all 8 comments

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

snap

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

What I love about this is it applies to busybodies of all ideologies, from Christians to SJWs

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's difficult to imagine that anyone believes that "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims" could be percieved as more oppressive than chattle slavery.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The point of the quote is that the busybodies THINK they are making things better, but in reality are making things worse. The fact they think they're doing a good thing keeps them going, even though they're doing a bad thing.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, to put it another way.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I understood this point, and don't disagree with the fact that ill-conceived and oppressive plans of well intentioned zealots/fanatics are often disastrous.

It's still generally preferable to rule by those who have nefarious intentions, and deliberately create direct expressways to hell.

Colonialism. Or slaver societies. Or totalitarianism, etc. Or corporate dictatorship, where most westerners spend the majority of their days (perfect dictatorships; it you don't like something then your "terminated").

Their perspective is that they DGAF about others, and will try to get away with whatever they can.

At least the well intentioned folks have a baseline ethos...

[–]Alduin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're just saying things that we think are wrong now but which others said at the time were for the good of the victims... Not that the good of the victims was the sole purpose, but it wasn't done with evil intent. It's shocking what your mind can believe is good for other people.

Just to take slavery as an example - read what slavers in America wrote. They weren't sadists. They believed there was a natural hierarchy of races, and god made the brown ones for servitude. In exchange they (the masters) did the more complex tasks of conducting business and managing finance, and provided food and shelter to those unfortunate primates who otherwise would surely starve.

It's easy to see things differently now that we're in the future. And in 500 years others will judge us now as being every bit as barbaric for entirely different practices. Morality is a social construct, and thus changes with the wind. The only moral course of action is to admit you don't know what's best and leave others alone.

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

You're just saying things that we think are wrong now but which others said at the time were for the good of the victims... Not that the good of the victims was the sole purpose, but it wasn't done with evil intent.

False. If you're are foolish to believe the stated political byline, then that's your problem.. Only madmen admit to enjoying they're crimes.

He's a modern example: Rape still exists in our culture. People who rape: deny they rape, or call it something else, or blame the victim.
It's still rape, and they know it.
It's shameful that you would continue making excuses for others crimes.

Slavers knew what they were doing was wrong. Look up the Mississippi articles of succession, where they explicitly describe the economic benefits of slavery.
The colonists knew they were doing wrong, and did it anyway for profit.
This argument of yours is terribly weak argument. I refuse to believe that you're that naive.

And in 500 years others will judge us now as being every bit as barbaric for entirely different practices.

False. This era will be judges harshly, but less barbaric than slaver eras, or even segregation eras, which existed during the lifetime of those who are older than 55.
History is far from black and white, and this era will be judged against the progress that may be acheived in the future. Certain things will be judged harshly.
For example:

  • the Israeli extermination of the indigenous Palestinian population will be huge scar on that country's reputation,
  • Israel's numerous terrorist atrocities.
  • The US will have a black eye for supporting Israeli atrocities, as well.

It's shocking what your mind can believe is good for other people.

Blah, blah, blah.

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

To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will;

What if we could objectively state that some thing or action provably does more harm than good? For example: cigarettes? Is it tyrannical or oppressive to encourage a loved one quit smoking - or to knock away an attacker killing someone in an alley? Obviously not.

Words, for example - do not leave physical traces or lasting evidence and therefore cannot be accurately legalized without engaging in a literal slippery slope.

However, shouting at or surprising someone and giving them a heart-attack is obviously provable - given witnesses or recording. If you were recorded yelling at someone and then they commit suicide - then, that too is provable.

The ideal leadership would work to define "harm" and protect its people from objective examples (which we already do for the most part: warning labels, liability wavers, etc), while maintaining an "innocent until proven guilty" or "burden of proof" on all matters of subjective harm (ie: harsh words, accusations, harassment) (which we DONT do much anymore, sadly - court of public opinion #metoo and all that). Keep in mind, I believe the only "insults" that should be prosecuted as "harm" are those that provably result in suicide/death (ie: instigation)

The point is that with some physical objects with near universal behavior (cigarettes will fuck your shit up regardless of who you are - so would drinking arsenic for example) - we can make objective claims about physical objects and for example: keep guns away from children.

Rule of common sense doesn't need tyranny to enforce it - just proper education and standards of behavior (which we all know would be well served by replacing current leadership/methodology).

I think Mr Lewis was being a bit histrionic in his assessment - and presumes that any "good" leader would be as obsessed with controlling the lives of their citizenry as a Clinton or Mao. I feel that it would be quite the opposite.