{"items": [{"author": "Dagon", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#xgjGJ2QuxZs2oikaQ", "anchor": "lw-xgjGJ2QuxZs2oikaQ", "service": "lw", "text": "It seems likely that you're just talking about different topics. "I'm upset enough to advocate irrational destruction and violence with no clear plan to long-term success" is a very valid statement. For very deep social-signalling reasons, it's never put that clearly, and instead framed as somewhat wild-sounding proposals. And this is internal to the person - they THINK it's a proposal, even when it's not.
You're arguing against the proposal, but it's not actually a proposal. One hint to this is the reference to "outside the system", but not actually being outside of the system (of politics) - guillotines required organized agreement by large groups of people, or they just get you arrested. ", "timestamp": 1599593412}, {"author": "Adele Lopez", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#E64AvuGSbY5ACyQ9W", "anchor": "lw-E64AvuGSbY5ACyQ9W", "service": "lw", "text": "→ On one hand, I think you're mostly right about this not being an actual proposal, but I also think that people saying stuff like this would (and will) use guillotines if/when they have the opportunity and think they can get away with it.\n", "timestamp": 1599611579}, {"author": "Richard_Kennaway", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#bs7cqBHBqJgybvCTJ", "anchor": "lw-bs7cqBHBqJgybvCTJ", "service": "lw", "text": "→ → If they would do it, it's an actual proposal.", "timestamp": 1599642630}, {"author": "Dagon", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#NfCa4Munkzo8zJiAg", "anchor": "lw-NfCa4Munkzo8zJiAg", "service": "lw", "text": "→ → → It's not a proposal without some path to implementation or vaguely possible opportunity to do it. "guillotines" is a signal and perhaps a pipe dream. It's not a plan or useful suggestion.", "timestamp": 1599859769}, {"author": "wunan", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#XwtfSmmcTkGAoTu4d", "anchor": "lw-XwtfSmmcTkGAoTu4d", "service": "lw", "text": "→ People are literally looting businesses and NPR is publishing interviews supporting it. They're not just interviewing people who support it -- the interviewer also supports it. What makes you think these aren't actual policy proposals?
They may only propose it for deep social-signalling reasons as you say, but that doesn't mean it's not actually a proposal. Historically, we've seen that people are willing to go through with mass murders.", "timestamp": 1599647904}, {"author": "jefftk", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#cZW3Apr2gMxN49L37", "anchor": "lw-cZW3Apr2gMxN49L37", "service": "lw", "text": "→ → I was curious what tone changes NPR made between the archived version you linked and the current version. I ran a quick diff:\n\nhand-wringing about looting. -> condemnation of looting\nbemoaned the property damage -> denounced the property damage\n\"\" -> Osterweil is a self-described writer, editor and agitator who has been writing about and participating in protests for years. And her book arrives as the continued protests have emerged as a bitter dividing point in the presidential race.\nI spoke with Osterweil about this summer's riots, the common narratives surrounding looting, and why \"nonviolence\" can be a misleading term. -> I spoke with Osterweil\nNow, as protests and riots continue to grip cities, she argues that looting is a powerful tool -> Now, as protests and riots continue to grip cities, she stakes out a provocative position: that that looting is a powerful tool\nThe rioters who smash windows and take items from stores, she says, are engaging in a powerful tactic -> The rioters who smash windows and take items from stores, she claims, are engaging in a powerful tactic* new Black and Brown nations -> new Black and brown nations\nthe Civil Rights bill -> the civil rights bill\nYou know, one of the causes of the L.A. riots was a Korean small-business owner murdering 15-year-old Latasha Harlins -> You know, one of the causes of the L.A. riots was a Korean small-business owner [killing] 15-year-old Latasha Harlins\n\n", "timestamp": 1599664556}, {"author": "wolajacy", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#9vzCLLHYrpGq7YS7j", "anchor": "lw-9vzCLLHYrpGq7YS7j", "service": "lw", "text": "This reminds me of the "The Toxoplasma of Rage" post by SSC: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
The question of "why do the left play into violent confrontation, even though it's suboptimal from their perspective" is another version of the central question discussed in the article.", "timestamp": 1599595465}, {"author": "Unnamed", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#FBQpMAkSoLf8nD7Lf", "anchor": "lw-FBQpMAkSoLf8nD7Lf", "service": "lw", "text": "Related post by hilzoy.
