#ethics and human behavior

[bayesiandragon]

It seems that navigating the duel truths that 1) certain environmental circumstances and life experiences, especially if experienced at an early age, tend to predispose certain people to antisocial behavior at higher rates within the population, and that 2) it's ultimately one's own responsibility to be a good person and going one way or the other involves series of choices in which you have agency, is something that many have trouble with. So I often observe debates over it just ending up in increasingly polarized exchanges that devolve into the extremes of "you think circumstances excuse/force <behavior>!" vs "you think circumstances have no meaningful influence and doing <behavior> is a completely arbitrary decision!" Like homies, both can be true, they aren't mutually exclusive!

[tomwambsgans]

tomgreg is not "i could fix him" nor "i could make him worse" but "i could make him feel like a real person." from both ends.

[bottombaron]

whenever i think abt writing Nandor and i get going thru a series of sequences of him behaving like a well-adjusted, caring, adult i have to stop myself, backspace several mental paragraphs and remember that he's basically a semi-captive lion being observed in a nature documentary and he functions on 92% Id

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Behavior

The philosophy of behavior, also known as the philosophy of action, is a branch of philosophy that examines the nature, causes, and significance of human and animal behavior. It seeks to understand the underlying principles that govern actions and the relationship between behavior, intentionality, and agency. Key concepts and theories in the philosophy of behavior include:

Intentionality: Intentionality refers to the directedness or purposefulness of mental states and actions. Philosophers explore how intentions influence behavior and the role of intentionality in understanding the meaning and rationality of actions.

Free Will: The question of free will is central to the philosophy of behavior. Philosophers debate whether individuals have the capacity to choose and control their actions freely, or if behavior is determined by factors beyond conscious control, such as genetics, environment, or unconscious processes.

Agency: Agency refers to the capacity of individuals to act independently and make choices. Philosophers examine the conditions under which agents can be held responsible for their actions, the relationship between freedom and responsibility, and the constraints on agency imposed by social, cultural, and psychological factors.

Motivation: Motivation plays a crucial role in behavior, influencing the reasons why individuals act in particular ways. Philosophers analyze the nature of motivation, including desires, beliefs, emotions, and values, and how these factors shape behavior and decision-making.

Action Theory: Action theory explores the nature of actions, their causal mechanisms, and the criteria for distinguishing between intentional and unintentional actions. Philosophers investigate the structure of actions, the role of mental states in guiding behavior, and the relationship between actions, outcomes, and consequences.

Practical Reasoning: Practical reasoning involves the process of deliberation and decision-making in everyday life. Philosophers examine how individuals reason about actions, weigh competing values and considerations, and make choices based on practical concerns and ethical principles.

Behaviorism: Behaviorism is a psychological approach that emphasizes observable behavior and external stimuli as the primary determinants of behavior. Philosophers discuss the implications of behaviorism for understanding human agency, consciousness, and the mind-body relationship.

Ethical Behavior: Ethics considers the moral dimensions of behavior, including questions of right and wrong, good and bad, and the principles that guide ethical conduct. Philosophers explore ethical theories and principles, moral reasoning, and the application of ethical norms to individual and collective behavior.

The philosophy of behavior addresses fundamental questions about human nature, consciousness, and the factors that influence how individuals act and interact in the world.

[skitskatdacat63]

If anyone(read: nobody) was curious about Ustinya's scale :D

[public-cloud-computing]

Dive into the world where human intuition seamlessly integrates with AI brilliance in web development. Elevate your online presence with the perfect fusion of creativity and technology.

[string-cheese-cake]

Nobody asked but white supremacy is the reason why white women are obsessed with true crime.

So when chattel slavery was becoming cemented in the United States and other European areas, the idea of biological race and racial hierarchy emerged to justify the generational enslavement of Africans and the genocide of indigenous people. Africans and other non-whites were labeled as less developed, more susceptible to their "primal urges" and committing sex crimes and therefore needed to be controlled by white men. Specifically to protect white women.

White supremacy is typically framed as necessary to 'protect' (read: control) white women, the mothers of the next generation of whites. They must be protected from "sexually voracious black men" (read: miscegenation and mixed race children). So white supremacy operates on the myth that white women are constantly under threat of sexual violence and must be protected by white men.

