[HN Gopher] The Final Speech from The Great Dictator
___________________________________________________________________
The Final Speech from The Great Dictator
Author : hypertexthero
Score : 336 points
Date : 2023-12-17 15:03 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.charliechaplin.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.charliechaplin.com)
| questinthrow wrote:
| I'd wager it's more like we don't think at all and feel only
| anger. At least online that is.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| This is more indicative of where one chooses to spend most of
| their time online.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| It applies to HN too, the vast majority of comments probably
| don't have more than, at most, a few minutes of serious,
| focused, thinking behind them.
|
| And with how good LLMs nowadays, probably a numerical
| majority don't even contain anything worth noting.
| squigz wrote:
| Do you have any sort of data to support this, particularly
| the second claim? It seems particularly absurd to me.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| The comments are the data?
|
| I'm not really sure what your asking for.
| squigz wrote:
| Well I suppose you're making your own point.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| You are helping me prove the point with conveniently
| placed examples, so thanks. But why embarrass yourself?
| GoToRO wrote:
| Let's not forget about the feed algoritms that will
| prioritize anger and only anger because this is what drives
| impressions.
| Kamq wrote:
| That's still indicative of choosing to spend your time in
| an environment where content is algorithmically controlled.
|
| Which is most of the mainstream ones, but following along
| with the mainstream is a choice.
| ncallaway wrote:
| I mean, as an individual it is a choice. But as a society
| it's not a choice (or, maybe, a better way to phrase it
| is the "mainstream" is a reflection of the choice society
| has already made)
| Kamq wrote:
| I feel like we're getting into "the raindrop doesn't feel
| responsible for the flood" territory here, and I like
| your second interpretation better.
|
| It's absolutely the choice society has made, but society
| _is_ the individuals that make it up. The idea of the
| group is a semi-useful abstraction we use because our
| brains have trouble conceptualizing numbers over ~17.
|
| The style of algorithmic feed was created and popularized
| by individuals about a decade or two ago. A lot of the
| users of this site (including me) were pioneers in that
| area, either creating these things, or being the first
| users to turn our lives over to the feed.
|
| But, if you want to create long-lasting societal change
| (either good or bad), that's how you have to do it. One
| individual, or a group of individuals start something. A
| few individuals (usually weirdos) join up. And at a
| certain point, the increasing number of people give other
| more mainstream people some sort of social permission to
| make the same choice.
|
| At some point, it becomes socially acceptable enough to
| become the default and people who don't have the time or
| energy to put a lot of thought/research into things start
| doing it without really thinking (this is generally where
| I consider the bounds of true mainstream).
| moffkalast wrote:
| Which environments today aren't? Everything online is to
| a degree, and the offline ones are heavily influenced by
| online ones.
| VinLucero wrote:
| I feel in my heart a deep sense of empathy after watching that.
| Like the quote from National Treasure, "People don't talk like
| that anymore." But the response from Nicolas Cage is, "But they
| feel it".
|
| As I understand it, Hitler used an economic narrative to build
| his team of supporters and eventually, desperate times cause
| people to vote with their wallets.
|
| Does anyone else feel like the advent of modern online
| interactions is different from the early web? And maybe, just
| maybe... the economic incentives of the web shifting are what
| caused us to begin feeling angry and desperate?
|
| Why not rebuild a better web, based on old principles of
| feeling? Web3 is really just about trust and decentralization
| of it, so why not rebuild the entire economic stack?
|
| AI is great at many things, but great at feeling it is not.
| mozman wrote:
| The only way the internet has a chance at recovery is to
| eliminate all financial incentives. No monetization, share
| information because you want to
| Geisterde wrote:
| Youll find a lot of like minded people on nostr. While they
| have an issue with momentum, thus far they at least have a
| plausible strategy for decentralizing the web.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I'm not convinced the Web has gotten worse (or _Web
| interactions_ worst necessarily). Maybe.
|
| I kind of think it's the web itself that has trapped people
| indoors and into _un-social_ lives when, in the past, boredom
| would have sent them out into the world to find some kind of
| entertainment or actual companionship.
|
| (And I speak as someone who thinks I also needs to get out
| more.)
| javajosh wrote:
| It just occurred to me that anger is favored online because of
| a UX quirk. To build is complex; to destroy requires only a
| single bit! So the objects of our ire, those people, things and
| ideas we want gone from the world, those things that require
| only that we express our hatred and ill-will toward them,
| naturally become the most popular and shared content. As a
| corollary the people who are clearest and most concrete in
| their list of hates, the ones who constantly edit that list in
| real time according to audience response, they become the most
| appealing.
|
| Isn't it then not very surprising that those who _build_ prefer
| to do so in silence.
| basicallybones wrote:
| "To build is complex; to destroy requires only a single bit!"
|
| Love this.
| goles wrote:
| Given the amount of bad encounters I've had driving post-2020,
| and interacting with strangers, I think it's seeping into the
| real world as well.
|
| The way people act and speak in public feels noticeably
| different than even a few years ago, let alone 10-20. People
| are very short with each other now.
|
| Even more disturbing, I think I can feel the change in myself
| too at times.
| kdmccormick wrote:
| Driving brings out the worst in people. You're all trying to
| get somewhere, you're all a danger to one another, and,
| critically, you can't see faces well. So, you end up
| receiving offenses against you as if they're personal
| (because you're you!) but commit offenses as if they're
| impersonal (because others look like cars, not human beings).
|
| Would you rudely shove youself in front of someone at the
| market to get the next spot at the cash register? Probably
| not. But, would you block oncoming traffic by tailgaiting the
| person who took a left in front of you, instead of just
| waiting one more light cycle? Absolutely.
| spacebacon wrote:
| Yes and the others specifically look like large and
| aggressively styled combatants. The aesthetic of the
| automobile and the embodiment of that automobiles essence
| clearly has an influence within the sensitive and
| suggestible human experience. Design drives behavior.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Trump Fans Harass Biden Bus in Texas
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWjK_Eu8uME
|
| The FBI is investigating an incident of alleged
| harassment by Trump supporters of a Biden campaign bus in
| Texas, the Texas Tribune reported, citing a local law
| enforcement official.
|
| The campaign bus was en route from San Antonio to Austin
| on Interstate 35 on Friday when a caravan of vehicles
| with Trump signs and flags veered close to the bus and
| yelled profanities.
|
| Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running
| mate, Senator Kamala Harris, were not on the bus and no
| one was hurt, although local law enforcement was called
| to help the bus get to its destination. The campaign
| scrapped an event scheduled in Austin for Friday after
| the incident.
|
| President Donald Trump tweeted a video of the incident on
| Saturday night with the comment, "I LOVE TEXAS," and
| briefly mentioned it during a campaign rally in Michigan
| on Sunday.
|
| Tariq Thowfeek, Texas communications director for the
| Biden campaign, said the Trump fans "decided to put our
| staff, surrogates, supporters, and others in harm's way"
| rather to engage in a conversation about the candidates'
| different visions.
|
| Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National
| Committee, said Sunday she hadn't seen the whole video
| and couldn't comment on the part where one of the cars
| appears to almost crash into the bus.
|
| "Certainly we don't want harm and we shouldn't be hurting
| other people. The president would not endorse that,"
| McDaniel said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
|
| The White House and Trump campaign didn't immediately
| respond to requests for comment.
