Why Civility Failed
The Real Problem With American Politics
A Theory Of Evil
What is evil? What causes it? Are good and evil polar opposites or binary opposites? Is good greater than evil or lesser than evil? These are questions people have struggled with for millennia. While disagreeing on everything else, most people seem to agree that evil exists. If we are to avoid it, we must be able to predict it. This requires a theory of origins.
Most explanations for the origins of evil that I’ve heard make no sense to me. While not necessarily false, they bring no insights into the modern world or everyday life. After doing a lot of my own thinking, I have combined all my ideas into seven basic theories: Misinformation, Stupidity, Selfishness, Ideology, Moral-Neutralization, Impulse Management, and NPC.
The Misinformation Theory
I used to believe that the voters were duped by lies and lacked the ability to engage in critical thinking on their own. I had reasoned that politicians would not bother with lies that were not working, and therefore there must be people that were actually being tricked. Reasoning further, I thought that if it were possible for voters to be tricked, and it was possible for voters to become the next generation of politicians, it must also be possible that some of today’s politicians were true believers. I considered lies themselves to be the enemy rather than flesh-and-blood people. I gave partisans the benefit of the doubt when no one else was.
This is not a viable belief any longer. While misinformation does exist, ignorance is not an excuse. Through modern technology, alternate viewpoints are everywhere. Sports bars often have FOX or CNN running. Presidential debates are televised. Political ads run whether you want them to or not. Talk radio exists. After watching only one video, YouTube will recommend thousands more like it. Bookstores are full of informative books on current affairs. Facebook is overflowing with as many right-wing memes as left-wing (to the extent that a distinction can even be made). Everybody has a nutty family member on the “other side” they can ask questions. The ability to be an informed voter is just a Google search away. Anyone who votes without doing the most basic level of research is recklessly negligent. This in and of itself is evil and requires its own explanation.
Furthermore, many of the disputes I have rest not on a difference in facts from the news, but on a difference in how to make sense of them. They disagree about fundamental axioms of logic, math, or morality (when I can even get the person to open up). After talking with many people of all political persuasions, I can confidently say that they want the abuse. They actually want to become slaves of the state. The problem is not that people are uninformed or misinformed. Even when the facts are agreed upon or the situation hypothetical, they make the wrong choice. The problem is that they deliberately seek to harm themselves and others.
Furthermore, misinformation cannot explain why partisans are so reluctant to educate me in polite conversation. If they truly believed what they have been told, you’d think they would be happy to pass on their knowledge. How else do they hope to win people to their side? Instead, they attack me for asking legitimate questions, twist around my words, and call me names. This is also evil and requires its own explanation.
The Stupidity Theory
People are not stupid. The fact that people I talk with are capable of holding jobs, navigating traffic, and tying their shoes proves that they are capable of much more mentally demanding tasks than moral reasoning. If they were truly stupid, they would be right by chance more often than they are. On some issues (such as which candidate to vote for), there are really only two basic positions. For someone too stupid to distinguish truth from falsehood, they would be right fifty percent of the time. Instead, it is as if they first figure out what is good and then do the opposite. They figure out the truth first and then chase after lies.
It has been suggested that partisans of all stripes are “binary thinkers,” only able to categorize things into one of two sets. If you are only capable of distinguishing between Democrats and Nazis, then anything not a Democrat, such as a Republican, is going to be classed as a Nazi. If you are only capable of distinguishing between Republicans and Communists, then anything not a Republican, such as a Democrat, is going to be classified as a Communist. The problem I have with this theory is that nobody is truly a binary thinker. If they were, they could not drive. At intersections, they would have to choose left or right and would be unable to go straight through. If the angles of the intersection were not exactly ninety degrees, they would drive right off the road. Reality is analog. To reduce it to a digital model is to make an arbitrary choice. Binary thinking is not the real problem.
Democrats in particular pretend to be ultimately stupid, going so far as denying the existence of truth itself, calling logic a social construct and math racist – but they don’t always act stupid. They can tell the difference between water and air, drinking one and breathing the other. I can only conclude they are pretending.
If someone truly didn’t believe in logic, they’d have no protection from non-sequiturs that might occur to them. While eating a sandwich, they might suddenly believe that because the bread is soft, they must be late for their train. Their behavior should be completely erratic.
If someone truly didn’t believe in logic, they could not follow a chain of reasoning from evidence to its conclusion. They could not infer from the calendar on their phones that it is in fact Saturday just because it says it is Saturday. They could not infer from seeing their bedroom right in front of them that they are at home and not at work.
If someone truly didn’t believe in logic, they would end up believing in contradictions. If someone actually believed in contradictions, they wouldn’t even be able to cross the street. They might think they could cross the street and not cross the street at the same time. They might think that both they and the bus could occupy the same space.
If someone actually believed contradictions were possible, they could not understand why 2+2 could not be BOTH 4 and 5. Even if they were taught the answer was ONLY 4, they still would be literally unable to understand why the answer couldn’t be ONLY 4 AND ONLY 5. Even if they were taught the answer was NOT 5, they still would be literally unable to understand why the answer couldn’t be NOT 5 AND 5.
If someone actually believed that 2+2=5, they couldn’t fill out a tax return. If two and two are five, then subtracting two twos from both sides of the equation gives us 0=1, meaning they might fill out zero tax returns instead of one. Anyone without a firm understanding of math wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.
If someone actually believed that “male” and “female” were totally arbitrary designations, able to be changed on a whim, they would not and could not care which locker room they were in. They could not tell the difference and would be happy to go wherever told. They would be literally unable to measure a gender wage gap. They would be unable to tell heterosexuality from homosexuality and think them equally oppressed. They also could not “believe all women” without believing EVERYONE. If someone actually believed all women, they would believe the women who have accused Biden of sexual harassment. They would believe Republican women when they equate abortion with murder and Libertarian women when they equate taxation with theft. Stupidity is not the problem; Democrats are too smart for that.
