Bruce Wayne : Criminals aren't complicated, Alfred. Just have to figure out what he's after.
Alfred Pennyworth : With respect Master Wayne, perhaps this is a man that you don't fully understand, either. A long time ago, I was in Burma. My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So, we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anybody who traded with him. One day, I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.
BW : So why steal them?
AP : Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
So, how do you deal with such man?
BW : The bandit, in the forest in Burma, did you catch him?
I always found this ironic. The answer to someone who wants to watch things burn is to, in effect, give them what they want and burn things down, on a smaller scale though, I guess?
On the surface it seems pretty simple- the end of history utopianism of the '90s has mutated to the end is near dystopianism. There are no shortage of statistics explaining why the standard of living for the average American has dropped off, sometimes sharply, compared to that era. Hence accelerationism is now king.
For a good analysis for why both the far right and the far left are unhappy (more so than in other ages, at least), there's this article on neoreaction, which became vogue to talk about in 2013 before the present dominant political trends: "Shedding Light on the Dark Enlightenment" by Rick Searle at the Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies (https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/searle20131202)
I think the verbiage is misleading and inflammatory. "Need For Chaos" can more reasonably be understood as "desire for change" when the individuals see no actual path for that change to occur.
Calling it a "need for chaos" further alienates those whose very alienation is the cause of the phenomenon on display. Better to use more neutral language that doesn't inflame the population being observed or bias those doing the observation into further perpetuating an "us vs them" mentality.
I think this is pretty on point. You have a lot of disaffected people who want something to change but don't see a reasonable path for the type of change they want. Instead they just make decisions towards the most amount of change, even if it isn't good change.
I think "us vs them" mentality is the point here. To demonstrate "them" are so irrational, so deplorable, so beyond any redemption and lacking of any sense and virtue that their alienation and complete disregard for their needs, voices and concerns is justified and is the right thing to do. If somebody just wants the world to burn, you don't discuss a compromise with them that would be acceptable to both sides, you put them in jail or mental hospital. The author doesn't want to find common neutral ground with the deplorable Trump voters. He wants to convince us they are so crazy that "normal" people should just shun them, avoid them, treat them not as rational people disagreeing on politics, but as people afflicted with NFC condition that just are that way, and that's it.
> 40 percent concurred with the thought that "When it comes to our political and social institutions, I cannot help thinking 'just let them all burn' "; and 40 percent also agreed that "we cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over."
Hard not to sympathize with this perspective when:
- The people running the country lie us into an unending, ruinous war with help from the establishment media, and no one is held to account.
- The people running the country demolish the economy with unsustainable debt-driven speculation, and no one is held to account.
- The people running the country openly associate with a convicted trafficker of children, who conveniently dies in prison before naming any names and while the cameras were "inoperable" and the guards asleep and his cellmate transferred out at just the right moment, and (just wait for it!) no one is held to account.
"Let them all burn" may not be the right answer, but at the very highest levels our political and social institutions are rotten to the core.
You can look to the left and look to the right
But you will live in danger tonight
When the enemy comes he will never be heard
He'll blow your mind and not say a word.
Blinding lights--flashing colors
Sleepless nights...
If the man with the power
Can't keep it under control
Some heads are gonna roll
...
The power-mad freaks who are ruling the earth
Will show how little they think you're worth
With animal lust they'll devour your life
And slice your word to bits like a knife
One last day burning hell fire
You're blown away...
If the man with the power
Can't keep it under control
Some heads are gonna roll
...
Yet almost everyone keeps on voting for the same people to run the country. They mostly believe keeping the enemy other party out of power is more important than all of the other problems combined. Either that or they don't vote which is itself a vote for the establishment.
I think it's implied that zero percent of normal people want to see society "burned to the ground"
Edit: after re-reading that part of the article I'm not sure anymore. I can't tell if the questions were phrased to imply a serious destructive desire or if "burn it down" was passable as "I'm discontent with life". Might have to read the paper itself to clarify.
Yeah, I didn't find this article all that informative. What does that mean, anyway? It could mean that our current society is irredeemably bad (not unthinkable if you're not a middle to upper class white person) and that only a revolution can create a better society. Or it could be just pure nihilism. (I recall "guys we memed a president into existence" being the top comment on /r/thedonald's celebration post after the election.)
It also seems so open to interpretation, what it means to burn society to the ground, and how (if at all, which I suspect not) are they controlling for hyperbole and whimsy?
Edit: actually, I won't delete my comment, but I really don't want to be the guy that skims a * Vice article and comments like he's thought of something the author's of the underlying haven't. I remain sceptical, but acknowledge that 'whaddoiknow'.
In Germany it used to be that the "protest parties" (usually on the far right) would get perhaps 10 % of the vote. Currently, AfD is at 20 - 25 % in the polls.
I've had my share of NFC at times. I was an idealistic Young Pioneer (not that different from Boy Scout). But I got disillusioned, and became an idealistic hippie immigrant.
Then I got disillusioned again, and went punk/metal. Megadeth's "Addicted To Chaos" was my favorite song for a while. Plus Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Butthole Surfers, Judas Priest, Turbonegro, Marilyn Manson, etc. But still, I did a PhD and played in academica for a while, so I was arguably just posing.
