(May 2, 2025 at 11:18 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 2, 2025 at 3:36 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: These politicians weren't chosen in elections.

Of course not, in most cases. But they are tolerated even in the absence of elections, until a polity decides that "this is bullshit". I saw that exact thing happen in Iran in 1978, where an autocrat who was happy to kills thousands to preserve his power was all the same chucked out of office.

No government can survive when the body politic is fed up. Louis XVI, Tsar, Shah, the Soviet Union, all terrible regimes, all overthrown either by the people themselves or by a military that responded to public opinion.

If I recall correctly it was food that played big role in overthrowing Louis XVI and Tsar. It would indicate that people are willing to tolerate much as long as they're fed. Other than that I imagine populace reason for not standing up to tyranny are as varied as populaces itself.

(May 2, 2025 at 11:57 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote:

(May 2, 2025 at 5:30 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: But why?  Why would that be insane or stupid to expect?  Whatever it is you're thinking of there, that makes it seem obvious to you that this is a batshit expectation...is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I use the term "human nature".  You indicate just in this sentence that you think it's predictive enough to consider a third party stupid or insane just for having expectations contrary to whatever that is.

Why it would be insane to expect populace already tired of war to support gov that want them to stay in war and is incompetent to boot. Even brightest minds of our era can't grap why it would be insane.   I give you a hint though, it's not because of human nature, but merely because people aren't as foolish as incompetent politicians imagine them to be.

B-mine.

That, right there, is a comment on human nature.

(May 3, 2025 at 12:08 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: If I recall correctly it was food that played big role in overthrowing Louis XVI and Tsar. It would indicate that people are willing to tolerate much as long as they're fed. Other than that I imagine populace reason for not standing up to tyranny are as varied as populaces itself.

Good old bread and circuses. 

You probably know the old joke about the Soviet Union --- if they had had two Communist Parties, a Red Team and a Blue Team, they'd still be in power. 

Half the populace would blame the Red Team and imagine that the Blue Team wanted to save them. And the other half would believe the reverse. Then the two parties could switch in and out of office every few years, and people would imagine it's not really a tyranny. 

That's what I see when people blame everything on one party, and refuse to accept criticism of the other.

(May 3, 2025 at 12:10 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(May 2, 2025 at 11:57 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: Why it would be insane to expect populace already tired of war to support gov that want them to stay in war and is incompetent to boot. Even brightest minds of our era can't grap why it would be insane.   I give you a hint though, it's not because of human nature, but merely because people aren't as foolish as incompetent politicians imagine them to be.

B-mine.

That, right there, is a comment on human nature.

Sure, sure. Every comment ever made is comment on the human nature.

(May 3, 2025 at 12:14 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 3, 2025 at 12:08 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: If I recall correctly it was food that played big role in overthrowing Louis XVI and Tsar. It would indicate that people are willing to tolerate much as long as they're fed. Other than that I imagine populace reason for not standing up to tyranny are as varied as populaces itself.

Good old bread and circuses. 

You probably know the old joke about the Soviet Union --- if they had had two Communist Parties, a Red Team and a Blue Team, they'd still be in power. 

Half the populace would blame the Red Team and imagine that the Blue Team wanted to save them. And the other half would believe the reverse. Then the two parties could switch in and out of office every few years, and people would imagine it's not really a tyranny.

Joke hits too close as many Poles acts as if they would have only 2 parties to choose from.

Quote:That's what I see when people blame everything on one party, and refuse to accept criticism of the other.

It can happen when politics becomes part of one personality. As far as I am concerned politicians are like cleaning service - they're doing specific job for agreed upon pay and if they fuck up then they should be dropped without sentimentality getting in a way.

(May 3, 2025 at 12:14 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: people aren't as foolish as incompetent politicians imagine them to be.

Quote:Sure, sure. Every comment ever made is comment on the human nature.  

No..Ivan...but that one is, and explicitly so.   We can disagree on whatever you like, all we're talking about now is translation, though.  We both have opinions on human nature, we both think it's strongly predictive. We appear to disagree on it's contents, and on what those contents mean for a moral appraisal of humanity.....not it's existence.

I struggle a bit to describe what human nature is. It seems to me that all humans have different motivations and methods of behavior.

Certainly, you see similarities within certain families or larger communities.

Working together for the good of the whole was certainly a factor in keeping groups alive. Strength in numbers as well as a comfort level with what is familiar is a reason to behave in like ways.

But in amongst humans at large are those who are not interested in working together and there are those who are prone to be destructive.

(May 3, 2025 at 12:25 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(May 3, 2025 at 12:14 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: people aren't as foolish as incompetent politicians imagine them to be.

Quote:Sure, sure. Every comment ever made is comment on the human nature.  

No..Ivan...but that one is, and explicitly so.   We can disagree on whatever you like, all we're talking about now is translation, though.  We both have opinions on human nature, we both think it's strongly predictive.  We appear to disagree on it's contents, and on what those contents mean for a moral appraisal of humanity.....not it's existence.

You don't get to dictate meaning of my comments and I state clearly that one you mention wasn't about human nature. I don't think that human nature is predictive as it is merely buzzword that can be tacked on everywhere but with zero explanatory power. Politicians are corrupt - human nature, priests fuck little kids - human nature, people vote fascists - human nature. This crap seemingly fit everywhere yet explain nothing serving only to discourage attempts at providing real answer.

I'm telling you that -I- use the term to describe what you're describing in that comment.

Politicians are corrupt, but why? Priests fuck little kids, but why? People vote for fascism, but why? Each of these things can be explored in the context of human nature...and as it so happens, those three things have alot of overlap. We're not all individual little snowflakes. We are natural creatures with hereditary abilities, concerns, and flaws. Human nature. Two groups of people who vote for fascism probably have alot in common..and if we dive deeper, we'd find that they have alot in common with people who don't. The people who don't are not a different animal, or a different class, or inherently better. They've found some other outlet (hopefully a decent one, lol) for that common human nature that causes the notable and notably repeated fuckup in humans.

Ethnic nationalism shrinks a circle. Civic nationalism enlarges one. They appeal to many people for pretty much the same reasons, but they have wildly different outcomes. Each manipulates and exploits human nature. Our tribalism and our empathy, specifically.

(May 3, 2025 at 12:30 am)arewethereyet Wrote: I struggle a bit to describe what human nature is.  It seems to me that all humans have different motivations and methods of behavior.

Certainly, you see similarities within certain families or larger communities.

Working together for the good of the whole was certainly a factor in keeping groups alive.  Strength in numbers as well as a comfort level with what is familiar is a reason to behave in like ways.

But in amongst humans at large are those who are not interested in working together and there are those who are prone to be destructive.

It's nothing. Or perhaps secular version of god, conjured when someone isn't interested in providing real answer. Whether one will say "god did it" or "it's a human nature" in response to something is immaterial as both these "answers" have zero explanatory power.