4 ms·

There are plenty of examples of historical people who conquered and subjugated others because they believed that it would make them rich and powerful. Some were

There are plenty of examples of historical people who conquered and subjugated others because they believed that it would make them rich and powerful. Some were right, some were wrong. Some proclaimed various other motives (bringing peace, fostering democracy, civilizing the savages, defending the faith, protecting their honor, etc). Some may have even believed them. But there is no shortage of people who decide to kill and oppress others because they view it as a means to get ahead. Why we should assume Hitler or Putin, of all monsters, are some of the more delusional ones who actually believe their propaganda is beyond me. As a complete side note, claiming that NATO is not a threat to Russia is also somewhat deluded, but that still doesn't justify anything about the war. What is clear is that invading another country is a morally evil act and that it has essentially never prevented more suffering than it has caused on balance, even in some of the most benevolent scenarios (like Kosovo).

boxed 3y ago
> Why we should assume Hitler or Putin, of all monsters, are some of the more delusional ones who actually believe their propaganda is beyond me. I don't see why we shouldn't. They clearly stated their beliefs. Hitler stated them in private letters. It wasn't propaganda, it was honest beliefs. Just like it's honest beliefs that made Mao accidentally kill millions of his own people, or that made islamists hijack planes and fly them into buildings. The idea that are real motives like money is so silly. It infantilizes everyone, by not believing what they say plainly and clearly. And it doesn't even pass logical muster in the end. There's no way you can claim the 9/11 hijackers were really out to score a buck or something for example. They knew they were going to die.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > > Why we should assume Hitler or Putin, of all monsters, are some of the more delusional ones who actually believe their propaganda is beyond me. > I don't see why we shouldn't. In Putin’s case (Hitler's is less fresh in my mind), the fact that the propaganda is internally inconsistent over time, near in time to different audiences, and even at times in the same speech, and that the motivations it identifies are inconsistent with both actual policy and verifiable facts within Putin’s reasonable knowledge all are very good reasons to suspect very large portions of it are not true and are not being told for the purpose of providing honest insight into Putin's thought processes. > Hitler stated them in private letters. It wasn't propaganda, it was honest beliefs. Private letters can also be a vehicle for manipulation of the recipient, propaganda can be retail as well as wholesale. There’s no minimim audience size for it.
- simiones 3y ago
  Saying that someone hides their selfish motivations behind high-minded rhetoric is not infantilizing. We don't owe it to anyone to believe what they say, even if they say it plainly and clearly. When someone's every move brings them more power and wealth, I for one become very suspicious of any claims they make (whether publicly or privately) about the altruistic motivations behind their moves. Still, if you really want to get into a debate about Hitler's personal beliefs, we would actually need to evaluate what might have made him believe what he professed to believe about the ills of the world. We obviously know he was wrong, but was it plausible, or is it only motivated thinking that might have made him believe these things?
  - boxed 3y ago
    > [..] we would actually need to evaluate what might have made him believe what he professed to believe about the ills of the world Yes! That's the important part. We want to avoid future mistakes. Understanding how the demons of our past became demons is enormously important.
boxed 3y ago
> What is clear is that invading another country is a morally evil act and that it has essentially never prevented more suffering than it has caused on balance, even in some of the most benevolent scenarios (like Kosovo). Well that seems utterly absurd. The Allies invasion of Nazi Germany is an enormously clear example to the contrary.
- simiones 3y ago
  I should have said "invading another country that hasn't attacked you or your allies previously". Taking an invasion back to the original invaders is much more justifiable. My point was that starting a new war has virtually never been a good thing. For example, if the USA were to attack North Korea to stop the obvious human rights violations happening there, I don't think that would actually be a morally justifiable act. It would be much more likely to lead to more human suffering overall than it actually prevents: this was my intended point.
  - boxed 3y ago
    In the case of North Korea I think we can at least pass judgement retroactively on the Korean War. To me the population sizes of North and South Korea alone make is extremely clear who was right and who was wrong in that conflict.

boxed 3y ago

> Why we should assume Hitler or Putin, of all monsters, are some of the more delusional ones who actually believe their propaganda is beyond me. I don't see why we shouldn't. They clearly stated their beliefs. Hitler stated them in private letters. It wasn't propaganda, it was honest beliefs. Just like it's honest beliefs that made Mao accidentally kill millions of his own people, or that made islamists hijack planes and fly them into buildings. The idea that are real motives like money is so silly. It infantilizes everyone, by not believing what they say plainly and clearly. And it doesn't even pass logical muster in the end. There's no way you can claim the 9/11 hijackers were really out to score a buck or something for example. They knew they were going to die.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> > Why we should assume Hitler or Putin, of all monsters, are some of the more delusional ones who actually believe their propaganda is beyond me. > I don't see why we shouldn't. In Putin’s case (Hitler's is less fresh in my mind), the fact that the propaganda is internally inconsistent over time, near in time to different audiences, and even at times in the same speech, and that the motivations it identifies are inconsistent with both actual policy and verifiable facts within Putin’s reasonable knowledge all are very good reasons to suspect very large portions of it are not true and are not being told for the purpose of providing honest insight into Putin's thought processes. > Hitler stated them in private letters. It wasn't propaganda, it was honest beliefs. Private letters can also be a vehicle for manipulation of the recipient, propaganda can be retail as well as wholesale. There’s no minimim audience size for it.
simiones 3y ago
Saying that someone hides their selfish motivations behind high-minded rhetoric is not infantilizing. We don't owe it to anyone to believe what they say, even if they say it plainly and clearly. When someone's every move brings them more power and wealth, I for one become very suspicious of any claims they make (whether publicly or privately) about the altruistic motivations behind their moves. Still, if you really want to get into a debate about Hitler's personal beliefs, we would actually need to evaluate what might have made him believe what he professed to believe about the ills of the world. We obviously know he was wrong, but was it plausible, or is it only motivated thinking that might have made him believe these things?
- boxed 3y ago
  > [..] we would actually need to evaluate what might have made him believe what he professed to believe about the ills of the world Yes! That's the important part. We want to avoid future mistakes. Understanding how the demons of our past became demons is enormously important.

boxed 3y ago

> What is clear is that invading another country is a morally evil act and that it has essentially never prevented more suffering than it has caused on balance, even in some of the most benevolent scenarios (like Kosovo). Well that seems utterly absurd. The Allies invasion of Nazi Germany is an enormously clear example to the contrary.

simiones 3y ago
I should have said "invading another country that hasn't attacked you or your allies previously". Taking an invasion back to the original invaders is much more justifiable. My point was that starting a new war has virtually never been a good thing. For example, if the USA were to attack North Korea to stop the obvious human rights violations happening there, I don't think that would actually be a morally justifiable act. It would be much more likely to lead to more human suffering overall than it actually prevents: this was my intended point.
- boxed 3y ago
  In the case of North Korea I think we can at least pass judgement retroactively on the Korean War. To me the population sizes of North and South Korea alone make is extremely clear who was right and who was wrong in that conflict.