4 ms·

Overall - fair enough, I'm sure it is a minor inconvenience to you that language and symbols can change out from under you. That said, don't expect much sympat

Overall - fair enough, I'm sure it is a minor inconvenience to you that language and symbols can change out from under you. That said, don't expect much sympathy, feels like saying "The war out there is hurting my ears." Like I get it, if your favorite symbol was the swastika (an ancient religious symbol) then hitler comes to power and ruins it, bummer for you, but doesn't really seem be a battle worth fighting. Also re: > if you think there is, compare to eg “the rich”. Are we dehumanizing the rich every time we call them that? A little bit potentially yes. Like "eat the rich." Our ape ability to discriminate against a whole group relies on our cognitive ability to present thousands of individuals as one entity. I think we all feel this at an innate level -- if I was at a rich friend's house I wouldn't say something like "The rich are..." because I would understand this is potentially offensive generalization.

yathern 3y ago
> Our ape ability to discriminate against a whole group relies on our cognitive ability to present thousands of individuals as "one entity." You're right, but I don't think our tendency to group individuals is able to be overridden by removing words from our lexicon. These words and phrases exist because we group people, not the other way around.
- zug_zug 3y ago
  I don't know if I agree with your take. I do agree that regulating language perfectly isn't sufficient means to eradicate all tribalism, but I bet it helps. Consider Hitler. Everybody puts sole blame on him for the Holocaust, and avoids asking "So exactly how did he talk an entire nation into this?" (And no, high reparations is not a sufficient answer). The best explanation I've heard given was that he was a great orator and was able to drive people into an emotional frenzy with his words. I bet if all of Hitler's speeches were replaced with politically correct speeches, he wouldn't have been able to talk so many people into dying in war over his grudges.
  - yathern 3y ago
    > Consider Hitler. Everybody puts sole blame on him for the Holocaust That's such a strange statement, I realize you're not saying it's your own view, but I'd hope most people don't have such a simplified view of history. Blaming one man for the actions of millions is not a good way to avoid repeating history. > The best explanation I've heard given was that he was a great orator and was able to drive people into an emotional frenzy with his words I think it's out of scope to get into how Nazi Germany became the way it was, but it wasn't simply the skilled oration of one man. Hitler was a product of his time - and rose to power because he echoed the sentiments that were already growing among all of Germany. > I bet if all of Hitler's speeches were replaced with politically correct speeches, he wouldn't have been able to talk so many people into dying in war over his grudges. Having recently been embarrassed in a World War, being in economic distress, the people craved the leadership of someone nationalistic, idealistic, and aggressive. Someone who has a plan to get them out of their situation. It wasn't just his grudges, many people shared the grudges. He didn't talk them into a war, the people wanted one. His ability to influence the public with rousing speeches certainly had a big impact in spreading his dogma, but I don't think they required politically incorrect speech. Whether that makes the past more or less horrifying is up to you.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Have you ever watched a speech by Hitler? I think most people haven't. If you do you'll immediately and viscerally understand how wrong that whole analysis is, and then wonder how such an inaccurate idea was able to take hold. Hitler was a terrible orator by any modern standard you might care to pick. Consider for a second - can you off the top of your head recall any famous quotes by Hitler? Any catchphrases, any uniquely powerful passages from his speeches? This isn't a high bar, there have been leaders throughout history whose speeches are still famous today. Churchill managed it, for example. Probably the answer is no. That's not because his speeches have been suppressed by people terrified of the amazing mind-bending power of