Hacker News Reader

Great passage

> when you get to thinking that your Idea is more important than people, tread really, really carefully.

Was just thinking about this yesterday as I was thinking of how the Catholic world went from Jesus’ principle of "Love thy neighbor" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to a full blown religious wars and the Inquisition

Obviously people in power will use dogma to their benefit - but all the foot soldiers have is the cognitive dissonance between their orders and their dogma

"of how the Catholic world went from Jesus’ principle of "Love thy neighbor" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to a full blown religious wars and the Inquisition"

One of my favourite debates, but probably not the right place and time for it, to discuss it fully.

But maybe a little bit:

1.Jesus said some other things as well, besides loving everyone, like he is there to bring the sword and he is not there to abolish the law(old testament) but to fullfill it. So of course there is lots of room for interpretation, but nevertheless, this allowed for all the archaic and brutal parts of the law, the old testament, to be included.

2.catholicism became state religion in a empire on the decline, close to collapse.

"but all the foot soldiers have is the cognitive dissonance between their orders and their dogma"

And the foot soldiers of empires, almost always had as the highest dogma - to follow their orders, not to morally judge them. And since the catholic dogma has a lot of battle descriptions included - even the thinking soldiers can find justification, without great cognitive dissonance. But sure, the christian military priests in nazi germany on the frontlines and such, probably had to have a bigger cognitive dissonance from their holy book and their actions.

You have to remember that christianity back then was a state religion which was intended to support state order. Nobody was intended to understand christianity.

When Constantine made christianity the religion of Rome he discovered that christianity was not well defined. Constantine created the Council of Nicaea to clean up the religion. It was a capitol offense to even believe some of the previous christian beliefs if the Nicaean council deleted your belief. Many many christians were executed.

Constantine then decided to make many Roman regions christian in name only. This included incorporating pagan gods as christian saints and adopting pagan festivals and other practices. Only a tiny educated class was expected to understand christianity at all. The uneducated class was not well regarded so that was OK.

The inquisition came much later. The intent of the Inquisition was to expunge the pagan adoption that started under Constantine. Most of the people executed during the inquisition were affiliated with pagan practices. Many of the women were pagan priestesses. At that time you had to read Latin to even understand the bible so I am sure the inquisition was confusing for most people.

Christianity absolutely has core doctrines that existed before the nicenene council- you're advancing a fiction. This idea of Christianity as a state religion is not historical and has no foundation.

Most of the major Pauline Epistles are mid first century, there were theological controversies as Christianity expanded but it's for sure not a state religion. It took centuries for the faith to dominate the pagan empire and the two got along pretty well well into late antiquity. Ultimately, many of the debates within Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries are so obscure we can hardly understand them from a modern perspective- like the miaphysite controversy and countless others.

If you remove the epistles, the old testament, and the apocrypha (meaning of questionable origin) you are left with 4 gospels of which 3 are nearly identical. This is what we have left of the teachings of Jesus. Many known gospels were removed during the Council of Nicaea. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas was removed because it was in conflict with the Gospel of John.

The other controversial issue from the council of Nicaea was the nature of the trinity. Many a holy war was fought over this exact issue for hundreds of years.

I understand what you are saying about Paul - but his assignment was to define a jewish sect for gentiles. That is what the epistles were. Paul redefined our modern understanding of Christianity by aligning the gospels with the intellectual class of the Roman empire.

I don't know if the complex fulfillment of messianic expectation can be reduced to 'love thy neighbor' or if that principle really can be stretched as far as you'd like it to go.

As far as the Inquisition, the historical reality falls far short of the Monty python esque black legend our culture has inherited from protestant Europe. Really, trying to portray the Inquisition that way has more to do with historical anti catholic bias than facts and figures. These sorts of analyses always tend to ignore inter-protestant sectarian violence or any of the killings of catholics by protestants , usually out of ignorance but often due to selective framing for ideological purpose.

It's sad to see when individuals' view of history is reduced to snippets of propaganda. Educate yourself on the both sides of the story, or suffer the risk of having your thoughts be manifestations of someone else's consciousness.