|
| Donald Trump Jr, the president's son, appeared in a video
| on Twitter last week encouraging supporters of the
| president to show up for one of Harris's events in Texas.
|
| "It'd be great if you guys would all get together, head
| down to McAllen and give Kamala Harris a nice Trump Train
| welcome," Trump Jr said.
| spacebacon wrote:
| I can relate to this point of view. The highways have been
| somewhat of a barometer for mental health weather.
|
| The best thought leaders can do is not participate in the
| hate. Drive the speed limit, let cars out, be courteous and
| non reactive on the roads.
|
| Each small good example plants a seed that won't immediately
| resolve our worldly issues but will lead others to water in
| due time with persistence.
| switch007 wrote:
| I've found drivers way way more rude now. Jumping red lights
| is epidemic. Drivers regularly wait on crossings. I had to
| literally put my hand out today to stop a taxi driver edging
| towards me when the crossing light was green. It's really
| common. There has definitely been a shift in driving
| behaviours since the pandemic. As a pedestrian in the UK I've
| never been so afraid of cars
| stagas wrote:
| Colored with better audio:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCXdxFPCqfk
| superfunny wrote:
| Perhaps a better way to phrase this is "We think too much and
| care too little" - feelings, by themselves, are not some fountain
| of wisdom and insight. You can have feelings of revulsion or
| repulsion, feelings of disgust and anger.
|
| Feelings are ephemeral and easily manipulated.
| sericmotomoto wrote:
| But the same applies to caring, don't you think? You and all
| the others (not me tho ;]) can - and indeed do - care about
| anything. Caring, I believe, is just as ephemeral and easily
| manipulated and to some degree the result of emotions and
| input. Emotions on drugs are always a wonderful example, and
| people who keep going back to that guy who always has cocaine,
| which is of course, meant literally and figuratively.
|
| Chaplin always reminds me of myself and those days when I
| wonder how it is, that people prefer the comfort of some
| culture or crowd vs. becoming an individual and unique being. I
| used to grind my teeth into this until hierarchies and pointers
| started to make sense to me.
|
| "We think too much and feel too little" isn't one of those
| quotes and bits of wisdom that is meant for everyone. I believe
| what Chaplin hoped to achieve was to give some outliers a way
| to integrate themselves into the crowd, to carve out a little
| space that would be as protected as all the spaces where
| obedience and conformity reign. "We think too much and feel too
| little" is an inspiration to the people who have ideas and the
| ability to make us feel, to become aware of our emotions
| whenever we seek out exactly that. It's a stimulation for
| people of all kinds, especially the stranger kind, to go out
| there and do magic and art right there on the street, in the
| circus, on stage, on TV and of course this wonderful little
| prism we call the internet and any other expansion of the
| spaces that become accessible with time and effort of those who
| like to think a lot and get enough opportunities to calm their
| minds to avoid inflammation.
|
| Holy shit, for a minute my writing felt like that of Maria
| Popova.
| csdvrx wrote:
| > Chaplin always reminds me of myself and those days when I
| wonder how it is, that people prefer the comfort of some
| culture or crowd vs. becoming an individual and unique being.
| I used to grind my teeth into this until hierarchies and
| pointers started to make sense to me.
|
| Can you explain how they started to make sense to you, and
| what sense they make?
| graposaymaname wrote:
| Got the opportunity to watch this film on a big screen at a local
| film festival last week. I think he wrote the whole film around
| this speech. Also there's this wonderful scene where he(Hynkel)
| dances with a globe in it:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jj-PaqFrBc
| przem8k wrote:
| "Don't let your mind speak louder than your heart". In tech we
| value data and being right so much, we may be too often missing
| the important part of being a decent human being.
| fumar wrote:
| This could help balance Amazon's leadership principles.
| aprdm wrote:
| Yet Jeff Bezos in his podcast appearance yesterday which was
| a 2h talk said that when data and anecdote disagree to trust
| the anecdote and gut feeling
| bear141 wrote:
| It's easy to focus on philanthropy and feelings after your
| monolithic megacorp has ground your competition into dust.
| aprdm wrote:
| Isn't that a definition of success in our current society
| ?
| carlosjobim wrote:
| As a thought experiment, is there anything Bezos could do
| or say that wouldn't merit a hostile and snide comment in
| response? Is he unforgivable?
| bear141 wrote:
| Him acting altruistically now with his vast resources is
| the best we can hope for I suppose.
| oddevan wrote:
| If he actually changed Amazon's behavior so that it
| wasn't a horrible place to work for? If he donated an
| actual, significant portion of his wealth that required
| real sacrifice on his part?
|
| Basically, if he did something that had a positive effect
| on the world that also had real consequences for him.
| Something that actually shows he _means_ it, actually
| _wants_ the world to be better even if it hurts himself.
|
| If Bezos or Musk or Zuckerberg or Gates(1) did any of
| that, I'd be thinking differently.
|
| (1) The Gates foundation has done a LOT. Bill Gates is
| still worth ~$135,000,000,000. A quick search says ending
| homelessness in the USA would take less than a quarter of
| that.
| inemesitaffia wrote:
| You do realize there's people who want to be homeless?
| Geisterde wrote:
| Hi, hello, I work here, google is down the street, as is
| microsoft. I can assure you they are not dust. All amazon
| has done is build more data centers, they havent taken
| some kind of hostile action towards the competition. The
| money was on the table, those companies didnt want to
| spend the time or take the risk, so amazon will gladly
| hoover it up.
| oddevan wrote:
| Glad you have a job and stable employment! When I think
| of who Amazon has "ground into dust," it's not Microsoft
| and Google. It's Barnes & Noble, Borders, Waldenbooks,
| hundreds of thousands of small independent bookstores,
| small businesses that once worried about Walmart moving
| into the neighborhood now contending with the
| omnipresence of Amazon. Some of them adapt, yes. Some
| were going to close anyway, of course. But you can't deny
| that retail looks a lot different now than it did ten
| years ago, and most of that is because of Amazon.
| senderista wrote:
| The nostalgia for Borders, B&N etc. is amusing
| considering they were blamed for the demise of
| independent bookstores before Amazon showed up.
| Geisterde wrote:
| Books are an interesting topic. The cost of publishing
| through amazon is far more accessible for authors, and
| the cost of the books themselves has decreased. I dont
| have enough time in my day to keep up with how many
| credits I receive from my audible subscription. Digital
| distribution has made both writing and reading more
| accessible, its the middle man that got cut out. That is
| in the nature of innovation, it frees the average person
| up from more menial tasks and allows them to create
| higher orders of value using a greater bredth of their
| creative inputs. That process can also be seen in the
| wide variety of goods offered on the amazon store, many
| of which are from those small businesses, the creative
| and productive factors remain without needing to take up
| physical real estate.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Amazon didn't grind anyone into dust. All they did was
| build a better book store. We ground them into dust by
| choosing to buy from Amazon.
| gedy wrote:
| Amazon !== AWS, I think what's being referred to is
| smaller retailers, not other FAANGs.
|
| My brother's store is slowly folding, largely due
| specifically to Amazon selling cheaper than he can
| purchase wholesale.
