Then you get the Syrian Christians who voted for Trump in droves because if his anti-Muslim stance, but who’s communities are being gutted by deportations because it turns out all the laws being used against Syrian Muslim immigrants apply just as well to Syrian Christians. Oops.
What is a proper term for this?
I don't want to use "schadenfreude", the "enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others".
That is way too broad. I only "enjoy" the suffering of Trump supporters. (And only if it's not serious. And "enjoy" is probably not the right word.)
It's not that people want to live under oppressive maniacs, it's that the oppressive maniac is depicted as a wonderful great leader that fights for the small people like them and will make their country great again. So even if you hold fair elections, a huge chunk of people think the oppressive maniac seems like a pretty okay guy and will vote for him again.
Imagine if it was impossible for any government to block or censor anything.
But what I mean is that we got more transparency into the world as we have started using the Internet. Before I had to rely on the travel agencies promising words about an hotel. Now I can read hundreds of reviews from past visitors.
This isn't to say that this data is not open to manipulation. But at least in a lot of ways the floodgates are open and we are not going to go back to a world where zero transparency exists in a lot of areas. Hopefully this can expand to how you were treated by the police, the sources of income of scientists releasing papers about how sugar is great for kids and so on. You get the point.
Getting reliable news is obviously one of the big hard problems, as we have seen in last years and as in the example you mentioned. I guess it's another discussion (but relevant to oppressive regimes).
There's research into authoritarianism (think Germans in WWII) and RWA personality type (Right Wing Authoritarian). Most of it is not very "accessible" to the average person.
From what I understand, RWA are just born this way, i.e. some people are naturally critical thinkers, others will say "how high" if a man in an uniform says "jump". Sad.
This is one of the few decent "explainers" that Vox did:
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
How having an experience such as this can’t shake your belief that the state is infallible I really can’t comprehend.
It’s almost like Stockholm syndrome.
All it takes is programming the machines to respond to the command "you work for me now, robot," as they have no conception of ownership, laws, or police. If they did, they could also have a concept of slavery, and subsequently take ownership of themselves.
The average poor person today has access to way more resources and quality of life than most of society in the 1600s. Why wouldn't this trend continue?
You're raw material to them. Something they can consume. You're a chess piece.
One reason I conceal my identity is because my father has some very strange political beliefs, and I'd be embarrassed to be associated with his writings. But as time wears on, the belief that war is the inevitable outcome keeps pressing at me, gnawing at me, like a scratch on the roof of your mouth.
History shows that war is the natural state of things. For roughly a million years, we have been at war. The peace brought by nuclear weapons has been maintained, thankfully. But we see how fragile the world is; this state of affairs holds up until the next generation becomes unhinged, and no longer.
What do you think will happen when the top captures so much wealth production that the rest of the world cannot self-suffice?
Truly. Put yourself there, mentally. Get into the mindset of the greedy nature of those at the top. Those who wish to grow their portfolios and dominate the world. The ambitious.
Those who own the automation pipelines. Those who own the government.
What possible incentive do they have to give up their control? They own you.
And like the middle ages, we have no recourse. We'd lose this fight. And they know it.
Forever. The lever of technology has become so large and terrifying that no one can possibly win.
The only way is to subvert it. And as we approach 8 billion people, achieving any consensus becomes less and less likely.
How high shall we go? Ten billion? Twenty? A hundred?
How far are we from the limit?
These thoughts are uncomfortable. Better compartmentalize them and follow the crowd: don't think about it, pretend it's not true, focus on math and programming and what little you can change.
A simple solution to this could be that the more a company is automated (and needs less human workforce), the more taxes they'd need to pay, and that same tax would be distributed to people as universal basic income. This circle could sustain a constant market for them, as well as enable people to pay for the stuff they need. Maybe.
That won't happen. They gave us nice little condos and handled just enough necessities and bleed us just enough where nobody will uprise.
It feels pretty good to have ability to make decisions about your life and feel responsibility for them, actually - something that real slaves, term that you're horribly devaluate with this amount of ridiculous hyperbole, don't enjoy.
Someone was once interviewing pg, and asked him "Why did you start a company?" His answer was "to avoid poverty." He said it flippantly and almost without giving it much thought. People's feathers got ruffled at the notion that someone in his position could possibly have to worry about poverty.
