If top of the society is immoral psychopaths with power, and most of the society is composed of people with good intentions, then there is not much hope for “beta uprising” until things go way beyond point of recovery, because powerful psychopaths will not let their power get taken away.

Not sure if this is just evolutionary biology, but this cycle of psychopaths at the top has been going on since when, at least ancient Egypt. And in all these thousands of years, the system that enables this cycle got way more reinforced than it got dismantled.

So is it maybe better idea to put benevolent people’s energy towards designing and preparing a new societal system that will have built-in mechanisms for preventing corruption and malevolence? “prepare” as in get ready to implement for when the current messed up system is about to grind to a halt and collapse? Well, it would be best to figure out how to go full Benevolent Theseus™ by replacing parts of currently failing system with the corruption-proof ones.

What are some resources related to this topic? Recearch on societal dynamics, designing political systems, examples of similar revolutions that already happened, etc. Post any links that you consider relevant

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    Who decides what is stupid and what isn’t? There better be a good, clear, obvious, and universal objective method of identifying stupidity if you’re going to treat it as malicious.

    • Lvxferre
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      That’s part of the deal: you don’t need to. Once stupidity and malice are taken as morally equivalent, it becomes morally irrelevant to decide if someone’s actions are motivated by one or another.

      My point is that people give a free pass to actions harming the others, as long as they’re seen as “unintentional”; for example, the “powerful psychopaths” OP talks about often rely on it. And yet nobody knows someone else’s intentions, we know at most what others do and what they say.

      So for example. Your business relies on blood diamonds? You’re financing terrorism and should be treated as such, regardless of your intentions. Your corporation employs slave work? You shall be treated as a slaver, committing crimes against humankind.

      You do need to take into account if someone is able to be held responsible for one’s own actions. But we already do this anyway, so no change.

    • darq
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      At some point, does it matter?

      Give people the resources to educate themselves. Give them the benefit of the doubt, once. But after that? Screw 'em. Move on without 'em.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think it does matter what you define as being stupid, yes. Let’s say that I want to call being transgender, not having enough money to buy food, and being an immigrant all stupid. I should treat those things as malice because they’re stupid, right?

        • darq
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          I mean, people do treat those things as malicious already. So if anything returning the same treatment would be fair-play.

          But more to the point, I don’t think that’s analogous to what the above posters was trying to say? A person “being” transgender/poor/an immigrant isn’t the same as say, a person denying climate change.

          And that’s how I read the above commenter. There are two reasons for people to hold a climate-change-denying view, ignorance and malice. Ignorance can be met with education. But if a person begins holding onto their ignorance, their actions are fundamentally indistinguishable from malice.

          I assumed it was a comment about the tactics we decide to employ when dealing with people. And at a certain point, if a person is stupid or if they’re malicious… Well it sorta does not matter.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -11 year ago

            Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don’t think climate change is real, so now I think you’re stupid and you think I’m stupid and it’s he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl. The thing that fixes this is a definition of “stupid” that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?

            • darq
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Yeah I still think you are talking about something else?

              Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don’t think climate change is real, so now I think you’re stupid and you think I’m stupid and it’s he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl.

              In reality though some people are right and some people are wrong. The person who talks about vaccines as just “shooting ourselves full of mercury and viruses” is either stupid or malicious. What they think of me doesn’t matter, because this conversation is about how I should treat this hypothetical person.

              And that was the point I made. Ultimately it doesn’t matter if they are stupid or malicious, I should treat them the same way. Because their intent doesn’t really matter, their actions do.

              The thing that fixes this is a definition of “stupid” that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?

              That is not how language or communication works…

              People who are thought of as stupid, rarely agree that they are stupid. Same goes for malicious, to be honest.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Exactly. So we can’t just “Treat stupidity as a type of malice”, because nobody can agree on what is and isn’t stupidity.

                • darq
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  Alright I don’t know who you are talking to, but it’s very clearly not me.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Alright, from the very words of your own comment:

                    At some point, does it matter?

                    in direct response to my comment

                    Who decides what is stupid and what isn’t?

                    Yes, it does matter. If you want to “Give people the resources to educate themselves”, you have to have a definition of stupid and not stupid that guides your choice of what is and isn’t good education; in order to “Give them the benefit of the doubt, once”, you have to have a criteria for when they’ve stopped being stupid.