4 ms·

I feel that somewhere in the progress of western civilization, our culture lost track of some of the important but nasty sides of human nature. We censure them,

I feel that somewhere in the progress of western civilization, our culture lost track of some of the important but nasty sides of human nature. We censure them, and to an extent refuse to believe they exist. I hope that the 'wild internet' reintroduces society to the fact that people have a tendency to lash out and hurt others, and that reintroduction serves to help us put value back on thoughtful and caring behavior.

andreasvc 14y ago
This is a perverted view of history. In fact, in small hunter-gatherer tribes it was easier to keep track of each other and hold each other accountable, so crossing someone would be risky. Today, with large societies that are increasingly anonymous, one can more easily get away with screwing people over--you can always move someplace else. So I don't think being nasty is particularly natural for humans, it just comes out in the right conditions where people are likely to get away with it.
- sltkr 14y ago
  On the other hand, when people have nowhere else to go, they are extremely vulnerable to exploitation of those in power. (Go watch Dogville for an exploration of that idea.) I think it's a bit naive to suggest that if people lived in smaller communities, nothing nasty would happen to anyone.
  - andreasvc 14y ago
    Outcasts are vulnerable, yes, but that's why you try to prevent becoming one. I have seen Dogville, but I don't see why this fictional anecdote would refute my thesis which is based on what I believe is the consensus in modern anthropology. I didn't imply that 'nothing nasty would happen to anyone', that's a straw man. I merely pointed out a contrast between small close-knit groups vs. large anonymous crowds.
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  If nastiness wasn't natural, it would take more than being able to get away with it to bring it out.
  - andreasvc 14y ago
    I think it does take more. It takes provocation or discontent. The point about being able to get away with it was that it can make a lynch mob more vicious than they would have been individually without the cover of anonymity. Whether it really is natural or not is not a well defined question, but I believe that people left to their own devices, when they're not hungry or otherwise deprived, wouldn't display nasty behavior.

andreasvc 14y ago

This is a perverted view of history. In fact, in small hunter-gatherer tribes it was easier to keep track of each other and hold each other accountable, so crossing someone would be risky. Today, with large societies that are increasingly anonymous, one can more easily get away with screwing people over--you can always move someplace else. So I don't think being nasty is particularly natural for humans, it just comes out in the right conditions where people are likely to get away with it.

sltkr 14y ago
On the other hand, when people have nowhere else to go, they are extremely vulnerable to exploitation of those in power. (Go watch Dogville for an exploration of that idea.) I think it's a bit naive to suggest that if people lived in smaller communities, nothing nasty would happen to anyone.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  Outcasts are vulnerable, yes, but that's why you try to prevent becoming one. I have seen Dogville, but I don't see why this fictional anecdote would refute my thesis which is based on what I believe is the consensus in modern anthropology. I didn't imply that 'nothing nasty would happen to anyone', that's a straw man. I merely pointed out a contrast between small close-knit groups vs. large anonymous crowds.
andrewflnr 14y ago
If nastiness wasn't natural, it would take more than being able to get away with it to bring it out.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  I think it does take more. It takes provocation or discontent. The point about being able to get away with it was that it can make a lynch mob more vicious than they would have been individually without the cover of anonymity. Whether it really is natural or not is not a well defined question, but I believe that people left to their own devices, when they're not hungry or otherwise deprived, wouldn't display nasty behavior.