One variant of the stupidity theory I’ve heard is the idea that smart people can acquire stupidity. This is how cults grow. So the story goes, when a person greatly fears something and a leader steps in to befriend and protect them, people will somehow suspend their ability to reason and adopt a position of protecting the leader (and the group), putting up intellectual walls to avoid being reached by outside reason. “Redpilling” occurs when they lose trust in the leader. This can happen if they see the leader caught in a lie or bad behavior. Usually, the intellectual walls prevent this, explaining why “redpilling” is rare and doesn’t happen sooner, but all walls have cracks somewhere.
One problem with this theory is that the process can’t even get started without selectively suspending intellect. At the beginning, intellect is required to recognize an object to be feared and to recognize when a leader is attempting to win their trust, yet someone with a properly-functioning intellect would not fear some of the things Democrats (and some partisan Republicans) pretend to fear, nor would someone with a properly-functioning intellect choose an obviously bad leader over a better leader that is also hoping to earn their trust and has done just as much to befriend them.
Then, even after they have somehow suspended their intellect, intellect is still required to remain in the “cult.” To support the group and resist outside messages, intellect is needed to understand what “support” means and to distinguish between those inside and outside “the group.” Stupidity isn’t the problem. It is a matter of the will.
Furthermore, I am told that cult members must see this behavior for themselves and cannot be reached from the outside, but the distinction between inside and outside is unclear to me. When one is a direct witness to something, light still must enter the eyes from the “outside.” Watching a video of the event is only one step away from this. Being sent a video link by a friend is only one step further and should work, but it often does not. One step away from video evidence is news reporting of the event, and one step away from that is a friend informing one of the existence of such news reports. Why is this not good enough? It’s because they aren’t actually stupid.
The Selfishness Theory
There is a theory that love is always greater than hate because love is a prerequisite for hate. People only hate that which threatens what they love. There is a theory that serving the communal good is always greater than selfishness because our personal good is a subset of the communal good. People pursuing selfish ends are merely pursuing a lesser good, but it is still good. By the same logic, it is said that good is greater than evil, good wins in the end, and all people are redeemable.
It is said that the nature of will is to choose that which is valued over the choice not taken; one cannot choose that which they do not value. A being with will always serves some good – even if it is good only for the being in question at the expense of all others. In this model, evil is merely misguided good. It is a form of selfishness.
However, the policies many politicians propose don’t appear to serve anybody’s good. Selfishness doesn’t explain it. Those in power undermine their own power with inconsistent laws that are impossible to follow as if they don’t want to be obeyed. They weaken the military as if they don’t want the world to take them seriously. They weaken the border, allowing in potential terrorists and criminals that could threaten the stability of their own power base. They raise taxes and enact regulations that hurt the economy and decrease the same revenue that they hope to control. You’d think that a power-mad narcissist would want to be the ruler of a rich, strong country with happy citizens he/she could brag about, but most politicians seem to be committed to messing things up as much as possible.
How can selfishness explain politicians that want to abolish the police AND enact new laws? Who do they think is going to enforce those laws? How can selfishness explain Senators (including several Republicans) voting to convict Trump after he had left office – an act purely symbolic since the Chief Justice refused to participate – when they knew it would turn the majority of voters against them? How can selfishness explain activists being against the US flag while simultaneously supporting parades that feature the flags of other countries?
Why have mask mandates? Why have vaccine mandates? They serve no one. Some have speculated that the vaccine companies want the money from delivering as many vaccines as possible, but then why not just charge more per vaccine? Why not just make up pretend recipients like they do pretend voters? Why doesn’t the government just subsidize the vaccine companies the way they do farms and big oil? Why suppress use of Ivermectin? Is it because the patent has run out and there is little profit to be made? Then why not reinstate the patent if we are breaking the law and playing favorites anyways? It would be less disruptive and controversial than mandating vaccines.
I keep hearing that big tech is censoring news, but the fact that I keep hearing about it on social media means they are doing a piss-poor job. It’s as if they want the news to get out, but at the same time they want us to think they don’t want the news out. Even when running stories “debunking” rumors, such as the one about the vaccines being bad for fetuses, they only make people curious. They would do better not to mention the stories at all. What’s going on? Are they trying to play it safe by serving both sides? It’s not working. The way it comes across is that they want us divided. They want us to believe the worst about those in power while at the same time making us think there is a massive conspiracy to censor pro-liberty thought. The goal isn’t a left-wing dictatorship; the goal is war and anarchy. This will destroy their customer base, their infrastructure, and even the value of the money and credit they have accumulated. It serves no one.
I keep hearing that the NSA and other agencies are gathering data on every citizen, including private data without a warrant. People are worried that they will be targeted because of their advocacy. How is it then, that so many people are not only able to get the word out, but do damage and terror? Is the government just incompetent? Or are they undermining their own power to cause chaos?
While it is theoretically possible that there is some hidden benefit I haven’t thought of that could explain the behavior of politicians as selfishness, it really doesn’t explain the actions of ordinary people. They do not have seats in government. They don’t have lots of stock in pharmaceutical corporations. They have nothing to gain. Why do they lie right to my face about things they know I already know about? Why do they support nonsensical policies? Why do voters want to hurt themselves and undermine their own power just to aggrandize some politician? Selfishness is not the answer.
The Ideology Theory
An ideology is the set of positions derived from one’s foundational principles. It is formed from the information one has by the power of the intellect in accordance with one’s goals. Thus, the ideology theory of evil is a mix of the selfishness, stupidity, and misinformation theories. However, I have as yet been unable to formulate a consistent ideology for those running most of the world right now.
For a while, I believed that politicians were selfish, but that most Democrat voters were driven by ideology like most Republican voters were. I thought that the prime value of Democrats was the maximum centralization of power above all other values – not even caring how the power might be used. They wanted the government to confiscate guns even while calling that same government racist and patriarchal. They insisted on the government controlling health care even while knowing that pro-life Republicans sometimes win elections and might in the future use the government to serve their ideology instead by ending abortion coverage. However, I have come to realize that even this doesn’t make sense. Democrats reject government coercion when it suits them. They ignore the CDC when it says masks are no longer necessary. They criticize governors who ease lockdown restrictions. They prevent the INS and the ICE from doing their jobs. If all they cared about was obeying a dictator, it should not matter what the dictator’s policies are, but they do.
