You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

VoiceOfRa comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong Discussion

-1 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 23 November 2015 01:47AM

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

Comments (275)

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

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 01 December 2015 02:33:59AM 1 point [-]

So would you say the Germans and Japanese internalised the slave mentality after WWII?

Comment author: Lumifer 01 December 2015 03:47:13AM 0 points [-]

No, I would not classify Germany and Japan post-WW2 as "dead and broken".

Temporary occupation by a foreign power is something a bit different, anyway.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 02 December 2015 12:44:44AM 0 points [-]

Well, since the OP was about how to deal with ISIS, "breaking" them in the sense that Germany and Japan were seems to be a desirable result.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 December 2015 01:16:46AM 2 points [-]

ISIS is an idea. It's not a particular ethnic group or population of a particular piece of land. Ideas are notoriously hard to repress successfully.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 03 December 2015 11:01:02PM 2 points [-]

ISIS is an idea.

So was fascism.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 December 2015 02:56:51AM -1 points [-]

And do you imagine it disappeared..?

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 04 December 2015 03:51:51AM 4 points [-]

Except as a useful boogeyman for those currently in power, yes.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 December 2015 04:38:33AM 0 points [-]

You're kidding yourself.

Comment author: gjm 04 December 2015 11:07:07AM 1 point [-]

Or trying to kid others.

When people say "fascism" they're usually actually thinking of Nazism. Now, what was Nazism? It was a movement that stressed the need for intense loyalty to a strong Fatherland, that worried about pollution of that Fatherland by inferior races, that was contemptuous of democracy, that appealed to the glorious cultural traditions of the Fatherland, that lamented that the political Left was treacherously weakening the nation, that held that women should stick to traditional gender roles, that made much of the value of traditional religion without actually embracing it and being religious ...

Gosh, it's hard to see what possible motive a neoreactionary could have for making light of the idea that anything like that might still be around today.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 05 December 2015 02:25:56AM 5 points [-]

So by your definition nearly everyone before the 19th century was a "fascist"?

Comment author: Lumifer 04 December 2015 03:38:39PM 0 points [-]

NRx people should know the difference between fascism and nazism, given how they pay great attention to history.

But there also might be a bit of miscommunication. I suspect VoiceOfRa thinks about far-right parties in Europe which are often tagged with the neo-Nazi label. That wasn't what I actually had I mind. I was thinking of people like Mr.Putin.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 07 December 2015 04:52:05AM 0 points [-]

Not completely, but sure it is a few orders of magnitude less prevalent than if the Allies hadn't defeated the Axis in WW2, isn't it?

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 07 December 2015 05:15:38AM -1 points [-]

Most instances of fascism were somewhat closer to being "a particular ethnic group" than ISIS is, and anyway he said "notoriously hard", not "impossible", and the defeat of fascism was not exactly painless and effortless.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 07 December 2015 07:03:10PM 0 points [-]

and the defeat of fascism was not exactly painless and effortless.

And attempting to avoid offending them, as Gleb is arguing for, was obviously counterproductive in retrospect.