10 ms·

The author cites Arendt a fair bit, whose claim to fame was that entirely ordinary people could become voluntary instruments of atrocity. I think the belief of

The author cites Arendt a fair bit, whose claim to fame was that entirely ordinary people could become voluntary instruments of atrocity. I think the belief of ordinary people most likely to dispose them to atrocity is that of prioritizing the ingroup. Once we believe that the members of one's own family, or company, or country, carry more moral value than others, we're doomed to a descent limited only by our ability to make these world-worsening trades. When I was a child, my dad would sometimes engage in small acts of corruption to please me or my brother. Taking somebody else's spot, telling white lies to get more than his share of a rationed good, that sort of thing. It never sat right with me. "Family first" has a very ominous ring to me.

reacweb 7mo ago
Yes, the slogan "America first" is a forerunner of the worst kind of imperialism.
- Quarrelsome 7mo ago
  also "Make America Great Again" states that America is not currently great, which given its geo-political and economic position is just dishonest. Combined with "America First" you get an entirely clean canvas to be incredibly radical while cosplaying conservative.
  - eptcyka 7mo ago
    I would argue MAGA will be rather fitting campaign slogan for the democrat side come next election.
    - Quarrelsome 7mo ago
      or maybe simply MAAA: Make America America again.
  - rramadass 7mo ago
    To me this is the best example of how language can be used to bypass rational thinking in the listener to manipulate and propagandize. See also: Politics and the English Language by George Orwell- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Langu... Newspeak by George Orwell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak Verbal Behaviour by B.F.Skinner - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_Behavior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_Behavior
lynx97 7mo ago
What you describe is deepest human nature. We are tribal, period. No amount of morales will change that, no matter how it sits with you personally.
- anal_reactor 7mo ago
  Yes, I was about to say this. A human is basically testicles with a brain attached, and the natural goal of life is to make sure that the genetically closest material survives and reproduces. That's why it's common to have stronger relationships with your family than with randoms on the internet. The more different the genetic material is, the less you care - individuals of different culture, of different race, of different species, of different kingdom of life, and finally viruses that are just strings of RNA floating around and nobody advocates about their rights because fuck that.
  - saghm 7mo ago
    > A human is basically testicles with a brain attached > The more different the genetic material is, the less you care - individuals of different culture, of different race, of different species, of different kingdom of life, and finally viruses that are just strings of RNA floating around and nobody advocates about their rights because fuck that The type of mental model that ignores 50% of the world's population due to having that same proportions of chromosomes not matching one's mental heuristic of what constitutes a human is what I'd say "fuck that" to, personally
    - anal_reactor 7mo ago
      Okay but you have to admit that this is not how things functioned through majority of human history.
      - XorNot 7mo ago
        The excessive focus on the nuclear family is itself a very recent trend that would otherwise be viewed as very odd by many if not most historical social organizing systems. Given the diversity of social models which have emerged globally, I have no idea how you could possibly make that claim.
carlosjobim 7mo ago
An even worse sign is when we believe that the members of one's own family, or company, or country carry less moral value than others.
- estearum 7mo ago
  Uh oh, is this a reference to the radar meme/study? The one that conservatives keep claiming shows that liberals care more about out-groups than in-groups, but actually shows that either 1) many conservatives are illiterate and can't read a survey question, or 2) many conservatives literally don't care if right or wrong happens to acquaintances, strangers, their countrymen, humans in other countries, non-human animals, living things, etc? https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/moral-circles-heatmap https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/moral-circles-heatmap
  - carlosjobim 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - estearum 7mo ago
      I guess I'm confused as to who is allegedly providing the counterargument that they should love out-groups more than in-groups?
      - carlosjobim 7mo ago
        It's rare to see anybody literally arguing it, but it's more common than not in the real world. Oppression would be quite impossible throughout history if people weren't willing to oppress their own kind to the benefit of others. Even those arguing for loyalty to the in-group are rarely those who would themselves make any sacrifices for that group.
        estearum 7mo ago
        > Oppression would be quite impossible throughout history if people weren't willing to oppress their own kind to the benefit of others. No what's far more common is that people change their perception (or have different perceptions) of who is "their own kind." You can actually see this happening in real time in the US with the emerging concept of "Heritage Americans." It's a way for losers and crybabies to narrow the scope of who is "their own kind" without having to openly declare that they simply don't love their countrymen.
brazzy 7mo ago
> I think the belief of ordinary people most likely to dispose them to atrocity is that of prioritizing the ingroup. In my opinion, there is another tendency even more significant in that regard. Namely, the visceral desire to see "bad guys" deservedly suffer. Once people are in that frame of mind, they strongly resist any attempts to understand and maybe prevent whatever the "bad guys" did, let alone questions whether it was actually bad. This is what fuelled lynch mobs, it's what makes MAGA types cheer when ICE murders immigrants, and it's what makes certain leftist circles chant "eat the rich" along with images of guillotines and wood chippers. When you point out that poverty causes crime, rightists get mad at you for "excusing" or "justifying" crime, and when you point out that poverty causes support for far-right politicians, leftists get mad at you for "excusing" or "justifying" racism. Of course, this interacts with your point: when someone from the ingroup does something bad, people are willing to look at their reasons and if found lacking it is only the individual that should be punished, whereas the outgroup is never afforded the luxury of complexity, and the entire group is held responsible for each individual's sins.
kgwxd 7mo ago
I have way too many family members and associates like that. "Family First" has the same ominous ring to me too. At least, in the given scenarios. Would you agree it's less ominous, maybe even noble, when shit hits the fan though? I think they're easily convinced we're living in constant state of war, even on a slow Tuesday at Costco. The propaganda they often parrot would seem to suggest it. Or maybe they see there are scenarios that is considered noble, and generalize it to be the case for all scenarios. The people I know like that also have a habit of over-generalizing every aspect of life. Cliches, aphorisms, etc. are a huge part of their vocabulary, but they are rarely applied in the original spirit of the sayings.
- Paracompact 7mo ago
  > Would you agree it's less ominous, maybe even noble, when shit hits the fan though? The "family first, others second" interpretation is, I think, even more problematic when shit hits the fan. In disasters, it never benefits a community to turn on itself. And in fact, I believe the natural human reaction to disaster is to become more altruistic rather than less; see "A Paradise Built in Hell" by Rebecca Solnit for more on this. The actually noble interpretation of "family first" is "family first, my own priorities second," at least so long as it doesn't lead to unhealthy self-sacrifice.