How can you explain Democrat activists who cry “My body, my choice!” when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to vaccines, seat belts, recreational drugs, or choosing to defend that same body with a firearm?
How can you explain a state run by big-government, nanny-state Democrats, with some of the highest taxes in the country, that doesn’t even provide the most basic service to keep the sidewalks clear of snow, insisting that homeowners must do it or be fined? Those who are bedridden or away on vacation have the responsibility to get someone else to do it. Even some moderate libertarians would agree that sidewalks are a government responsibility. This is inexplicable!
The truth is that Democrats have no ideology. They have no philosophy. They have no beliefs. “Conservatives” of all flavors (whether libertarian, nationalist, religious, pragmatist, or neocon) derive their positions on the parties and candidates from their ideologies. Democrats start with positions on candidates and parties without basis in reality and work backwards from there. Most of them mindlessly repeat slogans that they do not understand the meaning of. When asked questions, they refuse to explain, telling the questioner that they are hopeless. Often, they throw insults and threaten people. They label all those who are yet unconvinced as racists, Nazis, Fascists, sexists, homophobes, bigots, warmongers, and corporate shills. Rarely, when I have been able to engage one in conversation for more than a few seconds, I find that they use circular reasoning, make non-sequitur leaps of logic, include facts totally irrelevant, exclude facts totally relevant, hold to contradictions, and lie constantly about everything. They play mind games with me by moving the goalposts, gaslighting me, and changing the definitions of words in the middle of a sentence, ignoring the context, and twisting my words around into something they damn well know I didn’t mean. They are nothing but bullies. The reason nobody understands Democrat ideology is because there is nothing there to understand.
“Conservatives” fight for their goals. If they win, they stop fighting. For liberals, fighting is the goal. If they win, they keep on fighting for the fun of it. Democrats have no goals or ideals other than fighting, so they never know when they are finished. They only want as much chaos, confusion, destruction, and death as possible. Every debate I have ever had confirms this, and I have done more to reach out and understand people than anyone I have ever heard of, so when I say it, my words have some weight.
You can’t have an ideology without a belief in truth. Various “conservative” ideologies contradict each other because they have different beliefs about what the truth is, but they all believe in the concept of truth itself. They believe in facts and the use of reason to arrive at truth. They believe in free speech, persuasion, and debate. On the other hand, Democrats deny the existence of any truth and attack free speech.
Some have suggested that the Democratic party is nothing but a cabal of people who support the ingroup and abuse the outgroup, no matter what the issues of the day are. This doesn’t really make sense either. How can they tell who is in which group? Kim Davis was a registered Democrat, but many Democrats wanted to keep her in jail indefinitely. Trump was a billionaire and therefore a member of the elite, but they hated him too. They act so offended by cultural appropriation by whites, but not when Rachel Dolezal does it. Their behavior is arbitrary.
The Moral-Neutralization Contagion Theory
Because of my many interactions with evil people, I no longer know what the rules of society are or what is expected of me. I no longer know how to behave to get what I want, whether we are talking of laws or social norms. Since treating people nicely and respecting their rights has earned me so much abuse, and since those who do evil are often celebrated, why not do evil? How can it be evil to give people what they want? That’s the golden rule! When they make it abundantly clear that all they want to do is fight, and all attempts at peacemaking only make them even angrier, why not make them happy? Bring them gifts of torture and slaughter! Isn’t it the charitable thing to do?
When you find yourself sleeping in a store in a post-apocalyptic city, and you know the owner is either dead or has given up on it and moved elsewhere, and you find some goods missed by earlier looters, is it really stealing to take what you need? If you live in a society where everyone steals from everyone else, theft is normalized and tolerated by law enforcement, and the store owners themselves prove they do not really believe in property when they steal from others, is it really stealing to take what you need? When society is beyond saving, and its demise inevitable, it isn’t wrong to take care of yourself as long as you can. Labels such as theft only apply so long as the concept of ownership and belief in property persists. It is the belief itself that makes property property. When the economy has collapsed, no customers can pay, and no store can function. When everything around you is arbitrary, there is no right and wrong. Just as theft loses all meaning in extreme cases, vandalism, rape, and murder also have their limits. Why not have some fun?
Fortunately, we have not reached this point yet, but some parts of the country have come dangerously close. It is highly likely that certain people have already reached their personal moral-neutralization points. Those with abusive parents or those who have spent a lot of time in prison might find that everyone they know is deserving of punishment in some way. How are they to know any better when it comes to strangers? If someone in that situation were to shoot into the crowd at a concert or drive a vehicle into the crowd at a parade, it literally wouldn’t be wrong for them. Why not do unto others before they can do unto you?
I once worked at a place where I was spit on, groped, shoved, and every word out of my mouth was taken by my coworkers as me being either argumentative or whiny. Management was part of the problem. Before I could quit, someone lied to human resources that I had threatened someone. Later, when I was being harassed by the police over false charges by an old friend I was worried sick about, my other friends tried to cheer me up by telling me the various ways that karma was going to get her, showing no concern for her at all. My family repeatedly maligned my motives in every step I took even when I was following their advice! I have seen the ugly underbelly of human nature. I know that everyone I meet is really a monster waiting to happen. When I see children playing in a park, I see people that will grow up either to be bullies or to vote for bullies. Why give them the chance to grow up?
That’s the type of thinking that leads to genocides. Is this how evil spreads? Is this the reason that so many people go out of their way to derail conversations, vote for destructive candidates, and repay my kindness by accusing me of crimes? Could it be that their behavior is a cry for help, desperately looking for someone that will love them unconditionally? Could they be looking for a hero by becoming a villain? Somehow, I find this hard to believe. Society hasn’t fallen to that point yet, their lives don’t seem that bad to me, they repeatedly refuse to recognize good when they see it, and they are nice to me at least as often as they aren’t. Why the inconsistency?