his words. It's because his speeches contain nothing worth quoting. To double check this I asked GPT-4 to give me the top 5 most famous quotes from speeches of his, and the first quote it returned was actually by Goebbels (which isn't a surprise because his lieutenants were better at this), two of the rest were duplicates and none of them were actually from speeches. Also it seems several are in doubt as to whether he even said them at all. To get a feel for the reality try watching Triumph of the Will. It contains clips from various events, presumably selected for being the best bits. Or flick through the transcript here: https://web.archive.org/web/20030622191345/http://www.dasblauelicht.net/triumph_des_willens3.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20030622191345/http://www.dasbla... First problem: there is no content. Nothing he says is actually about anything. There are almost no coherent political ideas or proposals presented. There's also no structure: no beginning, middle and end. You could skip whole sections, or randomly re-order all the sentences, and nobody would notice. His oratory is nothing but a disconnected series of vague one or two line political slogans and exhortations that don't seem to connect to each other in any way. Example: "Regardless of whatever we create and what we do, we shall pass away, but in you, Germany will live on". To the modern listener this is difficult to listen to because it's so easy to get bored and drift off. Second problem: His delivery is absurdly over-dramatic all the time, even when he's saying mundane things. If someone tried that today they'd immediately become an object of mockery and derision because it's such a silly speaking style. Third problem: he often seems to meander or become stuck in a loop, e.g. "We want this people to be obedient and you must practice this obedience; we want this people to be peace-loving but also brave and you must be peace-loving! You must therefore be peace-loving and obedient and courageous at the same time." The "Hitler was an amazing orator" meme must originate from people who can't face the maybe more ugly truth: in a very young and unstable democracy full of angry hopeless people being crushed by war reparations, you didn't have to be good at conventional politics to take over. Being extremely energetic, telling people they're pretty great actually, being socialist and having a violent street army was all it took.
SenAnder 3y ago
> don't expect much sympathy, feels like saying "The war out there is hurting my ears." Portraying your enemy as privileged and without legitimate concerns and denying them sympathy, as you have done, is a key element of the attack against them. But consider his example of "all lives matter" [1], or perhaps "it's okay to be white" - the mildest possible expressions of white self-advocacy, have been reframed as hate [2]. When the mildest, most inoffensive defense you can put into words is ripped from you using a targeted hyperstitious cascade, so their Radio Rwanda [3] can continue unopposed, you should worry. The war isn't "out there" - it's on your doorstep. [1] Even looking only at police killings, per homicide committed (not per capita), more whites are killed by police than blacks, so it is a valid concern. [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/stop-white-hate-sign-bellingham-high-school/ https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/stop-white-hate-sign-bel... [3] https://www.newsweek.com/help-me-hate-white-people-entry-bestselling-prayer-book-stokes-controversy-1582043 https://www.newsweek.com/help-me-hate-white-people-entry-bes...
- zug_zug 3y ago
  > Portraying your enemy as ... Enemy...? Take a breather my dude.
- plorkyeran 3y ago
  Neither of those were reframed as hate. "It's Okay To Be White" was a slogan 4chan developed with the specific intent of being the most innocent sounding white suprematist slogan possible. ALM was occasionally said with innocent intentions, but again the origin of the phrase was an attempt at discrediting the claim made by BLM that people did not care when black people die. I also have no idea how the author can claim with a straight face that forty years ago having a Confederate flag wasn't making a statement about race.
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - barneygale 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

