@jeffcliff @ChristiJunior @NEETzsche
How do you define "the right thing"?
Obviously acquitting kyle was the right thing because he was attacked 4 times and ran away the whole time and only fought back after being attacked.
I'm not sure that letting thousands of people gang up on a kid whose only crime was surviving 4 attacks intended to kill him is the right thing.
I'm not a fan of the idea of forming lynch mobs to round up lynch mobs, but without a feedback loop, how will anyone learn that nobody should be forming lynch mobs in the first place?
The only thing they're learning right now is they have to lynch harder next time because their target escaped the tree and the rope.
How do you define "the right thing"?
Obviously acquitting kyle was the right thing because he was attacked 4 times and ran away the whole time and only fought back after being attacked.
I'm not sure that letting thousands of people gang up on a kid whose only crime was surviving 4 attacks intended to kill him is the right thing.
I'm not a fan of the idea of forming lynch mobs to round up lynch mobs, but without a feedback loop, how will anyone learn that nobody should be forming lynch mobs in the first place?
The only thing they're learning right now is they have to lynch harder next time because their target escaped the tree and the rope.
@jeffcliff @ChristiJunior @NEETzsche I think you're right in that regard, there is a justified pushback.
Have to admit, while it feels good to go with cancellation since that's what they'd use, I don't see that as a feedback mechanism because there is no going back. It's a social death sentence, no chance of reform or repentance, just follow the rules whatever they are this hour or be destroyed.
Going with a death sentence makes it more difficult to help people see they're wrong. It's just a threat to everyone else. Eventually you purity spiral and there's nobody left but the looniest of the loony.
If someone figures out an appropriate and proportionate feedback mechanism that allows for mistakes or even doing something wrong and then coming back from the brink, I think that person sets the next dominant political paradigm.
Have to admit, while it feels good to go with cancellation since that's what they'd use, I don't see that as a feedback mechanism because there is no going back. It's a social death sentence, no chance of reform or repentance, just follow the rules whatever they are this hour or be destroyed.
Going with a death sentence makes it more difficult to help people see they're wrong. It's just a threat to everyone else. Eventually you purity spiral and there's nobody left but the looniest of the loony.
If someone figures out an appropriate and proportionate feedback mechanism that allows for mistakes or even doing something wrong and then coming back from the brink, I think that person sets the next dominant political paradigm.
- replies
- 3
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 2
@Eris @ChristiJunior @NEETzsche @jeffcliff if this is war, then use war strategy. If you fight an enemy and cut off their root for retreat, and you don't allow them a method to surrender, then they'll fight viciously to the death.
If by contrast, you give the enemy a method to escape or to surrender then you can route the enemy and win the battle. This is one reason why it's very important to pick your battlefield. For too long we've let the enemy pick the battlefield, which has helped them win.
When fighting an enemy territory, the ideal is for your troops to be able to use the enemies supplies against them rather than have to ship supplies all the way from your capital. It also means if we can convert manpower from their side to our side then that's less manpower we need to supply from our capital.
The victorious general must seek victory and only afterwards seek battle. To seek battle and then along the way try to achieve victory will cause you to lose.
Finally, the ideal strategy is to win without fighting, to face an enemy already defeated.
All of this suggests that using the same scorched Earth policy that they are using is a losing strategy. We want to give their troops a chance to surrender. We want to give their troops a chance to convert to our side. We want a chance to use their resources against them. We want a chance to win without fighting. Otherwise, all you're doing is lashing out before your inevitable defeat.
If by contrast, you give the enemy a method to escape or to surrender then you can route the enemy and win the battle. This is one reason why it's very important to pick your battlefield. For too long we've let the enemy pick the battlefield, which has helped them win.
When fighting an enemy territory, the ideal is for your troops to be able to use the enemies supplies against them rather than have to ship supplies all the way from your capital. It also means if we can convert manpower from their side to our side then that's less manpower we need to supply from our capital.
The victorious general must seek victory and only afterwards seek battle. To seek battle and then along the way try to achieve victory will cause you to lose.
Finally, the ideal strategy is to win without fighting, to face an enemy already defeated.
All of this suggests that using the same scorched Earth policy that they are using is a losing strategy. We want to give their troops a chance to surrender. We want to give their troops a chance to convert to our side. We want a chance to use their resources against them. We want a chance to win without fighting. Otherwise, all you're doing is lashing out before your inevitable defeat.