That myth becomes baked into the public consciousness, many unaware of the origin or even that the idea is there. It even becomes less racially based, but there is still a common belief that white women are inherently vulnerable to violent crime. Especially among white women. To be fair, it's difficult to not internalize an idea that you are not exactly aware of but is still seeped in every interaction and bit of advice. Don't wander off, don't talk to strangers, don't go out alone or late at night, cover your body, hold your keys between your fingers, take self defense, watch your drink, don't be under the influence. Your body is soft and valuable and delicate and you must protect it.

This idea of vulnerability is reinforced in the news media, which chooses to focus on stories which fit this particular narrative of white women's vulnerability. Missing white women syndrome. This subconscious belief has saturated society. White women develop an outsized fear of death by violent crime. So what do they do? They embrace it. They eat up stories of families like theirs and the deaths of women like them.

It's been suggested that experiencing that fear of violence in the controlled environment true crime provides can be cathartic, somewhat like watching a horror film. There is also a sense of justice and closure felt when the perpetrator of that crime is punished.

In conclusion; White women love true crime because it's a coping mechanism for their deeply embedded fear of violence which was established and is upheld by white supremacy.

[snekdood]

at some point in the future:

*non vegan reading about a new vegan leather*: psh. bet it has plastic in it tho.

*scrolls down and finds out theres 0 plastic. the non vegan gets angry since now theres finally a vegan leather they dont get to complain about*: psh, bet it doesnt feel like real leather tho.

*scrolls down to find out the creators of this leather spent a lot of time to make it more "like real leather*: psh, bet they exploit their workers tho

just say you want to use animal leather and you were never going to consider an alternative in the first place, bud

[falinscloaca]

my sympathy for vegans getting a flood of “DEBATE MEEEE” comments versus my frustration that their explanations and reasoning for vegan-ness still being fucking shit

[vikingthundergod]

Honesty will always triumph

Don’t leave people guessing Don’t leave your mental notes unread Sometimes silence is harsher Than the words that are said The problem is often within us In poor communication we try to make sense To save face from embarrassment We use ignorance in our defense This is common in social interaction If we do not know what we want we miscomunicate How we interpret and receive the…

[dapperrokyuu]

The whole crux of WHA is basically about healing magic and I still fail to understand why healing magic is banned, ngl, dalnbdalkfjn-

Like, I recall they say the whole experimental thing, but thats less about the magic and more about the lack of consent and suffering regarding those experiments-

[jcmarchi]

Navigating the Ethics of Digital Humans

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/navigating-the-ethics-of-digital-humans/

Navigating the Ethics of Digital Humans

With the emergence of any new technology, ethical challenges arise. The rise of digital humans is no exception.  

Gartner predicts that by 2035, the digital human economy will become a $125-billion market that will continue to grow further. When deployed at such scale, the digital human economy is here to dramatically change how businesses (and our society) operate. 

As these AI-driven avatars integrate into every corner of our lives—from customer service and healthcare to education and entertainment—the ethical stakes are higher than ever. For instance, in customer service, digital humans can handle inquiries with a level of empathy previously seen only in human interactions, dramatically enhancing user engagement and satisfaction. Banks use them in their ATMs to guide users through transactions and provide real-time answers to questions. In healthcare, they assist in patient management and therapy, providing consistent, 24/7 support and reducing the strain on human workers. Educational platforms use them to create personalized learning environments, while the entertainment industry deploys them to offer new forms of interactive storytelling.  

It is therefore crucial to address the ethical considerations inherent in their development and deployment. Digital humans offer tremendous potential to improve human experiences, but this potential must be balanced with a commitment to ethical principles that prioritize transparency, privacy, respect, inclusivity, and collaboration. 

The ethical principles of digital humans 

1. Set transparency boundaries

Expanding on the principle of transparency in digital humans, it is important to recognize that this goes beyond just disclosure that one is interacting with an AI. The integration of digital humans into business and social contexts requires a clear distinction between human and AI interactions to maintain trust. This approach not only helps in creating a seamless user experience but also reinforces the ethical boundary by ensuring users are never misled about the nature of their interaction—whether they are dealing with a human or an AI. 