| Geisterde wrote:
| Im sorry for your brother, that sucks. Ill grant this,
| amazon being a large and well connected company allows
| them to secure exclusive and vast financing that provides
| their ability to engage in otherwise unprofitable
| (anticompetitive) strategies that shouldnt otherwise be
| possible.
|
| Unfortunately that battle is with our banking system, and
| until its won you will continue to see the proliferation
| of companies engaging in this behavior. That said, amazon
| will eventually be the dinosaur that walmart has become,
| and its very obvious from a ground level prespective that
| we dont have the right foundation for the infinite scale
| we seem to desire; too many "leadership principles", too
| much reworking of company policy, too much switching us
| from database to database.
| fallingknife wrote:
| So Amazon is a more efficient business model. Why should
| I drive to your brother's store when I can just order it
| right to my door on Amazon? They have done nothing wrong
| here.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Completely disagree. The tech industry is much more tolerant of
| mistakes and failure than any other industry. And that is a
| huge advantage given that such things are inevitable.
| cjaybo wrote:
| These aren't mutually exclusive though. The tech industry can
| over-index on data driven decision making while also being
| reasonable about accepting failures.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > we may be too often missing the important part of being a
| decent human being.
|
| "decent human being" is too vague and easily manipulated term,
| so it could be better to follow hard metrics and data.
| louthy wrote:
| Showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others.
|
| Will that do as a definition?
|
| Be altruistic.
| riku_iki wrote:
| I would add: self accountability and willingness to work
| hard for self improvement.
|
| Some stereotypical American who is nice to others, visits
| church, serves Thanks Giving food to homeless can be
| considered as decent human being by local community.
|
| But at the same time, material damage on others lives from
| say driving V8 truck and blindly voting for local
| politician can be significant, but he is not interested in
| learning about this.
|
| And self improvement and self accountability are not
| considered critical by most of sociaties.
| nox100 wrote:
| No, it won't, because that concern often leads to polices
| that have unintended consequences that in the end hurt the
| welfare of others.
| anjel wrote:
| Practice empathy towards others and altruism follows in due
| course
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > "decent human being" is too vague and easily manipulated
| term,
|
| I don't think so. I believe the most common conclusions about
| what defines a decent human being are good ones. That is, the
| qualities that come to mind most naturally and frequently are
| truly benevolent.
|
| Because they are defaults, they outlast efforts to slant and
| curate understanding.
| riku_iki wrote:
| I tried to explain my point better in this comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38675446
| johnnyworker wrote:
| That's like saying calories can't be counted with 100%
| certainty, so we should eat integers instead.
|
| > What has come to light is neither nihilism nor cynicism, as
| one might have expected, but a quite extraordinary confusion
| over elementary questions of morality -- as if an instinct in
| such matters were truly the last thing to be taken for
| granted in our time.
|
| -- Hannah Arendt, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the
| Banality of Evil"
| riku_iki wrote:
| > That's like saying
|
| I disagree with "that's like that". I think your analogy is
| very far.
|
| Calories metrics are actually much better researched and
| measured compared to human decency.
| peebeebee wrote:
| I think the heart vs mind is not really a good metaphor. Hate
| is something of the heart too. It's not something of the
| (logical) mind. If everyone was very logical, I doubt Hitler
| would have gotten this big. He literally spoke to the heart of
| the people, with passion, not reason.
| sbdaman wrote:
| Surprisingly nice website.
| flashback2199 wrote:
| I find it ironic that "We think too much and feel to little"
| appears to contradict the conclusion at the end "Let us fight for
| a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead
| to all men's happiness."
| fjallstrom wrote:
| Paradoxes are beautiful!
| TuringTest wrote:
| It's only a paradox under the widespread myth that reason and
| feelings are opposites. People who know their science
| understand that all rational thought is grounded on emotion
| and deep-rooted feelings.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Reminds me of Zizek's video "Don't act, just think"[1]
|
| And yes, Zizek is a charlatan[2].
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ [2]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5yoqjABeBM
| oeta wrote:
| It's interesting how statements can sometimes seem
| contradictory on their own. The first statement may highlight
| the importance of emotions, while the concluding one emphasizes
| reason and progress.
|
| Together they might suggest a balance between thoughtful
| reflection and the hope of a rational and progressive world.
| dddrh wrote:
| This reminds me of "The Wise Mind" from DBT sessions.
|
| To find the balance between emotion and reason for wisdom.
|
| https://www.therapistaid.com/therapy-worksheet/wise-mind
| oeta wrote:
| Interesting read.
| reqo wrote:
| I don't see the contradiction. Humans can be emotional and at
| the same use science to make all humans life better! In fact
| why would we ever develop any technology that makes life better
| for others if we don't have any feelings for them?
| oeta wrote:
| The contradiction arises because the user "flashback" depicts
| it as an either-or scenario. It shouldn't be interpreted as
| an exclusive OR statement; instead, there might be a nuanced
| interplay between thinking and feeling.
| flashback2199 wrote:
| I think feel isn't precise enough, maybe compassion is
| better? In the speech, Chaplain opposes the Nazis, yet the
| main tool the Nazis used to gain and hold power in Germany
| was by emotion, distributed thru speeches on the radio
| especially. Hitler was a highly emotional speaker. WWII
| didn't occur due to a lack of feeling.
| bsdpufferfish wrote:
| Was there more emotional rhetoric than is otherwise used
| in politics?
|
| Personally the "hitler mind controlled everyone with his
| speach" theory that I was told in the 90s just isn't
| convincing. Facism was in the zeitgeist around the world.
| flashback2199 wrote:
| No mind control, he said what people wanted to hear after
| losing WWI
|
| Mind control was how Yuri helped the USSR win the Cold
| war in Red Alert 2 (joke ;)
| bsdpufferfish wrote:
| > he said what people wanted to hear after losing WWI
|
| In other words, they believed it. It wasn't a false
| manipulation.
| lampiaio wrote:
| It's weird that we live in a time where my initial reaction
| upon reading your comment was "this guy is definitely an AI
| bot". "That" phrasal structure + freshly created account?
| I'm simultaneously thinking that maybe I'm being unfair to
| a real human being _and_ that I 'm not really sure if I
| should care at this point... maybe the new machine men with
| machine hearts will be more humane than the machine men
| with machine hearts we have today.
| oeta wrote:
| I apologize if my tone seemed off.
| addicted wrote:
| It doesn't sound like an either or. One could potentially
| think too much
| a_gnostic wrote:
| Too many policies are based on too little reason, with
| too much feeling, all while thinking they're scientific,
| but without taking human feelings into account, they fail
| harder each time they are tried. But who am I to know
| better; Surely with the right person in charge, this time
| it will work...
| johnnyworker wrote:
| "It would not be much of a universe if it wasn't home to the
| people you love."
|
| -- Stephen Hawking
| taylorlapeyre wrote:
| There is no contradiction - it is reasonable to feel more than
| we do.
| derstander wrote:
| I disagree. Science would suggest that separating a human from
| their emotions (like via emotional suppression) is illogical --
| a one-way ticket to mental health disorder. Thus, to obey
| reason, one must feel enough (and regulate vs suppress those
| feelings).
