• dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Thanks for linking that. I learned something important today.

      I don’t think there’s anything here that suggests that a person should ascend this hierarchy. Rather, I think our observations fit the contrary: people clearly can hang out indefinitely at any stage. I suppose it comes down to environment, observation, and motivation to move up a stage. If a person’s circumstances never challenge a given world-view, how else would it change?

      What I take away from this is still very positive. What I can see is that a person is unlikely to regress once they understand a more advanced framing for social morality. Each stage carries additional nuance that is incompatible with the more broadly defined stage that precedes it. For example, stage 4 “Law & Order” is incompatible with stage 5 “Social Contract” in that people that adhere to the social contract are typically lawful, but break the law when the law itself (or its enforcement) is unethical. Once a person sees and comprehends that, the evidence is hard to dismiss and a blanket “the law is the law” framing is rendered untenable.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The Internet kind of eliminates our interaction with society and other people, or it sterilizes it, it something. Less personal, and so easier to not care about people, and this harder to feel connection and get to stages 4, 5, and 6. By design, of course.

      • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 hours ago

        People say this type of thing all the time. But really, if someone can’t get along with people online, they can’t do it offline either. The problem with the Internet is that the type of people we all avoid in real life are all online.

        • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I dunno, I have admittedly gotten into arguments on the internet, but the only people I argue with in real life are my friends. I think it’s very easy to dehumanize text on a screen, and like I said I’m guilty of it, not a perfect person (thanks hoobastank, what a fucking stupid name for a band), and interacting with people in your everyday life changes everything. I think, in general, a lot of racism and xenophobia comes from the unknown, and online interaction is basically the unknown.

          I think I’ve said enough times on here that the world has gotten too connected, and that there’s a lot of benefit to be had from interacting with the people in your own community. I’d go to war for New Jersey, or the town I live in, because I have so many connections with those people that ascend our stupid colors or our stupid beliefs. You just won’t find that online.

          And the problem is that I feel it’s by design. Dial the clock back more than 20 years, I remember building some pretty strong friendships with some random posters on ebaums forums. Eventually we were skyping at night, and I was like a 15-16 year old kid, and we had men, women, black white yellow, really bridged a lot of gaps, and I dunno, is it because the Internet was less sterilized, more “go out there and have fun” than it is now?

          I think that Facebook started it, with it’s algorithms, but everything we see is curated, and I just can’t help believe that my anger is bespoke, and that’s fucking stupid. But there’s no way to stop it, save logging off.

          So yeah. I dunno. We’re doomed, I guess.

          • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I think that Facebook started it, with it’s algorithms, but everything we see is curated, and I just can’t help believe that my anger is bespoke, and that’s fucking stupid. But there’s no way to stop it, save logging off.

            I don’t use Facebook, but here, Reddit, and YT, I’ve found that the algorithms are just a mirror of who I am. If I comment or read a post in r/hitman or r/boomershooters I get more posts from those subs. If I watch a Brandon Tenold video or Oddity Archive on YT, I get more movie review recommendations and such.

            I think one way to stop it, is to have no anger. The algorithm is a stupid machine. If you watch a video about Nazis, that’s like typing Nazis into Google. It’s going to give you Nazis. If you watch a video about cats, then your anger is no longer bespoke, and your joy and happiness is curated for you.

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I don’t think it eliminates it, but rather adds an additional, new dimension to social interaction that follows completely different rules. Pseudonymous communication being the norm, for example (which of course, contributes to people being assholes online).

        But there are still rules and conventions that govern social interactions online, as well as different levels of enforcement. For instance, if I replied to you with a comment full of abuse, then you could block me. Additionally, you, or someone else on this thread could report my comment, which might lead to me being banned from this community. If I went and complained about this ban being the result of power tripping mods, people would be able to check the modlog and call me out on my assholeish conduct. And if I was consistently abusive across communities, someone might contact my instance admins (and if there were many abusive users from my instance and the admins didn’t take action, then other instances might consider defederating from my instance). It obviously functions completely differently to offline communication, but online social relations are just as real as offline ones.

        This is one of the reasons why I have been enjoying the fediverse so far. We get to have conversations about how we should handle people acting shitty. Even though big tech also provides ways of blocking or reporting abusive users, there’s a distinct powerlessness due to the lack of transparency and accountability in how moderation happens. And I definitely agree with you that when we look at how the vast majority of people interact online, it does make it easier to not care about people, and to feel more disconnected with society. It’s why I find it so fun and interesting to be in a space where we can have these conversations

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Drugs are often illegal.

    Some legal substances like alcohol are “harder” drugs than many illegal ones like cannabis.

    • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Such laws have no sense when you actually think about it. Such illogical reasonings exist within all law sectors, it is an expertly crafted story made to indoctrinate. Drugs may be an example, but laws which silently encourage mysoginy, racism and ageism also exist, and must be brought to light.

      • Art3mis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Thats the trick. They make laws about “safety” that actually target minorities.

        Cannabis ws used widly in medicine all the way up until the early 20th century. When they made cannabis illegal, it was mostly used by latino and “black” communities. Thats why they started calling it marijuana. It made it sound exotic and hispanic. Any “whites” that joined them were seen as less than and charged too, though to an often lesser extent. Since it was mostly effecting minorities, hippies, and “race traitors”, main stream america was fine with it.

    • BlueFootedPetey@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      You sure? No I dont have citations but I think it was legal. Maybe it wasnt before they started…

      Not trying to argue you down, just curious.

      • katzenkloss@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        It was illegal. The German criminal code has two sections for murder, § 211 Mord (the more severe one) and § 212 Totschlag (the less severe one).

        In the original version from 1870, Mord was killing a human being with deliberation (“mit Überlegung”) and Totschlag was any other intentional killing of a human being.

        In 1941, notably after it had been pointed out that what they were doing was Mord (Wikipedia), the National Socialists changed the law so that § 211 only applied under specific aggravating circumstances (e.g. cruelty or base motives).

        That remains unchanged in the current version (English translation), except for the sentences.

        Those murders are still prosecuted today. For example, in 2022 a former secretary at a concentration camp was sentenced to two years on probation for assistance to murder (Mord) in 10,505 cases (the court applied juvenile criminal law since she was only 18 and 19 years old at the time).

      • punkisundead [they/them]@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        On Reddit there should be multiple posts about this in r/AskHistorians. Thats where remember reading about this in detail. If you have trouble finding any of those threads, I can try to link a few.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      This sounds cool, but I don’t think it’s actually true. For example: most of our drug laws are unjust, but I don’t think it’s moral to disobey them. It’s not immoral either. Morality just doesn’t play a part.

      It is moral to disobey them when they force an action that is immoral.

    • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The only problem is the years of indoctrination which stand behind such laws. Laws may not be factual or even morally right, but it doesnt disqualify them - and that’s by design.

      The ruling class are basically puppeteers, moulding the public into a shape they seem as “appropriate”. The result is the proletariat attacking its own people just because the “law says so, therefore it must be right”.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Which is why RuleOfLegalism needs to be extinguished, & RuleOfJustLaw needs to be made unbreakable.

    This principle has been fought-over since before biblical times.

    It hasn’t been won by RuleOfJustLaw yet.

    but if humankind’s going to survive The Great Filter, these next 6 decades, then it’s going to need to.

    _ /\ _