[Hong Wu]

I know this guy, let's call him Robert. Robert believes that he's going to make the next big tech company and not sell out. Lots of the proceeds will go to unidentified charities. So far, this is fine.

He also likes to joke about how he'll have a huge office and have sex with all the interns. Made me feel a little uncomfortable but you know, we're guys so whatever.

I started to worry when he suggested that since his company will be charitable, people who won't work with him on it are bad people, since obviously charity is good and not contributing to charity is bad.

I have avoided discussing it with him but a couple things seem to be going in here. First, Robert seems to have conflated being a good person and being materially successful, to a high degree, in his mind. You can't suggest to some of these people that these things can't go together. Second, it seems greatly upsetting to many people to suggest that someone can refuse to work with you and still be a good person.

The nexus between these two things seems to be a form of narcissistic delusion. They really believe that their success, as they define it, and the greater good are the same thing. Anyone who disagrees with that gets viciously atacked. And maybe this is why western people can't stand being disagreed with.

Western people don't hate disagreement because these issues are tangible things that they work with or effect; it's usually quite the opposite. So there's a different reason for this desire for total uniformity. I have been wondering if it isn't a form of narcissistic delusion of grandeur as I described earlier and their real goal in requiring total agreement is to protect that illusion.

[Potemkin]

I know this guy, let's call him Robert. Robert believes that he's going to make the next big tech company and not sell out. Lots of the proceeds will go to unidentified charities. So far, this is fine.

He also likes to joke about how he'll have a huge office and have sex with all the interns. Made me feel a little uncomfortable but you know, we're guys so whatever.

I started to worry when he suggested that since his company will be charitable, people who won't work with him on it are bad people, since obviously charity is good and not contributing to charity is bad.

I have avoided discussing it with him but a couple things seem to be going in here. First, Robert seems to have conflated being a good person and being materially successful, to a high degree, in his mind. You can't suggest to some of these people that these things can't go together. Second, it seems greatly upsetting to many people to suggest that someone can refuse to work with you and still be a good person.

The nexus between these two things seems to be a form of narcissistic delusion. They really believe that their success, as they define it, and the greater good are the same thing. Anyone who disagrees with that gets viciously atacked. And maybe this is why western people can't stand being disagreed with.

Western people don't hate disagreement because these issues are tangible things that they work with or effect; it's usually quite the opposite. So there's a different reason for this desire for total uniformity. I have been wondering if it isn't a form of narcissistic delusion of grandeur as I described earlier and their real goal in requiring total agreement is to protect that illusion.

You've just described the mentality of every ruling elite in human history.

[Zamuel]

I have been wondering if it isn't a form of narcissistic delusion of grandeur as I described earlier and their real goal in requiring total agreement is to protect that illusion.

Personally I attribute such behavior to a deficient self image. Western morality tends to induce this.
Eventually it leads to depression and withdrawal, which affects the community and impacts social values.

Zam

[One Degree]

It was all excellently summarized with, “power corrupts”. It is an extremely rare individual who can resist the self delusion that comes with power. We all do it with our daydreams of “what the world needs to do”. What would happen to your ego if you found even 12 people to accept you as their leader?
This is probably the appeal of social media with it’s ‘like system’. We all want to be the ‘one who understands’.
Pure folly and getting support for our folly is usually disastrous. I even believe most revolutionaries might be sincere, but as soon as others believe them, the corruption sets in.

[Zamuel]

I even believe most revolutionaries might be sincere, but as soon as others believe them, the corruption sets in.

Existencial reality: A pure impulse is polluted as soon as it is perceived from a second POV. (?)

[One Degree]

Existencial reality: A pure impulse is polluted as soon as it is perceived from a second POV. (?)

The original view starts to distort because of the willing observation of other viewers? Perhaps a quantum reality?

[Zamuel]

The original view starts to distort because of the willing observation of other viewers? Perhaps a quantum reality?

Now you've ruined it ...

[Potemkin]

The original view starts to distort because of the willing observation of other viewers? Perhaps a quantum reality?

All ideologies tend to be vulgarised by their followers, especially if those followers are 'men of action'. The subtle and profound ideas of Nietzsche and Darwin were vulgarised by the Nazis, the subtle and profound ideas of Hegel and Marx were vulgarised by the Stalinists, the subtle and profound ideas of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke have been vulgarised by the neo-liberals, and so on and so forth. Most people are rather simple-minded, and to the simple-minded all things are simple. They vulgarise everything they touch.