is because they believe different myths than you do. Let's say your worldview is defined by Ivan Ilyin [0]. You don't consider other people or ethics at all. The only thing that matters in the world is God. And God is displeased that the perfect Russia that He created has been spoiled. The only way to heal the world and make God happy is to restore a certain kind of utopian Russia. That pure and perfect Russia is united in territory and belief, so it can't tolerate any division or fragmentation within itself. Agents of the devil in the West are deviously dismantling and disintegrating that pure and perfect Russia, piece by piece. Westerners are carving off pieces of territory like Ukraine, and dividing Russian people with seditious Western ideas like democracy and gender fluidity and a free press. So it's a supernatural struggle between good and evil. An existential battle like that means there's no room for this messy business of parliaments and voting, or compromising with different perspectives. We need one strong leader, a true and pure leader, to inherit the mantle of past great leaders like Stalin and Peter the Great. He will be God's instrument to make the hard decisions and lead the nation in glorious struggle. This divinely inspired leader will create unity in the world by restoring and reuniting Russia itself. ---- Where do you even begin to have a conversation when you don't share the most basic of beliefs or values? There is no common ground in wanting a safer, fairer, more just world. We have our own foundational myths that we rarely acknowledge or interrogate, and our myths don't intersect with Russia's myths at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  "Where do you even begin to have a conversation when you don't share the most basic of beliefs or values?" We can share it with the tens of thousands of educated Russian opposing the 'special operation', with the thousands of Russians in jail for protesting. Even with the silent millions who doubt all the bullshit they hear but perhaps aren't going to die on a hill over it. They all grew up with the same foundational myths as the irredentists, they just chose to look further. It's a mistake to essentialise a country as diverse as Russia but we can agree that it's also a mistake to assume almost everyone wants the best for everyone else.
googlryas 4y ago
I watched a security video recently of 3 random people in a convenience store. The store clerk has some kind of medical issue, passes out and falls down. The 3 random people decide that now they can rob the store with impunity, take a bunch of stuff, and then leave the clerk on the floor. Eventually someone else came in and helped the clerk, but it wasn't like those 3 people were part of some psychopath convention. They just independently decided that getting about $20 worth of free stuff was a better option than calling 911 or checking on the man.
jimkleiber 4y ago
> "If you doubt this, ask around. I wager you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn’t want a safer, fairer, more just world for everyone if they could get it." I wonder if more people actually want others to see our humanity than us to see the humanity of others. I would strongly bet on that actually. I think a lot of people whose concern for others drops off sharply beyond their own family and friends believe that others don't have concern for them. It can become a preemptive indifference: they don't care about me, why should I care about them. What I want to work on and help people realize is that I care about you, even if I don't know you. And the work I do to get there is often me realizing how much people care about me. Maybe this is what he's getting at with the starman concept, to flip ourselves from thinking others are trying to hurt us and reacting to them with hatred or indifference, to believing they actually care about us. And I agree that many people may not want to do this, so I'm mostly just trying to do it for myself. I wonder if his argument would have come off differently if instead of telling people what they should do, he said these are the tools he employs and how they work in his life.
kmacdough 4y ago
Reading this article, it seems entirely about taking initiative changing your own approach, without an explicit expectation. Asking someone else to star-man is expecting them to change for you, without showing any compassion or respect for their humanity or opinion. It presents a clear assumption that their approach to life is wrong, and so they should adopt yours. You're creating a setting where they cannot agree with you without also accepting inferiority and invalidating their entire life perspective. You leave no room for incremental growth or self reflection.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  I think the article is fluffy, pointless BS, but . . . Just like steel manning, star manning is supposed to be an approach you can take to show respect, not something people force you to submit to.
sonjat 4y ago
I think you are being overly negative. Being more concerned with problems we are most familiar with is natural and not at all a "character flaw". Caring more about people we personally know than strangers isn't any kind of moral failure. The world is full of suffering and problems, and it is simply impossible to give the same level of concern to all. So we focus on our inner circles. It isn't a "deep tribal impulse..satisfied only at the exclusion of others". It is simply that the world is very big with very big problems and no one, not even the kindest, most caring individual among us, can give equal weight to all problems and all suffering.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  I think you're straw-manning. Decreasing degrees of concern for those farther removed isn't a problem until you reach zero concern or empathy for people you don't know/don't look like or don't share a language or god with. That is how you justify taking their freedom, raping or killing their defenders and stealing their land. Letting it get to that point, so as to put your tribe first is selfishness and IMO a deep character flaw. A flaw in so many of us that the idea of star-manning is, in so many cases, naive.
david38 4y ago
You are 100% correct. That quote is garbage. What it's really saying is - "ask around, I'll wager you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who won't pretend to want a safer, fairer, more just world for everyone. In reality, when you explain what fair and just actually means, they will secretly reverse course at the first opportunity". Just look at the foreign policy of every country in power. Look at the willingness of any power group to give up that power without intense military or financial pressure. Let's see - slavery, wars of conquest, ecological destruction, finding black men automatically guilty, rape, child abuse, monopolies, wealth concentration, regressive California property tax policy, etc.

