That said, I think, historically, a substantially part of the reason mentally people usually are harmless is because they can see their grasp on reality is shaky. Others have generally not shared their delusions and so no one validates their desires to lash out at those who they imagine have harmed them.
The Internet seems to have changed that - communities of people who share pathological illusions seem to have come together and produced a still small number of horrendous crimes - the "incel movement" being one very visible example.
These folks might well in dangerous (to others) gray area between debilitating insanity and approximate sanity. Pathological enough to embrace problematic ideas and functional enough act on them.
Now that has changed, and everyone, however disorganized and deprived of resources, can publish their every thought. People who think they’ve been “gang stalked” and people who think that the government is behind contrails all have a megaphone to the world. As a “bonus” they also are able to just type their delusions into Google and find sites to confirm and expand them. The same network effect that connects hobbyists and enthusiasts of rare things around the world does the same for people with delusional frameworks.
It also does the same for Holocaust deniers, and general shitheads.
It's hard to phrase these things. I wouldn't say people were less confident in the delusional beliefs. Rather, an isolated delusional person has less general confidence - the world is "against them" and their relative weakness relative to the world is fairly evident.
Overall, success at doing horrible things requires some of the same mix that success at doing constructive things needs; confidence, support, plans and ideas. The process you describe and we all can see helps in all those things.
A recent example that comes to mind: https://www.patreon.com/posts/18049311
This post raises a lot of questions that I don't have a good answer to.
If this is Kiwi Farms, though... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms
Some people don't really care what cause they get behind so long as they get to bully people and raise hell. They'd be anarchists, leftists, alt-right, whatever, so long as they get to beat up people and set things on fire.
This is not to say both political extremes are identical, but that certain people will latch on to any group that will tolerate their behaviour.
[edit] sounds like kiwifarms is a 4chan-type trolling/alt-right site and simply got tumblr to also attack these poor folks by making up stories about them being animal abusers.
"Still, this should be mundane. People say a wrong thing on the Internet. It happens.
The trouble is, young "progressives" at the moment are falling all over themselves to be part of an expulsion — to root out and help exile some secret predator hiding in plain sight.
So if you have a target whose life you want to ruin for funsies, all you need to do is dig through their history for some circumstantial evidence, concoct a vaguely related story that makes them sound horrible, and circulate it in a callout post.
The problem, then, is not that someone pulled a story about Styx out of their ass. The problem is that Kiwi Farms is a well-oiled machine for producing hundreds of such stories, and the one about Styx is now listed on a Tumblr somewhere under a heading like "animal abuse", calling me a "known literal animal abuser". Because someone can't read Wikipedia."
Sounds like someone found these stories, misinterpreted them (wilfully or not) to sound like abuse, then got tumblr all riled up to harass them. I suppose the initiator wasn't necessarily from that space, but it certainly seems like tumblr/progressives are taking part in the harassment.
(I'm saying "allegedly" here because, honestly, I haven't had the time to dig into fact-checking the story. I don't believe the author is lying, however.)
The whole “someone can’t read Wikipedia” excuse is exactly the same as what trolls themselves say.
The common theme being you suffered so you deliver 100x suffering in return in cruel and unusual ways. Redefining karma as cold revenge, being an innocent victim who is a victim but no longer innocent.
This doesn’t even come close to healthy. It usually takes therapy to get there in such a case but when you revel in the pain...
"Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it."
"When you’re in business, you get even with people that screw you. And you screw them 15 times harder."
Anecdotally, I was screwed once in a business. I didn’t retaliate. Same thing happened a second time because this person knew I wouldn’t react.
I won’t let it happen again.
Edit:: to be clear, I’m talking 7-figure screwed, not “this person was mean to me”.
There's a difference between not letting someone take advantage of you and spending significant time repaying every perceived slight 10 fold. Even iterative prisoners dilemma shows that without forgiveness a tit for tat strategy dissolves into an endless cycle of vengeance.
You grasped the idea very well. Life in the West gives you a lot of "false idols," way more than just plain income (in)security and social acceptance.
A lot of very well doing people are insecure about what you call class attributes: "have you sent your kid to an Ivy league college? is your MBA still hip enough? have you launched a tech startup by 30? have you appointed trophy diversity hires of a current trendy ethnicity to your C-Suite? is an apartment you bought shares the floor with influential people A, B, and C?" and so on.
I myself felt nearly crushed morally when my employer was unsuccessful extending my work permit in Canada after 6 years of my life there. I worked towards having "a perfect immigration case" since my mid-teens: from learning French, to having all and every pre-college education credentials that can benefit an immigration application possible, and yes, studying like crazy, wasting best years of life for a piece of paper.
Now, I'm feeling more or less recovered from that. Not only I came back with a heavy bag of cash, I was still doing more than 99% of locals just from "insubstantial" freelance gigs, had solid resume, and tons of calls from recruiters offering jobs in every country imaginable, and finally, after nearly 9 years of my life I could wake up at a time of my volition, and not what was mandated by job or college. That last thing was near surreal for me at the time.
But what was the best was not "prestige checkboxes" on the resume, nor an approving looks of female classmates from my highschool class, nor a trophy apartment I bought for pocket change when the Rouble was on its way to a seafloor. The best things from all of that were things of universal value: skills, life experience, being alive and well, fat rolodex, and knowledge "where to scratch fat cats" from places awash with cash.
