"The Toxoplasma Of Rage": Why it's so hard to place blame for society's suckage

[Heart]

A certain article happened into my life recently, I'd love to start a conversation about it. It's worth the read.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/

The root of the article rests in how incentive structures of the current set up of media and social structures of society lead people to, repeatedly, "shoot themselves in the foot" and "dig their own graves", despite possibly the best of intentions. It links in to the idea that concepts and ideas can evolve in a Darwinian fashion, and that a system often leads to its own end regardless of the interests of those partaking in it.

Discuss :D

[poindexter]

This is SUCH a great read, thanks so much for sharing :D

[ThaHoward]

Well it got some facts mixed up. Islamist terrorists more often attack muslims. Most people in afghanistan is against the terrorists/insurgents because of their brutality and even begged western forces to stay. It is however true that the war on terror radicalize muslims in other countries. But that again is heaviley backed up by various interest groups and even states. And the ISAF/UN forces know that killing innocent will turn the civvilians against them. That is why it is a specific ROE that civillians can't suffer casualities no matter what. That means if you're for example in an afghan village taling fire you're supposed to pull out, as if you fire back and/or engage you put civillians at risk.

Also it have been extremely few islamist terrorist attacks in the west lately, yes it is a big threat but it haven't been any major actions which make the west retaliate with bombs. The west intervenes, except for Afghanistan, when the islamists goes nuts over the populations in their respective countries. What may happen is that western troops gets killed, but that make the countries who sent out the troops more war tired and the general population become more and more inclined to pull out - just look at Vietnam, the casualties US troops suffered didn't make USA send in more troops beceause the populationdemanded it, quite the contrary. If the author want to create a theory/hypothesis they should use correct facts. And it isn't as easy as "A happens, and then B happens. Since B happen A happen again and the circle goes on". It is often much, much, much more complex than that. Politics isn't black and white, right or wrong.

[Philip027]

I can't help but think of Maddox's "for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three" quote as I read that first part.

Couldn't really focus past the first part as I don't really know about the events that it's talking about.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

A certain article happened into my life recently, I'd love to start a conversation about it. It's worth the read.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/

The root of the article rests in how incentive structures of the current set up of media and social structures of society lead people to, repeatedly, "shoot themselves in the foot" and "dig their own graves", despite possibly the best of intentions. It links in to the idea that concepts and ideas can evolve in a Darwinian fashion, and that a system often leads to its own end regardless of the interests of those partaking in it.

Discuss :D

There are those that say Darwinian systems are the Next Wave, and others who say they are the work of the Devil Himself.

The real answer is probably that they are neutral and neither, they just are like electricity always taking the path of least resistance.

But like in electronics, where the invention of _semi_ conductors gave us modern miracles like the one that this post lives in, nothing is a simple as it looks on it surface. Nothing that strictly obeys dichotomies can ascend unchallenged, and maybe it's the challenge to prove relevance, to put an idea up for judgement by other competing theories, a jury of its peers, if you will, that can be the only system that has any chance whatsoever of producing unvarnished truths.

Personally, I wonder if PostHumanism isn't the Next Wave, with its grounding in Rationalism giving it an evolutionary advantage.

[Frac]

I do agree with this. Feminists and other movements often hate it when I bring in the "I agree but please don't be a dick about it" response and direct me to this. But yeah, as statistics say, there's a lot of backlash against these groups, just because they do a lot of attention-seeking, and seem to think that all publicity is good publicity. I think I should show this to my SJW friend, he's pretty reasonable, and it could be interesting to have a conversation about how to raise awareness without getting negative attention.

[Ricecream-man]

I literally had a conversation about this same subject with my friends about 6 months back and used many similar arguments. . Seeing this again makes me as sad as it did before.

I agree on a few factual errors, but I feel the overall concept behind the article is still very valid. I just wish I knew why we had this great love for controversy rather than a desire to resolve the known issues.

Frac, I've noticed that too. While there are instances when the idea of "tone-policing" is indeed a detriment to the argument, but I feel it's dependent on your audience. In a 1 on 1 or small group conversation, there's no need to get emotional as you can continue to explain your arguments and it's assumed that you'll be listened to.

In a large group or speech setting, although I still don't like it, I can understand the need to anger and overt emotional outbursts. This need ties back to what a lot of this article wrote about.

[Ricecream-man]

I don't normally double post, but I just thought it amusing that this thread is a pretty good example of the principles stated in the article.