3 ms·
Mao's campaign to kill sparrows was a result of a belief that they were a net loss for harvests. Stalin's support of Lysenko was a result of thinking Lysenko w
by vidarh 6mo ago
Mao's campaign to kill sparrows was a result of a belief that they were a net loss for harvests.
Stalin's support of Lysenko was a result of thinking Lysenko was actually able to drive agricultural growth.
Both mistakes led to mass deaths.
We still tend to attribute those deaths to those leaders, because their brutally authoritarian rule was what allowed those mistakes to go unchallenged and get fixed before they caused that level of harm.
Both of them also killed a lot of people maliciously and intentionally, but a large proportion of their death toll as a side-effect of their oppression, not the goal of it.
- stavros 6mo ago> We still tend to attribute those deaths to those leaders, because their brutally authoritarian rule was what allowed those mistakes to go unchallenged and get fixed before they caused that level of harm. What is the analogue here for attributing the rise of alternative energy sources to Trump? Being too incompetent to avoid harm isn't the same as being too incompetent to avoid benefit, because your job is to create benefit. It's Trump's job to create positive outcomes. If he creates positive outcomes by accident while trying to create negative ones, he should get panned for trying to create negative outcomes.
- decimalenough 6mo agoTrump's stated goal of regime change in Iran would (likely) have been a positive outcome if it has actually happened. The problem is that it hasn't.
- stavros 6mo agoThis is off topic for what we're discussing (whether his accidental positive changes can be attributed to him), and agrees with my general point.
- decimalenough 6mo agoNo, it doesn't, because you're asserting he is "trying to create negative ones".
- stavros 6mo agoWe were clearly talking about the context of energy sources, where he's trying to push something he calls "clean coal". What's the positive outcome there?
- deaux 6mo ago> Trump's stated goal of regime change in Iran would (likely) have been a positive outcome if it has actually happened The number of Americans still believing this is baffling and saya everything about their history education. "The previous 20 times we forced regime change ended up a net negative for the people in those countries, but surely this time it would've been different!".
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> previous 20 times we forced regime change ended up a net negative Plenty of counter-examples, too. WWII. South Korea. Potentially Venezuela, mostly because we constrained our objectives. I also don’t think it’s fair to constrain OP’s statement to “the people in those countries.” Regional impacts matter, too. An Iran that isn’t funding terrorist proxies everywhere could still be a net positive even if the average Iranian is no better off afterwards. (To be clear, I’m in no way supporting this stupid war.)
- deaux 6mo ago> Plenty of counter-examples, too. WWII. South Korea. To even hint at those being in the same category of "regime change attempt" as Iran (2x), Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Congo is really desperate. Come on now. Not comparable and irrelevant.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> the same category of "regime change attempt" as Iran (2x), Chile, Iraq …why are Japan and Germany not comparable to Iraq? We’re talking methods and outcomes, not motivations. All involved a wholesale invasion, occupation and supervised restructuring followed by disarmament.
- xorcist 6mo ago> It's Trump's job to create positive outcomes For whom?