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| On the other hand, following the teachings of Surak, which
| you effectively reference here, would be seen as _highly
| logical_ by some. Though perhaps hard to practice by humans.
| kiba wrote:
| I would say that's a straw vulcan. Emotion are data and
| drivers of our actions.
|
| A Vulcan would not say "emotions are illogical." They would
| say "What does this emotion says and does it make sense in
| this situation?" Or "how would I feel more appropriately
| for this situation?". Or "this emotion doesn't make sense
| for this situation."
|
| Sometime, it's more appropriate for us to rely on intuition
| and instinct and it would be more rational for us to do
| that instead. Imagine someone's about to be hit by a car.
| You have only seconds to move them out of the way. You
| don't have time to ponder so you just do it.
|
| Thinking and logic is a general problem solving tool that's
| very useful in certain context, but they are very slow to
| use. By itself it is not a complete toolkit for dealing
| with emotional issues. Can't exactly make yourself less
| angry using just logic alone. You need some emotional tools
| to dial down counterproductive emotions.
| kiba wrote:
| Paying attention to our feelings is probably how we become
| more 'logical'.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Some facts _are_ dangerous.
| noah_buddy wrote:
| I can't think of a single fact on its own that presents any
| danger. If anything, facts through the lens of ideology may
| become dangerous, but data on its own is like technology.
| Neutral without application, good or evil depending on
| situation.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Hypothetically if the world's scientists were to all prove
| that blacks were inferior to whites, what good would come
| out of that? I can't think of a single good thing that
| would come from that- the world would be _worse_ for
| knowing such a fact.
| bsdpufferfish wrote:
| Does "inferior" mean statistically less likely to be good
| at logic games? Because I don't believe people's claim to
| humanity is defined by that.
| eternauta3k wrote:
| If this were proven, we would be forced to set a rigorous
| foundation for our values where all people have the same
| rights and worth regardless of how smart they are.
| Instead of saying people are only equally worthy if they
| are equally smart, and hoping no one proves the latter
| wrong.
| Noughmad wrote:
| First you would need to define a measure of inferiority.
|
| I'm pretty sure we have measured some very spicific
| things, and found that different races _on average_ have
| some genetic advantages and disadvantages. Is saying that
| Asians are disadvantaged in milk drinking competitions
| making society worse? Also, because humans are diverse,
| differences between individuals within any racial group
| can be far greater than differences between races.
|
| And if you compare men and women, the differences are
| much much bigger, and the comparisons much more frequent
| - you can barely turn on the TV or open up any social
| media without seeing them.
|
| So, ultimately - so what?
| AndyPa32 wrote:
| I don't think that it's a contradiction.
|
| Too much of any of those is bad. Four year olds are driven by
| feeling only. Psychopaths are driven by thought only. You don't
| want the world in the hands of any of those.
|
| It's a good mix of both feeling and reason that we should
| strive for.
| thenoblesunfish wrote:
| Maybe "reason" means thinking and feeling at the same time.
| Because if you think hard enough, you start thinking about what
| is important in bigger and bigger ways, and that eventually
| leads you to fundamental human values, which involve feelings.
| namuol wrote:
| I like Captain Disillusion's motto: "Love with your heart; use
| your head for everything else."
| Zetobal wrote:
| If you watch the news it should be clear that we feel too much
| and think too little. Everything is a rage fueled garbage
| contest.
| aprdm wrote:
| Yeah this is so unfortunate, we need to reverse this trend as a
| civilization
| rayiner wrote:
| Yes, true. And I say this as someone on the right--we complain
| about "feelers" but that's Trump's whole MO.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| But those awful feelings follow negative thoughts and ideas.
|
| The alternative would be awful feelings appearing out of
| nowhere.
| virtue3 wrote:
| I know a lot of people here are missing the mark - the issue here
| is EMPATHY not -feelings-.
|
| "We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We
| want to live by each other's happiness - not by each other's
| misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. "
|
| "We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we
| need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and
| gentleness."
|
| Please take in the WHOLE message before dissecting a single
| sentence.
| Zetobal wrote:
| Empathy is not the problem everyone has empathy for their own
| social groups. The problem is the division between these social
| groups. There is no grey anymore just black and white. You
| either hate me or love me.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| I agree but I also think its more complicated than either
| hatred or love. Conversion therapy is, I think many people
| would agree, a form of hatred on gay people. But a parent
| trying to force their child to be straight would argue they
| love them dearly and that, if the parent was gay, they would
| happily undergo therapy to become straight and normal, so
| they are also empathetic. It's hard to argue about empathy
| and hatred and care when logic is twisted like this.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Empathy is not the problem everyone has empathy for their
| own social groups. The problem is the division between these
| social groups.
|
| From this I'd say limiting empathy to our social group leaves
| a hole where the empathy for everyone else should be - and
| that divisions grow in that hole.
| dudul wrote:
| Maybe if so many people are "missing the mark" it is because of
| poorly chosen words?
|
| It is important when writing such a long speech to keep in mind
| that at best 1 or 2 sentences, slogans, et will be remembered
| or used as extra short summary of the essence of the speech. If
| the idea was empathy and not feeling then that's the word that
| should have been used.
| psadri wrote:
| A great song that features this passage: Iron Sky by Paolo Nutini
| mempko wrote:
| Obligatory link to Melody Sheep's version of the speech.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouzKl0oD6sU
|
| Arguably the best version.
| 7373737373 wrote:
| I prefer the Inception - Time version:
| https://youtu.be/dX25PDBb708
| gumby wrote:
| This film is currently streaming on the "max" platform. I watched
| it a few days ago. It was quite controversial at the time it came
| out.
|
| Obviously you should not torrent a copy of this 85 year old film
| as that would further diminish any incentive Chaplin might have
| to make any more films.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I always liked this version with music added:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
|
| I remember sharing a jail cell with a 19-year-old Mexican kid
| once and we were talking about the guards being assholes and he
| said "they're like machine men"; and I said "with machine minds
| and machine hearts?" and he was like "YES! You know it?!" -- it
| was a good moment, we spent the next few days trying to remember
| the whole speech.
| hannofcart wrote:
| While this was a pithy comment, I'd totally upvote and read an
| article on how someone who frequents HN found themselves in the
| scenario you mentioned.
| qingcharles wrote:
| There's a long story which I hope soon to be able to
| document.
|
| One thing I learned was never, ever, ever to judge people on
| first impressions. I think I thought "Oh no" when they put
| that kid in my cell, but he was an utterly fantastic
| cellmate. His case was fascinating; he had stolen
| approximately $60,000 over several months as a night cashier
| at Target by managing to pick the lock on the safes next to
| the register using a pen during hours of boredom. He burned
| through every penny flying around the country staying at nice
| hotels every weekend to fuel his burgeoning MMA career. He
| was finally called to the office by a manager at Target and
| two detectives were there. He didn't get a chance to deny
| anything as a roll of $3,000 cash fell out of his pants leg
| as he was stood right in front of them.
| yawpitch wrote:
| I like this kid, though I'm a not surprised there wasn't
| enough room in his pants leg, what with the brass gonging
| around in there.
| givan wrote:
| He is a machine, everything with him happens.
|
| He cannot stop the flow of his thoughts, he cannot control his
| imagination, his emotions, his attention.
