Beware of anyone calling for REVOLUTION. This is precisely what many of the rulers desire. They create social unrest in order to get the people to rise up and beg for government tyranny w/o even realizing what they’re doing.

submitted by Jesus from (self.conspiracy)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Just make non-violence the central idea of your cult. People will band around it, and no matter how Right and Useful violence becomes people will reject it outright.

Even if violence actually becomes the right thing to do, people will still reject it in this case.

[–]sodasplash 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

There’s already an entire religion for that. It’s called the society of friends. To the society of friends, there is literally never a time when violence is the right thing to do. During most times that the US had a draft, being a Quaker was the only sure way to obtain consciencious objector status.

When a settlement of Quakers heard that there was a Native American tribe heading to slaughter them for something they hadn’t done in a case of mistaken identity, the Quakers all gathered to sit silently to pray, as is their typical form of worship.

The natives entered the meeting house where the Quakers were gathered. Seeing them sitting silently and non-reactive, the natives knew they had the wrong group and left.

Quakers are called such because in their silent meetings for worship, those who go into the most deeply meditative state can be known to quake slightly. In practices such as yoga, this type of shaking is known to release tensions, anger, grief, and other unexpressed or bottled up feelings.

Quaker quaking is not to be confused with the shaking of Shakers. Shakers shook purposefully to do the same thing but were more demonstrative in their shaking as it came from a purposeful state and not a meditative one. Also, the Skakers refused to procreate so they all died out. But they did make really great furniture, which is what they’re most known for historically.

[–]wizzwizz4 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

There’s already an entire religion for that. It’s called the society of friends.

Can't we just make another one? The more the merrier.

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, we already have. It's called Copianism.

We celebrate ALL the holidays!

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

I'm too stupid to know if you're bullshitting or not.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I've never heard of the Shakers before, but apparently he's correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

jesus christ, people don't even know the difference between Quakers and Shakers any longer. holy fuck.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No I've just never heard of Shakers at all until this

[–]sodasplash 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are fascinating.

Basically, what happens to people when they don't have sex but make great furniture.

https://www.dezeen.com/2017/03/01/shaker-style-back-designers-celebrate-first-minimalists-design-furniture-homeware/

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is correct.

[–]the-ham-bummer 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

What if this non violence is promoted to ensure the violent side wins?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

That's why you need the press. Violence is generally considered bad, and violence attacking non violence is generally considered very bad, so having the press reporting on the violent side attacking the non violent side means that, whilst winning the battle, the violent side will lose the war of public opinion.

The press + cult-like behaviour serves as a solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma of Violence.

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

First of all, fuck the press.

There is no “Prisoner’s Dilemma” of violence.

The prisoner’s dilemma refers to game theory and is also at its essence the basis of even the most minute biological interaction.

Violence loses. It is always selected against. It always has been and it always will be. Read up on Spiral Dynamics.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Violence loses, yes, but in many situations it's the strictly dominant strategy. Just because it produces worse outcomes doesn't mean it isn't what people will end up doing.

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You completely fail to understand the prisoner’s dilemma.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Could you explain it to me, then? One of us is wrong, and while I'm assuming it's not me I've been wrong before.

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe you could explain what you mean by Prisoner’s Dilemma of violence. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The best outcome is mutual peace. However, the first defecting party – the first to use violence – gets a better position, and the only action that the other party can take is to also defect, until they're both violent. This is worse for both parties than both being peaceful, but it's strictly dominant.

Is this model inaccurate?

[–]sodasplash 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your model is not untrue.

However, the usefulness of the prisoner’s dilemma exists in a larger scope than you’re considering, that scope being game theory. The prisoner’s dilemma was created to explain a certain very basic aspect of game theory. You posit that violence necessarily begets violence. In the context of game theory, it’s not that simple.

Certainly in a 1 v 1, winner take all scenario, what you describe is correct. However, I have two responses and I’ll get back to the better one in a second.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma tends to be used most effectively in the context of a larger “game.” In larger games, it tends to be presented as trade fair or screw over trade partner. I.E. sell bread for one dollar or steal bread. But there’s communication between parties so the thief eventually gets frozen out.

Say you have 50 traders and they all come to market and they all get to trade with each other. Eventually word will get and the ones screwing over other people (by selling defective products, running ponzi schemes, etc) begin to get frozen out and they fail.

This is essentially how modern international trading began. People realized trading was better than invading and so trading proliferated and larger and larger trading spheres (i.e. cities then nations then trading blocks) were created. It’s a model often thought of in terms of zerosum (stealing) or nonzerosum (trading) as described brilliantly in Robert Wright’s Nonzero.

Where it gets more interesting is in the more minute description of the 1 v 1 scenario. There are two prisoners. And they each have two choices. So there are actually FOUR outcomes, best described in a square.

The key is that in a prisoner’s dilemma both parties make their decision in the dark and know that the other is also doing the same. (Somewhat unrealistic). Imagine two people are arrested and they can each either snitch or keep quiet.

  • Both snitch: both get 5 years.

  • A snitches, B keeps quiet: B gets 10 years, A walks free

  • B snitches, A keeps quiet: A gets 10 years, B walks free

  • Both keep quiet: both get 1 year.

Obviously the best outcome for both is to keep quiet (peace) but the second best outcome for both is to snitch (attack). This is more of a purely philosophical question about the nature of man and trust.

Your proposed outlook has more realistic application in a sense but it doesn’t really have an application within game theory which was the point of the prisoner’s dilemma being made up in the first place. Not to come off as insulting because your model does have more real world theory in many cases, all you are saying ultimately is that violence leads to violence.

All real world cases of the prisoner’s dilemma being played out with multiple parties shows that violence leads to ostracization. I feel like that can be seen as reflected in the world today. The regimes which are seen as most rogue are the ones most likely to be gone to war with and face international sanctions.

You can argue over the morality of the world community’s decisions obviously (as I would) but there’s little doubt that those regimes are not playing by the laws the world has set forth (whether you and I agree with those laws or not).