Totalitarianism and the Five Stages of Dehumanization ⋆ Brownstone Institute | Hacker News Reader

Totalitarianism and the Five Stages of Dehumanization ⋆ Brownstone Institute

brownstone.org

20 pointsmrfusion13 comments

This unhinged, delusional, conspiratorial piece of science denialism (literally claiming science is propaganda**), seemingly disconnected with reality, and describing the "totalitarianism" of science and pandemic restrictions (eyeroll), fails to recognize that the people exhibiting the most violent, totalitarian tendencies are the anti-science, anti-masker, anti-vaxxers the article claims to defend.

Just as an example of the actual dehumanization of scientists being perpetrated by the author of the article himself (emphasis mine):

  "*They* do not believe in anything that is related to personal experience or what is visible, but only in what *they* imagine, what *their* own statistical models say, and the ideologically consistent system *they* have built around it"

You read that right: it's us vs. them, and 'they' are scientists, with statistics, and we are better, with nonstatistical feelings. 'They' don't believe in anything personal! 'They' don't believe in anything visible! 'They' only believe in imagined things! Let's all of 'us' defeat the 'they'! Wait, what was that about dehumanization being bad or something?

** - the relevant quote; It seems the core conceit of the article is that the author has chosen to claim any information they don't like is "propaganda":

  But there is another even more sinister element that totalitarian propaganda historically uses to cajole the masses into following its lead through fear and that is “the use of indirect, veiled, and menacing hints against all who will not heed its teachings (..)”, all the while claiming the strictly scientific and public benefit nature of its argument that those measures are needed. Both the deliberate instrumentalization of fear and the constant referral to “follow the science” by political actors and the mass media in the Corona crisis has been extremely successful as a propaganda tool.

The Nazis rationalized their actions in their own eyes. To them, they thought they were doing the right thing. So it doesn't matter how right you think you are if you're manipulating people's emotions in the same ways to end up in a similar place.

No, it's not different this time. Australia is already denying people their rights for their own good and putting them in a fancy prison, not for some obvious harm they did, but for something they might have.

> The Nazis rationalized their actions in their own eyes. To them, they thought they were doing the right thing. So it doesn't matter how right you think you are if you're manipulating people's emotions in the same ways to end up in a similar place.

Actual benevolent charities also rationalize their actions in their own eyes. To them, they think they're doing the right thing. For that matter, the author of this deceptive blog post probably thought they were doing the right thing, too. So you're right, it doesn't matter how right you think you are.

Indeed, what matters is actual reality, which science helps us get closer to, and posts like this, lambasting science and attacking & dehumanizing scientists, take us further away from.

Ultimately the goal of science deniers like the one who penned this blog entry is for expertise to be nonexistent, and for the dominant voice to be the loudest and angriest one, rather than the one most factually correct.

Those are the actual beginnings of totalitarianism.

The ends don't justify the means. If the benevolent charity starts putting people into camps, it's evil.

"The ends don't justify the means" is an opinion that varies based on the ends, the means, and the person making the opinion.

It's certainly not a substantive, much less convincing, argument in defense of this blog post's discrediting of science and dehumanization of scientists.

Do you believe the ends of making their point justify such means?

> "The ends don't justify the means" is an opinion that varies based on the ends, the means, and the person making the opinion.

How many societies that went down the totalitarian path that would do it again?

We're not talking about spending 4min/day brushing your teeth to stave off gum disease in old age here, the means comes with some pretty damn serious downsides.

> How many societies that went down the totalitarian path that would do it again?

I'm not sure how this relates to my post saying that the ends may or may not justify the means for any given scenario depending on the ends, and the means, and the person rendering judgement.

For example, I judge the ends of "quenching my thirst" to justify the means of "getting something to drink". If the ends never justified the means, I'd die of dehydration.

Now, if you could respond to the part of my above post that occurred after the first sentence, too, it would be much appreciated.

When adding sentences to your post, it's better to explicitly mark them as edits, to avoid confusion when reading replies that were posted before the edit.

I hope you get all the required boosters.

Your hope for my health is the nicest thing I've read today, thank you, friend.

Indeed, I have gotten vaccines and boosters when necessary for my entire life.

Honest question to those who find themselves vehemently disagreeing with one or more parts of this article. Would you still agree that totalitarianism is objectively bad for society? Regardless of which team you play for, surely there is grounds for some consensus here?

Honest answer: Yes, of course totalitarianism is bad. You and I are in agreement there.

Corollary: Not everything that everyone claims is totalitarianism, actually is, and most of the examples described in the article are not.

I noted the following passage

> …the “temporary alliance between the mob and the elite” and that is the willingness of these elites to lie their way into obtaining and retaining power through “the possibility that gigantic lies and monstrous falsehoods can eventually be established as unquestioned facts.”

and also noted the glaring omission of the honourable messers Trump and Johnson, two of the most successful and prolific charlatans of our time.

Up until that point I was quite engaged with the article, but I found quite telling the complete lack of discussion of the world of post-truth politics and how two extremely patrician men managed to mobilize the common people to act against their interests by just lying through their teeth, viz election fraud and saving £350M per week for the NHS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com