Its opening section is the part that's least related, so you could skip it and begin with this part:Back in 1983, I sat in on a conference on women and social change. There were fascinating people from all over the world, women who had been doing extraordinary things in their own countries, and who had gathered together to talk it through; and I got to be a fly on the wall. During this conference, there was a recurring disagreement about the role of violence in fighting deeply unjust regimes.", "timestamp": 1599612727}, {"author": "jefftk", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#GNY45c2SxtAkvb4rg", "anchor": "lw-GNY45c2SxtAkvb4rg", "service": "lw", "text": "→ Excellent post; thanks for the link!\n
I like the first section as well, especially the \"war is not the instrument he thought it was\" perspective.\n
(I grew up Quaker, and while at this point I am not 100% pacifist I am generally extremely skeptical about the ability of violence to improve situations)\n", "timestamp": 1599616321}, {"author": "rmoehn", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#h746YBaXsYLmhMa53", "anchor": "lw-h746YBaXsYLmhMa53", "service": "lw", "text": "Man, I'm reading the first volume of The GULAG Archipelago and that talk about murder is just sickening.", "timestamp": 1599626089}, {"author": "Viliam", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzJW8Wjsy536RzgFJ#zqHpMzNjQSw5rno7u", "anchor": "lw-zqHpMzNjQSw5rno7u", "service": "lw", "text": "Doing a thing that hurts me is stupid, in isolation. But having a precommitment to do X even if it hurts me, can be a powerful tool in negotiation. "Give me a dollar, or I swear I will click this button and kill us both" can be a good strategy to gain a dollar even if you don't want to die, assuming you are sufficiently certain that your opponent fears death, too. ("My opponent doesn't seem to have sufficiently strong precommitments against blackmail, and he knows he has more to lose than I have" is a possible heuristic for when this strategy might work.)
People won't express it this way, either because they are not fully conscious of the game-theoretical mechanism their instincts tell them to use, or because they want to be the good guys in their story. (Actually, not understanding your own motivation is another game-theoretical tool: if you can't understand it, you can't change it, and that makes your precommitments more credible.) From inside, it's just when the world feels unfair, strategy "if you won't make me happy, I will burn down the entire place" feels like the right thing to do. The explanations how burning things actually improves places are just rationalizations.
Then there are many biases and lot of hypocrisy on top of that. Because we are evolutionarily optimized to live in smaller groups, people are probably likely to overestimate their chances in violent conflict. (When hundreds of people are on your side, what could possibly go wrong? In a Dunbar-sized tribe, nothing.) On the other hand, most people will only speak about violence, and expect someone else to initiate it and bear the risk. Etc.What I don't understand is how leftists could look at the current political climate in the US and think that violent revolution would work out well for them?
Do they mean it, or do they just bond over the sound of talking violence? (Simulacrum level 1 or 3?)
Assuming they mean it literally (which I don't think is the case for most), I can imagine some possible sources of bias. Maybe the near-mode experience of living in a strong bubble at campus trumps the far-mode knowledge of election results. Or the belief that they represent the majority is so strong it resists empirical falsification. ("We are the people. Those who vote against us are just temporarily confused, but they will join us when they see us fighting for their rights.") Maybe they assume the opponents are less organized on average, or unwilling to fight. (A smaller organized group can defeat a larger disorganized crowd. Also, elections show the direction but not the magnitude of your political faith: "I weakly believe that X is lesser evil than Y" vs "I am willing to sacrifice my life for X".)", "timestamp": 1599674102}]}