reacweb 7mo ago

Yes, the slogan "America first" is a forerunner of the worst kind of imperialism.

Quarrelsome 7mo ago
also "Make America Great Again" states that America is not currently great, which given its geo-political and economic position is just dishonest. Combined with "America First" you get an entirely clean canvas to be incredibly radical while cosplaying conservative.
- eptcyka 7mo ago
  I would argue MAGA will be rather fitting campaign slogan for the democrat side come next election.
  - Quarrelsome 7mo ago
    or maybe simply MAAA: Make America America again.
- rramadass 7mo ago
  To me this is the best example of how language can be used to bypass rational thinking in the listener to manipulate and propagandize. See also: Politics and the English Language by George Orwell- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Langu... Newspeak by George Orwell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak Verbal Behaviour by B.F.Skinner - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_Behavior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_Behavior

lynx97 7mo ago

What you describe is deepest human nature. We are tribal, period. No amount of morales will change that, no matter how it sits with you personally.

anal_reactor 7mo ago
Yes, I was about to say this. A human is basically testicles with a brain attached, and the natural goal of life is to make sure that the genetically closest material survives and reproduces. That's why it's common to have stronger relationships with your family than with randoms on the internet. The more different the genetic material is, the less you care - individuals of different culture, of different race, of different species, of different kingdom of life, and finally viruses that are just strings of RNA floating around and nobody advocates about their rights because fuck that.
- saghm 7mo ago
  > A human is basically testicles with a brain attached > The more different the genetic material is, the less you care - individuals of different culture, of different race, of different species, of different kingdom of life, and finally viruses that are just strings of RNA floating around and nobody advocates about their rights because fuck that The type of mental model that ignores 50% of the world's population due to having that same proportions of chromosomes not matching one's mental heuristic of what constitutes a human is what I'd say "fuck that" to, personally
  - anal_reactor 7mo ago
    Okay but you have to admit that this is not how things functioned through majority of human history.
    - XorNot 7mo ago
      The excessive focus on the nuclear family is itself a very recent trend that would otherwise be viewed as very odd by many if not most historical social organizing systems. Given the diversity of social models which have emerged globally, I have no idea how you could possibly make that claim.

