If top of the society is immoral psychopaths with power, and most of the society is composed of people with good intentions, then there is not much hope for “beta uprising” until things go way beyond point of recovery, because powerful psychopaths will not let their power get taken away.

Not sure if this is just evolutionary biology, but this cycle of psychopaths at the top has been going on since when, at least ancient Egypt. And in all these thousands of years, the system that enables this cycle got way more reinforced than it got dismantled.

So is it maybe better idea to put benevolent people’s energy towards designing and preparing a new societal system that will have built-in mechanisms for preventing corruption and malevolence? “prepare” as in get ready to implement for when the current messed up system is about to grind to a halt and collapse? Well, it would be best to figure out how to go full Benevolent Theseus™ by replacing parts of currently failing system with the corruption-proof ones.

What are some resources related to this topic? Recearch on societal dynamics, designing political systems, examples of similar revolutions that already happened, etc. Post any links that you consider relevant

  • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
    1·
    1 year ago

    Read the rest of the comment chain. As I already said, you don’t need to decide which sort of behaviour is stupidity or not; you just stop trying to decide what’s “intentional”.

    In no moment I said or even implied that I shall be “the one to judge”. So stop making shit up.

    And no, I am not fascist. Again, stop making shit up.

    Also, you’re being a great example of what I’m talking about, because odds are that you’re full of “good intentions” behind your little witch hunt, but you’re effectively contributing with fascists by giving them a reasonable cover and desensitising people towards the word. Just like the boy who cried wolf contributed with the wolves.

    • schmorp@slrpnk.netEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      ‘Stop giving the stupid a free pass’ - the kindly explain to me who are these ‘stupid’ you are referring to in your original comment?

      • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
        1·
        1 year ago

        the[n] kindly explain to me who are these ‘stupid’ you are referring to in your original comment?

        That’s the same as “I just made shit up about you, but I demand you to spoonfeed me because I’m entitled.” Sorry but the world does not revolve around your belly, and I’m not wasting my time with you, go be a self-demonstrating example elsewhere.

        For other posters who might be reading this: what I’m considering “stupidity” and “the stupid” is already hinted by this, this and this. I can bring up some more formal definition if someone really wants, but the point is that it should not matter - take off “intentions” from the equation when handling people, stop giving people a free pass to cause harm because “oh no, that person is stupid, not malicious”.

        • schmorp@slrpnk.netEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          No, I don’t let you off your self-constructed hook so easily.

          From your other comments I can thus read:

          • the intellectually disabled are not considered to be among the stupid (I wonder whether that includes people on the spectrum as that would luckily leave me out of your ideas of sanitizing society
          • stupid seems to have to do with people’s behaviour being harmful towards others. Why of all available terms

          That’s not sufficient information to start persecuting other people. And I don’t care if you cook up the definition of who is stupid all by yourself or if it’s you plus a select group of pseudo-enlightened friends. The underlying idea is ‘remove people who show unwanted behaviour’ - and I think that approach to running a society has a name.