Both shame and pride can be used to keep the people down.
Best example today is israel, ironically (?) enough
Look at how shame is instrumentalized in Germany and the United States.
Yeah I think there are a lot of parallels all around the world on this one. I just read someone comparing the slavery Narrative in the US to the colonialism narrative in Europe to the indian mistreatment narrative in Canada and so on and so forth - but now I can’t find it. Unfortunate, because it was spot on with the parallels.
What I mean, in terms of World War 2, is that "Churchill was a psychopath" is not a particularly useful statement.
Ahh, that makes sense. Yeah I guess more broadly this issue is “hyperbolizing / straw manning” the opposition. I see it so often where all people who call themselves “left leaning” are smeared with the worst possible framing of the word. “Everyone’s a deranged commie, they’re all satanists, they want to kill babies” etc etc
99% of people think they are the good guy. The vast, vast majority of those people are reasoning their way to that position, though it must obviously be the case that the vast majority of those are using faulty reasoning in some way(s). Therefore I try to treat the faulty reasoning as the enemy, not the dunce who’s been duped, because I know that often enough I’ve been that dunce.
Best example today is israel, ironically (?) enough
There's not much pride left in any Western country, except for things that ain't so.
Yeah I think there are a lot of parallels all around the world on this one. I just read someone comparing the slavery Narrative in the US to the colonialism narrative in Europe to the indian mistreatment narrative in Canada and so on and so forth - but now I can’t find it. Unfortunate, because it was spot on with the parallels.
I can't say I see much of the 'colonialism' narrative in Europe. Maybe the UK, and even there it's not even close to the German, American and Canadian stories.
The fact that you can claim that tree roots are mass graves and get away with it in Canada speaks volumes.
Ahh, that makes sense. Yeah I guess more broadly this issue is “hyperbolizing / straw manning” the opposition. I see it so often where all people who call themselves “left leaning” are smeared with the worst possible framing of the word. “Everyone’s a deranged commie, they’re all satanists, they want to kill babies” etc etc
Speaking of that, I've found it highly effective to criticize woke policies to people who are on the left, by simply not referring to those policies as 'left-wing'. People get defensive when they think you attack or criticize their tribe. But if you talk with them like "sensible people are against X", they can be with you.
But apart from persuasion, people here seem to think that when I point out that "a lot of leftists aren't X", I'm "defending" them. As if you don't need to have an accurate view of your opposition, and that hyperbole in any way serves your cause. They can afford to demonize us because they are in power, and they don't need to persuade us, just the people in their influence that we are Bad.
99% of people think they are the good guy. The vast, vast majority of those people are reasoning their way to that position, though it must obviously be the case that the vast majority of those are using faulty reasoning in some way(s). Therefore I try to treat the faulty reasoning as the enemy, not the dunce who’s been duped, because I know that often enough I’ve been that dunce.
And same for me, of course. Hell, I bought into a lot of the very crap that I now find abhorrent, and I think that is why I have a somewhat better understanding of what leads people to believe such things than people who have always seen feminism/BLM for what it is.
I can't say I see much of the 'colonialism' narrative in Europe. Maybe the UK
My understanding of things is that almost all of the early non-native populations in white European countries (like the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, etc) came from their colonies. The UK took in a bunch of indians, France took a ton of Algerians/africans, Spain took a ton of South Americans/mestizos, the Nordic countries allowed people from their African colonies to immigrate, and so on and so forth.
Which is to say, I totally see the “colonialism narrative” existing as part of the root cause of the current migration crisis in Europe, parallel to those other narratives discussed earlier, and likewise built on “national shame”.
But if you talk with them like "sensible people are against X", they can be with you.
Makes sense and seems like an improvement over the endless adhoc adhoms which tend to be the default - that is, as long as it never gets to the point of an attempted gaslight (“this is what sane people think!”). Not to say you do that, but it’s an easy trap to fall into. You see it often in conspiracy discussions. Someone will have “insane” (to normies) opinion X, Y, and Z, but if you mention conspiracy W to them you’re either a retard or a shill.
My understanding of things is that almost all of the early non-native populations in white European countries (like the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, etc) came from their colonies.
It's true for the UK and France. Less so for those other countries. And Germany (effectively) didn't have any colonies. Historical ties and language probably helped a lot more than 'guilt' in letting them in (besides, guilt is for the people and not for the governments that make policy), as there is almost none of that in my experience.
Which is to say, I totally see the “colonialism narrative” existing as part of the root cause of the current migration crisis in Europe, parallel to those other narratives discussed earlier, and likewise built on “national shame”.
It would have been possible, but it is not the case. Colonialism is not a salient issue, and many Europeans remain proud of their colonial history. WW2 plays a much bigger role, even though we were the victims!
