= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
polymathwannabe comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (275)
How is there such a thing as "repression done right"?
What's the problem? Repression done right just means that a particular political system/approach/technique produces the desired results without the costs (including secondary effects and externalities) being too high. Moral outrage is not a particularly useful analysis tool.
Just like the best war is the one your enemy has lost before even realizing he's at war, the best repression is the one where the repressed population believes itself to be happy and in control :-/
My point was that "right" is a problematic term in this case. Using less loaded terms, you're describing "effective" or "successful" repression.
So, back to the original argument:
VoiceOfRa claims that [effective] repression doesn't cause rebellions. You seem to agree with me that it's mostly because the dead don't complain. Indeed, it's not very effective; if removing dissenters is your solution to everything, you'll end up a lonely tyrant.
"done right" is a sufficiently neutral expression often used in engineering context, I don't read moral overtones here.
That's just a tautology.
Not necessarily "mostly", but historically it has been a very popular way for a "successful" repression. It's a bit more difficult to pull off nowadays, though.
It depends on who you are repressing -- e.g. if it's an (ethnic, religious, cultural) minority, killing them all is very effective.
Because traditionally you kill the males and enslave the women, you can empirically find defeated populations in the genetic code of the descendants of the winners: they would have some matrilinear admixture, but none (or almost none) of the patrilinear admixture of the losers.
You lost me there. Why is that relevant?
This allows you to find empirical examples of ethnic groups that were successfully repressed by killing all the males -- even if you don't have e.g. literary sources. This has bearings on how popular and how successful repressions by kill-them-all methods were.
If we Latinos are mainly descended from male Spaniards and female Natives, and still we fought wars to kick the Spanish out, what does it indicate, according to your thesis?
I don't have a thesis, just a few comments. I think that it's very possible to have a successful (from the repressor's point of view) repression and that historically one of the main ways it has been achieved was by making the repressed dead and broken.
That indicates that local elites desire wealth and power, often more than the metropoly is willing to let them have.
No, Lumifer said that the dead and broken don't complain.
History does not agree with you there.