3 ms·

So, if you have two individuals or groups with self-consistent philosophies that are not congruent to one another, you auto-default to violence? I am rememberi

So, if you have two individuals or groups with self-consistent philosophies that are not congruent to one another, you auto-default to violence? I am remembering that Jane Elliot experiment with kids, blue eyes vs. brown eyes. If the brown-eyed kids think they are the best, and the blue-eyed kids think they are the best, the time for words has ended. Let's start the slaughter. No. This is terrible.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Most of the time the two groups can just ignore each other. That's fine. The violence came from the fact that the offensively violent ideology (the "Destroy all other ethnic groups" one, to be clear) attacked people my ideology sees as being in our in-group (approximately everyone who's not trying commit violence upon other people at random), justifying defensive violence in response. If half the class thinks blue eyes are superior, and the other half think brown eyes are superior, but no one's attacking each other and no one's oppressing each other, then there's no conflict. It's still not going to useful to sit around and argue philosophy.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  I'm less concerned with wasting time arguing philosophy -- which I tend to find a bit of a dead end anyway -- and more concerned with pre-emptive violence. "Rick is threatening me." "Rick holds beliefs which might eventually threaten me." "Rick holds beliefs that might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." "My interpretation of the beliefs I think Rick holds might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." "I heard something about Rick's group memberships and my interpretation of the beliefs I think those groups hold might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." And on.
boastful_inaba 3y ago
The Jane Elliot story is quite a bit different from how it's usually remembered: https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2009/10/i-sense-a-malign-presence-.html https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2009/10/i-sense-a-malign-presence...

OkayPhysicist 3y ago

Most of the time the two groups can just ignore each other. That's fine. The violence came from the fact that the offensively violent ideology (the "Destroy all other ethnic groups" one, to be clear) attacked people my ideology sees as being in our in-group (approximately everyone who's not trying commit violence upon other people at random), justifying defensive violence in response. If half the class thinks blue eyes are superior, and the other half think brown eyes are superior, but no one's attacking each other and no one's oppressing each other, then there's no conflict. It's still not going to useful to sit around and argue philosophy.

at_a_remove 3y ago
I'm less concerned with wasting time arguing philosophy -- which I tend to find a bit of a dead end anyway -- and more concerned with pre-emptive violence. "Rick is threatening me." "Rick holds beliefs which might eventually threaten me." "Rick holds beliefs that might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." "My interpretation of the beliefs I think Rick holds might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." "I heard something about Rick's group memberships and my interpretation of the beliefs I think those groups hold might eventually threaten someone in a group I care about." And on.

boastful_inaba 3y ago

The Jane Elliot story is quite a bit different from how it's usually remembered: https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2009/10/i-sense-a-malign-presence-.html https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2009/10/i-sense-a-malign-presence...