= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 12 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (692)
Hagrid's story seems to be unchanged, and Harry is aware of it - he was told he was responsible for getting the conviction overturned and the wand returned. The point is more that Lucius Malfoy doesn't directly control the Wizengamot. His main tool at this trial seems to be rhetoric, drumming up righteous indignation and playing the part of the aggrieved Noble. If Harry stops focusing on Lucius and in stead focuses on the individual voters, he can find arguments to sway different sections.
Hagrid's case sets a precedent which makes it obvious the Wizengamot is playing to a double-standard in this case, but he would certainly have to come up with more arguments. Another point he could make is that Hermione had no motive. Another is that her behaviour before the event was completely out of character. He has Hermione right there, and veritaserum on hand, so if he asked her the right questions under veritaserum he could probably find out about the huge chunk of missing time she has in her memory - good evidence that she was psychologically manipulated.
Not really. The Wizengamot has an explicit policy of punishing a wizard (or half-wizard) who murdered a mudblood less than mudblood who tried to murder a noble wizard, the last scion of a Most Ancient House. It's only a double standard to you; it's a valid and relevant difference to them.
True, it would only make a valid argument if there were some swing voters who were more concerned with fairness than with supporting the power structure of the nobility, which is unlikely.
They don't see it as fairness! They see what they're currently doing as being right and fair and just! Nobody is a villain in their own minds.
Grossly exaggerated truism. Plenty of people do but just don't care.
I wish I were better at correctly imagining other people's mental states, and knew lots more about them. As it is, I can't come up with anything I have reasonable evidence for, for or against your claim or even relevant to it at all. How can I know how (many) other people think of themselves?
That's why I made my claim about fictional characters, where I happened to be rather more certain. The two claims are syntactically similar but semantically unrelated. I do very much want to discuss, and learn more about, how real people think of themselves, so let's talk about that.
You say many people think of themselves as villains. How would they unpack this word if asked? That they do things they consider morally or ethically wrong, or that others consider to be so (but they disagree)? That they do those things with insufficient (to themselves) justification? That they enjoy them? That they pattern-match themselves (on what?) to famous story characters who are widely called villains?
I was replying as if your 'villian' claim was an extension of the previous sentence "They see what they're currently doing as being right and fair and just!"
Some people do things that they consider not right, unfair or unjust and if they happen to think about it feel guilty briefly then keep doing it. Some people have conceptions of what right, fair and just are but consider them childish concepts and just don't care.
How do you know this?
It is, as you noted, a truism many people believe in that "almost nobody is a villain in their own mind", and instead people have justifications, special pleading, and other thoughts that excuse them to themselves.
Both this and what you say is compatible with the world as I see it, I have no direct evidence one way or the other. What's yours?
SWIM told me?
My spin, of course, is that those people make up stories like that because they are reluctant to admit that other people are less insecure and don't need to make up as many excuses for themselves.
SWIM being?
Which is why I didn't use the word "justice".