Just to clarify: do you mean to restrict the scope of discussion to voicing support for large-scale/political violence? Or do you also mean to say that you are all radically averse to violence in your personal lives?
Well, both, clearly. Violence is bad. Unless it’s in a ring and strictly for sport, then it’s seen as slightly less disgusting and may even gain a “bad ass” edge. But otherwise, violence, personal or political, is just… bad. It’s dangerous to all parties involved, it hurts, and it doesn’t achieve anything. Of course, under extreme circumstances, and I do say extreme, someone snaps. But even then, it’s never justified unless it’s in self-defence, and it’s always a shameful display: the common understanding is that you should have been smart enough, civil enough, to defuse the situation without getting physical.
It’s dangerous to all parties involved, it hurts, and it doesn’t achieve anything.
This just isn’t true. Violence achieves all sorts of things. (I would also dispute “dangerous to all parties involved”.)
But even then, it’s never justified unless it’s in self-defence
This isn’t true either (but at least is somewhat subjective).
, and it’s always a shameful display: the common understanding is that you should have been smart enough, civil enough, to defuse the situation without getting physical.
Also false. I disprove of narrow-minded overgeneralizations almost as much as I disapprove of violence.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I am simply sharing with you the general attitude towards violence in my social environment, not arguing in their name. Nevertheless, if you’re going to go so far as to pick those memes apart, instead of simply saying “thank you for the clarification, now I understand how you people think”, I’d suggest you actually go through with it and lay down your argument in full. Saying “I’d say you are wrong” and then leaving it at that tends to leave a bad taste in your interlocutor’s mouth.
I’d suggest you actually go through with it and lay down your argument in full.
OK:
[violence} doesn’t achieve anything.
Yes it does. For example if you beat someone up you can take their stuff. Or thwart their political designs. If you beat up enough people well enough you can execute social change. In fact the vast majority of positive social change (and even more negative social change) that has occurred in the history of mankind has relied on violence.
Violence is the crudest form of power we have. Power does stuff. Pretending violence doesn’t achieve anything is gross self delusion.
Don’t let your pacifist politics corrupt your very model of reality. Instead, understand what violence does and does not achieve and then act on your preference for non-violence.
Ah, well, yes, violence will get you what you want in the short term, but unless you exterminate your enemies, they’ll still be a liability: violence doesn’t convince anyone, it just makes them more tractable. Heck, even verbal combat, that is, argument, doesn’t usually serve any purpose but convince both parties that they are right.
So, yes, “violence (and rudeness, for that matter) achieves nothing” is a gross simplification. “Violence brings very flawed achievements and has lots of terrible drawbacks” would be much more accurate.
Ah, well, yes, violence will get you what you want in the short term, but unless you exterminate your enemies, they’ll still be a liability: violence doesn’t convince anyone, it just makes them more tractable.
Let’s frame it as comparing two options against each other (not one option against some unspecified ideal outcome). Based on a quantum event, in one branch of the multiverse you use violence, in another you refrain from violence. Is your long-term utility in the first branch necessarily lower than in the second branch?
Your enemies are not a homogenous group. Some of them are very convinced and eager to act, but others just like to join the existing group and be an anonymous part of the mob. Destroy the former, and you don’t have to worry so much about the latter.
A short-term advantage can sometimes be used as a leverage for long-term advantage. If you happen to rule a country, you can change education and media to include your propaganda. This increases the number of your followers in long term. (Back to typical LW topics: If you are an AI capable of recursive self-improvement, paralysing your opponents for a week may be all you need to conquer the universe.)
Depending on specific circumstances… for example, your enemies may be popular because they have an aura of invincibility. Beat them once and you have ruined the aura, which may remove many of their followers.
(Disclaimer: I don’t suggest using violence, I just say that sometimes is may be the better choice, so the “violence doesn’t achieve anything” is untrue.)
Hm. Very true, I’m afraid. Anyway, “violence achieves nothing” is a useful heuristic, and in times of extreme need the use for violence will still impose itself: the meme simply puts up a mental “barrier of potential” that makes sure you really think hard of alternatives before resorting to it.
I tend to distrust ideas whose usefulness depend on not being too compellingly expressed.
If what I actually believe is that there are usually more valuable alternatives than violence, I endorse saying that as compellingly as possible, rather than saying that violence is never valuable no more compellingly than appropriate.
