TheOtherDave comments on George Orwell's Prelude on Politics Is The Mind Killer - Less Wrong

10 [deleted] 29 March 2012 04:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (285)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 01 April 2012 04:16:03PM 3 points [-]

The anti-fascists I know (basically, everyone) are radically averse to violence.

It seems to follow from this statement that everyone you know is radically averse to violence.
Is that actually what you meant?

Comment author: [deleted] 01 April 2012 04:31:32PM -1 points [-]

Why yes, absolutely. I do not know if this is lucky or unlucky, but I don't know (personally and outside of the internet) anyone who isn't a pacifist in some capacity when it comes to foreign policy, and in full capacity when it comes to domestic struggles. It just isn't done. Symbolic violence such as flag-burning or, if it comes to that, car burning, is perfectly okay. So is strong language... as long as said language doesn't appeal to violence. We don't joke about being violent to our opposition, unlike, say, American pundits and talk show hosts. Again, it just isn't done.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 01 April 2012 06:04:30PM 2 points [-]

Just to clarify: do you mean to restrict the scope of discussion to voicing support for large-scale/political violence? Or do you also mean to say that you are all radically averse to violence in your personal lives?

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 01 April 2012 10:03:39PM * 12 points [-]

It's dangerous to all parties involved, it hurts, and it doesn't achieve anything.

This just isn't true. Violence achieves all sorts of things. (I would also dispute "dangerous to all parties involved".)

But even then, it's never justified unless it's in self-defence

This isn't true either (but at least is somewhat subjective).

, and it's always a shameful display: the common understanding is that you should have been smart enough, civil enough, to defuse the situation without getting physical.

Also false. I disprove of narrow-minded overgeneralizations almost as much as I disapprove of violence.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 April 2012 10:56:14PM 1 point [-]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I am simply sharing with you the general attitude towards violence in my social environment, not arguing in their name. Nevertheless, if you're going to go so far as to pick those memes apart, instead of simply saying "thank you for the clarification, now I understand how you people think", I'd suggest you actually go through with it and lay down your argument in full. Saying "I'd say you are wrong" and then leaving it at that tends to leave a bad taste in your interlocutor's mouth.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 April 2012 12:55:43AM * 8 points [-]

I'd suggest you actually go through with it and lay down your argument in full.

OK:

[violence} doesn't achieve anything.

Yes it does. For example if you beat someone up you can take their stuff. Or thwart their political designs. If you beat up enough people well enough you can execute social change. In fact the vast majority of positive social change (and even more negative social change) that has occurred in the history of mankind has relied on violence.

Violence is the crudest form of power we have. Power does stuff. Pretending violence doesn't achieve anything is gross self delusion.

Don't let your pacifist politics corrupt your very model of reality. Instead, understand what violence does and does not achieve and then act on your preference for non-violence.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 April 2012 11:48:51AM -1 points [-]

Ah, well, yes, violence will get you what you want in the short term, but unless you exterminate your enemies, they'll still be a liability: violence doesn't convince anyone, it just makes them more tractable. Heck, even verbal combat, that is, argument, doesn't usually serve any purpose but convince both parties that they are right.

So, yes, "violence (and rudeness, for that matter) achieves nothing" is a gross simplification. "Violence brings very flawed achievements and has lots of terrible drawbacks" would be much more accurate.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 02 April 2012 01:57:57PM 2 points [-]

Ah, well, yes, violence will get you what you want in the short term, but unless you exterminate your enemies, they'll still be a liability: violence doesn't convince anyone, it just makes them more tractable.

Let's frame it as comparing two options against each other (not one option against some unspecified ideal outcome). Based on a quantum event, in one branch of the multiverse you use violence, in another you refrain from violence. Is your long-term utility in the first branch necessarily lower than in the second branch?

Your enemies are not a homogenous group. Some of them are very convinced and eager to act, but others just like to join the existing group and be an anonymous part of the mob. Destroy the former, and you don't have to worry so much about the latter.

A short-term advantage can sometimes be used as a leverage for long-term advantage. If you happen to rule a country, you can change education and media to include your propaganda. This increases the number of your followers in long term. (Back to typical LW topics: If you are an AI capable of recursive self-improvement, paralysing your opponents for a week may be all you need to conquer the universe.)

Depending on specific circumstances... for example, your enemies may be popular because they have an aura of invincibility. Beat them once and you have ruined the aura, which may remove many of their followers.

(Disclaimer: I don't suggest using violence, I just say that sometimes is may be the better choice, so the "violence doesn't achieve anything" is untrue.)

Comment author: [deleted] 02 April 2012 02:08:18PM * 0 points [-]

Hm. Very true, I'm afraid. Anyway, "violence achieves nothing" is a useful heuristic, and in times of extreme need the use for violence will still impose itself: the meme simply puts up a mental "barrier of potential" that makes sure you really think hard of alternatives before resorting to it.

continue this thread »

Comment author: TimS 02 April 2012 01:09:49AM * 0 points [-]

But even then, [violence is] never justified unless it's in self-defence

This isn't true either (but at least is somewhat subjective).

I strongly agree with your general point, but could you explain what you mean by this comment, because it looks problematic for any reasonable understanding of self-defense (which I would expand to include defense of others).

Comment author: TheOtherDave 01 April 2012 08:18:24PM 0 points [-]

OK. Thanks for clarifying.

TheOtherDave comments on George Orwell's Prelude on Politics Is The Mind Killer - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (285)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (285)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login