grogenaut 4y ago

As my friends from college (sample set of 10) got older I noticed where people split conservative or liberal (US centric sorry). My liberal friends are generally concerned for everyone in society and how they'll get screwed over or not. My conservative friends are very concerned about anyone they know, and very worried about how they can't backstop them because of supporting the whole of society. 2 of them would fly / drive across the country at a moments notice to help me out for weeks. But they aren't concerned with people outside that circle. Of the 2 I had deep conversations with, they both were more focused on setting up social circles to support everyone else such as churches, local community, family, which to them is the fallback, not the government. That's about as far as I got.

bravura 4y ago

Yeah. Hurt people hurt people. Many people have a spirit of benevolence, but many other people have endured trauma and deeply believe that the next generation must be hazed too.

switchbak 4y ago
Yes, that probably explains the majority of violence that occurs in the world. There also exist a set of people that are born with wiring that if not specifically counteracted can have them act in violent and antisocial ways, without trauma needing to have occurred.
NoZZz 4y ago
Yet in that hazing there is blowback. I think society needs therapy.
WesleyJohnson 4y ago
In a grossly, over-simplified nutshell, aren't people saying this of Clarence Thomas?

roody15 4y ago

“ For example, right now there are lots of Russians who think it's fine to invade, kill and steal, not for safety, fairness or justice for everyone. They just want better for their tribe.” I think is a way oversimplification of geopolitical situation in Ukraine and Russian motives. Just my two cents

Sporktacular 4y ago
Sure, but I'm not trying to capture the geopolitical situation there. It's only an example. Some people do think this way (for example displaying the Z as a tribal symbol) and that's enough reason to not just assume charitability or altruism on another's part. IMO it's an oversimplification to do otherwise.
causi 4y ago
Not by as much as you might think when your standards have been informed by more conventional models of state-led evil. Vranyo is a cultural disease whose impact cannot be overstated. I'll leave it to a Russian to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1pOahq4TCk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1pOahq4TCk
deelly 4y ago
Oversimplification from which point of view? Russians, Ukrainians, or some outside observer?
- malwrar 4y ago
  I think OP means Russia’s actions are much better understood by their national interest and history, rather than by the individual barbarity of their troops. Russia should not be in Ukraine and should not be firing missiles into population centers, but they are. Their reasons for doing so appear more complicated than mere evil. To be explicit, if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars on the north european plains once every ~33 years. Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs and approach further by way of NATO expansion despite in some cases explicitly promising otherwise. Ukraine, a previous warsaw pact country, is a prospective NATO member who not only represents a convenient corridor into Russia but also controls a large stretch of coast (Russia wants this) and has massive plains for food production and tank conveyance. Under this interpretation, Russia seeks to resist expansion of a european alliance composed of several former enemies and retain access to key strategic locations outside its borders. Russia’s motives are much more tangible under this perspective, and who knows maybe there’s a solution we’re not seeing from that perspective than one that places outsized emphasis on individual atrocities. It’s a war, after all, and doesn’t appear to be stopping despite the upset faces of spectators.

bjt2n3904 4y ago

> a kind of platinum rule to improve upon the golden one When I read this, I scoffed a little bit. A better idea than one proposed two thousand years ago? Say it isn't so! Why haven't we thought of this before? I think you hooked rightly on the Ukraine and Russia conflict. Sometimes, there is not a "best version" of someone. The author seems to reject that outright, saying we need to recognize our opponents humanity in order to effectively argue, with the premise that there's something good in there to tease out. On what basis can the author say that there's something good inside? Their "humanity"? That reasoning is rather circular...

