Conversation

Replying to
15/ If this is true, my original definition of civilizing project is nonsensical and most people are NOT on board with it
1
15
Replying to
16/ Worse, most moral philosophy is obsessed with defining evil primarily to find targets for justifiable pain-causing.
3
22
Replying to
17/ Enemies give life meaning and purpose. Moralizing is overtly about trying to do good, but covertly about prepping victims for pain
5
19
Replying to
18/ The most common form is NIMBYism/tribalism. For many, the ingroup is _formed_ in order to create an outgroup it's ok to hate and hurt
2
19
Replying to
19/ As a mostly-apathetic, I only came very reluctantly to this conclusion: that many actively enjoy causing/witnessing pain
1
10
Replying to
20/ It's an ugly theory of humans, but unfortunately very plausible evolutionarily. Finding pleasure in pain is adaptive in scarcity.
6
8
Replying to
21/ Note that feeling others' pain (friends, kin, ingroup, random others) is not mutually exclusive with finding pleasure in pain
1
5
Replying to
22/ You might be capable of both. But people *incapable* of finding pleasure in others' pain might be minority mutants.
2
4
Replying to
23/ Which means the feel-good theory of civilization I opened with is a theory of, by, for freaks who can't find pleasure in others' pain
1
7
Replying to
24/ Which brings us to the dark question: if finding pleasure in others' pain is central to psyche of "normal" humans, what is civilization?
4
11
Replying to
25a/ There is now a Part II to this tweetstorm with points 26-52 that starts here:
Quote Tweet
26/ Part 1 of Shades of Red tweetstorm, Before Breakfast here twitter.com/vgr/status/891 Now for Part 2: After Breakfast: Is sadism a problem?
1
5