The Impulse Management Theory
So far, I have been treating humans as if they are indivisible units that actually mean to make the choices they do. This is not completely true. Humans are prone to impulses that they do not understand. They often have mixed feelings about things. Desires do not always manifest themselves after all the cognitive work has been done, but at every step of the process. Wanting to procure a chocolate-frosted donut through purchase might be greater than wanting to procure a chocolate-frosted donut through theft, but this doesn’t always make the second wanting go away. Knowing that you can spare a minute to listen to someone doesn’t always turn off the impulse to leave when you were already on your way out. Managing all these competing desires in real time is complicated. If you’ve ever choked on your food by trying to breathe and swallow at the same time, you can understand how one might blurt out a random offensive thought or suddenly push a toddler down the stairs.
“When I want to do good, I don’t. And when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway.” – Romans 7:19
This sounds like a perfectly wretched existence and makes me feel sorry for them. Unfortunately, this theory doesn’t tell me how to solve the problem. They still have to be stopped. I know they can’t stop themselves, because the same impulses that plague them can infiltrate the part of them doing the self-control. I also know they can’t be stopped by the state, because the state has already been infiltrated by impulsive individuals. The fact is, everyone (including myself) suffers from some degree of mental disorganization and so the number of evil people outnumber the good about nine billion to zero. Turning this ship around will take nothing less than a miracle.
Of course, impulses are temporary. How do they end up becoming matters of policy or party platforms? How is it that people make the same mistakes with me again and again? I had once thought that the reason people don’t immediately apologize and correct for their impulses – the consequences of which are often minor and easily fixed – was pride – itself a desire we all have to feel good about ourselves. I had thought that giving people permission to make mistakes of this nature and offering them ways to explain themselves in such a way to save face and keep their pride intact would keep minor problems from growing into big ones. I had thought that being an example to follow by apologizing first would give them the courage to do the same. It hasn’t worked. They reject my offers of peace and dig themselves in deeper every time. I don’t even know that pride is always the problem.
The NPC Theory
Another theory I have encountered is that we live in a simulation and some people are NPCs (non-player characters) created by the computer that are incapable of true awareness. They simply follow their programming and do not understand. In this model, there is no reason to love our enemies because they are just empty bodies; there is no person there to love.
There might be some truth to this. I have observed that most people take sloppy shortcuts with their thinking. They stumble through a foggy world of fuzzy concepts only dimly aware of their surroundings. This happens to me too when I am very tired or when I allow myself to get lazy because I believe myself to be in familiar mental territory and can rely on memory. The effect is so insidious that it happens automatically without my awareness. The only difference between myself and others is one of degree.
I have also noticed that people cannot always pass a Turing test. A Turing test is the name given to any test designed to discern between computers and conscious beings. Computers act in accordance with their programming without even being aware. Humans can think creatively and choose between options. However, many people are quick to respond with what seem like memorized phrases that don’t quite fit what I said. I sometimes inadvertently use some phrase or word that activates a (usually negative) response from others, but if they had actually heard and understood the grammar of the sentences I used, they would realize their response was unwarranted. Engaging in conversation with these people is indistinguishable from talking with our current AI programs.
This is the theory I have the least trouble with, but I am still uncertain. The NPC theory is a variant of the stupidity theory, but one that allows for compartmentalization. Just because one shows brilliant comprehension in one subject does not mean they must be acting stupid when failing another subject. However, it still doesn’t explain the explicit rejection of math and logic itself.
Furthermore, any theory that basically defines certain people as non-entities is the beginning of a very dangerous slippery slope. It could quickly lead to a resurgence of eugenics. Who is conscious? Who isn’t? Who decides? We must be very careful to give others the benefit of the doubt.
Further Thoughts:
Some have suggested that true evil is not selfishness, stupidity, or wrong belief, but is pursued for its own sake out of “free will.” In other words, it is axiomatic, just like good is. It is an uncaused cause. My biggest problem with this type of thinking is that it explains without explaining. It merely tells us in different words what we already know. If evil is by definition that which serves nothing, then explaining it would mean it wasn’t really evil. Evil “just is.” For similar reasons, I have trouble understanding jealousy, sadism, and masochism as motives. Where do such motives come from? Explaining evil to come from one of these impulses still requires an explanation for such irrational impulses.
Furthermore, this sort of thinking is defeatist. If evil is truly without cause, there is no way even in principle to negotiate for peace. There is no motive that we can use as a lever. We have nothing to offer them that they want. Evil people are not motivated by anything because they have no ideology. Not even threats of violence will work. Such things only work on selfish people who care about their own well-being or selfless people who care about the fulfillment of their greater goals for the community’s well-being. True evil cares for no well-being; that’s what evil is!
I know I am supposed to love my enemies, but I have no idea what love looks like in this context. They complain no matter what I do. There is no making them happy. For all I know, hurting them will make them happy and helping them will cause pain. They are masochistic and unpredictable. In the meantime, they abuse me and they abuse each other, and it’s not very loving to stand by while people get hurt. If I truly love my enemies, I must protect them from my other enemies. They must be stopped!
Some might suggest that it is unhelpful to call people out for their evil actions, that I should give them the benefit of the doubt so that we can negotiate. I have already tried that and failed. They aren’t interested in negotiation. I truly don’t see how insults will make things worse; they might even make things better. Besides, no progress is possible if we don’t start from a point of honesty and the honest truth is that most people are evil. Describing the problem accurately is the first step towards solving the problem.
It occurs to me that there is at least one other possibility; it could be that all these theories are partly true. I have been speaking as if all evildoers are of one mind and support everything I have talked about here, but I have not had the opportunity to ask them all about every issue. It could be that the problem is partly misinformation, partly stupidity, partly selfishness, partly moral-neutralization, partly impulse control coupled with pride, and partly intellectual laziness. It could be that after determining the problem is not misinformation and rejecting that theory for stupidity, I talk to someone who is clearly not stupid but legitimately misinformed and I miss it because I have already rejected that theory. The best thing to do is to treat everyone as an individual and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, this only works if they are willing to engage with me. I’ve never known anyone not to give up on me almost immediately. It also only works if I do not ever give up on them. At this time, I’m not sure I have the energy.