Makes sense and seems like an improvement over the endless adhoc adhoms which tend to be the default - that is, as long as it never gets to the point of an attempted gaslight (“this is what sane people think!”). Not to say you do that, but it’s an easy trap to fall into.
It is, and it actually is something I do. But mostly online. It's so much easier to talk to people in real life, because you know them, they know you, you like each other. People in real life don't call me an FSB agent or a Jew or a black (or a white for that matter).
Also, when you can't get through to people no matter how good your arguments, then it's easy to think the other side is just stupid or think or insane.
Someone will have “insane” (to normies) opinion X, Y, and Z, but if you mention conspiracy W to them you’re either a retard or a shill.
People who believe in one 'conspiracy' are more likely to believe in others as well, but I think something that so called 'conspiracy theorists' tend to do poorly is judge the likelihood or feasibility of 'conspiracies'. It's as if their default mode of explanation is a conspiracy, as it is in the Middle East.
Best example today is israel, ironically (?) enough
Yeah I think there are a lot of parallels all around the world on this one. I just read someone comparing the slavery Narrative in the US to the colonialism narrative in Europe to the indian mistreatment narrative in Canada and so on and so forth - but now I can’t find it. Unfortunate, because it was spot on with the parallels.
Ahh, that makes sense. Yeah I guess more broadly this issue is “hyperbolizing / straw manning” the opposition. I see it so often where all people who call themselves “left leaning” are smeared with the worst possible framing of the word. “Everyone’s a deranged commie, they’re all satanists, they want to kill babies” etc etc
99% of people think they are the good guy. The vast, vast majority of those people are reasoning their way to that position, though it must obviously be the case that the vast majority of those are using faulty reasoning in some way(s). Therefore I try to treat the faulty reasoning as the enemy, not the dunce who’s been duped, because I know that often enough I’ve been that dunce.
There's not much pride left in any Western country, except for things that ain't so.
I can't say I see much of the 'colonialism' narrative in Europe. Maybe the UK, and even there it's not even close to the German, American and Canadian stories.
The fact that you can claim that tree roots are mass graves and get away with it in Canada speaks volumes.
Speaking of that, I've found it highly effective to criticize woke policies to people who are on the left, by simply not referring to those policies as 'left-wing'. People get defensive when they think you attack or criticize their tribe. But if you talk with them like "sensible people are against X", they can be with you.
But apart from persuasion, people here seem to think that when I point out that "a lot of leftists aren't X", I'm "defending" them. As if you don't need to have an accurate view of your opposition, and that hyperbole in any way serves your cause. They can afford to demonize us because they are in power, and they don't need to persuade us, just the people in their influence that we are Bad.
And same for me, of course. Hell, I bought into a lot of the very crap that I now find abhorrent, and I think that is why I have a somewhat better understanding of what leads people to believe such things than people who have always seen feminism/BLM for what it is.
My understanding of things is that almost all of the early non-native populations in white European countries (like the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, etc) came from their colonies. The UK took in a bunch of indians, France took a ton of Algerians/africans, Spain took a ton of South Americans/mestizos, the Nordic countries allowed people from their African colonies to immigrate, and so on and so forth.
Which is to say, I totally see the “colonialism narrative” existing as part of the root cause of the current migration crisis in Europe, parallel to those other narratives discussed earlier, and likewise built on “national shame”.
Makes sense and seems like an improvement over the endless adhoc adhoms which tend to be the default - that is, as long as it never gets to the point of an attempted gaslight (“this is what sane people think!”). Not to say you do that, but it’s an easy trap to fall into. You see it often in conspiracy discussions. Someone will have “insane” (to normies) opinion X, Y, and Z, but if you mention conspiracy W to them you’re either a retard or a shill.
It's true for the UK and France. Less so for those other countries. And Germany (effectively) didn't have any colonies. Historical ties and language probably helped a lot more than 'guilt' in letting them in (besides, guilt is for the people and not for the governments that make policy), as there is almost none of that in my experience.
It would have been possible, but it is not the case. Colonialism is not a salient issue, and many Europeans remain proud of their colonial history. WW2 plays a much bigger role, even though we were the victims!
It is, and it actually is something I do. But mostly online. It's so much easier to talk to people in real life, because you know them, they know you, you like each other. People in real life don't call me an FSB agent or a Jew or a black (or a white for that matter).
Also, when you can't get through to people no matter how good your arguments, then it's easy to think the other side is just stupid or think or insane.
People who believe in one 'conspiracy' are more likely to believe in others as well, but I think something that so called 'conspiracy theorists' tend to do poorly is judge the likelihood or feasibility of 'conspiracies'. It's as if their default mode of explanation is a conspiracy, as it is in the Middle East.