|
| He lives in a subjective world of 'I love,' 'I do not love,' 'I
| like,' 'I do not like,' 'I want,' 'I do not want,' that is, of
| what he thinks he likes, of what he thinks he does not like, of
| what he thinks he wants, of what he thinks he does not want.
|
| He does not see the real world.
|
| The real world is hidden from him by the wall of imagination.
|
| He lives in sleep.
|
| He is asleep.
|
| What is called 'clear consciousness' is sleep and a far more
| dangerous sleep than sleep at night in bed.
|
| "Let us take some event in the life of humanity.
|
| For instance, war.
|
| There is a war going on at the present moment.
|
| What does it signify? It signifies that several millions of
| sleeping people are trying to destroy several millions of other
| sleeping people.
|
| They would not do this, of course, if they were to wake up.
|
| Everything that takes place is owing to this sleep."
|
| ---
|
| In Search of the Miraculous - Ouspensky
| johnmaguire wrote:
| My partner is very partial to this version:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouzKl0oD6sU :)
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| So am I. It packs an extra emotional punch. I consider it
| _the_ reference version :).
| zgin4679 wrote:
| https://youtu.be/XbUvDTMkjwA
|
| Yet another good version.
| el_pollo_diablo wrote:
| My personal favorite is by Hugo Kant:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsWrU9h9WGI
| undebuggable wrote:
| Helplessly naive but that's the best the cinematography can do
| about anything - a happy end.
| pxc wrote:
| For making this speech, and the anti-fascist film in which it
| takes place, Charlie Chaplain was surveilled and persecuted by
| the US government (FBI, CIA, HUAC, and more). He was effectively
| exiled out of the country that had been his home for decades by
| the time this film came out in 1940.
|
| In this speech he mentions 'a system' that generates war. That
| was enough for him to be branded a communist, hounded, smeared,
| and exiled.
| robomartin wrote:
| This speech is, in a nutshell, a call for humanity, peace and
| tolerance.
|
| It pains me to see a world where our centers of education have
| become almost precisely the opposite. They have distorted the
| minds of our young to the point that they are full of hatred,
| intolerance, bigotry and, yes, racism. All underscored by a solid
| foundation of utter ignorance.
|
| There's a video somewhere of an interviewer asking university
| students to list the Great Books they have read. The vast
| majority of them had no clue what the interviewer was talking
| about at all. Not a clue. Because our centers of education are
| indoctrinating, not educating. Those engaged in indoctrination
| don't want young minds to be exposed to the vast world of thought
| and reason represented by these works.
|
| Note that this comment isn't about the US. I think I can say this
| wave of ignorance and hatred has travelled the planet, taking
| many forms.
|
| A friend often says that humanity is one good power outage away
| from reverting to cavemen behavior. Frankly, it is hard to
| disagree with his view. We have seen this time and time again, no
| power outage required.
|
| This reality makes me wonder what Chaplin's speech might be if he
| had to write it in today's context.
| yks wrote:
| > And so long as men die, liberty will never perish
|
| > Over the past ten years, the [longevity research] industry has
| grown in financing from $500 million in 2013 to a peak of $6.2
| billion in 2021.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Death is God's greatest safe guard to counter human evil.
| Nobody escapes it.
| quantum_state wrote:
| It is also for keeping man from misery ..
| zirror wrote:
| Everytime I read about longevity research and how many people
| are in favor of it I can't stop thinking about this speech. And
| one of the endings of Cyberpunk 2077.
| Lorkki wrote:
| Altered Carbon also.
| roughly wrote:
| I think people generally, and the Silicon Valley set in
| particular, have a hard time abstracting from "would I like"
| to "would the world be a better place if".
|
| Would I like to live a thousand years? Yes, with the obvious
| caveats.
|
| Would the world be a better place if the technology for
| living a thousand years existed? Absolutely not, at least not
| at first, and certainly not today. There's a great many
| people around right now who's primary redeeming quality is
| their impending mortality - it's not just science that
| advances one funeral at a time.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| Imagine if Henry Kissinger could continue to advise US
| Foreign Policy for 10 centuries, given all the horrors he
| accomplished in just 1.
| nox100 wrote:
| How many times has your life or someone close to you in
| your life not died from something they would have died of
| 100yrs ago? If you're happy medical tech saved their lives
| then you're arguably for life extension because all it
| really means is saving more lives from more things that
| kill them.
| roughly wrote:
| I don't know if this is supposed to be a dunk or
| something, but - yes, my grandma lived to 93 because of
| modern medicine. I was happy she did. That's the tension:
| things that are good for me personally can be bad for the
| world at large (I mean, not my grandma's longevity
| specifically - she was a lovely woman), and a big part of
| emotional and intellectual maturity is recognizing that
| indeed the world is full of tradeoffs and I can't have
| everything I want.
|
| Specific to:
|
| > all it really means is saving more lives from more
| things that kill them.
|
| No, that's not all it really means, not in our society,
| not in our time. As Ted Chiang put it, "Most of our fears
| or anxieties about technology are best understood as
| fears or anxiety about how capitalism will use technology
| against us," and that's also the case here: the outcome
| of this technology isn't that my grandma lives to 150,
| it's that Vladimir Putin lives to 150. If my grandma
| needs to die at 90 so we don't have immortal god-emperors
| - if _I_ have to die at 90 - then so be it. Some day we
| may live in a world where longevity technology is an
| unalloyed good, but until that day, we don't get to just
| put the good stuff on the ledger and ignore the bad
| stuff.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > There's a great many people around right now who's
| primary redeeming quality is their impending mortality
|
| Ha ha, that's funny (but not nice -- but I like it).
| dijit wrote:
| Sadly, it's true in some cases.
|
| Most notably Rupert Murdoch- while I do not wish death on
| the man, it's certainly true that he has a grip on the
| hearts and minds of people and often uses his media
| empire to convince people to go against their own
| interests.
|
| He will be replaced by someone similar, but seldom are
| people _as effective_ as their predecessors.
| rainworld wrote:
| >uses his media empire to convince people to go against
| their own interests
|
| Well, yes, that's his job. Do you think that news media
| exists to inform you?
| dijit wrote:
| The fact that you would even make this joke shows how
| absurdly far we have fallen.
|
| Obviously they exist for that purpose, studying the
| foundations of news media and journalism... for even a
| day... shows concisely that it was _painfully_ created
| for this reason.
| roughly wrote:
| > He will be replaced by someone similar, but seldom are
| people as effective as their predecessors.
|
| I'm not a real believer in the "Great Man" theory of
| history - I think the ground needs to be set for an event
| for it to happen, I don't think the will of one person is
| truly sufficient to bend history - but there are certain
| people who you would have a very, very hard time
| replacing in a given scenario.
|
| Rupert Murdoch is definitely one, and Donald Trump is
| another - without getting into specific judgements of the
| man, there's nobody else within easy reach who could do
| what he's done, and I don't really see his movement
| surviving him. He's a particular person for a particular
| moment, and it's hard to see anyone else doing what he
| has.
| godelski wrote:
| I think it's important to remember 2 things
|
| 1) Possible solutions aren't binary (true vs false) but
| trinary (true vs false vs indeterminate)
|
| 2) The devil is always in the details. The world is fucking
| complex and and a first order approximation isn't going to
| get you there anymore. We've had 100kyrs to solve problems,
| we got most of the simple ones down (appearing simple does
| not mean simple)
|
| 2.5) A clique wouldn't be a clique if it wasn't something
| practically everyone knows and can recite but is not
| something people demonstrate an actual understanding of by
| observing their actions. (Just like LLMs: just because you
| can repeat some knowledge does not mean you're able to
| (ineptitude), or have the will to (malice), use the
| knowledge in any meaningful way)
| squigz wrote:
| We could live for 20 years or 200 and it wouldn't matter -
| entities will emerge that will attempt to consolidate and
| abuse power. Those may be individual dictators, tyrannical
| governments, or global conglomerates. The answer is the same,
| and it doesn't involve hampering scientific progress.
| borbulon wrote:
| I think also in some respects Altered Carbon, the Netflix
| series (at least the first season).