Most explanations for the origins of evil that I’ve heard make no sense to me. While not necessarily false, they bring no insights into the modern world or everyday life. After doing a lot of my own thinking, I have combined all my ideas into seven basic theories: Misinformation, Stupidity, Selfishness, Ideology, Moral-Neutralization, Impulse Management, and NPC.
The Misinformation Theory
I used to believe that the voters were duped by lies and lacked the ability to engage in critical thinking on their own. I had reasoned that politicians would not bother with lies that were not working, and therefore there must be people that were actually being tricked. Reasoning further, I thought that if it were possible for voters to be tricked, and it was possible for voters to become the next generation of politicians, it must also be possible that some of today’s politicians were true believers. I considered lies themselves to be the enemy rather than flesh-and-blood people. I gave partisans the benefit of the doubt when no one else was.
This is not a viable belief any longer. While misinformation does exist, ignorance is not an excuse. Through modern technology, alternate viewpoints are everywhere. Sports bars often have FOX or CNN running. Presidential debates are televised. Political ads run whether you want them to or not. Talk radio exists. After watching only one video, YouTube will recommend thousands more like it. Bookstores are full of informative books on current affairs. Facebook is overflowing with as many right-wing memes as left-wing (to the extent that a distinction can even be made). Everybody has a nutty family member on the “other side” they can ask questions. The ability to be an informed voter is just a Google search away. Anyone who votes without doing the most basic level of research is recklessly negligent. This in and of itself is evil and requires its own explanation.
Furthermore, many of the disputes I have rest not on a difference in facts from the news, but on a difference in how to make sense of them. They disagree about fundamental axioms of logic, math, or morality (when I can even get the person to open up). After talking with many people of all political persuasions, I can confidently say that they want the abuse. They actually want to become slaves of the state. The problem is not that people are uninformed or misinformed. Even when the facts are agreed upon or the situation hypothetical, they make the wrong choice. The problem is that they deliberately seek to harm themselves and others.
Furthermore, misinformation cannot explain why partisans are so reluctant to educate me in polite conversation. If they truly believed what they have been told, you’d think they would be happy to pass on their knowledge. How else do they hope to win people to their side? Instead, they attack me for asking legitimate questions, twist around my words, and call me names. This is also evil and requires its own explanation.
The Stupidity Theory
People are not stupid. The fact that people I talk with are capable of holding jobs, navigating traffic, and tying their shoes proves that they are capable of much more mentally demanding tasks than moral reasoning. If they were truly stupid, they would be right by chance more often than they are. On some issues (such as which candidate to vote for), there are really only two basic positions. For someone too stupid to distinguish truth from falsehood, they would be right fifty percent of the time. Instead, it is as if they first figure out what is good and then do the opposite. They figure out the truth first and then chase after lies.
It has been suggested that partisans of all stripes are “binary thinkers,” only able to categorize things into one of two sets. If you are only capable of distinguishing between Democrats and Nazis, then anything not a Democrat, such as a Republican, is going to be classed as a Nazi. If you are only capable of distinguishing between Republicans and Communists, then anything not a Republican, such as a Democrat, is going to be classified as a Communist. The problem I have with this theory is that nobody is truly a binary thinker. If they were, they could not drive. At intersections, they would have to choose left or right and would be unable to go straight through. If the angles of the intersection were not exactly ninety degrees, they would drive right off the road. Reality is analog. To reduce it to a digital model is to make an arbitrary choice. Binary thinking is not the real problem.
Democrats in particular pretend to be ultimately stupid, going so far as denying the existence of truth itself, calling logic a social construct and math racist – but they don’t always act stupid. They can tell the difference between water and air, drinking one and breathing the other. I can only conclude they are pretending.
If someone truly didn’t believe in logic, they’d have no protection from non-sequiturs that might occur to them. While eating a sandwich, they might suddenly believe that because the bread is soft, they must be late for their train. Their behavior should be completely erratic.
If someone truly didn’t believe in logic, they could not follow a chain of reasoning from evidence to its conclusion. They could not infer from the calendar on their phones that it is in fact Saturday just because it says it is Saturday. They could not infer from seeing their bedroom right in front of them that they are at home and not at work.
If someone truly didn’t believe in logic, they would end up believing in contradictions. If someone actually believed in contradictions, they wouldn’t even be able to cross the street. They might think they could cross the street and not cross the street at the same time. They might think that both they and the bus could occupy the same space.
If someone actually believed contradictions were possible, they could not understand why 2+2 could not be BOTH 4 and 5. Even if they were taught the answer was ONLY 4, they still would be literally unable to understand why the answer couldn’t be ONLY 4 AND ONLY 5. Even if they were taught the answer was NOT 5, they still would be literally unable to understand why the answer couldn’t be NOT 5 AND 5.
If someone actually believed that 2+2=5, they couldn’t fill out a tax return. If two and two are five, then subtracting two twos from both sides of the equation gives us 0=1, meaning they might fill out zero tax returns instead of one. Anyone without a firm understanding of math wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.
If someone actually believed that “male” and “female” were totally arbitrary designations, able to be changed on a whim, they would not and could not care which locker room they were in. They could not tell the difference and would be happy to go wherever told. They would be literally unable to measure a gender wage gap. They would be unable to tell heterosexuality from homosexuality and think them equally oppressed. They also could not “believe all women” without believing EVERYONE. If someone actually believed all women, they would believe the women who have accused Biden of sexual harassment. They would believe Republican women when they equate abortion with murder and Libertarian women when they equate taxation with theft. Stupidity is not the problem; Democrats are too smart for that.
One variant of the stupidity theory I’ve heard is the idea that smart people can acquire stupidity. This is how cults grow. So the story goes, when a person greatly fears something and a leader steps in to befriend and protect them, people will somehow suspend their ability to reason and adopt a position of protecting the leader (and the group), putting up intellectual walls to avoid being reached by outside reason. “Redpilling” occurs when they lose trust in the leader. This can happen if they see the leader caught in a lie or bad behavior. Usually, the intellectual walls prevent this, explaining why “redpilling” is rare and doesn’t happen sooner, but all walls have cracks somewhere.