yathern 3y ago

> Our ape ability to discriminate against a whole group relies on our cognitive ability to present thousands of individuals as "one entity." You're right, but I don't think our tendency to group individuals is able to be overridden by removing words from our lexicon. These words and phrases exist because we group people, not the other way around.

zug_zug 3y ago
I don't know if I agree with your take. I do agree that regulating language perfectly isn't sufficient means to eradicate all tribalism, but I bet it helps. Consider Hitler. Everybody puts sole blame on him for the Holocaust, and avoids asking "So exactly how did he talk an entire nation into this?" (And no, high reparations is not a sufficient answer). The best explanation I've heard given was that he was a great orator and was able to drive people into an emotional frenzy with his words. I bet if all of Hitler's speeches were replaced with politically correct speeches, he wouldn't have been able to talk so many people into dying in war over his grudges.
- yathern 3y ago
  > Consider Hitler. Everybody puts sole blame on him for the Holocaust That's such a strange statement, I realize you're not saying it's your own view, but I'd hope most people don't have such a simplified view of history. Blaming one man for the actions of millions is not a good way to avoid repeating history. > The best explanation I've heard given was that he was a great orator and was able to drive people into an emotional frenzy with his words I think it's out of scope to get into how Nazi Germany became the way it was, but it wasn't simply the skilled oration of one man. Hitler was a product of his time - and rose to power because he echoed the sentiments that were already growing among all of Germany. > I bet if all of Hitler's speeches were replaced with politically correct speeches, he wouldn't have been able to talk so many people into dying in war over his grudges. Having recently been embarrassed in a World War, being in economic distress, the people craved the leadership of someone nationalistic, idealistic, and aggressive. Someone who has a plan to get them out of their situation. It wasn't just his grudges, many people shared the grudges. He didn't talk them into a war, the people wanted one. His ability to influence the public with rousing speeches certainly had a big impact in spreading his dogma, but I don't think they required politically incorrect speech. Whether that makes the past more or less horrifying is up to you.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Have you ever watched a speech by Hitler? I think most people haven't. If you do you'll immediately and viscerally understand how wrong that whole analysis is, and then wonder how such an inaccurate idea was able to take hold. Hitler was a terrible orator by any modern standard you might care to pick. Consider for a second - can you off the top of your head recall any famous quotes by Hitler? Any catchphrases, any uniquely powerful passages from his speeches? This isn't a high bar, there have been leaders throughout history whose speeches are still famous today. Churchill managed it, for example. Probably the answer is no. That's not because his speeches have been suppressed by people terrified of the amazing mind-bending power of his words. It's because his speeches contain nothing worth quoting. To double check this I asked GPT-4 to give me the top 5 most famous quotes from speeches of his, and the first quote it returned was actually by Goebbels (which isn't a surprise because his lieutenants were better at this), two of the rest were duplicates and none of them were actually from speeches. Also it seems several are in doubt as to whether he even said them at all. To get a feel for the reality try watching Triumph of the Will. It contains clips from various events, presumably selected for being the best bits. Or flick through the transcript here: https://web.archive.org/web/20030622191345/http://www.dasblauelicht.net/triumph_des_willens3.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20030622191345/http://www.dasbla... First problem: there is no content. Nothing he says is actually about anything. There are almost no coherent political ideas or proposals presented. There's also no structure: no beginning, middle and end. You could skip whole sections, or randomly re-order all the sentences, and nobody would notice. His oratory is nothing but a disconnected series of vague one or two line political slogans and exhortations that don't seem to connect to each other in any way. Example: "Regardless of whatever we create and what we do, we shall pass away, but in you, Germany will live on". To the modern listener this is difficult to listen to because it's so easy to get bored and drift off. Second problem: His delivery is absurdly over-dramatic all the time, even when he's saying mundane things. If someone tried that today they'd immediately become an object of mockery and derision because it's such a silly speaking style. Third problem: he often seems to meander or become stuck in a loop, e.g. "We want this people to be obedient and you must practice this obedience; we want this people to be peace-loving but also brave and you must be peace-loving! You must therefore be peace-loving and obedient and courageous at the same time." The "Hitler was an amazing orator" meme must originate from people who can't face the maybe more ugly truth: in a very young and unstable democracy full of angry hopeless people being crushed by war reparations, you didn't have to be good at conventional politics to take over. Being extremely energetic, telling people they're pretty great actually, being socialist and having a violent street army was all it took.

SenAnder 3y ago

> don't expect much sympathy, feels like saying "The war out there is hurting my ears." Portraying your enemy as privileged and without legitimate concerns and denying them sympathy, as you have done, is a key element of the attack against them. But consider his example of "all lives matter" [1], or perhaps "it's okay to be white" - the mildest possible expressions of white self-advocacy, have been reframed as hate [2]. When the mildest, most inoffensive defense you can put into words is ripped from you using a targeted hyperstitious cascade, so their Radio Rwanda [3] can continue unopposed, you should worry. The war isn't "out there" - it's on your doorstep. [1] Even looking only at police killings, per homicide committed (not per capita), more whites are killed by police than blacks, so it is a valid concern. [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/stop-white-hate-sign-bellingham-high-school/ https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/stop-white-hate-sign-bel... [3] https://www.newsweek.com/help-me-hate-white-people-entry-bestselling-prayer-book-stokes-controversy-1582043 https://www.newsweek.com/help-me-hate-white-people-entry-bes...

zug_zug 3y ago
> Portraying your enemy as ... Enemy...? Take a breather my dude.
plorkyeran 3y ago
Neither of those were reframed as hate. "It's Okay To Be White" was a slogan 4chan developed with the specific intent of being the most innocent sounding white suprematist slogan possible. ALM was occasionally said with innocent intentions, but again the origin of the phrase was an attempt at discrediting the claim made by BLM that people did not care when black people die. I also have no idea how the author can claim with a straight face that forty years ago having a Confederate flag wasn't making a statement about race.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - barneygale 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]