I’m not focused so much on the misogyny or homophobia as their attitude about the bailout and the poor. That they act like fraternity people isn’t really an issue. But its a clear demonstration of their private contempt for anyone who isn’t filthy rich.
As far as viable alternatives go, America was supposed to be a viable alternative to monarchy, but really it just put a new label on it. The world’s history of making viable alternatives is pretty crappy. Most social change appears to have come from attacking the status quo.
But its a clear demonstration of their private contempt for anyone who isn’t filthy rich.
Could you be more specific about what exactly you would like to be different?
Do you think that despising outgroups is a rare behavior, and we should remove all power from those who do? Do you think it is a frequent but not universal behavior, so we should find those exceptional individuals who don’t have it, and give all power to them? Do you think the attitude is universal, but we should make sure that the powerful people are never allowed to express it, even in privacy (in other words: that the powerful people should have no privacy)? Something else?
Well, its an interesting question. I know that there are rich people who don’t behave this way. So I can conclude that its possible to have a situation where large numbers of the wealthy or powerful don’t have contempt for or outright despise the poor. My ideal would probably be a situation where people who felt/acted this way were an extreme minority. I don’t think it requires exceptional individuals.
This suggest we should research the causes of what makes people behave like they do. Then we could perhaps try to systematically increase the things that contribute to nice behavior.
(By the way, this is where I think most people with egalitarian feelings often fail. They notice that some rich people are abusive somehow, and their reaction is: “punish the rich”. The problem is, the punishment usually applies at least as much to the good ones as to the bad ones; and it may actually decrease the ratio of the prosocial people among the rich. It would be better to think about ways that could increase the ratio, but that is not compatible with the emotions created by outrage e.g. from the linked article.)
By the way, you speak about “rich”, I speak about “powerful”. It correlates in our society, but it’s not the same thing. (For example, a powerful and stupid bureaucrat may be able to harm thousands or millions of people, without putting money into their own pockets; if they truly believe in their wrong ideas and try to do the right thing.) It could be relevant to this topic: maybe power corrupts, but mere money without the feeling of power don’t.
I think it’s very naive to think that when you break down a system the thing that replaces it will be automatically better.
Failing forward is no good strategy.
Most social change appears to have come from attacking the status quo.
I don’t think that’s the case. The workers movement that lead to communism was strong because unions happened to be strong communities with strong internal loyalty.
If you want to change something focus on community building. Don’t focus on what happens on the national level but focus on providing services that help people in your local community.
The LW community isn’t really local but it’s also a community separate from the mainstream so, investing effort into making it stronger also counts as community building effort.
Don’t invest your retirement money in the stock market. Invest it into a business where you know the owner personally. That can mean Angel investment.
Buying local property is also good. Buying solar panels to put on your house also decentralizes power.
If you invest your retirement money into an index fund you are actively supporting the current system. If you do protest against the rich and have your retirement money in an index fund you are not being consistent.
I put major effort in Quantified Self community building. As part of that community building I did a lot of media interview and used some of that time to say how much the status quo fails people and that people should gather data to make self determined choices instead of listening to authorities.
I do my fair share of attacking the status quo, but in the end the things that matters isn’t destroying the status quo but replacing it with something better.
Having a QS community that’s strong enough to be a stakeholder with certain power is a worthwhile goal. Having a LW community with is powerful to be a stakeholder with certain power is a worthwhile goal.
If you invest your money into the startup that your fellow LW community member wants to start instead of investing it into an index fund, that makes the LW community strong. Less money in the stock market in turn makes big corporations weaker.
Reallocating your investments isn’t attacking the mainstream. It’s focusing your resources inside your own community.
Investing your money with fellow rationalists might be an even better return on your investment than an index fund but that isn’t the only point. Where you allocate your retirement money is a political question that more important as to how you vote in elections and whether corporatist party A or corporatist party B holds power.
I do in fact not have money in index funds, or any other Wall Street related investment. And I try not to support social structures I find abhorrent, occasionally as relatively significant personal cost.
However its my position that attacking the status quo is necessary, although what you suggest is also necessary. I don’t think its a one or the other thing.
I think that one of the core problems is that too much people watch TV to inform themselves of what’s important and have money where it empowers the SAP 500 companies.
Going around and arguing at parties that the other people who attend should stop watching TV and invest their money outside of the mainstream isn’t what most people imagine when they speak about attacking the status quo.
I think the core issue is moving from a spectator who watches TV and who hopes that the index fund over which he has no control will do well to moving to being an actor. To the extend that you yourself made that step, it’s to convince others to follow yourself. That doesn’t mean not going to parties with mainstream folks. It doesn’t mean getting angry at them. It means talking openly with them about the choices they make in a way that doesn’t get you kicked out of the party.
I think that’s a much more effective strategy than going out demonstrating.
There are times when it makes sense to interact within the system. If you care for media you might find my exchange with mbitton24 in his thread “Some Tools For Optimizing Our Media Use” interesting.
