#I tried to indent the whole big part in quotes but it wouldn't post

[nerianasims]

The Root of All Cruelty? by Paul Bloom

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/27/the-root-of-all-cruelty

Opening in a private window works. But here are some excerpts:

"The thesis that viewing others as objects or animals enables our very worst conduct would seem to explain a great deal. Yet there’s reason to think that it’s almost the opposite of the truth.

At some European soccer games, fans make monkey noises at African players and throw bananas at them. Describing Africans as monkeys is a common racist trope, and might seem like yet another example of dehumanization. But plainly these fans don’t really think the players are monkeys; the whole point of their behavior is to disorient and humiliate. To believe that such taunts are effective is to assume that their targets would be ashamed to be thought of that way—which implies that, at some level, you think of them as people after all.

Consider what happened after Hitler annexed Austria, in 1938...

The Jews who were forced to scrub the streets—not to mention those subjected to far worse degradations—were not thought of as lacking human emotions. Indeed, if the Jews had been thought to be indifferent to their treatment, there would have been nothing to watch here; the crowd had gathered because it wanted to see them suffer. The logic of such brutality is the logic of metaphor: to assert a likeness between two different things holds power only in the light of that difference. The sadism of treating human beings like vermin lies precisely in the recognition that they are not.

What about violence more generally? Some evolutionary psychologists and economists explain assault, rape, and murder as rational actions, benefitting the perpetrator or the perpetrator’s genes. No doubt some violence—and a reputation for being willing and able to engage in violence—can serve a useful purpose, particularly in more brutal environments. On the other hand, much violent behavior can be seen as evidence of a loss of control. It’s Criminology 101 that many crimes are committed under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and that people who assault, rape, and murder show less impulse control in other aspects of their lives as well. In the heat of passion, the moral enormity of the violent action loses its purchase.

But “Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships” (Cambridge), by the anthropologist Alan Fiske and the psychologist Tage Rai, argues that these standard accounts often have it backward. In many instances, violence is neither a cold-blooded solution to a problem nor a failure of inhibition; most of all, it doesn’t entail a blindness to moral considerations. On the contrary, morality is often a motivating force: “People are impelled to violence when they feel that to regulate certain social relationships, imposing suffering or death is necessary, natural, legitimate, desirable, condoned, admired, and ethically gratifying.” Obvious examples include suicide bombings, honor killings, and the torture of prisoners during war, but Fiske and Rai extend the list to gang fights and violence toward intimate partners. For Fiske and Rai, actions like these often reflect the desire to do the right thing, to exact just vengeance, or to teach someone a lesson. There’s a profound continuity between such acts and the punishments that—in the name of requital, deterrence, or discipline—the criminal-justice system lawfully imposes. Moral violence, whether reflected in legal sanctions, the killing of enemy soldiers in war, or punishing someone for an ethical transgression, is motivated by the recognition that its victim is a moral agent, someone fully human.

In the fiercely argued and timely study “Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny” (Oxford), the philosopher Kate Manne makes a consonant argument about sexual violence. “The idea of rapists as monsters exonerates by caricature,” she writes, urging us to recognize “the banality of misogyny,” the disturbing possibility that “people may know full well that those they treat in brutally degrading and inhuman ways are fellow human beings, underneath a more or less thin veneer of false consciousness.”...

If the worst acts of cruelty aren’t propelled by dehumanization, not all dehumanization is accompanied by cruelty. Manne points out that there’s nothing wrong with a surgeon viewing her patients as mere bodies when they’re on the operating table; in fact, it’s important for doctors not to have certain natural reactions—anger, moral disgust, sexual desire—when examining patients. The philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum has given the example of using your sleeping partner’s stomach as a pillow when lying in bed, and goes on to explore the more fraught case of objectification during sexual intercourse, suggesting that there’s nothing inherently wrong about this so long as it is consensual and restricted to the bedroom...

As a philosopher, Manne grounds her arguments in more technical literature, and at one point she emphasizes the connection between her position and the Oxford philosopher P. F. Strawson’s theory of “reactive attitudes.” Strawson argued that, when we’re dealing with another person as a person, we can’t help experiencing such attitudes as admiration and gratitude, resentment and blame. You generally don’t feel this way toward rocks or rodents. Acknowledging the humanity of another, then, has its risks, and these are neatly summarized by Manne, who notes that seeing someone as a person makes it possible for that person to be a true friend or beloved spouse, but it also makes it possible for people to be “an intelligible rival, enemy, usurper, insubordinate, betrayer, etc.”...

Certainly, Pitzer’s description of various concentration camps contains so many examples of cruelty and degradation that it’s impossible to see them as a mere failure to acknowledge the humanity of their victims. As the scholar of warfare Johannes Lang has observed of the Nazi death camps, “What might look like the dehumanization of the other is instead a way to exert power over another human.”

The limitations of the dehumanization thesis are hardly good news. There has always been something optimistic about the idea that our worst acts of inhumanity are based on confusion. It suggests that we could make the world better simply by having a clearer grasp of reality—by deactivating those brain implants, or their ideological equivalent. The truth may be harder to accept: that our best and our worst tendencies arise precisely from seeing others as human."

