4 ms·
Is it possible that violence is just more rational for today's 18-34 y/o than it was at some other points in recent history?
by mothballed 1y ago
Is it possible that violence is just more rational for today's 18-34 y/o than it was at some other points in recent history?
- throwaway250624 1y ago[flagged]
- Lerc 1y agoThe argument against using violence to achieve you ends is that if everyone does it, it is bad for everyone. If those who do it do not face repercussions then they will gain undue advantage, motivating everyone to match their actions, which again, is bad for everyone. The solution is the social contract and the rule of law. If enough people agree that anyone taking that path should face repercussions sufficient to not grant a net advantage, then enforcement of the law prevents others from taking the path of violence to reach parity with the violent When the rule of law is eroded, which it has been, in the US and worldwide. Then it does indeed become more rational to use violence to restore the rule of law. Unfortunately it also increases the motivation towards violence for personal gain, that makes the task of restoring the rule of law all that more difficult. Countries have spent years trying to recover that stability once it is lost.
- tossandthrow 1y agoRule of law in itself is not a worthwhile institution - and is not enough to keep violence at distance. You need protection, non corruption and a level of equality to be protected by that rule of law. I think that is what mostly has been eroded - also the poorest 10% need a reason to believe in rule of law.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ethbr1 1y agoRule of law is necessary but not sufficient. The others don't matter if it's lacking, because social contracts without contracts meaning anything are worthless.
- noduerme 1y agoYou make a good point. For example, the rule of law in North Korea or Equatorial Guinea is whatever the HMFIC says it is. And that's written in law, the police and courts enforce it, all proper and aboveboard in a legalistic sense. Just not in common sense. As far as the poorest 10%, though: There is always a poorest 10%. And a poorest 50%. If you're in the middle class or higher, you have every reason to prevent the poor from revolting and taking what you have. This can be accomplished by a vast array of carrots and sticks. Some countries lean more toward the carrot - we call them liberal democracies. Autocratic states use the stick. But although greater wealth inequality may be a good indicator of the tendency of the lowest 10% to become lawless, it is not a good indicator of which method is used to keep them in check. Cuba has pretty amazingly low levels of wealth inequality - essentially everyone's poor. Keeping them from rebelling, however, is all stick, precisely because any kind of economic carrot would undermine the philosophy that it's better for everyone to be poor than to have wealth inequality.
- YZF 1y agoVery good points. For the most part, the bottom 10% in most liberal democracies are much better off than most people in most autocratic states. Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population. Yet I saw a poster the other day titled "class warfare" with a picture of graveyard saying that's where the "rich" will be buried. People don't understand at all how counties and economies work and how this system we live in works vs. the alternatives (I'm in Canada btw).
- skinnymuch 1y agoInteresting how this is always about how liberal democracy (namely European supremacist nations like yours) who control the world as the global north and are the primary reasons for the “autocracy” I don’t know where you can even think the bottom 10% of the west/liberal democracies are better than “most” in those other countries. That’s a wild thing to think. Seems like typical western centrism and chauvinism.
- 1y ago
- Aeolun 1y agoIt is, however, frequently the way by which countries reset themselves.
- efreak 1y agoRelevant: > Hate begets hate; violence begets violence[...]Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate[...]but to win[...]friendship and understanding. > The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence[...] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_begets_violence#Words_by_Martin_Luther_King_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_begets_violence#Words....
- von_lohengramm 1y ago> The argument against using violence to achieve you ends is that if everyone does it, it is bad for everyone. If you subscribe to Kant perhaps, but most people's argument against violence (and morality in general) is probably not Kantian.
- Lerc 1y agoWell if surveys are to believed the predominant view in the US is that morality is dictated by God. I'm skeptical, but also, I have met people like that. I think the argument for not committing violence when you are able to do so without any form of repercussion comes down to a morality issue, you don't do it because it is wrong. That works at an individual level, At a societal level you cannot assume all people to be moral. When faced with the inevitability of not all people being moral (or not agree on the same set of morals) you need a secondary reason to prevent violence. I suspect quite a lot of people would accept the morality of violence to prevent more violence. That is where individual morality might weigh in on the aspect of whether violence is appropriate to establish or protect the rule of law.
- twoodfin 1y agoRational by what calculus?
- molsongolden 1y agoThey also might be least aware of the consequences as they've grown up during the least violent time in US and human history.
- alickz 1y agoI think a lot of them have a very romantic view about revolutions and their place in them Revolutions harm the poor and the disabled far more than they harm the able bodied and the privileged No one is making insulin when society collapses
- ants_everywhere 1y agounlikely. A more likely explanation is that pro-violence propaganda began swamping social media in 2016, which is 9 years ago. 18 year olds have been exposed to it nonstop since they were 9 and 34 year olds since they were 25. The people who are disposed to anger and violence move along the radicalization sales funnel relatively slowly. But already once you've shown interest, you start seeing increasingly angry content and only angry content. There is a lot of rhetoric specifically telling people they should be angry, should not try to help things, and should resort to violence, and actively get others to promote violence. Being surrounded socially by that day in and day out is a challenge to anyone, and if you're predisposed to anger it can become intoxicating. A lot of people want to say marketing doesn't work or that filter bubbles don't matter. But the bare facts are that we've had nearly a decade of multiple military intelligence agencies running nonstop campaigns promoting violent ideology in the US. And it would be naive to think that didn't make a difference. The same sort of campaigns were run at a smaller scale during the Cold War and have been successful in provoking hot wars.
- mothballed 1y ago>A lot of people want to say marketing doesn't work or that filter bubbles don't matter. But the bare facts are that we've had nearly a decade of multiple military intelligence agencies running nonstop campaigns promoting violent ideology in the US. And it would be naive to think that didn't make a difference. Hmm, interesting thesis. I'm aware something like half of the Whitmer Kidnapping plotters were feds/informants, to the point a few were exonerated in trial. There's certainly some evidence the government is intentionally provoking violent actors.
- ethbr1 1y agoI believe parent was referring to the US government and other national governments. It's on record that Russian and Chinese propaganda campaigns in the US were aimed at sowing division generally, more so than any particular viewpoint.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
- philistine 1y ago[flagged]
- xvector 1y agoThis kind of dooming extremist rhetoric is why we are where we are today. No, it is not the "last generation of a functioning world" and we will solve climate change like we solve every other problem.
- swagmoney1606 1y agoHow?
- myroon5 1y agoEmission offsetting currently only costs ~$50/human/yr: https://founderspledge.com/research/climate-and-lifestyle-report https://founderspledge.com/research/climate-and-lifestyle-re...
- bccdee 1y agoWhen you purchase a "carbon offset," you are paying someone not to emit carbon that they otherwise would have emitted. You're not getting rid of any actual emissions. The current marginal cost of offsets is $50/person/year because nobody buys them. But if we all paid each other not to emit any carbon, what would the cars run on? Certainly you couldn't pay a person $50/year to stop using any transportation or power. Offsets are a dead end.