Greedy Goblin

Monday, June 12, 2017

We'll just weed out the bad apples and live happily together

This is a somewhat cartoon summary of liberal reactions for terrorist or criminal acts of minorities. It's not like they support mass rape or stabbing, otherwise they wouldn't try to hide the news but excuse them. I'm pretty sure that they are just as upset about the evil deeds of a few as everyone else.

In a literal sense, they are right. The acts are performed by a few and trying to police or punish the rest of the group is indeed unfair. What they miss is ... playing World of Warcraft for some years. I still believe that the best way to cure leftism would be mandatory competitive WoW playing. Sure, now it's not as effective than back in BC day with all the welfare gear around, but it would still help.

While I was never a liberal, I was a libertarian - objectivist. I entered WoW with a meritocratic thinking and a meritocratic meta-thinking (considering meritocracy obvious). I accepted guild invites, I raided, we wiped in Karazhan (the lowest level raid), I checked damage meter and fail addons and pointed out who needs improvement.

As a result, I was yelled at or kicked. Because those were friendly social guilds and judging friends is unacceptable. We are in here together "for the fun", "laid back" and whatnot. My whole blog spiraled out of the idea that in order to progress in a silly video game, you have to leave morons and slackers behind. Most people didn't do it. They were labeled "socials", people who believe in groups instead of individual responsibility. They believe that those who have more must support the "less lucky" ones, the previously mentioned morons and slackers. So they were doomed to forever boost the M&S in old content and never progress. To solve this "problem", Blizzard removed progression itself and made only one current raid and obsoleted everything before that by giving "catchup" gear.

How does that explains the impossibility of the liberal solution? Because the "bad apple" isn't existing in the vacuum to be removed. He is part of a social group. The members of that group are not "bad apples" themselves, just like the socials in a guild weren't below-pet-DPS idiots. But they protect the bad apples. Trying to police the neighborhood meets their anger. Confront one of the "bad apples" before he does something very bad (which is the point of policing) and the whole community is up against your "aggression". The point is that while they do not support the extremism itself, they insist that the "one of us" is not an extremist and look puzzled when he blows up a dozen people in a concert and honestly say that they never thought he'd do that. The guy with a big ISIS flag, big beard and burka covered 12 year old wife is "just a guy who didn't get enough help" - just like the ungemmed spirit cloth warrior in the fire patch is "just needs more gear".

This isn't confined to Islamists, though we experience it that way recently. Black Lives Matter is probably a better example: hundreds of thousands of non-criminal, otherwise decent people protested because the police used (maybe excessive) force against a few clearly unruly and criminal people. They did it, because they saw the thugs as "one of us" instead of "another idiot/thug" and saw the police "them oppressing us" instead of "police hunting thugs".

This means that communities will protect their worst members until these members do something horrible - when it's too late to do anything. Trying to stop the guy in time will mean confrontation with the community. This isn't limited to cultural communities, there is a reason why family members are not forced to testify against each other: the only thing that would achieve is filling the prisons with perjurer relatives. It's considered obvious that people will protect "their own" against the society. However only cultural communities are big enough to make this a problem. A family cannot effectively resist police or derail an investigation. But a community of 10000 can. So we must prevent any such communities to exist inside the society. Every cultural identity must be deported to a country where they fit, or given fair share of the country and split it. There cannot be peace in a country where multiple cultural identities coexist (save for a few lucky matches like Sikh + Western or Chinese + Western).


PS: this isn't racism. Racism is the belief that people from X family are bound to be X people. I believe people can change and abandon their cultural groups, one from the Middle East can be a completely Western person - if he abandons Middle Eastern customs and picks up Western. Similarly, many Islamists were born in Western families, converted, radicalized and traveled to Syria to join ISIS. While they are white as snow and may not even speak Arabic, they are not at all Western, they choose to belong to the Muslim culture.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Like the way we say that white extremists are "lone wolves" and not influenced by what others write, what others say, social groups, the media, or the internet, whereas radicalised Muslims are clearly influenced by all of the above.

Anonymous said...

Agree with the post. However, have you considered that sociality actually has legit benefits for the human species? WoW raiding is the wrong example to use. RL isn't like a DPS check where each member in a fixed size group must do 8k on Festergut HM25 or they all fail/die. It's more like EVE where an effective organization (nations, armies, industrial corporations, etc) can be assembled from a few brilliant people who know what they are doing and a large blob of peons that can be herded with a specific set of rules. This is actually the genome of the species - a few hardcores, a few (but vocal) morons, and a lot of middle-range casuals that can be organized. The social instincts and structures are mainly for the casuals, to allow for the organization and to hold the internal cohesion against the pressure of personal gain/prisoner dilemmas. The police are there mostly to deal with the M&S part of the genetic spectrum.

http://www.returnofkings.com/102414/6-reasons-why-i-gave-up-on-libertarianism

Gevlon said...

