At first that was WTF, but you know, now I’m seeing it.
I’d extend that to dictatorships and autocracies as well, since autocrats only have the power people around them give. The thing is, we’re all guilty, so kind of nobody is.
Most people don’t do what they can.Trump can do whatever he wants because Putin got him elected and most people haven’t voted for him, or voted for him and agree.
I hadn’t noticed the strong link between guilt and responsibility. I just think that people are responsible. But now it makes sense as a strategy:
This is the point where one person is singled out as the cause of the trouble and is expelled or killed by the group. This person is the scapegoat. Social order is restored as people are contented that they have solved the cause of their problems by removing the scapegoated individual, and the cycle begins again.
Trump is a scapegoat that takes all the guilt so people are not motivated to act.
Coincidentally this and Girard in general are Peter Thiel’s favorite theory so my guess is that it is done on purpose.
Which leaves the question how people can be motivated to act according to their abilities. All the skills are there. How do they know that it is their turn to act to maintain international law?
My bad, I meant “we do” as in “we should do”, not “we are doing”.
And we can motivate others to do the same by replacing finger-pointing (e.g. “it’s your fault for not voting/voting third party” vs “it’s your fault for not pressuring Democrats into choosing a decent candidate” or something like that, idk) with mutual support and actionable advice (“it doesn’t matter whose fault is it, right now we need all the support we can get. Here’s something you can do”)
I think people are busy and they need an incentive to prioritize their political engagement. I agree that guilt is a bad motivator and something else would be better.
Still, not wanting to handle guilt seems to be a core mechanism in influencing people. If that’s how the population is controlled then the left would have to figure out how to handle it to win back influence.
I think people need something simple to get them started.
Just look at Stop Killing Games. We can argue whether it’s a distraction (bread and circuses) or a powerful precedent for public participation and software rights, but either way it managed to collect over a million signatures and we can learn something from it.
Including them. They can feel less guilty, but democracy means that the people decide and they are part of the people.
If they don’t agree with the vote they have to look for means to convince the rest and change the vote.
At first that was WTF, but you know, now I’m seeing it.
I’d extend that to dictatorships and autocracies as well, since autocrats only have the power people around them give. The thing is, we’re all guilty, so kind of nobody is.
@CanadaPlus @plyth
So in other words ALL Americans are now bombing schools & arming genocide.
All people, even, since borders are themselves something that only exist because we acknowledge them. Appropriate username for that.
I am willing to accept that for myself.
But when it comes to getting others to act, I would rather use ability/agency than responsibility/guilt.
We can figure our whose job/fault it was later.
Right now, we should do what we can to fix things. (EDIT: added “should” for clarity)
Are people doing enough?
Most people don’t do what they can.Trump can do whatever he wants because Putin got him elected and most people haven’t voted for him, or voted for him and agree.
I hadn’t noticed the strong link between guilt and responsibility. I just think that people are responsible. But now it makes sense as a strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating#Scapegoat_mechanism
Trump is a scapegoat that takes all the guilt so people are not motivated to act.
Coincidentally this and Girard in general are Peter Thiel’s favorite theory so my guess is that it is done on purpose.
Which leaves the question how people can be motivated to act according to their abilities. All the skills are there. How do they know that it is their turn to act to maintain international law?
My bad, I meant “we do” as in “we should do”, not “we are doing”.
And we can motivate others to do the same by replacing finger-pointing (e.g. “it’s your fault for not voting/voting third party” vs “it’s your fault for not pressuring Democrats into choosing a decent candidate” or something like that, idk) with mutual support and actionable advice (“it doesn’t matter whose fault is it, right now we need all the support we can get. Here’s something you can do”)
Are people waiting to do things?
I think people are busy and they need an incentive to prioritize their political engagement. I agree that guilt is a bad motivator and something else would be better.
Still, not wanting to handle guilt seems to be a core mechanism in influencing people. If that’s how the population is controlled then the left would have to figure out how to handle it to win back influence.
I think people need something simple to get them started.
Just look at Stop Killing Games. We can argue whether it’s a distraction (bread and circuses) or a powerful precedent for public participation and software rights, but either way it managed to collect over a million signatures and we can learn something from it.
Anything would do. But how would people stay committed? Stop Killing Games hasn’t grown into a political movement.
One step at a time, I guess? Not sure. There are probably better experts than me with more experience, who have probably written books about it.
Obviously there is none with a working answer. Maybe you know it.