I’m not focused so much on the misogyny or homophobia as their attitude about the bailout and the poor. That they act like fraternity people isn’t really an issue. But its a clear demonstration of their private contempt for anyone who isn’t filthy rich.
As far as viable alternatives go, America was supposed to be a viable alternative to monarchy, but really it just put a new label on it. The world’s history of making viable alternatives is pretty crappy. Most social change appears to have come from attacking the status quo.
Could you be more specific about what exactly you would like to be different?
Do you think that despising outgroups is a rare behavior, and we should remove all power from those who do? Do you think it is a frequent but not universal behavior, so we should find those exceptional individuals who don’t have it, and give all power to them? Do you think the attitude is universal, but we should make sure that the powerful people are never allowed to express it, even in privacy (in other words: that the powerful people should have no privacy)? Something else?
Well, its an interesting question. I know that there are rich people who don’t behave this way. So I can conclude that its possible to have a situation where large numbers of the wealthy or powerful don’t have contempt for or outright despise the poor. My ideal would probably be a situation where people who felt/acted this way were an extreme minority. I don’t think it requires exceptional individuals.
This suggest we should research the causes of what makes people behave like they do. Then we could perhaps try to systematically increase the things that contribute to nice behavior.
(By the way, this is where I think most people with egalitarian feelings often fail. They notice that some rich people are abusive somehow, and their reaction is: “punish the rich”. The problem is, the punishment usually applies at least as much to the good ones as to the bad ones; and it may actually decrease the ratio of the prosocial people among the rich. It would be better to think about ways that could increase the ratio, but that is not compatible with the emotions created by outrage e.g. from the linked article.)
By the way, you speak about “rich”, I speak about “powerful”. It correlates in our society, but it’s not the same thing. (For example, a powerful and stupid bureaucrat may be able to harm thousands or millions of people, without putting money into their own pockets; if they truly believe in their wrong ideas and try to do the right thing.) It could be relevant to this topic: maybe power corrupts, but mere money without the feeling of power don’t.
I think it’s very naive to think that when you break down a system the thing that replaces it will be automatically better. Failing forward is no good strategy.
I don’t think that’s the case. The workers movement that lead to communism was strong because unions happened to be strong communities with strong internal loyalty.
If you want to change something focus on community building. Don’t focus on what happens on the national level but focus on providing services that help people in your local community. The LW community isn’t really local but it’s also a community separate from the mainstream so, investing effort into making it stronger also counts as community building effort.
Don’t invest your retirement money in the stock market. Invest it into a business where you know the owner personally. That can mean Angel investment.
Buying local property is also good. Buying solar panels to put on your house also decentralizes power.
If you invest your retirement money into an index fund you are actively supporting the current system. If you do protest against the rich and have your retirement money in an index fund you are not being consistent.
I put major effort in Quantified Self community building. As part of that community building I did a lot of media interview and used some of that time to say how much the status quo fails people and that people should gather data to make self determined choices instead of listening to authorities.
I do my fair share of attacking the status quo, but in the end the things that matters isn’t destroying the status quo but replacing it with something better.
Having a QS community that’s strong enough to be a stakeholder with certain power is a worthwhile goal. Having a LW community with is powerful to be a stakeholder with certain power is a worthwhile goal.
If you invest your money into the startup that your fellow LW community member wants to start instead of investing it into an index fund, that makes the LW community strong. Less money in the stock market in turn makes big corporations weaker.
Reallocating your investments isn’t attacking the mainstream. It’s focusing your resources inside your own community.
Investing your money with fellow rationalists might be an even better return on your investment than an index fund but that isn’t the only point. Where you allocate your retirement money is a political question that more important as to how you vote in elections and whether corporatist party A or corporatist party B holds power.
I do in fact not have money in index funds, or any other Wall Street related investment. And I try not to support social structures I find abhorrent, occasionally as relatively significant personal cost.
However its my position that attacking the status quo is necessary, although what you suggest is also necessary. I don’t think its a one or the other thing.
I think that one of the core problems is that too much people watch TV to inform themselves of what’s important and have money where it empowers the SAP 500 companies.
Going around and arguing at parties that the other people who attend should stop watching TV and invest their money outside of the mainstream isn’t what most people imagine when they speak about attacking the status quo.
I think the core issue is moving from a spectator who watches TV and who hopes that the index fund over which he has no control will do well to moving to being an actor. To the extend that you yourself made that step, it’s to convince others to follow yourself. That doesn’t mean not going to parties with mainstream folks. It doesn’t mean getting angry at them. It means talking openly with them about the choices they make in a way that doesn’t get you kicked out of the party.
I think that’s a much more effective strategy than going out demonstrating.
There are times when it makes sense to interact within the system. If you care for media you might find my exchange with mbitton24 in his thread “Some Tools For Optimizing Our Media Use” interesting.