Moreover, the development and deployment of digital humans must adhere to principles that prevent misuse, such as using these entities to spread misinformation or engage in deceitful practices. By embedding ethical considerations into the core design and operational processes, businesses can leverage digital humans to enhance customer confidence and engagement. The need for transparency is also crucial in building long-term trust, a factor that cannot be overstated nowadays where skepticism towards digital interactions is often high due to past breaches and misuses of technology.  

2. Respect user privacy

To maintain user privacy, several measures are essential. Firstly, ensuring that digital humans do not capture or store personal data without explicit permission is fundamental. Additionally, they must only utilize the amount of personal data necessary for their function, maintaining a strict adherence to the principle of data minimization.  

Creators of Digital Humans must emphasize the importance of clear and transparent data use policies. Their privacy policies detail the types of data collected and the purpose behind their collection, ensuring users are fully informed. Furthermore, robust technical and organizational security measures are implemented to safeguard personal data against unauthorized access, destruction, or alteration. 

This approach not only aligns with global data protection regulations, such as the GDPR, but also builds a foundation of trust by respecting user privacy and emphasizing transparency in every interaction with digital humans. Such practices are not merely about adhering to legal requirements but are integral to creating a trustworthy digital environment where users feel safe and valued. 

3. Design to enhance lives

The ethical use of AI in creating digital humans plays a pivotal role in advancing societal benefits and enhancing individual lives across various domains such as healthcare, workplace interactions, and personal communications. This ethical framework focuses on promoting beneficial practices while actively avoiding negative actions, such as the dissemination of misinformation or engaging in unlawful activities. It is imperative that digital humans foster interactions that are not only positive but also embody respect, privacy, and inclusivity. This holistic strategy ensures responsible usage of these technologies, emphasizing their potential to improve human experiences significantly. By adhering to these principles, digital human design aligns with broader industry standards on AI ethics, underscoring the commitment to developing AI interactions that are supportive, reliable, and trustworthy, thus enhancing the quality of human life. 

4. Promote respectful interaction

Promoting respectful interaction in the design of digital humans is crucial for achieving inclusivity and ethical engagement. It involves creating AI that can understand and adapt to diverse cultural and individual needs, which ensures that all interactions are respectful and considerate of users’ backgrounds and abilities. Digital humans should also be designed to detect and manage disrespectful or harmful behavior effectively. This could involve programming them to disengage or redirect conversations when abusive language is detected, thereby establishing a standard for respectful interaction in digital spaces. Furthermore, it’s essential that these digital avatars are designed to be accessible to people with various disabilities, promoting equitable technology access. By ensuring that digital humans are versatile and respectful, designers can create more inclusive digital environments that reflect and enhance societal values. 

5. Embrace diversity and collaboration

Embracing diversity and collaboration in the creation of digital humans significantly enhances their relevance and effectiveness across varied user demographics. By integrating diverse perspectives throughout the development process, designers can address a wide spectrum of needs, thereby mitigating biases and preventing exclusion. A co-design approach is pivotal, as it ensures that digital humans are not only reflective of diverse communities but also embody respect and inclusivity. This methodological inclusiveness is vital for the success and acceptance of digital humans, allowing them to resonate deeply with users from different backgrounds and effectively serve their intended roles. This approach helps ensure that digital humans can function effectively and empathetically in a variety of social, cultural, and professional contexts. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, as digital humans continue to revolutionize industries and redefine human-AI interactions, prioritizing ethical considerations is essential. Transparency, data privacy, positive impact, respect, inclusivity, and collaborative design are foundational principles that guide the responsible development and deployment of digital humans. By adhering to these principles, we can ensure that digital humans enrich human experiences while upholding ethical standards and respecting individuals’ rights and dignity. 

[namgungeun]

Human Behavior Ethics NamGung Eun

[pebblegalaxy]

Morality is the Ultimate Art: Exploring the Complexities of Human Behavior

The fabric of human behavior is intricately woven with a set of guiding principles and values known as morality. It serves as the foundation for our actions and decisions, leading us towards what we deem as right or wrong. Without these moral compasses, we would be adrift, unable to navigate the complexities of life. It is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been debated by philosophers,…

[theinnerunderrain]

Flowers only bloom when the sun comes out [Yan! Prince x Fem! Maid-Reader]

Warnings: Yandere themes, child neglect, mentions of suggestive behaviors and lustful behaviors, manipulative thoughts, etc.

+

Miserable.