[officialcharactersimp]

This is long so I put parts of it in small text to make it take up less space in the dash. Also color coded to chunk it up a little more visually. Bold/indented are the quotes/parts I'm responding to. @peachyteabuck, thank you for raising the points you did, as they do deserve to be addressed.

While I understand the desire to start a fanfic union, it's always the blogs who have been here for less than a year and a half. They also never consult other blogs (like me) who have tried and failed to do something and start a fanfic union.Also the existence of data doesn't spur change- I promise a mathematical analysis of like:reblog ratio won't do anything.

Age of blog and time doesn’t matter all that much, truthfully. You can see a lot in 18 months on this godforesaken website that all of us refuse to leave. I’ve been on tumblr since, what 2014? Yeah, 2014. Although I’m not aware of your specific attempt, I am aware (as we all are) that people have attempted such a thing before. Also, be careful not to fall into the “always” and “never” fallacy. How old was your blog when you tried yours? Did you ask older blogs? Besides that, some of the blogs involved actually are blogs older than a year and a half.

If you have any advice for us younguns, feel free to give it. What worked? What didn’t work? It doesn’t matter if the whole operation “failed,” what matters is that somewhere in there, there must’ve been a nugget or two that went well. If all you have to say as an older blog is “it won’t work, there’s no point in trying,” then why would anyone ask you for advice on it? I do genuinely want to know what worked and what didn’t--feel free to reach out.

Furthermore, it’s not even been a full 24 hours since my ADHD-ass thought of the idea of “huh, I wonder what the exact ratios of random statistics are on my blog!” Then as the numbers came together, I was like “hey this is kinda shitty” and told my pals about the shitty numbers. They were like “post it!” and I was like “fuck yeah! But I need more numbers! It would not be an ethical or credible study in statistics if I only took numbers from mine own blog!” So I started gathering more data and working with a friend who also likes math.

I’m not gonna lie, even as someone who’s seen a bajillion posts about how low the ratio is, it surprised me. It surprised me even more how similar the numbers are across the board. I know not everyone is a whore for math and statistics and numbers like I am, but I was intrigued. I am intrigued. I’m collecting and calculating statistics in several different areas, too, not just likes:reblogs.

You might say statistics don’t make a difference, but I’ve seen it happen. I for one have been swayed by statistics. Even in looking at the numbers myself, I really thought for a moment about how many posts I reblog versus like. Numbers don’t lie, especially when everyone’s getting the same answer. It might not make a big impact, but having concrete facts and data is helpful 99/100. Even if it doesn’t help here, so what? I like doing it. It’s fun and it interests me.

And like, what would the union do. Would it collect dues? Would it stabilize commission prices? Would it require minimum comments to update? How would you communicate? How do people display their allegiance publicly? What do you accept as fanfic subject, what wouldn't you? Until I see those logistics ironed out, I refuse to accept the idea of a fanfic writer union and anything but another bright light about to fizzle out.

That is an excellent point! A few excellent points, actually!

Truthfully, we’re using the word union in a mostly joking manner. You know. Scare the capitalists or whatever.

HOWEVER.

The point of this is less creating a union and more a sense of unity. It can feel really lonely as a writer, I’m sure you know. I’ve tried and failed to start a writing account before, but this time I got lucky because I made friends with a lot of my mutuals who also write. We’re all in a discord together with around 40 people. Nearly all of us are writers.

We also interact with each other’s pieces. We reblog and like and comment and share all the time. Of course, we don’t reblog stuff that’s not our cup of tea. For instance I don’t usually reblog stuff with only carol danvers in it cuz I’m not super interested in her. And that’s fine!

Focusing on the numbers and not the feelings and sense of community and all that mushy shit, though, I can exactly point to you and show you where a mutual reblogged and the boom of notes right after, including likes, reblogs, and new followers. I am certain my blog would not be what it is if I hadn’t met them.

Community = support = growth.

The “union” would, at its core, be a way to communicate during the strike, a way to find new friends, and a way to get the interaction that all writers deserve.

Would it collect dues?

Interacting (especially reblogging) with each other’s posts can be seen as a due, but it’s not some authoritarian iron-fist regime. If someone made a post that genuinely wasn’t someone’s cup of tea, it’s not like they’d be voted off the island or shamed for it.

Would it stabilize commission prices?

Well, I’ve never seen a paid commission fanfic, so I would assume not.

Would it require minimum comments to update?

No. We’re still individual blogs at different points. But we might help each other create specific goals.

How would you communicate?

Tumblr group chat or discord.

How do people display their allegiance publicly?

They could put a note in their description or in their navigation post, if applicable.

What do you accept as fanfic subject, what wouldn't you?

Honestly, writer whatever the fuck you want so long as there’s no child smut or child-adult romances. I for one am not a fan of incest and I find most others are also not. You wanna ship clintasha? Fine! It’s your blog. Doesn’t mean everybody will be obligated to like it. But do what you want.

While I understand the desire to start a fanfic union, it's always the blogs who have been here for less than a year and a half. They also never consult other blogs (like me) who have tried and failed to do something and start a fanfic union.

Also the existent of data doesnt spur change- I promise a mathematical analysis of like:reblog ratio won't do anything.