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Longevity doesn't mean men won't die.
| vpribish wrote:
| "Don't let your mind speak louder than your heart" - I think many
| have this so very wrong. Is support for fascism is a sensible,
| logical, well-thought-out policy? No, it's a heart-felt,
| emotional appeal to scared, proud, paranoid, crude, brutal people
| (who seem to be about half of our neighbors). surely the mindful
| decision is empathetic, constructive, and wise - not just base.
| lewhoo wrote:
| I don't think it's so simple. Support for fascism can seem
| sensible and logical if you let yourself think that between you
| and greatness stands a minority whose sole purpose is to
| prevent you from becoming great. You could argue it's not
| emotion but a calculation coming from struggle and an easy
| explanation for that struggle. Not every wrong assumption comes
| from emotion and we have the whole history of science to prove
| that.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| I think the initial assumption comes from emotion. Humans are
| not dual creatures with frontend and backends that must
| communicate through an API between their emotions and
| thoughts. Emotions and thoughts are actually phenomenon in
| simultaneous occurrence-- your thoughts can trigger emotions
| (planning what to do after being laid off can trigger
| anxiety) and your emotions can trigger thoughts (you're
| anxious, so you consider putting planning off and binge a
| show/movie).
|
| Fear of the "other" is clearly an emotion, but all the
| justifications, reasons, and overall narratives about the
| "other" are thoughts.
| Noughmad wrote:
| "X can seem sensible and logical if you ignore sense and
| logic and believe your emotions instead".
|
| Yes, that's true for everything, and it is exactly what
| believing your emotions over facts means.
| lewhoo wrote:
| But that's just ad absurdum considering we don't have
| straight answers when it comes to socio-political issues.
| ryanklee wrote:
| It's absolutely straightforward to uphold Democratic
| principles over Fascistic enterprises. People who get
| this wrong are simply wrong, and it's likely emotional
| and psychological forces that got them there, not
| rational, historiographic, or empirical ones.
|
| The current headwinds are a result of ill-equiped
| individuals being manipulated by other ill-equiped
| individuals.
| lewhoo wrote:
| > It's absolutely straightforward to uphold Democratic
| principles over Fascistic enterprises.
|
| That may be, but it also seems perfectly logical to claim
| democracy is broken because a voice of an educated person
| carries same weight than that of a high school dropout.
| All you need to do is extend this logic a bit. I think it
| is because of our emotions, empathy or maybe something
| else that we see that this "flaw" in democracy isn't
| really a flaw.
|
| > ill-equiped individuals being manipulated by other ill-
| equiped individuals
|
| Except fascism wasn't only a manipulation. Had fascism
| succeeded it would've made the participating states
| extremely rich, powerful and influential throughout the
| next (maybe) hundreds of years.
| throwaway171223 wrote:
| > to claim democracy is broken because a voice of an
| educated person carries same weight than that of a high
| school dropout
|
| Is not logical.
|
| > fascism wasn't only a manipulation
|
| No successful ideology is only a manipulation.
|
| > Had fascism succeeded
|
| I doubt anyone really knows why, but the historical fact
| is that it didn't.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >Is not logical.
|
| How so?
|
| >No successful ideology is only a manipulation.
|
| Depends on how you define success. We can say "fascism
| didn't succeed" but it certainly didn't blow over as a
| trend. Not back then, and not now.
| throwaway171223 wrote:
| As a common meeting ground between Hobbes and Rousseau
| (and probably Locke, which I confess I have not read),
| anyone can hold and fire a gun. Considering the original
| context in whence Greek democracy flourished, I'd say
| that's a fair extrapolation to modern times.
| vpribish wrote:
| I appreciate your contribution to the conversation, but
| have to disagree : "Had fascism succeeded" is kinda of an
| impossibility. it's bad at doing things and internally
| eats itself as soon as it gets power. Fascism is not just
| <Alternative Government Style> as if it was a choice of
| haircut, it's cancer
| lewhoo wrote:
| > "Had fascism succeeded" is kinda of an impossibility.
|
| Depends. If you assume succeeded indefinitely then this
| is a trap because such a thing is impossible (can only be
| deemed indefinitely successful at its end at which point
| it cant). Fascism could've been the new feudal era with
| the masters and slaves clearly defined but yes, I don't
| think it could've lasted forever if that's what you're
| saying.
| bawolff wrote:
| This strikes me as begging the question.
|
| It is always straightforward to uphold what you already
| believe in.
|
| Like isnt it the famous line of the communists that
| communism is a historical neccesisty? I think all
| ideologies have something similar.
| throwaway171223 wrote:
| We do though,
|
| We've had them since the first time a group of farming
| monkeys decided to post day/night guards on the granary.
|
| Those posts have been filled around the clock ever since.
|
| To my knowledge the first ones to formalize this were
| Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau but, in all cases, very little
| has changed since.
|
| To me, that's as straight an answer as you're ever going
| to get
| mordae wrote:
| Since then a single farmer feeds thousands of people. We
| are producing more and with much less effort than we did
| before we have started farming and had to post the
| guards.
|
| Yet the guards remain and insist that they are still
| needed.
| throwaway171223 wrote:
| By my understanding, the definition of granary has
| changed since.
| the_af wrote:
| You are effectively describing an appeal to emotions, not
| reason.
| lossolo wrote:
| Every ideology appeals to emotions--liberalism, democracy,
| fascism, communism, etc. This is why we seldom see academic
| professors, who deliver lectures on TV, winning elections
| based solely on their lectures.
|
| Ideologies aim to harness people's emotions to gain
| support. Democracy, fascism, and communism all possess
| underlying logic. By analyzing these ideologies
| dispassionately, without moral judgments, one can discern
| the logic in each of them.
|
| When encountering opposition, there are numerous ways to
| resolve conflict and achieve one's goals. These include
| discussion, compromise, and litigation, but also extend to
| extreme measures like murder and genocide. While one cannot
| deny the existence of these methods, their acceptability
| depends on individual values.
| narag wrote:
| _Every ideology appeals to emotions..._
|
| I can't find the source right now, but someone said that
| believing in democracy is like believing in the metric
| system.
|
| And there's another (Churchill's?) one saying that it's
| the worst government system, except all the others. Not
| very exciting definitions, more like cynics' choice.
| Aunche wrote:
| > Not every wrong assumption comes from emotion
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by that. Every assumption right or
| wrong comes from emotion. The problem tends to come when
| people let their emotions are left completely unchecked.
