Most people don’t do what they can.Trump can do whatever he wants because Putin got him elected and most people haven’t voted for him, or voted for him and agree.
I hadn’t noticed the strong link between guilt and responsibility. I just think that people are responsible. But now it makes sense as a strategy:
This is the point where one person is singled out as the cause of the trouble and is expelled or killed by the group. This person is the scapegoat. Social order is restored as people are contented that they have solved the cause of their problems by removing the scapegoated individual, and the cycle begins again.
Trump is a scapegoat that takes all the guilt so people are not motivated to act.
Coincidentally this and Girard in general are Peter Thiel’s favorite theory so my guess is that it is done on purpose.
Which leaves the question how people can be motivated to act according to their abilities. All the skills are there. How do they know that it is their turn to act to maintain international law?
My bad, I meant “we do” as in “we should do”, not “we are doing”.
And we can motivate others to do the same by replacing finger-pointing (e.g. “it’s your fault for not voting/voting third party” vs “it’s your fault for not pressuring Democrats into choosing a decent candidate” or something like that, idk) with mutual support and actionable advice (“it doesn’t matter whose fault is it, right now we need all the support we can get. Here’s something you can do”)
I think people are busy and they need an incentive to prioritize their political engagement. I agree that guilt is a bad motivator and something else would be better.
Still, not wanting to handle guilt seems to be a core mechanism in influencing people. If that’s how the population is controlled then the left would have to figure out how to handle it to win back influence.
I think people need something simple to get them started.
Just look at Stop Killing Games. We can argue whether it’s a distraction (bread and circuses) or a powerful precedent for public participation and software rights, but either way it managed to collect over a million signatures and we can learn something from it.
Are people doing enough?
Most people don’t do what they can.Trump can do whatever he wants because Putin got him elected and most people haven’t voted for him, or voted for him and agree.
I hadn’t noticed the strong link between guilt and responsibility. I just think that people are responsible. But now it makes sense as a strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating#Scapegoat_mechanism
Trump is a scapegoat that takes all the guilt so people are not motivated to act.
Coincidentally this and Girard in general are Peter Thiel’s favorite theory so my guess is that it is done on purpose.
Which leaves the question how people can be motivated to act according to their abilities. All the skills are there. How do they know that it is their turn to act to maintain international law?
My bad, I meant “we do” as in “we should do”, not “we are doing”.
And we can motivate others to do the same by replacing finger-pointing (e.g. “it’s your fault for not voting/voting third party” vs “it’s your fault for not pressuring Democrats into choosing a decent candidate” or something like that, idk) with mutual support and actionable advice (“it doesn’t matter whose fault is it, right now we need all the support we can get. Here’s something you can do”)
Are people waiting to do things?
I think people are busy and they need an incentive to prioritize their political engagement. I agree that guilt is a bad motivator and something else would be better.
Still, not wanting to handle guilt seems to be a core mechanism in influencing people. If that’s how the population is controlled then the left would have to figure out how to handle it to win back influence.
I think people need something simple to get them started.
Just look at Stop Killing Games. We can argue whether it’s a distraction (bread and circuses) or a powerful precedent for public participation and software rights, but either way it managed to collect over a million signatures and we can learn something from it.
Anything would do. But how would people stay committed? Stop Killing Games hasn’t grown into a political movement.
One step at a time, I guess? Not sure. There are probably better experts than me with more experience, who have probably written books about it.
Obviously there is none with a working answer. Maybe you know it.
None with a working answer that has been implemented globally, yes. But some might have one that has yet to be implemented.
By now wouldn’t it be known? An idea that works should gain popularity on social networks.