Prince Cassian would choose "miserable" as the precise term to depict his fragile existence. Born a prince into a mighty kingdom, his father ruled with an iron fist and unwavering will. Yet, despite his royal lineage, his life felt devoid of meaning, a constant struggle in the shadows of his father's reign. Maybe his father held Cassian accountable, at least in part, for the death of his beloved queen. Perhaps that's why he was abandoned to decay in the queen's once-grand residence, where dust settled like a shroud, paint flaked from the walls, and sinister spiders claimed every corner.

However, the king, perhaps out of lingering kindness or a trace of pity, permitted servants to attend to the prince. Yet, few were inclined to care for a forsaken prince; servants came and went as the boy matured into a young man. Initially, some felt sympathy for him, but they soon departed upon realizing there was no benefit. Others, driven by greed, chipped away at the scant jewelry and valuables left in the building before absconding to sell them in the market. His existence drifted aimlessly, filled with endless hours staring out his window or sipping the bitter tea his younger sister, kind but unaware of his plight, managed to sneak to him.

It all seemed so pointless.

Then, one day, you appeared. A young maid, your smile radiant and your enthusiasm palpable as you embarked on this new job. He couldn't help but feel sorry for you, knowing that your optimism would soon be crushed once you discovered the reality of serving a prince like him, someone you might deem unworthy of your efforts. Every day, he observed you closely, noting your tireless efforts and how your face, though marked by exhaustion from tasks meant for many, retained a composed and bright demeanor.

He found himself admiring your diligent work ethic, transforming his once bitter teatime into a sweeter experience as you mastered the art of brewing it just right. The clothes he wore now carried a scent of softness, feeling gentle against his skin, a stark contrast to the past when they often felt itchy and smelled of sweat. The garden flourished with the flowers you tended to, and his bedroom felt fresh and inviting, as if it were truly lived in. Your presence became a source of comfort for him. He enjoyed your greetings each morning, your smiles making him feel truly alive, reminding him of his own humanity.

He felt a growing desire to be near you, craving the comfort of your presence. He longed to bask in the warmth of your soft smile, to feel the gentle touch of your hand as you helped him dress. He treasured the moments when you enveloped him in warmth on cold, restless nights haunted by memories of his mother. Your gentle fingers combing through his hair brought a soothing calmness to his troubled mind. He delighted in teasing you during work hours, reveling in the sight of your face blushing a deep scarlet as his hands playfully found their way to your waist, causing you to momentarily lose your grip on the dustpan before scolding him.

He likes you.

Well, he didn't just like you. He was consumed by you, obsessed with every thought of you, you, you.

He yearned to be enveloped in your essence, to drown in your intoxicating fragrance, to be devoured whole by you. He craved for your lips to consume his, for your touch to consume his skin, for every part of him to be consumed by you. He was acutely aware that his thoughts about you would be deemed sinful by the church, yet he couldn't help but question God's justice in abandoning him for a crime he didn't commit. Considering your background as a commoner's daughter, burdened with constant toil, he doubted you had any prior experience with men, leading him to wonder if he might be your first.

He hoped you preferred younger men, despite his slight age difference. He vowed to bring you pleasure so intense that it would bring tears to your eyes. With your face flushed in red with his hands tracing over the curve of your body, admiring the plumpness of your swollen breast. The way your supple body would quiver and twitch with every flick of his tongue against your adorable clit, with your soft thighs grappling around his head much like soft pillows.

Ah, perhaps he shouldn't be thinking of such lustful matters.

Anyway, he was acutely aware that as a powerless and forgotten prince, his presence posed a constant danger to himself and those close to him. His older siblings, viewing him as a potential threat to the throne, could easily target him. He contemplated two options: either showing up at the King's castle, pleading with his father to take him back, or fleeing with you to another country. The idea of living as a commoner didn't seem so daunting, considering his current life despite his royal title. Yet, a third, more manipulative thought crept into his mind—perhaps he could exploit his younger sister's naivety to regain entry to the main palace, using her pity as a means to an end.

He believed that in the end, whatever sacrifices were necessary to attain the power to keep you would be worthwhile.

