If top of the society is immoral psychopaths with power, and most of the society is composed of people with good intentions, then there is not much hope for “beta uprising” until things go way beyond point of recovery, because powerful psychopaths will not let their power get taken away.
Not sure if this is just evolutionary biology, but this cycle of psychopaths at the top has been going on since when, at least ancient Egypt. And in all these thousands of years, the system that enables this cycle got way more reinforced than it got dismantled.
So is it maybe better idea to put benevolent people’s energy towards designing and preparing a new societal system that will have built-in mechanisms for preventing corruption and malevolence? “prepare” as in get ready to implement for when the current messed up system is about to grind to a halt and collapse? Well, it would be best to figure out how to go full Benevolent Theseus™ by replacing parts of currently failing system with the corruption-proof ones.
What are some resources related to this topic? Recearch on societal dynamics, designing political systems, examples of similar revolutions that already happened, etc. Post any links that you consider relevant
Stop caring about intentions. Stop giving the stupid a free pass. Treat stupidity as a type of malice, and act accordingly.
I believe that this alone should be enough to address the sykos on power. Easier said than done.
Bonhoeffer says stupidity is a social thing. I mostly agree. Things didn’t turn out well for Bonhoeffer. Shoveling against the tide is exhausting.
I tend to agree with him and I think that the society where he lived is a great example of what happens when we let stupidity go rampant: Nazi Germany was a stupidocracy.
Who decides what is stupid and what isn’t? There better be a good, clear, obvious, and universal objective method of identifying stupidity if you’re going to treat it as malicious.
That’s part of the deal: you don’t need to. Once stupidity and malice are taken as morally equivalent, it becomes morally irrelevant to decide if someone’s actions are motivated by one or another.
My point is that people give a free pass to actions harming the others, as long as they’re seen as “unintentional”; for example, the “powerful psychopaths” OP talks about often rely on it. And yet nobody knows someone else’s intentions, we know at most what others do and what they say.
So for example. Your business relies on blood diamonds? You’re financing terrorism and should be treated as such, regardless of your intentions. Your corporation employs slave work? You shall be treated as a slaver, committing crimes against humankind.
You do need to take into account if someone is able to be held responsible for one’s own actions. But we already do this anyway, so no change.
At some point, does it matter?
Give people the resources to educate themselves. Give them the benefit of the doubt, once. But after that? Screw 'em. Move on without 'em.
I think it does matter what you define as being stupid, yes. Let’s say that I want to call being transgender, not having enough money to buy food, and being an immigrant all stupid. I should treat those things as malice because they’re stupid, right?
I mean, people do treat those things as malicious already. So if anything returning the same treatment would be fair-play.
But more to the point, I don’t think that’s analogous to what the above posters was trying to say? A person “being” transgender/poor/an immigrant isn’t the same as say, a person denying climate change.
And that’s how I read the above commenter. There are two reasons for people to hold a climate-change-denying view, ignorance and malice. Ignorance can be met with education. But if a person begins holding onto their ignorance, their actions are fundamentally indistinguishable from malice.
I assumed it was a comment about the tactics we decide to employ when dealing with people. And at a certain point, if a person is stupid or if they’re malicious… Well it sorta does not matter.
Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don’t think climate change is real, so now I think you’re stupid and you think I’m stupid and it’s he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl. The thing that fixes this is a definition of “stupid” that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?
Yeah I still think you are talking about something else?
In reality though some people are right and some people are wrong. The person who talks about vaccines as just “shooting ourselves full of mercury and viruses” is either stupid or malicious. What they think of me doesn’t matter, because this conversation is about how I should treat this hypothetical person.
And that was the point I made. Ultimately it doesn’t matter if they are stupid or malicious, I should treat them the same way. Because their intent doesn’t really matter, their actions do.
That is not how language or communication works…
People who are thought of as stupid, rarely agree that they are stupid. Same goes for malicious, to be honest.
Exactly. So we can’t just “Treat stupidity as a type of malice”, because nobody can agree on what is and isn’t stupidity.
Alright I don’t know who you are talking to, but it’s very clearly not me.
Yeah, let’s execute the intellectually disabled. Super progressive.
What? Quite obviously not what I said.
I think that @[email protected] got better the connotation of “stupid” from my comment. But just to be sure:
I’m defining “stupidity” here as behaviour coming from people who are able to reason, and thus can be held responsible for their actions. The intellectually disabled ones (plus children) are excluded by this definition.
Stupid people will treat that as hostility and shut off their reasoning. That’s unfortunately how humans work - question their beliefs, and they will believe even harder and attack you for even hinting that their beliefs are wrong.
Sects are the obvious example of that behavior, but on smaller scales, we are all a bit like that.
The stupid already treat random shit as hostility, and they already shut off their reasoning (otherwise they wouldn’t be stupid). So there’s no change in that.
I believe that you’re right, when you say that we [humans in general] are all a bit like that. Even then, we’re fairly flexible - we only behave like morons when we get away with it.
How on earth would you decide who is stupid? And why are you the one to judge everybody’s intelligence? Fuck off fascist
Read the rest of the comment chain. As I already said, you don’t need to decide which sort of behaviour is stupidity or not; you just stop trying to decide what’s “intentional”.
In no moment I said or even implied that I shall be “the one to judge”. So stop making shit up.
And no, I am not fascist. Again, stop making shit up.
Also, you’re being a great example of what I’m talking about, because odds are that you’re full of “good intentions” behind your little witch hunt, but you’re effectively contributing with fascists by giving them a reasonable cover and desensitising people towards the word. Just like the boy who cried wolf contributed with the wolves.
‘Stop giving the stupid a free pass’ - the kindly explain to me who are these ‘stupid’ you are referring to in your original comment?
That’s the same as “I just made shit up about you, but I demand you to spoonfeed me because I’m entitled.” Sorry but the world does not revolve around your belly, and I’m not wasting my time with you, go be a self-demonstrating example elsewhere.
For other posters who might be reading this: what I’m considering “stupidity” and “the stupid” is already hinted by this, this and this. I can bring up some more formal definition if someone really wants, but the point is that it should not matter - take off “intentions” from the equation when handling people, stop giving people a free pass to cause harm because “oh no, that person is stupid, not malicious”.
No, I don’t let you off your self-constructed hook so easily.
From your other comments I can thus read:
That’s not sufficient information to start persecuting other people. And I don’t care if you cook up the definition of who is stupid all by yourself or if it’s you plus a select group of pseudo-enlightened friends. The underlying idea is ‘remove people who show unwanted behaviour’ - and I think that approach to running a society has a name.