News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of gen... by api on Sunday July 05, 2020 @01:26PM (#23740305)
I don't think we really learned any lessons. Stalin and Mao were at least as bad as Hitler in terms of body count. Hitler just lost the war, while the other two were able to continue to invest in propaganda to whitewash their histories. If Nazi Germany had emerged from the war intact, they too would have been able to whitewash their history for decades after. I'm sure in time they would have "moderated" a bit, and that little episode would be a regrettable footnote the way the Cultural Revolution is for the Chinese or Stalin's purges were/are for the USSR/Russia.

We have also never fully acknowledged what the Spanish, British, and later USA did to the native populations of North and South America in the preceding centuries. Yes it's true that disease did much of the work without anyone lifting a finger, but that's only true in the early days. Later on there was plenty of intentional slaughter including bounties to encourage it.

When I look at the way Twitter erupts into ideological witch hunts or things like the Qanon cult, I realize that we have not changed. If any of those mobs got actual power we'd see the same things repeated against whatever groups (real or imaginary) they hate. Civilization is a thin veneer.

Re:China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of gen... by 0x8BADF00D on Sunday July 05, 2020 @02:48PM (#23740918)
Fundamentally, civilization is about control. The control is codified and accepted only because there is a certain amount of inhumanity that is required for it. I would argue that killing comes naturally to humans, and other acts of similar cruelty.

Morality and ethics are learned behaviors that are distilled from societal mores. If "thou shall not kill" or some equivalent in another religion didn't exist, for example, I'd argue killing would be natural in society, and nobody would question it. That is why certain tribal and indigenous peoples performed human sacrifices and had various rituals involving bloodsport. To those tribesmen, killing is not something abnormal within the tribe. Why would killing someone from another tribe matter to them?

Re:China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of gen... by api on Sunday July 05, 2020 @04:42PM (#23741779)
Is/ought... I agree that humans are entirely capable of it. Is it the best thing for us to do?

My biggest problem with secular thought and especially the "pop atheist" variety is that it seems to often lead to is=ought. Regardless of the reality behind any form of theism, theistic thought never accepted that equality. It's always posited that there must be a "better than the way things are now." Some secularists dismiss that as wishful thinking and a coping mechanism, but if so why bother building or doing much of anything beyond the simple core of eat, shit, fight, and fuck?

Re:China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of gen... by 0x8BADF00D on Sunday July 05, 2020 @06:06PM (#23742501)
I agree but in order to have a “better society” governed by the “better angels of our nature”, you essentially need a bully. You need an entity that does all of the morally “bad” things.
Re:China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of gen... by api on Sunday July 05, 2020 @06:36PM (#23742704)
I think you need an entity capable of doing the bad things, if only to stand up to others who do, but I'm not convinced there is some conservation of badness that prohibits the net amount of it from decreasing over time.