Evil_Shrubbery comments on The hardest part of the political climate right now

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 11 points 9 months ago (14 children)

Once you incorporate that nonhomogeneous view of the humans a lot of (near or distant) historical events, trends, cultural stuff, etc makes a lot more sense (sadistic & opportunistic behavior is significantly more dominant and accepted than we pretend it to be, despite constant evidence) - to the extend that "evil" might not even be completely/fully the right word for it (lacks the quality of destructive-parasitic in it's most mondaine sense?).

We sure aren't a typical mammal, but we don't deviate all that much in single traits - we just concentrated a bunch of specific ones.

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 9 months ago (13 children)

"psychopathic" is the word you seek probably. Psycopath is a human being that lacks emotional empathy.

And hot take, but i disagree with this post. Everybody does what they do with good intentions in their mind. Whether they're good towards themselve, some certain group of people, or all of humanity is another question.

People are used to call others "evil" when they're not included in the target group of good intentions. I think that this is wrong, as it leads to misgudgement of characters, tribalisation and further escalation of conflict.

I prefer to judge people by other factors than the abstract "evilness": empathy/psychopathy, generocity/greed (or rather selflessness/individualism), agency.

This allows to avoid calling stupid people "evil", only further polarizing them against yourself, while calling out actually dangerous ones.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Everyone does not do with good intentions in mind (yes that includes themselves). Not even close. That’s you projecting.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 9 months ago

My worldview allows for less logic leaps than to just assume that someone is evil. My rejection of the term does not imply that you can't be a bad human being tho.

Everyone does something that's at least beneficial to themself, or seems so from their perspective.

Saying that someone does anything because of their inherent trait is called fundamental attribution error

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

Wishful thinking basically, a belief that humanity is by default good, a kind of superiority complex we (most of us?) have.

Idk, I guess that's dependent on evolution.

Species can be diffident imh(scifi)o.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 9 months ago

i'm not saying everybody is good. I'm saying that "good" or "bad" is a huge oversimplification, that not just isn't solving anything, but actively promotes destructive behaviours and tribalistic views.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[+] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 6 points 9 months ago (4 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

The human brain is more of a "rationalization engine" than anything else

Just no. Some people tend to rationalize everything, sometimes post-factum, that much is true, but the quoted statement is just wrong.

First and foremost, our brain is emotional and impulsive. Consciousness and rationalization comes after, as speech is a learned skill, and we use speech to rationalize in the first place.

False pretenses are a thing, but it exists to deceive a larger group of people for the benefit of a smaller one. And yes, it means that the deceiver can be the sole beneficiary, even if often than not it isn't the case.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[+] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

aw, thanks :D

my point still stands tho. I wish people in their variety were more rational, but alas, rationality comes last asit is power-consuming. Not that you seem particularily interested in opposing my stance, so whatever. I do enjoy a silly banter as well, so it's not like i have anything against this

wise man once said: "I used to think the human brain was the most interesting aspect of the human body, but then I realized 'look what's telling me that'"

yeah, yeah, our fascination with brain is brain propaganda to make more brains.

Pesky little parasite trapped inside a box, piloting a sex-mech. An entirely overcomplicated mechanism designed by the dna so that the stupid molecule could fuck more effectively. And look what it lead to — fucking taxes! Are you happy, you microscopic shit!? Cuz i'm not breeding now, so neither do you! Muahaha! You outplayed yourself, you dumb piece of organic chemistry!

Ahem... Sorry, got a bit distracted... Yeah, brains! So cool! Yaay! :D

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

emotional empathy

Most are only capable of visual empathy.
Ie they would not want to see a starving child.
But if you say 'sign this, you get 100 million monies and 1 million will starve' ppl would sign.

Everybody does what they do with good intentions in their mind.

I don't think that at all, ppl thinking of other's wellbeing as if it's some fancy luxury even when said ppl have more than enough or more than others (in some cases it is a luxury, but not really nowdays).

Hate is so easily weaponized bcs it's there, it's not reinvented, it's used (often not even the topic/subject of hate is invented, just reused bcs it's cheaper & more effective).

If that (the quote) would be the case then ppl would also try to correct when they see their "good intentions" aren't doing good.

People are used to call others "evil" when they're not included in the target group of good intentions.

No, that is just the selfishness I'm describing above - calling someone evil bcs their actions don't benefit you is just preemptive opportunistic behaviour at best (and there is a lot of this, almost the default).
(I say this if "good intentions" are actually good, not like a money grab or killing or whatever.)

I prefer to judge people by other factors than the abstract "evilness": empathy/psychopathy, generocity/greed (or rather selflessness/individualism), agency.

Yes, "evil" is one of the possible end descriptions of the above process (with many more factors). Starting by saying someone is evil would be weird/hurtful/baseless.
And all of such factors are very time and culture dependant, can't have it otherwise, it's not science.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

But if you say 'sign this, you get 100 million monies and 1 million will starve' ppl would sign.

That's because it's hard to empathize with a group of people. Empaiy is always about individuals. The "group" is an inherently more abstract term.

ppl thinking of other's wellbeing as if it's some fancy luxury even when said ppl have more than enough or more than others

they don't think about helping others in the first place. Brain is a lazy machine, it won't spend its cycles thinking if everybody in the neighborhood is feeling allright. This adds up with our inability to empathize with groups, making thinking of others only more costly.

That's why one's empathy always has a scope, and so do the good intentions.

And some people are just egotistic psychopaths, but i'd already talked about that, didn't i?

Hate is so easily weaponized bcs it's there, it's not reinvented...

Of course it is. Its rarely purely irrational tho. as you said it yourself, we always try to come up with a reason, even if it was purely emotional in the first place

And its not like it will go anywhere, especially with the way of thinking this post promotes.

If that (the quote) would be the case then ppl would also try to correct...

Except not everybody has a developed analytical thinking. Some people intentionally mute their inner voice. It's especially in the modern day, when you have music, videos, news or memes in practically infinite capacity. It's disturbingly easy to just turn off your brain.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 1 point 9 months ago* (1 child)

That's because it's hard to empathize with a group of people. Empaiy is always about individuals.

Yes, but I see that as a distinct lack of empathy.

Lazy brain also doesn't have issues thinking about how to benefit itself over others in contrast of the way it can stop being emphatic about others.

We were hardwired to that.

And the only way to evolve is through powering through urges like that 'laziness about empathy', or just live as we always have (but now on global destructive level with basically 0 realistic/actionable chances of going extinct).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 9 months ago

Yes, but I see that as a distinct lack of empathy. And why so? As i already said, groups are inherently abstract. We don't empathize with groups, we empathize sith individuals inside of them.

Blind devotion to a group is not empathy, it's tribalism, and is inherently leading to "us vs them" mentality, that every politician loves so much to leverage.

And the only way to evolve is through powering through urges like that...

By powering yourself through, you'll just wear yourself down, feeling absolutely miserable before snapping into apathy. It's a completely unrealistic and unfair expectation towards anybody, not far from christian dogmatics.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent