Shame them, shun them, ban them, beat them

dionian

I was delightfully surprised by the positive and reflective attitude taken by this author, I expected the opposite from the title.

recursivedoubts

The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing us that there is no objective morality. He did this by playing to our appetites: lust, greed, gluttony and above all pride. No one can tell me what to do, that’s just your opinion man. What that means in practice is that truth is the opinion of powerful. And so we find it.

overtone1000

In the onslaught of discouraging news that is our world, this piece is downright inspirational.

nh23423fefe

Violence is the most effective behavior modification because it leverages pain. Every moral good has to be anchored to pain and its avoidance. Tit for tat is rational violence allocation. The golden rule has some "contrapositive" version right? I'll harm you in the way I should be harmed for bad actions.

ViktorRay

There actually is another way that the article doesn’t mention. Separation of power. https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-committee/user-clip-scali... In the above clip, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned the exact same example that the article mentions. That the Soviet Union’s constitution guaranteed many rights that the Soviet Union never actually gave to the people. He says this is because the Soviet Union had no mechanism to prevent the centralization of power. And when power was centralized into one man (Stalin) or one committee (the Politburo) then the true constitution was really whatever that man said or what that committee said. So a good mechanism to guarantee freedom, liberty, human rights…is to ensure power remains decentralized and separated into various different groups

peterclary

A thought-provoking piece, albeit a depressing one, because we've been cooking for decades in the fetid juices of compassion-destroying propaganda (largely to support unfettered capitalism), and the diagnosis here suggests that trying to "uncook" society is impossible; some kind of lightning bolt would be the only salvation and I cannot imagine what that would look like.

ajkjk

I think the only thing that really works is to appeal from one's person. Had Mr L said: the flag is important to me , and draping it over yourself like that is something I find disrespectful, given how many peoples' lives were lost in defending it, please do not do that again---then it might have worked to change the child's opinions on the matter. Maybe not right away, cause kids are slow on picking up lessons, but I believe it would have made the opposite long-term impression.[^1] Whereas the mis-use of shame just turns the child against the teacher and their whole system of values, even if momentarily 'corrects' the behavior. It would have worked if the child already shared Mr L's values, but they didn't, and shaming someone on the basis of a value they don't hold themselves doesn't work at all. And I think that usually the way ones learns values from others is by seeing them exemplified, since they can naturally identify the value of those values and how they benefit everyone. Being threatened does not work. Being admonished because you're hurting someone you didn't mean to hurt does. There are some epicycles, also. The appeal to respect only works if the child is actually concerned with the teacher's feelings; it won't work if it takes place in an ambient culture of disrespect or apathy. And if the community insists that people be respectful to each other, then if the child continues to mistreat the flag, Mr L now has the legitimate grievance that the child is being disrespectful after knowing better, which is now personal, not in terms of an abstract and un-shared value, and is fair grounds for admonishment. I imagine that this always works a lot better for actually changing behavior and inducing people to treat each other well. [^1]: I anticipate some people to react that this doesn't work at all in practice and is how we got to a culture of polarization, e.g. progressives moralized about being respected a lot and instead made enemies out of a lot of people who now don't want to respect them at all. I see this as different, because it was often actually using shame but under the trappings of asking for respect: instead of saying "please respect me because I am asking you to" it says "shame on you for not respecting me the way I demand", which is more like what Mr. L said in the story; the feeling that this is an unjust use of power triggers the recipient to turn against it. And anyway it would only work if you're in a respect-based society along with your counterpart; it's not going to work in anonymous unmoderated online discourse.