[SEQ RERUN] When None Dare Urge Restraint
post by MinibearRex · 2011-11-19T03:39:40.850Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 4 commentsToday's post, When None Dare Urge Restraint was originally published on 08 December 2007. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
The dark mirror to the happy death spiral is the spiral of hate. When everyone looks good for attacking someone, and anyone who disagrees with any attack must be a sympathizer to the enemy, the results are usually awful. It is too dangerous for there to be anyone in the world that we would prefer to say negative things about, over saying accurate things about.
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
4 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by ksvanhorn · 2011-11-20T23:15:50.357Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"Nonetheless, I did realize immediately [...] that no one would dare to be the voice of restraint, of proportionate response."
Except for people like L. Neil Smith, Harry Browne, Justin Raimondo, Alexander Cockburn, and Lew Rockwell...
All but one of these examples are libertarians, which is not surprising, given that I read a lot of libertarian commentary. However, there is one aspect of libertarian ideology that I think provides some protection against the hate spiral: the fact that it starts with a basic set of principles, from which positions on specific political issues are derived. For a hard-core libertarian, immediate emotional reactions are trumped by the logical consequences his/her core political/ethical principles.
I don't mean to imply that libertarians are unique in this respect. Anyone who actually has a set of core ethical/political principles, especially if they are intended to apply uniformly to all people, and who takes them seriously, probably has a good first line of defense against the hate spiral.
Replies from: lessdazed↑ comment by lessdazed · 2011-11-20T23:58:23.235Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
However, there is one aspect of libertarian ideology that I think provides some protection against the hate spiral: the fact that it starts with a basic set of principles, from which positions on specific political issues are derived.
There is one aspect of modern libertarianism that I think provides some protection against the hate spiral: the fact that it has little political power, from which positions contradicting its principles on specific political issues might be derived.
Replies from: ksvanhorn↑ comment by ksvanhorn · 2011-11-24T23:03:52.068Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I was hoping for similar examples from other political persuasions with which I am less familiar. However, it seems that there is some sort of unspoken rule that mentioning libertarianism in any sort of favorable way gets you downvoted, whereas making snarky comments about it that add nothing to the discussion gets you upvoted.
By the way, most pundits out there have zero political power, regardless of their political affiliations. Supporting someone who does have political power isn't the same as having political power yourself.
Replies from: KPier↑ comment by KPier · 2011-11-25T00:42:41.419Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I downvoted the great-grandparent, but not because the comment references libertarianism favorably; I view libertarianism favorably, as do lots of people on LessWrong (including Eliezer).
Here's why I did downvote: politics is the mindkiller: (I downvote political comments unless they communicate some insight important enough to justify the political-ness). I don't think that the "basic set of principles, from which positions on specific political issues are derived" explains the fact that some libertarians didn't fall into this particular spiral. I also think it's a bad habit to say, "Well, yeah, this is a bias a lot of other people fall prey to, but favorite cause doesn't fall prey to that bias, because something good about favorite cause." Libertarians are vulnerable to irrationality too (to be fair, your comment does not claim they are immune), and I don't think "first principles" is a very strong first line of defense.
As for other political persuasions, communism comes from a very simple set of first principles. As I understand it, both American political parties started out with simple principles and then picked up baggage as they actually governed. Fascism also has a few core principles (though it could be argued those were rotten to begin with). The reason libertarianism hasn't strayed to adopting contradictory positions is probably because they aren't powerful enough to have a chance, which is the point lessdazed was getting at.