[grison-in-space]

I'm genuinely sorry, I was really tired and couldn't think of the word that mad pride movements use. I'm new to all of this. I thought you would be more open to it because you've reblogged from radical leftists (anarchists and communists both) within the past couple of weeks and they're all for Veganism afaik. The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different. I'm not spamming people with it, but I was inspired by an ask by a nonvegan and started asking popular bloggers why they weren't vegan to open up conversation and potentially change people's views on animals. If I've made you uncomfortable I'm sorry, though I admit I'm really confused by your standpoint. You do know that the only reason communism hasn't succeeded is because of America? Anyway, sorry again, I'm also autistic and I didn't mean to dismiss your legitimate dietary needs. Can I recommend acti-vegan's posts? While I understand that you can't go vegan, perhaps their blog will at least help you understand our points, they're much more well-written than my asks and they have plenty of legitimate science resources at hand. Thanks for listening, I'll take your advice into account. I'm not trying to not listen, it's just frustrating because so many people say they get it but they don't change, and if they truly got it they would, you know?

Okay, I get that you didn't mean to be offensive, and fuck knows I shouldn't throw stones when it comes to forgetting specific words. (This happens to me fairly frequently; it's a thing.)

The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different.

So yesterday I actually wrote out and then deleted a whole paragraph to the effect of "part of my deep, deep frustration with animal rights activism hooks into my commitment to the phrase 'nothing about us without us,' because I frequently see the same kinds of emotional projection without making the effort to listen to animals on their own terms from animal rights activism groups."

The first thing I need to make clear to you is that this--veganism and animal rights activism (ARA) more generally--is not new to me. I am in my mid-thirties and I have never had a job of any kind that did not revolve around animals in some way, I've spent time in rescue spaces and vets and universities, I'm queer and I have spent most of my life in leftish progressive circles, so it's kind of hard to miss.

Essentially, you are proselytizing to me as if you were a newly baptized evangelical convinced I had never heard of Jesus, because if only I had heard and understood his holy word, I would be converted instantly to his light! It's not any less irritating when the belief system isn't explicitly a religion.

More under the cut, because this one is long.

Disclaimer one: Veganism isn't synonymous with ARA ideology, but it's deeply entangled with it, and ARA ideology drives the movement of veganism as a (theoretically non-religious) ethical decision. And I object very strongly to the framework imposed by ARA activists. When I say I am not vegan, I am saying that I have considered the ethical framework that underpins veganism as an ethics movement and I have deliberately rejected it.

The second piece of context you should know that when I talk about being a behavioral ecologist, I mean that I'm a researcher who works on animals and that my framework is rooted in trying to understand animals in their own natural ecological context, without necessarily comparing them to humans. There's a lot of ways to study animal behavior you might run into, including attempts to understand universal principles of behavior that transcend species (animal cognition) and attempts to understand how to better treat animals in human care (animal welfare). You know Temple Grandin? Temple Grandin is an ethologist (the field that gave rise to behavioral ecology, also focused on animals within their species context) who worked on animal welfare (finding ways to make slaughterhouses less stressful to livestock, among other things).

Third point: my profession also means is that I work directly with animals--in my case, currently mice--and that I do not think research with animal subjects is wrong as long as all efforts are made to ensure maximal welfare and enrichment for the animals involved. This is another major bone of contention politically between my entire field and ARA groups, and you should know that I have also spent my entire professional career under the shadow of, well, people who care strongly enough about those ideas to invade my workspace and potentially seize my animals and "free" them into a world they do not have the tools to survive in.

So there's where I am coming from. Let's get back to what you're saying. Here, I'll quote again in case you have the same crappy short-term memory I do.

The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different.

Point the first: Even within humans, I don't think that all brains should be treated the exact same. Especially in a disability context! After all, what is an accommodation if not an agreement to treat someone differently because they need certain things to access a space? Accommodations by definition fly in the face of this "treating everyone the same" understanding of fairness. I think all (human) brains are equally valuable, and I think all brains are worthy of respect, but I do not think that it's wise or kind of me to assert that everyone should be treated in the same way. For one thing, I teach students. If there's one thing teaching has taught me, it's that a good teacher is constantly assessing and adjusting their instruction to meet students where they're at, identify failures of understanding, and keep the attention of the classroom.

