undefined

points

[-]

Your question seems to imply that people have to be corralled towards a specific action, which to me comes across as rather cynical.

Why is it not possible to lay out your arguments honestly and let people decide on the merits?

by iugtmkbdfil8342 days ago|

parent|

[-]

I think, part of the issue is that, as a mass of humans, we tend to be rather dumb. And they certainly don't decide on merits, in aggregate. It is somewhat questionable if they decide on merits even as individuals ( unless we expand the definition somewhat ). But it is possible I got too cynical.

by greggoB1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

It's a paradox: on the one hand, if we were dumb en masse, it's hard to see how we could have developed so far technologically and cultivated such complex societies.

On the other: I have to agree with you, there is too much of a pattern of bewildering behaviour not to.

I think what irks me is this idea that deceiving people to push them towards a specific outcome is a reliable and sound strategy, when we've seen many instances of it having the opposite effect.

by Antibabelic2 days ago|

prev|

[-]

Some problems don't have solutions.

by customguy1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

This one does though. These issues are solely created by humans, so of course humans can solve them, that's not even a question. People who care need to keep speaking up and reaching out to each other, get together; and by doing so expose the people who don't care, or actively are against the general welfare of humans, like rocks on the beach when the tide recedes.

It takes so much work, so much criminal energy, so much money and campaigns, to divide people. Whereas the opposite, people getting to know each other and working together, happens "by itself" all the time, for the most banal of reasons. Just give them some time and space together; no lobbying required, no bribes or blackmail, no psy-ops; just our innate desire to live and let live.

Humans who prey on humans are sick, it's as simple as that. Humans who don't want to stand up to humans who prey on humans may not be sick, but they're not our best, that's for sure, and they must not be our gatekeepers or our compass.

by Antibabelic1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

People getting to know each and working together to genocide another group of people that's slightly different from them does indeed have many precedents in history.

The problem with your idea is that you see "humans" as some kind of abstract unified whole. People care about their peers far more than they do about "humans" in the abstract. When you're a powerful venture capitalist, these peers are other venture capitalists for example. Some call this "class consciousness".

by customguy1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

> The problem with your idea is that you see "humans" as some kind of abstract unified whole.

No, I don't, which greatly goes together with that not following from anything I said. I simply care about humans that are not predators way more than predators.