One problem with this theory is that the process can’t even get started without selectively suspending intellect. At the beginning, intellect is required to recognize an object to be feared and to recognize when a leader is attempting to win their trust, yet someone with a properly-functioning intellect would not fear some of the things Democrats (and some partisan Republicans) pretend to fear, nor would someone with a properly-functioning intellect choose an obviously bad leader over a better leader that is also hoping to earn their trust and has done just as much to befriend them.
Then, even after they have somehow suspended their intellect, intellect is still required to remain in the “cult.” To support the group and resist outside messages, intellect is needed to understand what “support” means and to distinguish between those inside and outside “the group.” Stupidity isn’t the problem. It is a matter of the will.
Furthermore, I am told that cult members must see this behavior for themselves and cannot be reached from the outside, but the distinction between inside and outside is unclear to me. When one is a direct witness to something, light still must enter the eyes from the “outside.” Watching a video of the event is only one step away from this. Being sent a video link by a friend is only one step further and should work, but it often does not. One step away from video evidence is news reporting of the event, and one step away from that is a friend informing one of the existence of such news reports. Why is this not good enough? It’s because they aren’t actually stupid.
The Selfishness Theory
There is a theory that love is always greater than hate because love is a prerequisite for hate. People only hate that which threatens what they love. There is a theory that serving the communal good is always greater than selfishness because our personal good is a subset of the communal good. People pursuing selfish ends are merely pursuing a lesser good, but it is still good. By the same logic, it is said that good is greater than evil, good wins in the end, and all people are redeemable.
It is said that the nature of will is to choose that which is valued over the choice not taken; one cannot choose that which they do not value. A being with will always serves some good – even if it is good only for the being in question at the expense of all others. In this model, evil is merely misguided good. It is a form of selfishness.
However, the policies many politicians propose don’t appear to serve anybody’s good. Selfishness doesn’t explain it. Those in power undermine their own power with inconsistent laws that are impossible to follow as if they don’t want to be obeyed. They weaken the military as if they don’t want the world to take them seriously. They weaken the border, allowing in potential terrorists and criminals that could threaten the stability of their own power base. They raise taxes and enact regulations that hurt the economy and decrease the same revenue that they hope to control. You’d think that a power-mad narcissist would want to be the ruler of a rich, strong country with happy citizens he/she could brag about, but most politicians seem to be committed to messing things up as much as possible.
How can selfishness explain politicians that want to abolish the police AND enact new laws? Who do they think is going to enforce those laws? How can selfishness explain Senators (including several Republicans) voting to convict Trump after he had left office – an act purely symbolic since the Chief Justice refused to participate – when they knew it would turn the majority of voters against them? How can selfishness explain activists being against the US flag while simultaneously supporting parades that feature the flags of other countries?
Why have mask mandates? Why have vaccine mandates? They serve no one. Some have speculated that the vaccine companies want the money from delivering as many vaccines as possible, but then why not just charge more per vaccine? Why not just make up pretend recipients like they do pretend voters? Why doesn’t the government just subsidize the vaccine companies the way they do farms and big oil? Why suppress use of Ivermectin? Is it because the patent has run out and there is little profit to be made? Then why not reinstate the patent if we are breaking the law and playing favorites anyways? It would be less disruptive and controversial than mandating vaccines.
I keep hearing that big tech is censoring news, but the fact that I keep hearing about it on social media means they are doing a piss-poor job. It’s as if they want the news to get out, but at the same time they want us to think they don’t want the news out. Even when running stories “debunking” rumors, such as the one about the vaccines being bad for fetuses, they only make people curious. They would do better not to mention the stories at all. What’s going on? Are they trying to play it safe by serving both sides? It’s not working. The way it comes across is that they want us divided. They want us to believe the worst about those in power while at the same time making us think there is a massive conspiracy to censor pro-liberty thought. The goal isn’t a left-wing dictatorship; the goal is war and anarchy. This will destroy their customer base, their infrastructure, and even the value of the money and credit they have accumulated. It serves no one.
I keep hearing that the NSA and other agencies are gathering data on every citizen, including private data without a warrant. People are worried that they will be targeted because of their advocacy. How is it then, that so many people are not only able to get the word out, but do damage and terror? Is the government just incompetent? Or are they undermining their own power to cause chaos?
While it is theoretically possible that there is some hidden benefit I haven’t thought of that could explain the behavior of politicians as selfishness, it really doesn’t explain the actions of ordinary people. They do not have seats in government. They don’t have lots of stock in pharmaceutical corporations. They have nothing to gain. Why do they lie right to my face about things they know I already know about? Why do they support nonsensical policies? Why do voters want to hurt themselves and undermine their own power just to aggrandize some politician? Selfishness is not the answer.
The Ideology Theory
An ideology is the set of positions derived from one’s foundational principles. It is formed from the information one has by the power of the intellect in accordance with one’s goals. Thus, the ideology theory of evil is a mix of the selfishness, stupidity, and misinformation theories. However, I have as yet been unable to formulate a consistent ideology for those running most of the world right now.
For a while, I believed that politicians were selfish, but that most Democrat voters were driven by ideology like most Republican voters were. I thought that the prime value of Democrats was the maximum centralization of power above all other values – not even caring how the power might be used. They wanted the government to confiscate guns even while calling that same government racist and patriarchal. They insisted on the government controlling health care even while knowing that pro-life Republicans sometimes win elections and might in the future use the government to serve their ideology instead by ending abortion coverage. However, I have come to realize that even this doesn’t make sense. Democrats reject government coercion when it suits them. They ignore the CDC when it says masks are no longer necessary. They criticize governors who ease lockdown restrictions. They prevent the INS and the ICE from doing their jobs. If all they cared about was obeying a dictator, it should not matter what the dictator’s policies are, but they do.