kubanczyk 4y ago
Side remark maybe, but I prefer "benevolence" over "humanity" in this context. The former is (1) less etymologically confusing (ekhem...) and (2) applicable to other species.
jimkleiber 4y ago
> When I read this, I scoffed a little bit. I did as well, and then paused because I've said to myself that I've come up with something like this before (facepalm emoji). > On what basis can the author say that there's something good inside? Their "humanity"? I can't speak for him, however when I do this, it's not about knowing for sure there's something good inside someone, it's choosing to believe that there is. I don't know if I will ever know someone's deepest intentions, and I have seen that when I believe they have bad intentions towards me, I can feel sad, angry, afraid, lonely, and more. However, when I believe they have good intentions towards me, I can feel grateful, safe, free, hopeful, etc. Given that I may never know how they're feeling, I therefore think I can choose what to believe, and by choosing to believe they have good intentions, I feel better. Secondly, if I believe they have bad intentions, I often treat them poorly—ignore them, distrust them, attack them, etc. If I believe they have good intentions, I often treat them kindly—appreciate them, help them, show them how much I care, etc. So if I choose to believe they have good intentions, they may also be more likely to believe that I have good intentions for them based on my actions. This logic may fall apart if one believes that we can know for certain another's deepest intentions, I just currently believe we cannot.
4y ago

nonrandomstring 4y ago

"you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn’t want a safer, fairer, more just world for everyone if they could get it" As an optimist and humanist, a shocking revelation for me was hearing of the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" in South Africa. (I think via a talk by Chomsky or Zizek) Many atrocities were committed by both sides during the Apartheid era. Enough said. Years later the Government of National Unity wanted to heal the country, to bury festering resentments and feuds. Perpetrators and victims were brought together under supervision to talk openly and work toward forgiveness. It's a great idea in principle. Although the commission is widely considered successful, a strange thing occurred, something that we also buried at the Nuremberg trials. A quite small but significant group were not merely unrepentant, they used the commission as a platform to attack and abuse their victims again. "I'm really glad I tortured your children, let me tell you about how they screamed", and so on. Sure, always aim to "star man" in debate, but one must be hard enough underneath to expect occasionally to be shot out of the sky, not by an uncharitable or entrenched interlocutor but by an plain old evil asshole. They exist. They're not "psychopaths" or even "trolls", but get a thrill out of acting so as to add chaos and pain to the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commi...

Sporktacular 4y ago
"A quite small but significant group were not merely unrepentant, they used the commission as a platform to attack and abuse their victims again." It's interesting. Do you have a source for further reading?
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  It was very probably Zizek who talked about this. And definitely a talk rather than words I read. Sorry I can't be more helpful. For the Nuremberg angle then see Adam Curtis's "Pandora's Box" in which the trial of Eichmann is centre stage of one episode. Eichmann effectively cannot comprehend there was anything morally questionable about the 'final solution' and instead of apologies or reflection he repeatedly doubles down and hammers home his reasonable justification for the slaughter.

Aunche 4y ago

That's true, but at the same time, calling a Russian soldier a selfish bastard isn't going to stop him from invading Ukraine. Presumably, your goal is to motivate somewhat neutral people to support Ukraine or condemn Russia. In that case, the only thing you can do is to refute rationalizations used to justify the invasion.

Sporktacular 4y ago
My point isn't to build support for either side (it was just an example), nor is it to accuse Russian soldiers of selfishness. It's to say that we can't just assume his (or anyone's) motivation is not selfish, or that there must be a middle ground we will surely find through improvement to our rhetorical approach.

cratermoon 4y ago

Even when individuals act with charity and compassion, they act according to their beliefs, interests, and needs. As Reinhold Niebuhr described in Moral Man and Immoral Society, a group of individuals acting according to shared interests, even when doing so compassionately, will inevitably come into conflict with other groups, socially or militaristically, when those interests conflict.