carlosjobim 7mo ago

An even worse sign is when we believe that the members of one's own family, or company, or country carry less moral value than others.

estearum 7mo ago
Uh oh, is this a reference to the radar meme/study? The one that conservatives keep claiming shows that liberals care more about out-groups than in-groups, but actually shows that either 1) many conservatives are illiterate and can't read a survey question, or 2) many conservatives literally don't care if right or wrong happens to acquaintances, strangers, their countrymen, humans in other countries, non-human animals, living things, etc? https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/moral-circles-heatmap https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/moral-circles-heatmap
- carlosjobim 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - estearum 7mo ago
    I guess I'm confused as to who is allegedly providing the counterargument that they should love out-groups more than in-groups?
    - carlosjobim 7mo ago
      It's rare to see anybody literally arguing it, but it's more common than not in the real world. Oppression would be quite impossible throughout history if people weren't willing to oppress their own kind to the benefit of others. Even those arguing for loyalty to the in-group are rarely those who would themselves make any sacrifices for that group.
      - estearum 7mo ago
        > Oppression would be quite impossible throughout history if people weren't willing to oppress their own kind to the benefit of others. No what's far more common is that people change their perception (or have different perceptions) of who is "their own kind." You can actually see this happening in real time in the US with the emerging concept of "Heritage Americans." It's a way for losers and crybabies to narrow the scope of who is "their own kind" without having to openly declare that they simply don't love their countrymen.

brazzy 7mo ago

> I think the belief of ordinary people most likely to dispose them to atrocity is that of prioritizing the ingroup. In my opinion, there is another tendency even more significant in that regard. Namely, the visceral desire to see "bad guys" deservedly suffer. Once people are in that frame of mind, they strongly resist any attempts to understand and maybe prevent whatever the "bad guys" did, let alone questions whether it was actually bad. This is what fuelled lynch mobs, it's what makes MAGA types cheer when ICE murders immigrants, and it's what makes certain leftist circles chant "eat the rich" along with images of guillotines and wood chippers. When you point out that poverty causes crime, rightists get mad at you for "excusing" or "justifying" crime, and when you point out that poverty causes support for far-right politicians, leftists get mad at you for "excusing" or "justifying" racism. Of course, this interacts with your point: when someone from the ingroup does something bad, people are willing to look at their reasons and if found lacking it is only the individual that should be punished, whereas the outgroup is never afforded the luxury of complexity, and the entire group is held responsible for each individual's sins.

kgwxd 7mo ago

I have way too many family members and associates like that. "Family First" has the same ominous ring to me too. At least, in the given scenarios. Would you agree it's less ominous, maybe even noble, when shit hits the fan though? I think they're easily convinced we're living in constant state of war, even on a slow Tuesday at Costco. The propaganda they often parrot would seem to suggest it. Or maybe they see there are scenarios that is considered noble, and generalize it to be the case for all scenarios. The people I know like that also have a habit of over-generalizing every aspect of life. Cliches, aphorisms, etc. are a huge part of their vocabulary, but they are rarely applied in the original spirit of the sayings.

Paracompact 7mo ago
> Would you agree it's less ominous, maybe even noble, when shit hits the fan though? The "family first, others second" interpretation is, I think, even more problematic when shit hits the fan. In disasters, it never benefits a community to turn on itself. And in fact, I believe the natural human reaction to disaster is to become more altruistic rather than less; see "A Paradise Built in Hell" by Rebecca Solnit for more on this. The actually noble interpretation of "family first" is "family first, my own priorities second," at least so long as it doesn't lead to unhealthy self-sacrifice.