How can you explain Democrat activists who cry “My body, my choice!” when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to vaccines, seat belts, recreational drugs, or choosing to defend that same body with a firearm?
How can you explain a state run by big-government, nanny-state Democrats, with some of the highest taxes in the country, that doesn’t even provide the most basic service to keep the sidewalks clear of snow, insisting that homeowners must do it or be fined? Those who are bedridden or away on vacation have the responsibility to get someone else to do it. Even some moderate libertarians would agree that sidewalks are a government responsibility. This is inexplicable!
The truth is that Democrats have no ideology. They have no philosophy. They have no beliefs. “Conservatives” of all flavors (whether libertarian, nationalist, religious, pragmatist, or neocon) derive their positions on the parties and candidates from their ideologies. Democrats start with positions on candidates and parties without basis in reality and work backwards from there. Most of them mindlessly repeat slogans that they do not understand the meaning of. When asked questions, they refuse to explain, telling the questioner that they are hopeless. Often, they throw insults and threaten people. They label all those who are yet unconvinced as racists, Nazis, Fascists, sexists, homophobes, bigots, warmongers, and corporate shills. Rarely, when I have been able to engage one in conversation for more than a few seconds, I find that they use circular reasoning, make non-sequitur leaps of logic, include facts totally irrelevant, exclude facts totally relevant, hold to contradictions, and lie constantly about everything. They play mind games with me by moving the goalposts, gaslighting me, and changing the definitions of words in the middle of a sentence, ignoring the context, and twisting my words around into something they damn well know I didn’t mean. They are nothing but bullies. The reason nobody understands Democrat ideology is because there is nothing there to understand.
“Conservatives” fight for their goals. If they win, they stop fighting. For liberals, fighting is the goal. If they win, they keep on fighting for the fun of it. Democrats have no goals or ideals other than fighting, so they never know when they are finished. They only want as much chaos, confusion, destruction, and death as possible. Every debate I have ever had confirms this, and I have done more to reach out and understand people than anyone I have ever heard of, so when I say it, my words have some weight.
You can’t have an ideology without a belief in truth. Various “conservative” ideologies contradict each other because they have different beliefs about what the truth is, but they all believe in the concept of truth itself. They believe in facts and the use of reason to arrive at truth. They believe in free speech, persuasion, and debate. On the other hand, Democrats deny the existence of any truth and attack free speech.
Some have suggested that the Democratic party is nothing but a cabal of people who support the ingroup and abuse the outgroup, no matter what the issues of the day are. This doesn’t really make sense either. How can they tell who is in which group? Kim Davis was a registered Democrat, but many Democrats wanted to keep her in jail indefinitely. Trump was a billionaire and therefore a member of the elite, but they hated him too. They act so offended by cultural appropriation by whites, but not when Rachel Dolezal does it. Their behavior is arbitrary.
The Moral-Neutralization Contagion Theory
Because of my many interactions with evil people, I no longer know what the rules of society are or what is expected of me. I no longer know how to behave to get what I want, whether we are talking of laws or social norms. Since treating people nicely and respecting their rights has earned me so much abuse, and since those who do evil are often celebrated, why not do evil? How can it be evil to give people what they want? That’s the golden rule! When they make it abundantly clear that all they want to do is fight, and all attempts at peacemaking only make them even angrier, why not make them happy? Bring them gifts of torture and slaughter! Isn’t it the charitable thing to do?
When you find yourself sleeping in a store in a post-apocalyptic city, and you know the owner is either dead or has given up on it and moved elsewhere, and you find some goods missed by earlier looters, is it really stealing to take what you need? If you live in a society where everyone steals from everyone else, theft is normalized and tolerated by law enforcement, and the store owners themselves prove they do not really believe in property when they steal from others, is it really stealing to take what you need? When society is beyond saving, and its demise inevitable, it isn’t wrong to take care of yourself as long as you can. Labels such as theft only apply so long as the concept of ownership and belief in property persists. It is the belief itself that makes property property. When the economy has collapsed, no customers can pay, and no store can function. When everything around you is arbitrary, there is no right and wrong. Just as theft loses all meaning in extreme cases, vandalism, rape, and murder also have their limits. Why not have some fun?
Fortunately, we have not reached this point yet, but some parts of the country have come dangerously close. It is highly likely that certain people have already reached their personal moral-neutralization points. Those with abusive parents or those who have spent a lot of time in prison might find that everyone they know is deserving of punishment in some way. How are they to know any better when it comes to strangers? If someone in that situation were to shoot into the crowd at a concert or drive a vehicle into the crowd at a parade, it literally wouldn’t be wrong for them. Why not do unto others before they can do unto you?
I once worked at a place where I was spit on, groped, shoved, and every word out of my mouth was taken by my coworkers as me being either argumentative or whiny. Management was part of the problem. Before I could quit, someone lied to human resources that I had threatened someone. Later, when I was being harassed by the police over false charges by an old friend I was worried sick about, my other friends tried to cheer me up by telling me the various ways that karma was going to get her, showing no concern for her at all. My family repeatedly maligned my motives in every step I took even when I was following their advice! I have seen the ugly underbelly of human nature. I know that everyone I meet is really a monster waiting to happen. When I see children playing in a park, I see people that will grow up either to be bullies or to vote for bullies. Why give them the chance to grow up?
That’s the type of thinking that leads to genocides. Is this how evil spreads? Is this the reason that so many people go out of their way to derail conversations, vote for destructive candidates, and repay my kindness by accusing me of crimes? Could it be that their behavior is a cry for help, desperately looking for someone that will love them unconditionally? Could they be looking for a hero by becoming a villain? Somehow, I find this hard to believe. Society hasn’t fallen to that point yet, their lives don’t seem that bad to me, they repeatedly refuse to recognize good when they see it, and they are nice to me at least as often as they aren’t. Why the inconsistency?