5040 4y ago

>I've met a lot of people whose concern for others drops off sharply beyond their own family and friends. This is why Hierocles the Stoic had the right idea when he pushed people to move one circle over. This is a far more practical goal than striving for a "just world". Each one of us is as it were entirely encompassed by many circles, some smaller, others larger, the latter enclosing the former on the basis of their different and unequal dispositions relative to each other. The first and closest circle is the one which a person has drawn as though around a centre, his own mind. This circle encloses the body and anything taken for the sake of the body. For it is virtually the smallest circle, and almost touches the centre itself. Next, the second one further removed from the centre but enclosing the first circle; this contains parents, siblings, wife, and children. The third one has in it uncles and aunts, grandparents, nephews, nieces, and cousins. The next circle includes the other relatives, and this is followed by the circle of local residents, then the circle of fellow-tribes-men, next that of fellow-citizens, and then in the same way the circle of people from neighbouring towns, and the circle of fellow-countrymen. The outermost and largest circle, which encompasses all the rest, is that of the whole human race. Once these have all been surveyed, it is the task of a well tempered man, in his proper treatment of each group, to draw the circles together somehow towards the centre, and to keep zealously transferring those from the enclosing circles into the enclosed ones ... It is incumbent on us to respect people from the third circle as if they were those from the second, and again to respect our other relatives as if they were those from the third circle. For although the greater distance in blood will remove some affection, we must still try hard to assimilate them. The right point will be reached if, through our own initiative, we reduce the distance of the relationship with each person.

Sporktacular 4y ago
I think we can try to improve kinship and simultaneously strive for a more just world. They probably enhance each other. The problem with nationalism is the effort stops once the circle encompasses 'your' people (or in the Ukraine/Russia conflict, forces those outside to accept they are on the inside).
- mcguire 4y ago

foobiekr 4y ago

I may be unlucky, but I have met a number of people who are not just selfish or tribal but actively sadistic. They would do something that does not benefit them if it meant discomfort and disadvantage for their outgroup. This is a little beyond just disinterest or lack of consideration, they actively prefer it. These are people who are constrained only by the rule of law, such as it is. One of the companies I worked for seemingly attracted this type of personality. Of the people like this I've met (and been actually very cautious around), maybe 90% worked at that specific company.

pstuart 4y ago
"The cruelty is the point" is very real. Hurts my heart.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  yeah :-( I see it as "I'm hurting so much, I want you to also hurt." or "I want you to know the pain I feel." I think we underestimate how much other people are suffering (mostly because most cultures I know teach us not to cry) and feel our own pain, therefore inflicting pain on them to try to equalize it. I think an easier (and less pain-inducing) way is for us to just get better at sharing our suffering.
kmacdough 4y ago
I've found this tends to come from life experience suggesting this is the only way to survive. It can be incredibly difficult to come at this from a place of compassion, but I've found that when I do - when I create real value in their lives through acts of community and cooperation - I can slowly open a door for them to see other ways. It takes time and a lot of compassion. But it's totally doable, and it can feel real good to see people build compassion from nothing.
- foobiekr 4y ago
  Perhaps it didn't come across, but when I say they are sadistic I mean things like I wouldn't trust my pets around them. One of them, and I will use this as an example and let it be, is the nephew of an insanely rich family, not as rich as some but quote wealthy and grew up privileged. One afternoon he was raging about the dog park near his condominium, and was describing his plan to scatter hard boiled eggs with needles inserted in them to discourage the dog owners from using it. Sure, he needed help. Who knows, maybe his family, though affluent, was abusive. I had no interest in finding out.

panarky 4y ago

> right now there are lots of Russians who think it's fine to invade, kill and steal, ... It's not even that the Russians who think this are especially evil people, or irrational people, or people who are unlike us in any fundamental way. The reason they think this way, and that you do not, is because they believe different myths than you do. Let's say your worldview is defined by Ivan Ilyin [0]. You don't consider other people or ethics at all. The only thing that matters in the world is God. And God is displeased that the perfect Russia that He created has been spoiled. The only way to heal the world and make God happy is to restore a certain kind of utopian Russia. That pure and perfect Russia is united in territory and belief, so it can't tolerate any division or fragmentation within itself. Agents of the devil in the West are deviously dismantling and disintegrating that pure and perfect Russia, piece by piece. Westerners are carving off pieces of territory like Ukraine, and dividing Russian people with seditious Western ideas like democracy and gender fluidity and a free press. So it's a supernatural struggle between good and evil. An existential battle like that means there's no room for this messy business of parliaments and voting, or compromising with different perspectives. We need one strong leader, a true and pure leader, to inherit the mantle of past great leaders like Stalin and Peter the Great. He will be God's instrument to make the hard decisions and lead the nation in glorious struggle. This divinely inspired leader will create unity in the world by restoring and reuniting Russia itself. ---- Where do you even begin to have a conversation when you don't share the most basic of beliefs or values? There is no common ground in wanting a safer, fairer, more just world. We have our own foundational myths that we rarely acknowledge or interrogate, and our myths don't intersect with Russia's myths at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin

Sporktacular 4y ago
"Where do you even begin to have a conversation when you don't share the most basic of beliefs or values?" We can share it with the tens of thousands of educated Russian opposing the 'special operation', with the thousands of Russians in jail for protesting. Even with the silent millions who doubt all the bullshit they hear but perhaps aren't going to die on a hill over it. They all grew up with the same foundational myths as the irredentists, they just chose to look further. It's a mistake to essentialise a country as diverse as Russia but we can agree that it's also a mistake to assume almost everyone wants the best for everyone else.

googlryas 4y ago

I watched a security video recently of 3 random people in a convenience store. The store clerk has some kind of medical issue, passes out and falls down. The 3 random people decide that now they can rob the store with impunity, take a bunch of stuff, and then leave the clerk on the floor. Eventually someone else came in and helped the clerk, but it wasn't like those 3 people were part of some psychopath convention. They just independently decided that getting about $20 worth of free stuff was a better option than calling 911 or checking on the man.

jimkleiber 4y ago

> "If you doubt this, ask around. I wager you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn’t want a safer, fairer, more just world for everyone if they could get it." I wonder if more people actually want others to see our humanity than us to see the humanity of others. I would strongly bet on that actually. I think a lot of people whose concern for others drops off sharply beyond their own family and friends believe that others don't have concern for them. It can become a preemptive indifference: they don't care about me, why should I care about them. What I want to work on and help people realize is that I care about you, even if I don't know you. And the work I do to get there is often me realizing how much people care about me. Maybe this is what he's getting at with the starman concept, to flip ourselves from thinking others are trying to hurt us and reacting to them with hatred or indifference, to believing they actually care about us. And I agree that many people may not want to do this, so I'm mostly just trying to do it for myself. I wonder if his argument would have come off differently if instead of telling people what they should do, he said these are the tools he employs and how they work in his life.

kmacdough 4y ago

Reading this article, it seems entirely about taking initiative changing your own approach, without an explicit expectation. Asking someone else to star-man is expecting them to change for you, without showing any compassion or respect for their humanity or opinion. It presents a clear assumption that their approach to life is wrong, and so they should adopt yours. You're creating a setting where they cannot agree with you without also accepting inferiority and invalidating their entire life perspective. You leave no room for incremental growth or self reflection.

drewcoo 4y ago
I think the article is fluffy, pointless BS, but . . . Just like steel manning, star manning is supposed to be an approach you can take to show respect, not something people force you to submit to.

sonjat 4y ago

I think you are being overly negative. Being more concerned with problems we are most familiar with is natural and not at all a "character flaw". Caring more about people we personally know than strangers isn't any kind of moral failure. The world is full of suffering and problems, and it is simply impossible to give the same level of concern to all. So we focus on our inner circles. It isn't a "deep tribal impulse..satisfied only at the exclusion of others". It is simply that the world is very big with very big problems and no one, not even the kindest, most caring individual among us, can give equal weight to all problems and all suffering.

Sporktacular 4y ago
I think you're straw-manning. Decreasing degrees of concern for those farther removed isn't a problem until you reach zero concern or empathy for people you don't know/don't look like or don't share a language or god with. That is how you justify taking their freedom, raping or killing their defenders and stealing their land. Letting it get to that point, so as to put your tribe first is selfishness and IMO a deep character flaw. A flaw in so many of us that the idea of star-manning is, in so many cases, naive.

david38 4y ago

You are 100% correct. That quote is garbage. What it's really saying is - "ask around, I'll wager you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who won't pretend to want a safer, fairer, more just world for everyone. In reality, when you explain what fair and just actually means, they will secretly reverse course at the first opportunity". Just look at the foreign policy of every country in power. Look at the willingness of any power group to give up that power without intense military or financial pressure. Let's see - slavery, wars of conquest, ecological destruction, finding black men automatically guilty, rape, child abuse, monopolies, wealth concentration, regressive California property tax policy, etc.