Yeah, it's one thing if it's an honest confession. It's another if it's a self-justification.
What stands out to me is that he is either much more interested in exploring his perverse fascination or sense of general excitement than his empathy for suffering, or his empathy for suffering really just is so much weaker than those other impulses. It doesn't help that he's in the thread actively downplaying the idea that a sense of empathy for people you don't personally know is even helpful or useful. And yet his sense of excitement or fascination at their suffering *does* extend to them, and that's supposedly normal and OK?
>This guy is trying to justify his bad thoughts by assuming everyone is bad deep down, and is lying.
Like yesterday we had SS reviewing [TLP's book-long rant](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/szvhw6/my_dog_is_bleeding_from_the_ears/) about how everyone is in denial about being a status-obsessed narcissist but him.
We're headed for a rationalist projection hat trick!
I strongly believe people are defined by their actions, not some weird fucked up thought they have browsing reddit. What's weird is justifying it by assuming everyone else must feel exactly the same, under the surface and trying to find a way to believe people reacting poorly to you voicing your insensitivity is somehow their baggage.
I’m not comfortable having people on here call this kind of innate reaction to things fucked up, it’s akin to people who laugh uncontrollably in uncomfortable situations. You can have a go at them for thinking it’s a universal experience because that’s just ignorant. However, calling someone fucked up for simply having that reaction is itself pretty fucked up, because as somebody else points out in these comments it’s more a sign of social malfunction than personal failing.
To be clear, I think some of the self reflection going on in this
post is probably a good thing. People have funny reactions to tragedy,
and a detached sort of excitement can be normal for some and not a sign
of being a terrible person.
The good/neutral here aside, boy is this post a goldmine of
sneerworthy stuff. Being aware of your dark impulses does not mean other
people witnessing a tragedy aren’t going to react with horror to you
voicing them. And your darker impulses are not necessarily everyone
else’s.
It feels like you’re reading this as a celebration or lauding of those dark impulses rather than an ironic reflection on animal instinct and civilised mores
If Werner Herzog wrote this - and he could, and would do, albeit probably better - nobody would think it’s a fit for this sub
> It feels like you’re reading this as a celebration or lauding of those dark impulses rather than an ironic reflection on animal instinct and civilised mores
I'm really not. I tried to highlight with this comment how the reflection parts were likely positive. I don't think this is a celebration of the dark impulses, but where its analysis falls short is when it fails to understand people who react negatively to those impulses. The following is an example of something that I think really lacks empathy here:
> I don't know if people, thought modern morality training, just default to the "correct answer" for these things.
Horror and anxiety is a natural reaction to videos of watching civilians getting bombed. The points in the post about the media cycle are well taken and there are points where the posts very much gets it. There also seems to be an assumption throughout that *everyone* deep down reacts to tragedy like this.
> If Werner Herzog wrote this - and he could, and would do, albeit probably better - nobody would think it’s a fit for this sub
I don't know of Werner Herzog, but I think a key to doing it better would involve a clearer empathetic throughline. Also, where a post like this comes from is often important for understanding what is meant by it. The context of a rationalist space has an impact on the message.
I agree, though, that there are insightful nuggets in this post and a better version of it could simply be quite good.
LMAO.
This tracks. I have not personally, but I feel like everyone I know who has kept chickens seriously either loves them or has some of the most vehement hatred and disdain for them I have seen someone have for any creature.
I don’t think it falls below the moral level of part of a casual conversation I can imagine hearing on the bus, and shrugging at indeterminately, put it that way
And I don’t agree that there are insightful nuggets at all, in fact I never used either word or a synonymical phrase, the post is just casual commentary
> The context of a rationalist space has an impact on the message.
There are limits to hermeneutical reasoning
> I don’t think it falls below the moral level of part of a casual conversation I can imagine hearing on the bus, and shrugging at indeterminately, put it that way
I don't disagree. Sneerworthy does not always map one to one to being bereft of morality. I think this comment on the post itself sort of sums up what I find cringe:
> There is a difference between Carlin or Tool (people internationally known for saying/singing things in a way people like) abstractly expressing a perverse interest in a hypothetical crisis and you publicly voicing specific enjoyment in people suffering due to a current ongoing disaster, in a forum where the victims can read what you have to say about them. Doing the latter tactfully is... challenging, and I would advise against ever attempting it.