Well, I mean, how many people in the 16th century had a good strong comprehension of the differences between Trans- and Con-substantiation. Like, the final reason the Protestants were unable to reconcile with the Catholics comes down to a linguistics and translation argument that's right out of Bill Clinton's impeachment.

I sincerely doubt the peasants filling out, say, Zwingli's army for instance had any real informed opinion on the liturgical dispute.

> when you get to thinking that your Idea is more important than people, tread really, really carefully. The ground under you isn’t as solid as you think.

> Usually the more desperately you find yourself wishing things like “if only those idiots would see the light then of course we could Solve Everything!!”, the less solid the ground becomes.

As a former vegan that was in the movement for years, I can say in hindsight that those statements are very true.

A very good passage. Here's another one that's relevant, from Lois McMaster Bujold's _Brothers in Arms_:

> “Miles shook his head. “I’ll allow you know the man better than I do. And yet... well, people do get hypnotized by the hard choices. And stop looking for alternatives. The will to be stupid is a very powerful force—“

> This surprised a brief laugh from Galeni, and a thoughtful look.

> “—but there are always alternatives. Surely it’s more important to be loyal to a person than a principle.”

> Galeni raised his eyebrows. “I suppose that shouldn’t surprise me, coming from a Barrayaran. From a society that traditionally organizes itself by internal oaths of fealty instead of an external framework of abstract law—is that your father’s politics showing?”

> Miles cleared his throat. “My mother’s theology, actually. From two completely different starting points they arrive at this odd intersection in their views. Her theory is that principles come and go, but that human souls are immortal, and you should therefore throw in your lot with the greater part. My mother tends to be extremely logical. Betan, y’know.”

Also, the ends don't justify the means, or you'll just end up replacing one kind of tyranny with another.

I've seen this quote before and it seems insightful in its face.

But then I think of an example like vaccine mandates and immediately an area opens up for varied interpretation.

One side would say a mandate (or "public health policy" more generally) treats people as a corporate body of "things" seeking to maximize their lifespan while ignoring their free will and volition.

The other side would say without such a mandate we are unnecessarily harming real people, who would otherwise be railroaded by the irresponsible actions of another.

Or making wearing a seatbelt law. Or perhaps more relevantly to health policy, making drunk driving against the law (since you can harm others, as opposed to seatbelts in which case the harmed is mainly only the seatbelt-objector).

If only more people were rational, and understood how to properly value "small risks with disproportionately large consequences". But there I go touting an ideology, again...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-inertia-trap/201...

It's clear that a line is being crossed though, when we go from "take this external low-cost behavior to enjoy the privilege of driving at 80mph" to "inject this substance into your body or you will be denied all access to public life."

Maybe the line needs to be crossed, but denying that line and ridiculing the people who value the line is not helpful. Bodily autonomy/corporeal sovereignty was historically a cornerstone belief for the same people who now want to deny it from others, and that should not be taken lightly.

I don’t think any group has switched from anti-vaccine mandates to pro-Covid-vaccine-mandates, do you have an example?

Bodily autonomy applies to more than just vaccines.

So you're saying that you are mad that people who believe abortion is a question of bodily autonomy do not also believe that vaccination is a question of bodily autonomy.

Interestingly enough, you appear not to identify with the group that has historically supported the right to abortion as a personal decision, have I interpreted that correctly? And you do identify with the group that believes vaccination should be a personal decision?

> as opposed to seatbelts in which case the harmed is mainly only the seatbelt-objector

Helmet law would be a better comparison. The argument for requiring a seat belt isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's because it's very easy to lose control when things get exciting if you're not belted into the seat. Now you're throwing around a two ton projectile and everyone else's lives are at risk.

> The argument for requiring a seat belt isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's because it's very easy to lose control when things get exciting if you're not belted into the seat. Now you're throwing around a two ton projectile and everyone else's lives are at risk.

This can't be the complete argument, because then it would only apply to drivers. If you're not wearing a seat belt and you're in an accident, you might become a projectile which can cause harm to others in the same vehicle.

Having had an unbelted passenger come to visit me once long ago when I was driving spiritedly, it's important that all passengers are belted in. It's hard to stay focused on driving when someone lands in your lap.

I agree with your beliefs, and I'm triple vaxxed. In my country, vaccination rates are 10+% higher than in the US, despite much less coercion. I suspect a large part of that, is that we don't have nearly the same level of political polarization.