Now, it's not so much that I have NFC. I'm just not at all optimistic about the future. But not like it was during the 60s-80s, when nuclear holocaust seemed all too likely. Now it's mostly the slow slide into an ~unlivable climate. And all the social breakdowns that will come with that. And given that I'll be dead, it's not such a big deal, personally.
Exactly. Trump is one of these people, which is why they love him so much. That he is in a position of such great responsibility is incredibly dangerous.
He’s not actually one of these people so much as he pretends to be, but I agree he is dangerous.
For me it’s mostly the way that he openly lies, even about recorded things he’s previously said, is disturbing and that he takes the already toxic political rhetoric of the last decade to the next level.
And why not? The entire political process is kabuki interspersed with conversations with important donors and lobbying groups that actually establish policy.
Nihilism isn't the answer, but neither is demanding a particular kind of we're-all-professionals kabuki without any real change. Flipping over tables is at least something.
Funnily enough, just a few months before the Anglosphere dove into the current populist wave, people like Charles Stross were talking about a future of beige bureaucratic dictatorships dominated by financialization and security states:
Unless you're currently resident in DR Congo or North Korea, you have a lot to lose. Rock bottom is far rockier than most people can imagine. Civilization is immensely precious and remarkably fragile.
No, it isn't. It literally isn't anything. It wasn't even anything when Jesus did it, because he did it, and then the people he did it to had him nailed to a tree and they kept on doing business.
Jun8|6 years ago
Bruce Wayne : Criminals aren't complicated, Alfred. Just have to figure out what he's after.
Alfred Pennyworth : With respect Master Wayne, perhaps this is a man that you don't fully understand, either. A long time ago, I was in Burma. My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So, we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anybody who traded with him. One day, I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.
BW : So why steal them?
AP : Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
So, how do you deal with such man?
BW : The bandit, in the forest in Burma, did you catch him?
AP : Yes.
BW : How?
AP : We burned the forest down.
ineedasername|6 years ago
Apocryphon|6 years ago
For a good analysis for why both the far right and the far left are unhappy (more so than in other ages, at least), there's this article on neoreaction, which became vogue to talk about in 2013 before the present dominant political trends: "Shedding Light on the Dark Enlightenment" by Rick Searle at the Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies (https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/searle20131202)
ineedasername|6 years ago
Calling it a "need for chaos" further alienates those whose very alienation is the cause of the phenomenon on display. Better to use more neutral language that doesn't inflame the population being observed or bias those doing the observation into further perpetuating an "us vs them" mentality.
notus|6 years ago
smsm42|6 years ago
AndrewBissell|6 years ago
Hard not to sympathize with this perspective when:
- The people running the country lie us into an unending, ruinous war with help from the establishment media, and no one is held to account.
- The people running the country demolish the economy with unsustainable debt-driven speculation, and no one is held to account.
- The people running the country openly associate with a convicted trafficker of children, who conveniently dies in prison before naming any names and while the cameras were "inoperable" and the guards asleep and his cellmate transferred out at just the right moment, and (just wait for it!) no one is held to account.
"Let them all burn" may not be the right answer, but at the very highest levels our political and social institutions are rotten to the core.
mirimir|6 years ago
lopmotr|6 years ago
mikelyons|6 years ago
mehrdadn|6 years ago
Haven't read the actual paper, but does anyone know what response percentages one would expect from a "normal" population?
gota|6 years ago
Edit: after re-reading that part of the article I'm not sure anymore. I can't tell if the questions were phrased to imply a serious destructive desire or if "burn it down" was passable as "I'm discontent with life". Might have to read the paper itself to clarify.
bscphil|6 years ago
OJFord|6 years ago
Edit: actually, I won't delete my comment, but I really don't want to be the guy that skims a * Vice article and comments like he's thought of something the author's of the underlying haven't. I remain sceptical, but acknowledge that 'whaddoiknow'.
HarryHirsch|6 years ago
mirimir|6 years ago
Then I got disillusioned again, and went punk/metal. Megadeth's "Addicted To Chaos" was my favorite song for a while. Plus Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Butthole Surfers, Judas Priest, Turbonegro, Marilyn Manson, etc. But still, I did a PhD and played in academica for a while, so I was arguably just posing.
Now, it's not so much that I have NFC. I'm just not at all optimistic about the future. But not like it was during the 60s-80s, when nuclear holocaust seemed all too likely. Now it's mostly the slow slide into an ~unlivable climate. And all the social breakdowns that will come with that. And given that I'll be dead, it's not such a big deal, personally.
notreallybad|6 years ago
[deleted]
chmaynard|6 years ago
alphabettsy|6 years ago
For me it’s mostly the way that he openly lies, even about recorded things he’s previously said, is disturbing and that he takes the already toxic political rhetoric of the last decade to the next level.
war1025|6 years ago
yourbandsucks|6 years ago
Nihilism isn't the answer, but neither is demanding a particular kind of we're-all-professionals kabuki without any real change. Flipping over tables is at least something.
Apocryphon|6 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9106983
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5187236
Not that we haven't departed too far from that future, but now we have the added problem of revived extremist tribalism and chauvinism of every type.
jdietrich|6 years ago
krapp|6 years ago
No, it isn't. It literally isn't anything. It wasn't even anything when Jesus did it, because he did it, and then the people he did it to had him nailed to a tree and they kept on doing business.