eroosters
4 HN recommenders · recommended in 7 months, 2018–2024
2:13 · 1.7M views · Mar 5, 2008
A two-minute John Cleese monologue showing the pathology of extremism, explaining why it feels good and how it drives out moderates.
Shared in heated-discussion threads as a short, witty take on why extremism is appealing.
7 comments from Hacker News
These are some really good points. It is reminding me a lot of one of my favorite John Cleese videos[0]. One of the things that I think makes this so difficult is that language has a lot of limits that people don't realize. Since we often don't run into issues with communication (or rather don't notice since the errors are small) it is difficult to realize when we're in boundary cases. For example there's priming[1]. Many may learn that this is a useful way to influence people and many are aware of the psychological experiments, but it is also a fundamental part of how we communicate. We try to communicate the most information with the least amount of words. But this same factor is why good faith arguments are so important but also difficult to maintain. We could not easily converse if we didn't make certain assumptions about another person's views. This is normally fine but we run into problems in heated topics where we often act like someone can only hold an extreme opinion (and of course, mine is not extreme and just common sense). It's the "oh, I've heard this argument before" and while one person may have subtext another may not (why it is difficult to identify dog whistling). Removing nuance from a topic makes it easy, and we like easy things. But that's not beneficial to resolving issues and like you say "leads to a wilderness of mirrors". But it is impossible to tell if priming like this is actively being pushed or naturally happening, since we do have a natural predi
Cleese's 1987 monologue on "extremism" is delightful and well worth the two minutes it takes to watch: What we never hear about extremism is its advantages. Well the biggest advantage of extremism is that it makes you feel good because it provides you with enemies. Let me explain. The great thing about having enemies is that you can pretend that all the badness in the whole world is in your enemies and all the goodness in the whole world is in you. Attractive isn't it? So if you have a lot of anger and resentment in you anyway, and you therefore enjoy abusing people, then you can pretend that you're only doing it because these enemies of yours are such very bad persons, and that if it wasn't for them you'd actually be good-natured and courteous and rational all the time. this video
Left and right extremism seems to be taking over the conversation worldwide these days. It's creeping in everywhere. What is most scary is that it is likely going to have to get much worse before it gets better.. Somebody posted this and it about sums it all up: John Cleese vs Extremism this video .
See John Cleese on Extremism this video The "you're either with us or against us" mentality leads to the eradication of moderates and further extremism. A healthy society needs balance. How can we counteract this?
Your argument that Russia is solely responsible for destabilizing the region mirrors a familiar rhetorical pattern seen throughout history, where weaker powers are trapped in a Kafka trap[1]. Any resistance or reaction by the weaker side justifies further aggression from the stronger power, leading to their gradual erosion and disappearance through salami slicing tactics[2]. Whether through territorial encroachment or strategic isolation, the larger power frames its actions as purely defensive while the weaker party’s responses are cast as irrational or self-destructive. For historical examples, you can look at Carthage under the Romans prior to the Third Punic War, the Saxons under the Normans after Hastings, or the Native Americans under the United States. There are others. For contemporary examples, you can look at the Palestinians under the Israelis (or the Israelis not-quite-under the Arab world) or even the Ukrainians themselves under the Russians! In each of these struggles, the dominant hegemon and its allies want a dominated rival that is "stable, economically entwined with limited influence on their neighbors beyond economic ties. No tendrils of malevolent influence or proxies." Which is to say, totally compliant with their controller and inert as a geopolitical force as they are salami sliced at will. Russia's response to NATO's expansion is a contemporary example of this. Much like other weaker states in history facing incremental encroachment, Russia is blamed fo