I don’t like to talk about ‘my generation’ much because obviously
experiences of people my own age differ radically but I think being a
bored teenager right on the dawn of ‘Web 2.0’ provided a much more
candid view into the good, bad, and ugly of the internet than I think
earlier and later generations have experienced. It was a time in which
video content was available nearly on demand through P2P with little to
no content moderation.
Many of us old enough saw the ‘shock and awe’ of the bombing of
Baghdad but did a friend also show you, like me, a beheading video of a
U.S. contractor by militant Jihadists? Do you still remember the
gurgling/gasping sounds? And not just videos from the war but, for
another regretful fixture of my memory, a man dousing a dog in a cage in
lighter fluid and setting it on fire. Or anything drug cartel related. I
hope not.
Many people have experienced morbid curiosity at one time or another,
sure, but, no, we don’t all have the same tolerance for it and most grow
out of it along with adolescence. While it’s important to recognize that
tendency as common in youth, it’s nothing to brag about or develop a
sense of smug superiority for being ‘realer-than-thou’ or whatever like
that OP. It’s not a sign of anything or an accomplishment - it’s just
watching people die.
> It's not a sign of anything or an accomplishment - it's just watching people die.
Yeeeep. It's not quite the same thing because I don't literally watch people die, but I do academic research that involves an unhealthy amount of exposure to mass human suffering, with some degrees of separation.
So I joke about it, or I talk about really bad things with a sense of perverse fascination. As the person who originally posted this sneer, I *really* get weird reactions to tragedy. But I don't think there's any real value in it beyond keeping me from getting too depressed when I do my job. It's a coping mechanism, and one of many you could have in the face of that stuff. For me, it can sort of paradoxically be a way of preserving empathy. Rather than just growing desensitized and forgetting I'm taking about humans or getting so depressed I can't do it anymore, I turn the rage and horror into humor.
But I don't get offended when I make an off-color joke with the wrong audience and someone says "hey, that's fucked up man." Yeah, it is fucked up, and if you don't wanna hear it that's totally valid. And I definitely read the fucking room before making jokes about tragedy (I know dark humor isn't quite what the guy was talking about it's just my personal closest point to relate to what he's talking about).
One thing I don’t like about the rationalist community is they target
aspy people and basically fuck with them. This person mistakenly thought
that their dark thoughts were totally normal because the rationalists
encourage a ‘decoupling’ where people are encouraged to act as
sociopaths.
People need to be free to talk about ideas on the internet without
eternally worrying that someone in the world might come in and be
offended by the discussion.
Same old free speech for me and not thee bullshit from this guy.
Makes me think he’s not earnestly interested in defending morbid
excitement and more interested in seeking validation that it’s ok to
feel no empathy for suffering people.
Sounds a bit like some form of sociopathy or other form of anti
social behavior, added with some typical mind
fallacy somebody didn’t read the sequences. ;).
Personally I only like my violence simulated, not harming people, or
consensual.
I blame uncritical black and white thinking for the leftists here, at least in the U.S. where I'm from. In the states there's a lot of anti-Russian propaganda because it's an easy cheap holdover from red scare nonsense. Some lefties recognize that, but then use this dogshit mental shortcut where they categorize anything anti-Russia they see alongside that propaganda. And it's like... no, this is also an authoritarian state, worse in many ways than your authoritarian state.
Edit: Like you can be really critical of the U.S.'s stake here and argue that they're not on the side of Ukraine for reasons we'd consider morally 'good'. Probably true. There are usually only villains, not heroes, in international relations. But you can't then extend that to say: bad people on one side, therefore it is good if they lose and the outcomes they are fighting for are bad. Very U.S.-centric example, but that's the same logic that gets us gems like "The Union has people only concerned with economics not slaves, therefore the wrong side of the civil war was the one that freed the slaves somehow". Bad people(/ideologies/structures of power) are on both sides, and we need to actually critically analyze the incentives and outcomes to figure out what the most 'good' outcome looks like. And in this case it seems kinda obvious: Ukraine not being a vassal to a Russian empire and not getting shelled is probably better than... those things happening.