If some person starts to link their identity to not believing in the vaccines, belittling them is not likely to help.

If it hadn't been made political, I would buy your comparison to seatbelts and drunk driving, but as it is, I think it is more comparable to putting a ban on male circumcision.

(Also, for the record, I think both sides of US politics has their own areas where they ignore evidence in favour of what is "correct" thinking for their side.)

Agree.

But both sides have large numbers of people who are still thinking “if only those idiots would see the light then of course we could Solve Everything!!” And who are willing to go to (political) war to force the "idiots" to do what they obviously should.

Within each side, there is hiding a position that genuinely cares about other people. But on both sides, the way it is pursued is very often to just try to run over the other side.

The quote is insightful, because it is insightful, if you forgive some harmless tautology.

A good test of the rule is how well it compares to the situation you want to apply it to. In the case you presented ( 'vaccines' ), for example, there is conscious effort to cast people, who refuse to be vaccinated as subhuman that have no rights in the face of this overwhelming threat.

On the other hand, unvaccinated attempt to portray the 'opposing side' as 'sheeple' riding on pre-existing anti-government strain prevalent in US mainstream.

It does not make the quote less insightful. It just shows that humans instinctively gather into tribes. It used to be the tribes were limited geographically, but this has not been the case for a while.

TLDR; Granny ( and Pratchett ) was not wrong when those words were written. It starts there.

> The other side would say without such a mandate we are unnecessarily harming real people, who would otherwise be railroaded by the irresponsible actions of another.

At best, this is misplacement of blame. The only people placing others in jeopardy are those not getting vaccinated. The rest of us are not responsible just because we didn't tie those people down and inject them. That doesn't mean the rest of us should do nothing about the problem, but neither does it mean that a vaccine mandate is necessarily the appropriate solution.

You will often see such justifications of actions: 1. We are responsible for X. 2. Our solution solves the problem of X. 3. Therefore, our solution must be implemented regardless of your objections.

The problem being (1) may or may not be true; (2) is usually true; but (3) does not follow, because their solution to the problem of X is not the only solution, even if it is their preferred solution because of politics, economy, expediency, convenience, et cetera.

One up for headology!

Granny was the best!

you have me except for the last paragraph. sometimes there really are misguided groups that need to be shown the way. flat earthers are a good example.

>> Usually the more desperately you find yourself wishing things like “if only those idiots would see the light then of course we could Solve Everything!!”, the less solid the ground becomes.

> you have me except for the last paragraph. sometimes there really are misguided groups that need to be shown the way. flat earthers are a good example.

Are they though? Isn't some giant fraction of flat-eartherism self-consciously unserious (e.g. taken up as a joke for fun as a troll), and that that isn't is tiny and utterly marginalized?

That last paragraph you responded to is quite apt for very large numbers of people in the political mainstream that are in no way like the semi-mythical flat-eathers.

> Are they though? Isn't some giant fraction of flat-eartherism self-consciously unserious (e.g. taken up as a joke for fun as a troll), and that that isn't is tiny and utterly marginalized?

Popehat's Law of Goats applies.

I only have to observe a young child for a few moments to see misguided behavior and potentially correct them. In contrast, arguing with groups dug into a position is likely to soak up hours and accomplish nothing.

If you want to advance things, ignore group affiliation. Study ideas and collect everything you can about them to build up knowledge, but if it's genuinely new, expect mostly confusion, dismay or indifference when publishing and presenting. The world doesn't care about knowing things until there is self-interest involved, and then it will care about winning by knowing, as if there is an exam to pass. Most things learned in school, for example, are about passing the exam, and therefore are only learned to be socially correct. This learning enables sophomoric behavior. The really good stuff has to be struggled for in all instances, by each person, at their own pace.

We should expect to mostly be incorrect in trying to save the world, because we aren't good, pure or innocent either.

> flat earthers are a good example

I've thought for a long time that the flat earthers are predominantly not a group of people who actually think the world is flat, but rather a group of people who enjoy the creative mental gymnastics required to try and rationalize it. I'm sure there are some people who actually believe it, but my impression is they are the minority.

What does “shown the way” mean here?