@First anon: very good point. White extremists in a white western society are lone wolfs by definition, since "everyone" agree with the moderate version of their views, so no one specifically help them radicalize. Similarly an IS terrorist who blows up a hotel in a muslim country because guests don't wear burka is a lone wolf there.

@Next anon: the peon work doesn't need sociality, it can be done by free market.

Anonymous said...

In a literal sense, they are right. The acts are performed by a few and trying to police or punish the rest of the group is indeed unfair.
yes and no. we always ask about motive in any other case and if motives point to group pressure and radicalise via groups. police will look into them and take action and escalte it further up the power hirachy. well not if it has anything to do with muslims and islam ideology of course.
fresh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqTndGKPPAg if it where a german soccer team doing exactly what the saudis do after a neonazi terror attack.

Anonymous said...

I think this is the most cohesive and simple way to sum up the "socials" you've ever written. Well done.

On a side note, have you ever wondered about ratios of these three groups? It seems to me both rationals AND M&S are minorities, while most are just socials. A normal distribution, except socials almost always side with M&S and almost always side against the "1%"(rationals)

Gevlon said...

@First anon: the group might motivate them to hate the other group, but they aren't calling for violent acts. Simply hating people is a right, if we'd lock up everyone in the US who hates Trump or Clinton, half of the population would be behind bars.

@Second anon: impossible to tell. In a social group, slacking is smart, so while you can count the objectively non performers, you can't tell if they don't perform because:
- because they can't (M&S)
- because it's cool to be laid back (social)
- because screw socials! (anti-social competitive)

Smokeman said...

"It's considered obvious that people will protect "their own" against the society. However only cultural communities are big enough to make this a problem."

There's the money shot, right there. Minority communities, even those that have been in a majority controlled country for many generations do this. It's not because they're "worse" than the majority, just different. And that very difference drives them into a minority relationship with the majority, complete with this "protect our own" behavior.

This is why you have to limit legal immigration and always prosecute illegal immigration. And always pick your own cotton, fruits, and veggies, too!

It's the country you send them to that has the responsibility to treat them fairly. Not you.

Eaten by a Grue said...

But doesn't your solution result in eventual absurdity? No matter how you split apart groups, they will not be homogeneous, and soon you will have a new minority to deport.

Gevlon said...

@Eaten by a Grue: we only need to deport the minorities which PROVE to be harmful. For example there are Chinatowns everywhere without problem, why bother? I've never heard of orthodox jew terrorists either.

L Papay said...

@Gevlon
1) Chinatowns .. well ever heard about Triads? Essence here is, while Chinatown is "microcosm" it is still linked via legitimate and illegitimate business to the host population, and both sides see profit in that (even if grudgingly)

2) Haganah, Lehi, Irgun just to name those more successful ones. ┼╗OB before Warsaw Ghetto Uprising would also qualify. I guess it is more of a function of minority getting into position when they see there is more to gain by violence than by any other means. That includes "Minority of One" and " getting as many bastards as possible with me" - regardless of underlying creed.


Minutiae aside I see main Point as very valid one, though I would put more "value theory / time preference" on top of it. After all, each individual takes action which in his mind in that precise point is beneficial. And it only matters if it is beneficial to him alone. Obviously , if you could make people stop believing in stupid crap, world would be a better place.


After all you can describe culture as set of common beliefs and communications. If you have broad enough base , you can have 2 cultures in one place, most likely if there is common economic or military basis in cooperation (not forced).


Come to think of it, it just shows to what extent perception of the world as seen by common man is but a form of Cargo Cult. There are precious few that knows how things work, the rest navigates via beliefs and emotions - and groupthink is quite powerful as far as emotions go.

Also observation about socials: in every group, online or offline, the majority is silent. There are precious few talkers, ratio is usually 1:20 as far as I see. They do not participate in any way than on emotional level - and you can only see that when they become enraged. Each leader worth its salt knows about that juggernaut and will usually steer clear out of issues that will spark unrest. Few "intellectuals" talking over each other is a bore, and silent man drinks his beer in peace. But if such intellectuals will start to talk about expecting performance in exchange for social benefits, >>his class performance no less<< then he finds torch and pitchfork very fast. Good leaders keep intellectual and common man worlds separate. Different cultures. No common base really. Spillover means trouble, and usually violent change of leadership. Intellectuals, being by nature more individualistic, are also much easier to separate and shot, without alerting all the herd.


Thing is that "common man of Europe" is (relatively) intellectual in comparison to "common man of (third) world". Irony.