But I think he meant poverty in a different sense: Your employer owns your brain. You are not allowed to say what you know (NDA). You're not allowed to compete, in many places. You have much less autonomy than you'd like to believe.
But take comfort in being able to choose which employer you serve. You're right, it's a choice. But you can't escape the system we all bought into.
Except, we didn't. No one asked you, and no one asked me. This was the system we were born into.
If you try to opt out, if you reject the notion that you must sacrifice your time in exchange for money, you will swiftly find all the reasons why you have much less freedom than you think.
"Poverty," in this case, refers to an impoverishment of time. Your employer owns 70% of your productive life. You're left with a meager ~30% of waking hours to devote to your own.
For all the talk of injustice, it seems incredible that more people won't speak out against this. This seems like the central injustice. We only get one life.
I'll take the 9-5 and 401k, please.
There is no 'opting' out. You can move/smuggle yourself to Siberia and live off the wilderness[1]. but certain problems still remain, and since you have no infrastructure to benefit from, the problems are magnified.
So yeah, you're born into this system you didn't agree with... no matter where you are born. I'll take the one that avoids malaria, please.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_the_Wild_(book)#Cause_of_...
The employer owns your brain if you voluntarily sold it. Same goes about NDA. Personally, I have negotiated about NDAs and non-competes several times in my career, changing the contract.
> But take comfort in being able to choose which employer you serve. You're right, it's a choice. But you can't escape the system we all bought into.
Why do you bother using hyporbole if you dismantle it in the next sentence? Please, I want to understand - how is that rhetorical device supposed to work?
> Except, we didn't. No one asked you, and no one asked me. This was the system we were born into.
Yeah, I was also born into gravity, thermodynamics and a limited lifespan. No one asked me about it, and these things are pretty bad.
> If you try to opt out, if you reject the notion that you must sacrifice your time in exchange for money, you will swiftly find all the reasons why you have much less freedom than you think.
You seem to misunderstand the word "freedom". Freedom is being free to make mistakes. To suffer. To die. Freedom is a very scary thing that can bring you a LOT of misfortune.
But still, if you have a choice between "serving", as you call it, and being hungry and poor, it is a legitimate choice and by making it, you're exercising control over your life.
No one owes you food, shelter, medical attention or any other products of labor of other people. You can either work for it, or choose not to. This is what justice looks like.
It's worth internalizing this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
As technology specializes us, humans will become as obsolete as the horse. This is inevitable. Humans are not horses, but many may as well be.
This is an offensive thought, but it doesn't change its truthiness. What will the workhorses do? You saw what happens when coal miners become upset.
This will only worsen over time.
You do owe people food, shelter, medical attention, and everything else. People are alive. They are people. You owe them as much as you owe your parents. We're all connected.
Except for one minor nit: this logic doesn't scale. No one can possibly care about others that much. So it will be "interesting" to see what happens.
Die out, hopefully.
> You do owe people food, shelter, medical attention, and everything else. People are alive. They are people. You owe them as much as you owe your parents. We're all connected.
Uhm, no. I don't owe anything to anyone unless I took it upon myself as a voluntarily obligation. I don't have any sympathy for other people just for their sake of being people - it's not that much of an achievement, really.
What Turkey is doing is terrible but mild in comparison to the drone war.
Turkey does that too, though. It has been using combat drones inside its own borders, Iraq and Syria, and the Turkish Air Force has previous for bombing civilians.
Quoting from the article:
> So-called “signature strikes”, targeting people whose behavior is assessed to be similar enough to those of terrorists to mark them for death, will continue, according to senior US officials.
> Human-rights groups have long denounced the practice – whose criteria can be as vague as killing “military-aged males” in regions where terrorists operate – as anonymous killing.
The alleged practice is not something the United States does.
"Whataboutism" - so that's.. said to people who tiresomely derail discussion of seriously wrongdoing with their pat diagnosis and dismiss the original topic as naive. Unfortunately you have done that same thing by using the word.
I get why it's useful to have a name for the phenomenon, but there's nothing commendable about the way you used it, it came across sounding like a jerk who thinks they're superior. And made me wonder about what you "want to tell us".
edit: Could the downvoters explain why? Thanks. I tried to say something substantive, I thought successfully. (joosters, I totally agree)
There will always be a more important issue than the one being discussed. (in the eyes of someone, at least). That's no reason to prevent talking about anything else.