Do you know whose username you’re responding to here? I’m pretty sure they replied to me but also deleted their comments, perhaps worried about backlash. I’d like to be able to reply because it was pleasantly done and personally addressed to me, but I don’t have the username.
I don't either, I saw that/their comment to you too and tried to figure it out so I could shoot them a DM. They seem genuinely and understandably worried and frustrated about the whole situation and interactions in their circles and in need of support. Hope they're ok...
Hi, yes, apologies.
Yeah I am ok, just deleted that old account for reasons not related to this sub. I was getting afraid of doxxing and I didnt have the patience to deal with that right now. Just other priorities
About my circles there ... is ok right now. Trying to help out and find them some place to stay in my city, deal with visas and so on.
No worries! Just glad you're ok. Seen a similar pattern on occasion where an account/comments were deleted and there was a serious mental health risk. Thank you for checking back and letting us know.
Hi, it was me. I deleted both the comments and that old account, not worried about any backslash but possible doxing not related to this sub. Sorry for deleting it, but I was a bit worried.
Thank you, it should be all good after deleting that account.
I am still interested in your opinion, if you have the interest in sharing it.
The last day there were some really encouraging progress on the far left of the European country I am currently located. A mild pushback against the war and Putin apologism. It was not much but it was nice to see.
[deleted]
To be clear, I think some of the self reflection going on in this post is probably a good thing. People have funny reactions to tragedy, and a detached sort of excitement can be normal for some and not a sign of being a terrible person.
The good/neutral here aside, boy is this post a goldmine of sneerworthy stuff. Being aware of your dark impulses does not mean other people witnessing a tragedy aren’t going to react with horror to you voicing them. And your darker impulses are not necessarily everyone else’s.
I don’t like to talk about ‘my generation’ much because obviously experiences of people my own age differ radically but I think being a bored teenager right on the dawn of ‘Web 2.0’ provided a much more candid view into the good, bad, and ugly of the internet than I think earlier and later generations have experienced. It was a time in which video content was available nearly on demand through P2P with little to no content moderation.
Many of us old enough saw the ‘shock and awe’ of the bombing of Baghdad but did a friend also show you, like me, a beheading video of a U.S. contractor by militant Jihadists? Do you still remember the gurgling/gasping sounds? And not just videos from the war but, for another regretful fixture of my memory, a man dousing a dog in a cage in lighter fluid and setting it on fire. Or anything drug cartel related. I hope not.
Many people have experienced morbid curiosity at one time or another, sure, but, no, we don’t all have the same tolerance for it and most grow out of it along with adolescence. While it’s important to recognize that tendency as common in youth, it’s nothing to brag about or develop a sense of smug superiority for being ‘realer-than-thou’ or whatever like that OP. It’s not a sign of anything or an accomplishment - it’s just watching people die.
I’m glad to see the push back on this person.
One thing I don’t like about the rationalist community is they target aspy people and basically fuck with them. This person mistakenly thought that their dark thoughts were totally normal because the rationalists encourage a ‘decoupling’ where people are encouraged to act as sociopaths.
It’s really fucked up.
the poem of the day is from Ilya Kaminsky (b. 1977 Odesa):
Same OP posts later in this thread:
Same old free speech for me and not thee bullshit from this guy. Makes me think he’s not earnestly interested in defending morbid excitement and more interested in seeking validation that it’s ok to feel no empathy for suffering people.
Sounds a bit like some form of sociopathy or other form of anti social behavior, added with some typical mind fallacy somebody didn’t read the sequences. ;).
Personally I only like my violence simulated, not harming people, or consensual.
He is an amoral bastard, but lesswrong glorifies amoral intellects
[deleted]