| "Bankers are taking advantage of me. My banker is an X
| minority. Therefore, we need to exterminate X minority"
| indeed has a nonzero degree of logic, but it's not the sort
| of reasoning 99% of people would come up with in a vacuum.
|
| A counterpoint is that sometimes an irrational degree of
| emotion may be required to do extraordinary things like
| soldiers being brainwashed to fight even a defensive war,
| building a cathedral that fitting of the magnificence of god,
| or even a lot of cult-like startups.
| lewhoo wrote:
| > Every assumption right or wrong comes from emotion.
|
| I disagree. Wrong assumptions are often just a conclusion
| of limited or false knowledge.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Well, if you remember how not every one wanted to learn
| in school and realize those people still "grew up", you
| realize how impractical it can be to make sure everyone
| has sufficient knowledge.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| That seems to be perfectly consistent - it's pure hubris and
| ego to believe that you are great or that a group of people
| would care enough about you to dedicate themselves so. That's
| not for you to judge, but for the rest of us. Pure emotion,
| no logic.
| lewhoo wrote:
| There are plenty of exceptions to recall here. People who
| thought of themselves as great but were diminished by
| others for being fools are easy to find in history of
| science in particular. I'd say if you invoke hubris or ego
| then you yourself are reacting emotionally - then who is
| right and who is wrong would probably only rely on the
| outcome of my endeavors (successful or not).
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > I'd say if you invoke hubris or ego then you yourself
| are reacting emotionally - then who is right and who is
| wrong would probably only rely on the outcome of my
| endeavors (successful or not).
|
| Ah yes - "I am rubber, you are glue". Given that this is
| a hypothetical, and I have no stake in the outcome, I
| think it is reasonable to conclude I am not being
| emotional about this.
|
| > People who thought of themselves as great but were
| diminished by others for being fools are easy to find in
| history of science in particular.
|
| And how many claimed to be great that are not in the
| history books?
| lewhoo wrote:
| > Given that this is a hypothetical, and I have no stake
| in the outcome, I think it is reasonable to conclude I am
| not being emotional about this.
|
| And why would you assume that ? If you hand no stake then
| I'd say it's far less likely to go for descriptions like
| hubris or ego. I have no stake in chess and I wouldn't
| call Kasparov anything like that but people more invested
| in chess certainly do because it's closer to heart for
| them.
|
| > And how many claimed to be great that are not in the
| history books?
|
| We don't know, because they're not in the books. But
| seriously, how exactly does this matter if you are just
| searching for logical support ?
| arrosenberg wrote:
| My point, which you seem to have missed, is that N people
| can claim to be great "if only X wasn't in my way". In
| reality, an infinitesimally small number of people will
| be judged as great by history, and half of those will be
| largely by accident, many will not realize it, and some
| will only achieve it post-mortem.
|
| Therefore, _logically_ , if someone claims to be great,
| they are mostly likely riding high on hubris and ego.
| It's statistically the most likely outcome for anyone
| claiming greatness.
| lewhoo wrote:
| Because that wasn't your point. You claimed it's hubris
| and ego because greatness is in the eye of the third-
| party beholder. Now you argue it is necessary that
| greatness must be unlikely, which is of course true but
| changes nothing. History of science, maybe history of
| progress is the history of (at that moment) unlikeliness
| prevailing.
| throwaway171223 wrote:
| > because greatness is in the eye of the third-party
| beholder
|
| No, arrosenberg claimed that:
|
| > an infinitesimally small number of people will be
| judged as great by history
|
| @dang yes officer, this person right here
| soliton4 wrote:
| a society where people are blind to the cruelty of one half
| while denouncing the cruelty of the other half. that seems to
| be one of the ingreedience for violence. each side will justify
| their violence by pointing at the other side. i have seen it
| before - its not a very original story
| Georgelemental wrote:
| In many instances (both historically and in the present),
| support for fascism is in part a product of fear of communism--
| fighting fire with fire, hoping that one totalitarian system
| will protect against a different one.
| alternative_a wrote:
| Two faculties are listed and the phrase implies the good
| working order of both.
|
| This then leads to the conclusion that the meaning is "reason
| alone can not determine all decisions".
|
| Now a mind in good working order may be confronted with a
| matter that his or her heart of good working order is objecting
| to. This phrase reminds us to listen to our heart in these
| cases.
| tgv wrote:
| Heart can be understood as a metaphor. It doesn't speak, so it
| can be a metaphor for love and empathy. A metaphor with an
| appeal to power is usually associated with the gut.
| tcgv wrote:
| > "Don't let your mind speak louder than your heart"
|
| The "heart" has always symbolized goodness, kindness, love and
| benevolence.
|
| That's the intended message here: always infuse your decisions
| with 'humanity'.
| the_af wrote:
| Agreed the "heart" means kindness and love, but the opposite
| in the metaphor from the speech is "machine men with machine
| hearts", which in my mind conjures an image of cold-
| heartedness, emotionless, robotic people.
|
| But fascists were cold and cruel, but also highly emotional.
| I mean, listen to their speeches, shouting, spitting saliva,
| calling for raw strength, sacrifice, honor -- it's all
| emotion. Emotion used for evil, but not robotic.
|
| (I think however a degree of detachness must have been needed
| for say, people running extermination camps, gas chambers,
| etc. You must stop seeing your victims as people, you must
| detach yourself to be able to sleep at night. But that's
| different to the rallies and the support for fascism from the
| masses; that was highly emotional).
| stana wrote:
| Romanticism of 19th century can be thought of as rationality
| winning over less rational religion. The 'God is dead' sort of
| thinking. Yet in the midst of all of this rationality and
| scientific progress we end up with 2 world wars?
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think the fascist sells the idea that our feelings of
| weakness can be hardened into solid, rational, scientific,
| truths. This almost seems like... a horrible promise to a
| wounded man, that he could be a machine-man, and that's the
| best he could ever be, and that will give him strength.
|
| Maybe the fascist must appeal to mechanical-ism because his
| philosophy is fundamentally emotion-driven.
|
| The transparent, meritocratic democracy is naturally pretty
| rational in the first place. The pitch is that we're already
| part of a machine, and we can bend it to serve us.
|
| World war 2 was very much not over, when he gave this speech...
| pmcp wrote:
| The film was released in 1940, I feel you are understating
| it's timelyness.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I certainly I didn't mean to!
|
| It is a doubly-interesting speech because he was giving a
| counterpoint to the idea that men should sell out their
| hearts and become cruel machines when it was still up in
| the air, whether or not that Faustian bargain would pay
| dividends (it didn't work out so great for them).
| eli_gottlieb wrote:
| More than that! Fascism was deliberately, consciously _anti-
| rational_. "Reason over feeling" was always the liberal and
| communist line, not the fascist one, on WW2.
| archagon wrote:
| Meanwhile:
|
| > _Trump tells rally immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our
| country'_
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Given that he's married to an immigrant, I highly doubt he said
| that.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I mean, you can just look this stuff up; it's not like what
| ol' Mini-Hands says at campaign rallies is secret or
| anything:
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-
| im...
|
| What you have to remember is that he's not, you know, a smart
| guy. And the base he's appealing to with this stuff are also
| generally, well, probably not in the running for any Nobel
| prizes.
| WrongAssumption wrote:
| https://www.c-span.org/amp/video/?c5098439
|
| He was talking about illegal immigrants. You can disagree
| with that of course, but why leave that out?
| archagon wrote:
| At some point, the dogwhistles become so loud that the
| only ones claiming not to hear them are either
| intentionally plugging their ears or simply concealing
| their delight.
| inemesitaffia wrote:
| Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
| okasaki wrote:
| We fought for liberty and freedom but unfortunately instructions
| unclear and we ended up dropping 500000 tons of bombs on
| Cambodia.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| This thread has some debate about whether thinking or feelings
| lead to the bad mindsets that nurture bad behavior.
|
| For me, bad mindsets typically arise after some thinking. Often
| effortlessly.
|
| Conversely, my best mindsets happen after being engaged in a
| positive effort and/or being in a safe, enriching environment. In
| these conditions, my better self just forms, seemingly without me
| exercising any will.
| BMc2020 wrote:
| _Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have
| guided missiles and misguided men._
|
| Martin Luther King, Jr.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Then again, the whole point of "scientific power" is to
| compensate for our innate weaknesses. Guided missiles may be
| new and perhaps not the best of inventions, but people are just
| as misguided by nature as they were at the dawn of history.
| badrabbit wrote:
| I hate being such a fault finder but his sentiment about people
| and resources is just wrong. The WW2 generation became so peace
| loving after the war not before. Prior to then, war-lust was a
| popular sentiment, some viewed war as an adventure or a rite of
| passage even, especially before the first war.
|
| We humans in general don't want peace, we find it boring I guess.
| He talks about people being treated equally and living on peace
| and how the greedy few are causing war and conflict, that sounds
| nice in a movie but in reality regular everyday people are
| hateful. In the west, we're living in a time of excess and luxury
| and have weaned off all that tribal hatred to the most part now,
| but what scares and frustrates me is that most people don't
| realize the rest of the world isn't so nice. They look at people
| burning american flags for example and think that's the minority
| lol, they think if we were nicer to them they wouldn't hate us so
| much. How naive!
|
| What he said about the good earth being abundant is false too,
| technically correct but abundance exists for some and not others.
| Like in america just about every resource is abundant but in sub-
| saharan africa not so much. Not that the Nazis were using lack of
| resources in their propaganda.
|
| The fear of our own destruction and misery is the only
| practically effective means to achieve peace. That's why nukes
| have been so effective so far, else we would have had more world
| wars.
|
| So long as we crave violence in our every day lives there will be
| war lust and so long as that is true militaries must exist and
| continue to pursue various means of killing people.
|
| The problem is in the human soul and how it is raised and our
| attachments to culture, tradition and history.
|
| Action movies aren't popular with men because we're so peaceful.
| We crave the violence, we just want the situation to be framed so
| that we are the good guys and our violence is justified.
| Deprogrammer9 wrote:
| This part is very interesting. "Even now my voice is reaching
| millions"
|
| Chaplin knew this message was for future generations. When he
| says "even now" it means, hey im long dead but this message is
| finally being herd around the world.
|
| Chaplin & Nikola Tesla were friends. Tesla told Chaplin what was
| to come down the line like the internet, what he called "the
| transmission of intelligence" I honestly wouldn't be surprised if
| Tesla himself didn't write this speech.
|
| "The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does
| not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His
| work is like that of the planter -- for the future. His duty is
| to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the
| way." - Nikola Tesla
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| The bits about "doing away with greed" and science and progress
| leading to rich life and happiness for all, they kind of read
| like he's predicting the United Federation of Planets. Alas,
| we've still got ways to go, we got stuck at the part where we
| double-down on greed to use it as the engine that makes the
| world go.
| Deprogrammer9 wrote:
| Chaplin was an anarchist he was against capitalism & it will
| fully fail soon probably due to AI ect.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Was that speech not made to show the audience how susceptible
| they also were?
| reikan wrote:
| It goes well with this (truncated) version
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PNV6Lg_ajA
| mukara wrote:
| It is said that Franklin D. Roosevelt encouraged Chaplin to make
| the The Great Dictator. Indeed, around the time the film was
| made, the two men shared political views on a lot of things. When
| Churchill and FDR saw a pre-release private screening of the
| film, they liked it. (Incidentally, Chamberlain had vowed to ban
| it in England for fear of angering the actual dictator.) FDR even
| invited Chaplin to read this very speech on his inauguration in
| 1941.
|
| Ironically, this is the film that made Americans turn against
| him. Later that year, he was subpoenaed by a congressional
| committee investigating pro-war propaganda (this was a few months
| before the US entered the war.)
|
| In the following years, Chaplin was extremely vilified by the
| Americans mainly for his pro-Soviet and communist views (or
| rather, for his refusal to be anti-Communist). This led to
| politically-motivated prosecutions, and culminated in him being
| exiled from the US when the president Harry Truman(!) canceled
| his re-entry permit while away on family vacation. (Chaplin was
| never an American citizen, despite living in the country for over
| 40 years.)
|
| There's a recent good book review summarizing this:
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/11/20/charlie-chapli...
| gwern wrote:
| > There's a recent good book review summarizing this:
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/11/20/charlie-chapli...
|
| It's also a good example of how _not_ to defend someone like
| Charlie Chaplin. I knew next to nothing about Chaplin other
| than I had greatly enjoyed some of his movies and he was the
| Little Tramp, but I come out the other end of this attempted
| defense convinced he was a fellow-traveler Communist and
| probably not a very good person aside from the communism part;
| and I wish I had never read that review, because there was no
| need for me to know any of that.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| "Greed has poisoned men's souls"
|
| Greed used to considered a sin. Now it seems to be seen as a
| virtue by some. It's not enough to have a Ferrari - you need to
| have a whole garage full. It's not enough to have a yacht - it's
| got to be a super yacht.
| chopete3 wrote:
| I think he is not referring to an individuals greed, for
| example an actor buying a few Ferrari's to satisfy their
| desires or a business person buying a yatch.
|
| He is referring to political/country leaders greed. Only their
| greed can cause violence and bloodshed at the level he is
| talking about.
|
| Ambition and greed both refer to the intense desire to achieve
| success. Sucess includes money, power, or status.
|
| The difference is a major one. Greed is to achieve those for
| themselves at the cost of depriving others. Ambition is to do
| for greater good of others.
|
| I think all the leaders(democratic,communist,fascist)
| understand this, and they are all likely ambitious. The path to
| achieve success forces them to define boundaries.
|
| They define others as their country people - during the war
| times. In peace times, it is their party supporters.
| supernova87a wrote:
| > " _The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power
| they took from the people will return to the people. And so long
| as men die, liberty will never perish_ ... "
|
| If there was a good argument against the arrogance of
| billionaires who think they should have technology that lets them
| live forever, here it is.
| meehow wrote:
| https://hntelegraph.com/post/the-final-speech-from-the-great...
| rainworld wrote:
| It would be really cool if people stopped being gullible marks
| for psychopathic pedophiles.
|
| _'Perverted, degenerate and indecent acts'_
|
| http://archive.today/2020.07.25-172048/https://www.telegraph...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-17 23:00 UTC)