Now I'm happy working in engineering consulting with a Chinese company, netting more than 99.99% of locals, having nearly careless lifestyle in comparison to what I had, and living in a city without gloomy weather. I can't believe that just 2 years ago I thought of my whole life as failure.
Another valuable thing, China has introduced me to was the entirely different, "BS Free," work culture centered on value: contract, payment, and CAD files in the morning — widgets ready in the evening, without any manager title holder in the loop.
TFA is set in Tokyo, which is decidedly not the West. Yes, you can take your skills and go to a developing nation where you will probably be much more qualified than most of the locals, but that's not the broader question at stake, nor does it really take into account what the lives of locals are like. I have faith that the world will, eventually, be filled with mostly developed nations. These problems increasingly seem to be plaguing all developed nations.
Don't get me wrong, in Russia, you have many times more people with 6 years degrees in the industry than in US. That's a hard fact. And so is China for as long as you consider the part of the workforce born after economic liberalisation in parts of the country where the industry took off.
>not the broader question at stake
Well, I was just trying break the going narrative of "Internet troll" being thrown on every "looser" or basically unpopular person with Internet presence.
I'm confused, what does the comparison of the number of higher education degrees between the US, Russia and China have to do with taking your skills to a "developing nation"? Are China and Russia supposed to be considered developing nations in this comparison?
As such, your using them as examples or counter examples of developing countries is confusing (at least to me), and I think is misinterpreting the meaning of the original statement.
Indeed. Me coming back to Russia was nowhere near a typical "downshifting" case. If I were to compete with locals on the job market, I wouldn't have lasted long. People who can ace ACM olympics prequalification tests are only passing as junior devs here.
These might be times of abundance, but not societal abundance. Trump did not win speaking about there being societal abundance. It does not exist in the US, and certainly not in the third world. Just walk down to the Tenderloin in San Francisco or take an extended walk around Oakland, and you can see this for yourself.
I'm surprised that you think that. What would you consider a scarce good in today's society?
Many women do not have access to or can afford feminine hygiene products in the world or US.
If high speed internet can be considered a good, it's a scarce utility in many parts of the world.
I think there's still many basic needs or utilities that are scarce...
https://www.economist.com/asia/2015/04/04/struggling
> Last year, the Japanese government recorded relative poverty rates of 16%—defined as the share of the population living on less than half the national median income. That is the highest on record. Poverty levels have been growing at a rate of 1.3% a year since the mid-1980s. On the same definition, a study by the OECD in 2011 ranked Japan sixth from the bottom among its 34 mostly rich members. Bookshops advertise a slew of bestsellers on how to survive on an annual income of under ¥2m ($16,700), a poverty line below which millions of Japanese now live.
This is not necessarily poverty, it is just a measure of income inequality. If we read Wikipedia [1]:
> In Japan, relative poverty is defined as a state at which the income of a household is at or below half of the median household income ... According to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the mean household net-adjusted disposable income for Japan is US$23,458.
Half of that is $11,700 and while living on that can be tough, I am not sure if that can be called poverty. Also, there is a minimal wage of 736 yen/hour (in the poorest regions) which is 117760 yen/month or $1063. So if a household has an income of $1000/month it means that one of two people is slacking off instead of working.
For comparison, in Estonia minimum monthly wage is 500 Euro (585 USD), in Russia it is $286 in Moscow and Saint-Petersburg and about $150 in other regions. Earning $1000 a month looks like a luxury for most people outside of two largest cities.
It is also important to remember that the climate is much warmer in Japan than in Russia so the the life should be cheaper, you don't have to pay for warm clothes and central heating.
The cost of living in Estonia is much lower than Japan. You're not making an apples-to-apples comparison. The US comparison is more apt. Think about what your life would be like if you made the same amount of money as you do now but lived in Thailand (or if they did the same for the average Thai person) and you might understand why they choose to measure poverty this way.
In Japan, you get healthcare and pay as low as 5% of the cost of care. That's a pretty significant difference.
Are you implying that a post-scarcity society will be pleasant for everyone? I don't think that.
If we contemplate a post scarcity world, one needs to consider absolute measures like life expectancy and maybe education levels or something like that.
Not arguing that everyone has it easy in Japan, just that by these types of metrics it’s one of the closest places we have to look at if we want to think about post-scarcity.
I’d note this quote from the article: “The country has long prided itself on ensuring that none of its citizens falls between the social cracks. Japan’s orderly, slum-free neighbourhoods seem to confirm that. Street crime, even in Kotobuki, is minuscule.“
No one - least of all me - is arguing that there aren't poor people.
My point is that this is what a predecessor to a post-scarcity society could look like.
Do you think there won't be poor people in a post-scarcity society? Or there won't be people who fall though the cracks in that society?
I think if there are you can't really call it one. America is the richest country on Earth so if it's just about how you theoretically could have a society free of want if you totally reconfigured who has what then I guess we're on the cusp too! Great news!
I genuinely have no idea what you think a post-scarcity society is.
Where society has enough for all and attempt to allocate it in a way that all gets what they need.
Japan is about as close to that as exists. Yes, people fall though the cracks, but the same will happen in post-scarcity society. People will refuse to live by society's rules so they won't get their universal income, or they will have mental illness and unable to arrange their life to avoid suffering.
That isn't dissimilar to Japan. No one is staving to death, people get basic healthcare (mostly), but there are still people who society fails - and it isn't a lack of resources that causes that in Japan.
Is that true? Everything else I've heard about Japan says poverty is common and severe there.