Hacker News Reader

Comment by AntiImperialist | Hacker News Reader

On a related note: one of the funniest things as a non-westerner to me is that a majority of westerners are convinced that when they vote, if they vote for policies that favor their own country, their own well-being, it is wrong.

Here's a hint for those who are struggling: if you're convinced that you should vote against yourself, you've been brainwashed by your enemies.

To those who are feeling anger after reading my comment: that's the trauma trapped in your body being triggered. That's what consumes your intellectual abilities and that is exactly what keeps the brainwashing in.

It helps to be centered (i.e. find your safe place, find peace in your relationships, family or whatever personal/emotional issues you're struggling with, because it is negative feelings that you hold in your body, which is used to brainwash you)... and then when you're relaxed, the reality becomes more clear.

View on HN

Some westerners don't identify strongly with a specific country. I am one of those.

We might consider the "good" of "all" people above the good of our country.

When that is your mindset, voting for policies that favor your own country, your own well-being can in fact feel wrong, if it is at the cost of other people's well-being.

Greater good is often used as a reason to grab power from individuals, whether it is by foreign nations, corporations or even other national government.

I am not talking about that. Groups exist for a reason. The biggest reason is that other groups exist. You can either be attacked by those or join them or create your own. Your group can be a political one, which in some cases may end up having their own nation state. If the group can defend a territory and its resources, sustain it, and gain respect, other groups may eventually acknowledge it. You may take these for granted but these things are not set in stone, they're fluid. Many people in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Palentine think they are a nation state. Most other nation state don't acknowledge them as such... mostly because they're not powerful enough.

You can deny or devalue your own nationality but what you cannot deny is that nation states exist and they have incredible power, because they have to have at least enough power to defend and sustain themselves. They are definitely not the only organized power structures, but they are major ones. Maybe Open Society Foundation is right. Maybe all borders should be open, everything should be controlled by shared ideals with one world government and efficient open economy. They seem to think they have ways to make that work. Maybe they can. But until and unless they do that, we have to live with the ones we have, which grant the citizens certain rights and protections and subjects them to laws and regulations in exchange.

What I am talking about in my previous comment is not these things. I'm talking about the brainwashing by various forces (Open Society Foundation being one of them), which have made nationalism repulsive... by using simple brainwashing techniques. Most of these people would not be able to have a rational conversation about cost/benefits of having nation states or favoring your nation. They're triggered into an emotional response when the topic comes up.

That's quite an unusual view. It's not at all hard to find evidence of pro-nationalist propaganda because it's ubiquitous.

Anti-nationalist views are much rarer and much less common in virtually all media. In the US you're going to have a hard time finding progressives who explicitly want to destroy America. They may disagree with American policy in a number of areas, but that's a long way from wanting to get rid of the country and its traditions.

Likewise elsewhere. It's probably weakest in the EU because the EU isn't a country so much as a work in progress - and it doesn't even have its own sports teams.

Personally I've never heard of the Open Society Foundation, although it sounds as if I'd agree with their views.

A set of relatively uncontroversial statements about Westphalian nation-states ... and then a dig at the OSF. Why does this always come down to people having a go at George Soros?

Is it by any chance because he backed the Western side in Ukraine?

Why does this always come down to people having a go at George Soros?

Why did I bring up an organization founded by George Soros, a person who believes that nation states should not exist, when discussing nation states? Why do you think?

> majority of westerners are convinced that when they vote, if they vote for policies that favor their own country, their own well-being, it is wrong.

Think about this for one second and it's obviously not true. A majority? Against "their own well being"?

It's a misrepresentation of the anti-majoritarianism and anti-nationalism that says that it's necessary to consider whether what you're advocating has major negative effects on other people for minor or illusory benefits to yourself.

No. Under a reasonable set of values "what's good for the US" and "what's good for the world" are so often aligned that it's a very good heuristic.

Most policies aren't that clear cut. For example, if you vote for free trade, it's probably a win for your own country in the aggregate and hence a win for everybody long term, but it can have major negative impacts on individuals or even communities in the short to medium term.

True. What is also true is if you play fair while others don't, you won't be able to play for long. So, it's also unfair to continue enabling foul play. Free trade can only exist in presence of certain strongly enforced rules and they are not easy to enforce across borders.

But that's a different discussion. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about those who aren't able to think rationally through these things because they have been exposed to targeted techniques by adversaries. They're triggered into an emotional response every time they encounter other ways of thinking than they have been programmed to.

Let us think as PR firms for a second. There is a lot of nuances in greater truths which can be tuned to make anything sound reasonable. We can design experiments a certain way, we can frame questions a certain way, highlight certain things and present it to the journalists... who will happily publish our well thought our well reasoned ideas, backed by stats and surveys and facts and experiments. Our biggest problem is the rest of the truth. When people realize that, our messages will be of less value. Other PR firms with other interests who benefit from the other parts of the truth and people can make reasoned decisions as different realities are presented to them by different interests. We'll have to constantly do better and present our side.

That's how the PR industry has been functioning for the last 100 years or so. I think that's all fair.

But what if there was a way to prevent people from even navigating to the other parts of the truth that we, as a PR firm, don't want them to?

There is and it is widely used today. Once the cat is out of the bag, unfortunately, everyone has to play like that... and that is what has been happening. There's a reason why calm well-reasoned ideological discourses are less of a thing now. Everything evokes strong emotions and rational discussions barely happen.

We have a good 30 to 40 years of evidence on this. What is shows is, in the absence of strong safety nets and labor and environmental controls (which are often explicitly limited by the trade deals themselves), trade is a very small benefit to workers in developing countries, and a huge gift to corporations and higher income individuals and a disaster for the working class in developed countries.

Westerners claim that the vote for selfless do good things, but usually the practical consequences of what they want benefits them personally.

For example they will go to organic shop to 'save the planet' and 'be fair to third world countries', but those shops also exclude the poor and the minorities due to their pricing and thus let them keep their closed communities, while the universalist political message works against the competition from doing the same.

Quite a few of those Westerners will also volunteer for food banks and work as political activists trying to make food banks unnecessary. (For example.)

So I'm not convinced your point is correct.

”If what I say makes you angry I’m right and you are brainwashed.”

That would be great but the problem is that I may be wrong... but I'll never hear why or be able to have reasonable discussion with anyone because your brainwashing prevents you from remaining calm and explaining.

So, people who disagree with you, can never calmly explain their position? You also expect this state of affairs to never change.

That must be frustrating.

So, people who disagree with you, can never calmly explain their position?

Not never, but it often seems very difficult for certain people. I get emotionally charged reactions, both online and IRL.

You also expect this state of affairs to never change.

What do you mean? I think these things can change. The brainwashing is usually kept in by evoking a traumatic response. If the trauma is healed, the brainwashing doesn't stick around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com