But even then, [violence is] never justified unless it’s in self-defence
This isn’t true either (but at least is somewhat subjective).
I strongly agree with your general point, but could you explain what you mean by this comment, because it looks problematic for any reasonable understanding of self-defense (which I would expand to include defense of others).
Just to clarify: do you mean to restrict the scope of discussion to voicing support for large-scale/political violence? Or do you also mean to say that you are all radically averse to violence in your personal lives?
Well, both, clearly. Violence is bad. Unless it’s in a ring and strictly for sport, then it’s seen as slightly less disgusting and may even gain a “bad ass” edge. But otherwise, violence, personal or political, is just… bad. It’s dangerous to all parties involved, it hurts, and it doesn’t achieve anything. Of course, under extreme circumstances, and I do say extreme, someone snaps. But even then, it’s never justified unless it’s in self-defence, and it’s always a shameful display: the common understanding is that you should have been smart enough, civil enough, to defuse the situation without getting physical.
This just isn’t true. Violence achieves all sorts of things. (I would also dispute “dangerous to all parties involved”.)
This isn’t true either (but at least is somewhat subjective).
Also false. I disprove of narrow-minded overgeneralizations almost as much as I disapprove of violence.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I am simply sharing with you the general attitude towards violence in my social environment, not arguing in their name. Nevertheless, if you’re going to go so far as to pick those memes apart, instead of simply saying “thank you for the clarification, now I understand how you people think”, I’d suggest you actually go through with it and lay down your argument in full. Saying “I’d say you are wrong” and then leaving it at that tends to leave a bad taste in your interlocutor’s mouth.
OK:
Yes it does. For example if you beat someone up you can take their stuff. Or thwart their political designs. If you beat up enough people well enough you can execute social change. In fact the vast majority of positive social change (and even more negative social change) that has occurred in the history of mankind has relied on violence.
Violence is the crudest form of power we have. Power does stuff. Pretending violence doesn’t achieve anything is gross self delusion.
Don’t let your pacifist politics corrupt your very model of reality. Instead, understand what violence does and does not achieve and then act on your preference for non-violence.
Ah, well, yes, violence will get you what you want in the short term, but unless you exterminate your enemies, they’ll still be a liability: violence doesn’t convince anyone, it just makes them more tractable. Heck, even verbal combat, that is, argument, doesn’t usually serve any purpose but convince both parties that they are right.
So, yes, “violence (and rudeness, for that matter) achieves nothing” is a gross simplification. “Violence brings very flawed achievements and has lots of terrible drawbacks” would be much more accurate.
Let’s frame it as comparing two options against each other (not one option against some unspecified ideal outcome). Based on a quantum event, in one branch of the multiverse you use violence, in another you refrain from violence. Is your long-term utility in the first branch necessarily lower than in the second branch?
Your enemies are not a homogenous group. Some of them are very convinced and eager to act, but others just like to join the existing group and be an anonymous part of the mob. Destroy the former, and you don’t have to worry so much about the latter.
A short-term advantage can sometimes be used as a leverage for long-term advantage. If you happen to rule a country, you can change education and media to include your propaganda. This increases the number of your followers in long term. (Back to typical LW topics: If you are an AI capable of recursive self-improvement, paralysing your opponents for a week may be all you need to conquer the universe.)
Depending on specific circumstances… for example, your enemies may be popular because they have an aura of invincibility. Beat them once and you have ruined the aura, which may remove many of their followers.
(Disclaimer: I don’t suggest using violence, I just say that sometimes is may be the better choice, so the “violence doesn’t achieve anything” is untrue.)
Hm. Very true, I’m afraid. Anyway, “violence achieves nothing” is a useful heuristic, and in times of extreme need the use for violence will still impose itself: the meme simply puts up a mental “barrier of potential” that makes sure you really think hard of alternatives before resorting to it.
I tend to distrust ideas whose usefulness depend on not being too compellingly expressed.
If what I actually believe is that there are usually more valuable alternatives than violence, I endorse saying that as compellingly as possible, rather than saying that violence is never valuable no more compellingly than appropriate.
I strongly agree with your general point, but could you explain what you mean by this comment, because it looks problematic for any reasonable understanding of self-defense (which I would expand to include defense of others).
OK. Thanks for clarifying.