[ExI] Regarding Wickedness

[Lee Corbin]

Harvey writes

> [One] side-effect of misleading propaganda is that our side gets
> mislead also.

Evidently propaganda isn't as bad as I thought. Consulting wikipedia
one finds

            Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape
            perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour
            to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the
            propagandist.

and also

           messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of\
           large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing
           information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents
           information in order to influence its audience.
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Thus *all* the pronouncements of candidates running for political
office today can be deemed propaganda!   And also, "propaganda"
is evidently as old as language. To me, the word thereby loses some
of its pejorative qualities. I think that what you'll agree that what
we despise most are deliberate lies. 

           The most effective propaganda is often completely
           truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively
           to encourage a particular synthesis,

But who knows?  To the speaker, those particular facts may 
really seem to be the most relevant ones, which sometimes,
indeed, may mystify the rest of us that he could really be
looking at things that way.  But here, tolerance is probably
a good idea.

Still, we do see deplorable instances in which arguments are 
enunciated by one party that deliberately---so far as we can
see---do not address the strongest counter-arguments. 
(Ironically, I was once blamed on this list partly *because*
I anticipated the strongest counter-arguments and attempted
to deal with them ahead of time, which some evidently thought
to be against the rules of fair-play!) 

> So while it might be a moral boost for us and a psychological
> attack on the enemy to exaggerate our capabilities, it also
> will lead the public and congress to cut funding because they
> don't think we need to develop any further technology if we are 
> so advanced.

Yes, heh heh!  Not something that the proponents envisioned!

> I think all such lies come back to bite the liar politically, and
> also mislead our own side into wasting resources due to
> inaccurate information.  

Alas, if that were only true. Unfortunately, the scoundrels very
often completely get away with it. The demonization of Germany
in World War I, and the deceit about what the Lusitania was
really carrying  served the perpetrators admirably.

But I'm at a loss, personally. Suppose---to take a hopefully
entertaining but extreme example---that a number of us 
Extropians are at a conference when civilization ends,
we band together for survival, and a neighboring group
commits atrocities against us, killing several of our
beloved members. So several prominent Extropians
get up and start telling lies about exactly how evil and
how insidious the neighboring tribe is, which puts me
in a quandry. On the one hand, I wish to give our
community my full and entire support, and I definitely
back even the most extreme measures that it seems to
me we have to take (short of killing every last man,
woman, and child of the neighboring tribe). So when
this happens, I usually just shut up, and hope that I can
perhaps exert a moderating influence later. What would
others do in my position?

>> Of parallel interest: Do enemies gain an advantage when
>> you refrain from hating them but they freely indulge in
>> hating you?   Is there any place for hate in Extropianism?
>> [Is it Extropian to hate?]

(Incidentally, I should explain the strange sounding question.
Back in 1960 in the progressive liberal Methodist Sunday
School I attended, they taught us that "it is Christian to doubt",
evidently anticipating that a lot of us little kids were going to
start being skeptical. The phraseology always intrigued me.)

> I don't think so.  The sheer brute strength that anger brings only really 
> helps in physical combat.  Where brains, planning, strategy, and logical 
> thinking are required (as in modern warfare), such emotions only cloud the 
> process rather than enhance it.

Yeah, maybe so. I succumb to a sort of elitism when I worry
that *other people* won't see as clearly as I do that an enemy
must be neutralized or destroyed, and so I rarely demur at the
hate-speech coming from my side (think again about a
neighboring tribe having ambushed and killed Spike,
Samantha, Eugen, Natasha, and Max, and whether you'd
get up and say "Uh, actually the neighboring tribe is not
necessarily evil, nor are they "bastards" in any real way.")

I feel like I'm living in 1984.  As a part of the modern West,
I no longer even have a vocabulary to villify those I would hate.
To say they're "diabolical", "evil", "wicked", "scurrilous", etc.,
is to sound faintly comical.  Some people on this list try to
solve the problem by profanity ("the prick", "the fuckers", etc.).

> An example would be the current fad of calling terrorists
> "cowards".  This is merely an insulting phrase used to show
> our vehemence against them.