The Impulse Management Theory
So far, I have been treating humans as if they are indivisible units that actually mean to make the choices they do. This is not completely true. Humans are prone to impulses that they do not understand. They often have mixed feelings about things. Desires do not always manifest themselves after all the cognitive work has been done, but at every step of the process. Wanting to procure a chocolate-frosted donut through purchase might be greater than wanting to procure a chocolate-frosted donut through theft, but this doesn’t always make the second wanting go away. Knowing that you can spare a minute to listen to someone doesn’t always turn off the impulse to leave when you were already on your way out. Managing all these competing desires in real time is complicated. If you’ve ever choked on your food by trying to breathe and swallow at the same time, you can understand how one might blurt out a random offensive thought or suddenly push a toddler down the stairs.
“When I want to do good, I don’t. And when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway.” – Romans 7:19
This sounds like a perfectly wretched existence and makes me feel sorry for them. Unfortunately, this theory doesn’t tell me how to solve the problem. They still have to be stopped. I know they can’t stop themselves, because the same impulses that plague them can infiltrate the part of them doing the self-control. I also know they can’t be stopped by the state, because the state has already been infiltrated by impulsive individuals. The fact is, everyone (including myself) suffers from some degree of mental disorganization and so the number of evil people outnumber the good about nine billion to zero. Turning this ship around will take nothing less than a miracle.
Of course, impulses are temporary. How do they end up becoming matters of policy or party platforms? How is it that people make the same mistakes with me again and again? I had once thought that the reason people don’t immediately apologize and correct for their impulses – the consequences of which are often minor and easily fixed – was pride – itself a desire we all have to feel good about ourselves. I had thought that giving people permission to make mistakes of this nature and offering them ways to explain themselves in such a way to save face and keep their pride intact would keep minor problems from growing into big ones. I had thought that being an example to follow by apologizing first would give them the courage to do the same. It hasn’t worked. They reject my offers of peace and dig themselves in deeper every time. I don’t even know that pride is always the problem.
The NPC Theory
Another theory I have encountered is that we live in a simulation and some people are NPCs (non-player characters) created by the computer that are incapable of true awareness. They simply follow their programming and do not understand. In this model, there is no reason to love our enemies because they are just empty bodies; there is no person there to love.
There might be some truth to this. I have observed that most people take sloppy shortcuts with their thinking. They stumble through a foggy world of fuzzy concepts only dimly aware of their surroundings. This happens to me too when I am very tired or when I allow myself to get lazy because I believe myself to be in familiar mental territory and can rely on memory. The effect is so insidious that it happens automatically without my awareness. The only difference between myself and others is one of degree.
I have also noticed that people cannot always pass a Turing test. A Turing test is the name given to any test designed to discern between computers and conscious beings. Computers act in accordance with their programming without even being aware. Humans can think creatively and choose between options. However, many people are quick to respond with what seem like memorized phrases that don’t quite fit what I said. I sometimes inadvertently use some phrase or word that activates a (usually negative) response from others, but if they had actually heard and understood the grammar of the sentences I used, they would realize their response was unwarranted. Engaging in conversation with these people is indistinguishable from talking with our current AI programs.
This is the theory I have the least trouble with, but I am still uncertain. The NPC theory is a variant of the stupidity theory, but one that allows for compartmentalization. Just because one shows brilliant comprehension in one subject does not mean they must be acting stupid when failing another subject. However, it still doesn’t explain the explicit rejection of math and logic itself.
Furthermore, any theory that basically defines certain people as non-entities is the beginning of a very dangerous slippery slope. It could quickly lead to a resurgence of eugenics. Who is conscious? Who isn’t? Who decides? We must be very careful to give others the benefit of the doubt.
Further Thoughts:
Some have suggested that true evil is not selfishness, stupidity, or wrong belief, but is pursued for its own sake out of “free will.” In other words, it is axiomatic, just like good is. It is an uncaused cause. My biggest problem with this type of thinking is that it explains without explaining. It merely tells us in different words what we already know. If evil is by definition that which serves nothing, then explaining it would mean it wasn’t really evil. Evil “just is.” For similar reasons, I have trouble understanding jealousy, sadism, and masochism as motives. Where do such motives come from? Explaining evil to come from one of these impulses still requires an explanation for such irrational impulses.
Furthermore, this sort of thinking is defeatist. If evil is truly without cause, there is no way even in principle to negotiate for peace. There is no motive that we can use as a lever. We have nothing to offer them that they want. Evil people are not motivated by anything because they have no ideology. Not even threats of violence will work. Such things only work on selfish people who care about their own well-being or selfless people who care about the fulfillment of their greater goals for the community’s well-being. True evil cares for no well-being; that’s what evil is!
I know I am supposed to love my enemies, but I have no idea what love looks like in this context. They complain no matter what I do. There is no making them happy. For all I know, hurting them will make them happy and helping them will cause pain. They are masochistic and unpredictable. In the meantime, they abuse me and they abuse each other, and it’s not very loving to stand by while people get hurt. If I truly love my enemies, I must protect them from my other enemies. They must be stopped!
Some might suggest that it is unhelpful to call people out for their evil actions, that I should give them the benefit of the doubt so that we can negotiate. I have already tried that and failed. They aren’t interested in negotiation. I truly don’t see how insults will make things worse; they might even make things better. Besides, no progress is possible if we don’t start from a point of honesty and the honest truth is that most people are evil. Describing the problem accurately is the first step towards solving the problem.
It occurs to me that there is at least one other possibility; it could be that all these theories are partly true. I have been speaking as if all evildoers are of one mind and support everything I have talked about here, but I have not had the opportunity to ask them all about every issue. It could be that the problem is partly misinformation, partly stupidity, partly selfishness, partly moral-neutralization, partly impulse control coupled with pride, and partly intellectual laziness. It could be that after determining the problem is not misinformation and rejecting that theory for stupidity, I talk to someone who is clearly not stupid but legitimately misinformed and I miss it because I have already rejected that theory. The best thing to do is to treat everyone as an individual and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, this only works if they are willing to engage with me. I’ve never known anyone not to give up on me almost immediately. It also only works if I do not ever give up on them. At this time, I’m not sure I have the energy.