Point the second: animals do have different brains from humans. That does not mean that animals are inferior, but it does mean that they are alien. There's a philosophy paper, Nagel, What Does It Mean to Be a Bat, that you might find illuminating on this front. Essentially, the point of the paper is that animals have their own experiences and sensory umwelts that differ profoundly enough from humans' that we cannot know what it is like to be a different species without experiencing life as one, and therefore we must be terribly careful not to project our own realities onto theirs. That is, our imagination cannot tell us what a bat values and what it experiences. That is why we have to use careful evidence to understand what an animal is thinking, without relying on our ability to identify with and comprehend that animal. I have watched ARA groups deliberately encourage people to shut their reasoning brains off and emotionally identify themselves with animals without considering within-species context for twenty years. This is a mainstream tactic. It is not an isolated event and for that reason alone I would be opposed to them.

Point the third: there is a definite tendency in lots of people to care deeply and intensely about both animals and people who are seen as "lesser" in status--children, poor people, disabled people, etc--just as long as those groups never contradict the good feelings that come from the helper's own assessment of themselves and their actions. In humans, when the "needy" point out that some forms of help are actually harmful, the backlash is often swift and vicious. This is why animals are such an appealing target of support and intervention. They can't speak back and say "in fact, you are projecting my love of this frilly pink tutu onto me, and I think it's uncomfortable and prevents me from walking." They can't say "I kind of like it better when I don't have to worry about getting hit by a car, actually?"

(By the way: this is also why it's offensive to compare disabled people to animals, because this is generally done at least in part to silence the voices of disabled people speaking for our selves and our communities. We have access to language, and we use it, thank you.)

All forms of animal welfare intervention going right back to the founding of the first RSPCA have been incredibly prone to being hijacked by classist, racist, and otherwise bigoted impulses. This is because animals offer an innocent face for defense that conveniently cannot criticize the actions taken by their champions, and they therefore provide a great excuse for actions taken against marginalized members of human society. Think about the very first campaign the RSPCA ever did, which was banning using dogs as draft animals: a use that is not inherently harmful to dogs, which many dogs actively enjoy, but also one that was specifically used by poor Londoners and which in fact immediately resulted in a great butchery of the dogs that Londoners could no longer afford to feed rather than allowing poor people and their dogs to continue working together. No one was, of course, challenging the particular uses of dogs or any other animal favored by the wealthy. This kind of thing is so, so, so common. Obviously it doesn't mean that all interventions to prioritize animal welfare are inherently bigoted, but it does mean that we have to be critical about our choice of challenges.

On top of everything, the animal rights activist movement's obsession with "exploitation" is a function of the idea that humans are sinful or otherwise Bad in how we interact with animals by definition. For example, take the chicken rescue near me that is so obsessed with the possibility that some human somewhere might benefit from an animal in their care that they implant every hen they adopt out with hormonal implants such that the hens no longer lay eggs--a function that is normally a natural byproduct of a chicken's reproductive system, fertilized or not. A mutualistic relationship involves both parties benefiting, and that is the case for an awful lot of human relationships with animals. In general, the idea that associating with animals is a thing that can only harm animals rather than being a trade between two species to enrich one another is all over these groups. It's just so myopically focused on human shame that it prevents practical interventions that might benefit everyone, and often promotes interventions that don't directly benefit animals but sure do make humans miserable. For example, this kind of thinking is why groups like PETA are absolutely awful at effectively rescuing unwanted dogs and cats: they think pets living in "bondage" with humans are an essentially sad outcome, rather than one that might be mutually enjoyed by all parties.

I'm tired and my meds haven't kicked in, so I'm not currently going to handle the communism thing except to point out that while the US absolutely did destabilize a number of leftist regimes in South America and Africa, Russia and China between them have certainly not treated their own people kindly, either (and more so their own client-nations, as with the former members of the USSR). Please do some reading about the Holodomor and Lysenko in Russia (and frankly all of the details of Stalin's regime) and the Cultural Revolution in China in particular. Khmer Rouge might be worth looking into, too. I am not saying the US's hands are clean, you understand, because they are not; they're as steeped in red as anyone else's. What I am saying is that for people living on the ground, communist revolutions have this nasty habit of turning into bloodbaths and arbitrary slaughters. Do not let your distaste for the US's bloodsoaked imperialism (which, yes, is and was bad) let you fall into the trap of becoming a tankie.

And if you don't know what a tankie is, you really, really should take some time to learn.