Yes!  A perfect example.  Anyone who loves the truth, or
even finds it very useful, must cringe at that. But woe is me---
while right now in America we all seem safe and sound for
the nonce, with plenty to eat and plenty of entertainment,
and we can criticize such foolish statements without restraint,
what would I say if some Extropians characterized the
murderers of Spike, Samantha, etc., as cowards (even 
though it had taken a lot of guts to lie in ambush in that
ravine all that time)?

> the hijackers are on a suicide mission, this plan is totally useless.  A 
> simple assumption that the hijackers are cowards totally misleads the 
> security analysis of the situation.  Likewise, I think all hatred or emotions 
> cloud the thinking of such planning.

Yes, but I'm sure you agree that it's more than that. We
do *not* want to build on a foundation of lies, no matter
how practicable it might seem at the time. No matter how
well lies served the ancient Hebrews when writing about
Yahweh, and ancient Christians when writing about Christ.

>> My own tentative answer to the first question is, "A person---or
>> his or her civilization---maximizes effectiveness by alternating between
>> truth-mode and partisan-mode", where the latter gives full vent
>> to hatred of evil.
> 
> Can you give any examples of this?  I base all my security work on truth, and 
> would never resort to emotionalism, jingoism, or propoganda to achieve my 
> goals.  I even cringe at the concept of advertising and meme-engineering, 
> because it so often strays from truth-mode.  I believe partisan-mode works in 
> the short term because people don't think.

Yes, here is an example (although my post above is already riddled
with some!). By "partisan-mode", I certainly DID NOT MEAN
stooping to lies, and actually, not even to propaganda.  I meant
only strongly and completely adamantly advising a course of action.
"Carthage has cultivated a great deal of support around the western
sea, and has engendered much hostility against us"  is in truth-mode.
"Cartago deleda est" is in partisan-mode.  It's in partisan mode
because it doesn't contain statements that can be evaluated
to be true or false.

Likewise when I wrote above "dreadful instances in which arguments are 
enunciated by one party that deliberately..." I was wandering into partisan
mode, as is clear from the use of "deplorable". And when I wrote "the
scoundrels completely get away with it" and "we despise... deliberate lies."
it's obvious that I'm taking sides.

Yes, you should not resort to emotionalism, jingoism, or propaganda
to achieve your goals. I sincerely approve of your restraint (truth-mode
by Lee) and I submit that its unworthy of us and repulsive & degrading
as well (partisan-mode by Lee).  

> I even cringe at the concept of advertising and meme-engineering, 
> because it so often strays from truth-mode. 

Well said, and I totally agree.

> Also, do you see a resentment factor by the populace when they realize they 
> have been manipulated or mislead into supporting a cause based on 
> partisanship rather than truth?  Isn't there a backlash effect when this 
> occurs, such that there is more (or at least some) damage later due to the 
> partisanship that would not have occurred with truth-mode?

As I said, sometimes the perpetrators entirely get away with it.
And sometimes they're exposed.

>> My answer to the second question is this: "To remain analytical
>> towards criminals and towards wrongdoing is itself criminal and
>> wrong", (even though western civilzation in its descent to selfdestruction
>> often, sadly, deems this attitude self-righteous and atavistic.)
> 
> I'm not sure  I understand what this means.  Are you saying we shouldn't be 
> analytical towards criminals?

No, I'm not saying that.

> Or are you saying we shouldn't be *only* analytical at the expense of
> other responses?

Yes.  A good example is how we punish them. Unfortunately, it is
done only in truth-mode:  "The defendant has been found guilty, and
the penalty for breaking the law in this particular case I deem to be
ten years of confinement at a state prison (etc.)."   The problem with
this is that it is entirely bloodless.   Here is how it should be done:

The defendent, who has been found guilty, is brought once more to
the courtroom. A video *truthfully* re-enacts his crime, using
the best and  most modern techniques, hopefully bringing the 
audience to a fever pitch of anger and hatred towards the defendent.
We get to see in full detail the horror of how he laid in wait for the
prostitute and then brutally strangled her ignoring her pitiful cries
and pleas, and we get to see the expression on her mother's
face when she learns of her daughter's death. If done properly,
we the viewers are rightfully and justly brought to hate the defendent.
Only then is the sentence read, and only then can justice truly be served.

Lee