I go around trying to pass laws banning Protestant worship and preventing people from condemning Catholicism.Unfortunately, maybe the next government in power is a Protestant government, and they pass laws banning Catholic worship and preventing people from condemning Protestantism. You’re going to say that agreeing not to spread malicious lies about each other would also be a civilized and beneficial system.Or “And that is why, to this very day, we solve every international disagreement through total war.” Or “And that is why Martin Luther King was immediately reduced to a nonentity, and we remember the Weathermen as the sole people responsible for the success of the civil rights movement” But I think what I am actually going to say is that, for the love of God, if you like bullets so much, stop using them as a metaphor for ‘spreading false statistics’ and go buy a gun. So let’s derive why violence is not in fact The One True Best Way To Solve All Our Problems.You can get most of this from Hobbes, but this blog post will be shorter.Gradually you form a successful community of cooperators.The defectors either join your community and agree to play by your rules or get outcompeted. I was tempted to call it “spontaneous order” until I remembered the rationalist proverb that if you don’t understand something, you need to call it by a term that reminds you that don’t understand it or else you’ll think you’ve explained it when you’ve just named it.Then if the stress ends up bursting an aneurysm in his brain, I can dance on his grave, singing: I’m not going to do that, but if I did it’s unclear to me how Andrew could object. They didn’t agree with the British occupation of Northern Ireland and they weren’t afraid to let people know in that very special way only a nail-bomb shoved through your window at night can.
Like “And that is why the United States immediately nukes every country it goes to war with.” Or “And that is why the Geneva Convention was so obviously impossible that no one even bothered to attend the conference”.I think that discourse based on mud-slinging and falsehoods is detrimental to society. I won’t name names since that would be crossing a line, but I’m sure you can generate several of them who are sufficiently successful and charismatic that, if knocked off, there would not be an equally competent racist or sexist immediately available to replace them, and it would thus be a serious setback for the racism/sexism movement.Other people can appeal to “the social contract” or “the general civilizational rule not to use violence”, but not Andrew: I think that whether or not I use certain weapons has zero impact on whether or not those weapons are used against me, and people who think they do are either appealing to a kind of vague Kantian morality that I think is invalid or a specific kind of “honor among foes” that I think does not exist. I’m sure a smart person like you can think of clever exciting new ways to commit the perfect murder.Which is probably because if you *really* want to be the kind of person who wins you have to actually care about winning something, which means you have to have politics, which means you have to embrace “politics the mindkiller” and “politics is war and arguments are soldiers”, and Scott would clearly rather spend the rest of his life losing than do this.That post [the one debunking false rape statistics] is exactly my problem with Scott.He seems to honestly think that it’s a worthwhile use of his time, energy and mental effort to download evil people’s evil worldviews into his mind and try to analytically debate them with statistics and cost-benefit analyses. It always makes me happy when my ideological opponents come out and say eloquently and openly what I’ve always secretly suspected them of believing.He gets *mad* at people whom he detachedly intellectually agrees with but who are willing to back up their beliefs with war and fire rather than pussyfooting around with debate-team nonsense. It is exactly the kind of thing that “social justice” activists like me *intend* to attack and “trigger” when we use “triggery” catchphrases about the mewling pusillanimity of privileged white allies. My natural instinct is to give some of the reasons why I think Andrew is wrong, starting with the history of the “noble lie” concept and moving on to some examples of why it didn’t work very well, and why it might not be expected not to work so well in the future.[Content warning: Discussion of social justice, discussion of violence, spoilers for Jacqueline Carey books.] [Edit 10/25: This post was inspired by a debate with a friend of a friend on Facebook who has since become somewhat famous.I’ve renamed him here to “Andrew Cord” to protect his identity.] I.The specific Irish example was called the Good Friday Agreement and the general case is called “civilization”.So then I try to destroy the hated Protestants using the government.