<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mcguire</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s what struck me most about the article, as well. Russell&amp;#x27;s essay is very flattering, until you realize the &lt;i&gt;we&lt;/i&gt; that he terms &amp;quot;the best men of the present day&amp;quot; are probably not the &lt;i&gt;we&lt;/i&gt; of Hacker News.&lt;p&gt;In particular, when Russell writes about &amp;quot;the philosophical radicals ... who were just as sure of themselves as the Hitlerites are[, who] dominated politics and ... advanced [the world] rapidly both in intelligence and in material well-being,&amp;quot; he is very likely writing about people who would definitely be a Hacker News &lt;i&gt;they&lt;/i&gt;, given what I know about his politics and given statements like &amp;quot;if at any future time there should be danger of a Labour Government that meant business, [the British Fascists] would win the support of most of the governing classes.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;So, if this essay leaves you with a warm and fuzzy feeling about your &amp;quot;wider and truer outlook&amp;quot; and the feeling that you are being oppressed because of your &amp;quot;skepticism and intellectual individualism&amp;quot;, well, congratulations! You&amp;#x27;ve discovered the power of emotional rhetoric.</text><parent_chain><item><author>hoorayimhelping</author><text>&amp;gt;&lt;i&gt;There is a large chunk of society who&amp;#x27;re easily swayed by purely emotional rhetoric based on in-groups and out-groups&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think this sentence is the biggest indicator of the problem. The Problem being not that there are large parts of society swayed by emotional rhetoric, but that to most people, the emotional swaying happens to &lt;i&gt;others&lt;/i&gt;. It&amp;#x27;s never me who&amp;#x27;s swayed by emotions, it&amp;#x27;s always less rational people, and if only those people could get their shit together, &lt;i&gt;like me&lt;/i&gt;, we&amp;#x27;d be in a much better place.&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;re just as swayed by emotion as those non nerds, you&amp;#x27;re just swayed on different values. Pretending like you&amp;#x27;re above it gets us nowhere, because it perpetuates an unhelpful me vs everyone else mentality. It&amp;#x27;s very satisfying to the ego but it just serves to further drive a wedge between you and everyone else.</text></item><item><author>jasim</author><text>In &amp;quot;How to Make Wealth&amp;quot;, pg points out that the emergence of the rule of law made the modern economy as we know it possible. It did - social progress has made institutions like democracy and ideas like liberty and rationalism more popular than it has ever been in history.&lt;p&gt;This used to give me a dangerously false sense of optimism - that the modern society is a stable scientific one, where good intelligent people are in charge, and that the state of affairs are always improving. This notion partly came from the privilege of never having lived in a war-zone. The life of chaos of those who are unfortunate to be in one is even now beyond my understanding.&lt;p&gt;I think that the idea that humanity is always marching forward to better days is something implicit among people who live in peaceful affluent societies. But if you look at history, the world has always gone through cycles. No matter how much we improve socially, a regression seems almost inevitable. The Roman Empire did fall, and was followed by the Dark Ages.&lt;p&gt;Even in the most democratic countries of the world, fascism is only just around the corner. There is a large chunk of society who&amp;#x27;re easily swayed by purely emotional rhetoric based on in-groups and out-groups, and likes to follow leaders who make a show of macho masculinity. The status-quo is pretty fragile. The nerds aren&amp;#x27;t safe. Those with warrior tendencies always have upper-hand over those with nation-building tendencies, and that reads like a tautology.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Triumph of Stupidity (1933)</title><url>http://russell-j.com/0583TS.HTM</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>decayza</author><text>This is why liberal intelectuals are so paralyzed. Yes of course we&amp;#x27;re emotional too. And yes we can be swayed. But life is not black and white. The best of us has managed to develop a resistance to this kind of rhetoric by a life of study, debate, examining common rhetorical tricks etc. And it&amp;#x27;s not just different values that drives us. It&amp;#x27;s values that has carried us through a century of carnage into a much better life. We need to stop apologising and invoking bullshit relativistic cultural arguments and show some pride in basic values like equality for women, freedom of speech etc. I kind of think that&amp;#x27;s the central point that Bertrand Russell is making we paralyze each other by focusing on any potential error instead of realising that the things we value is mostly aligned and has been refined over a long time. We can trust most of our values.</text><parent_chain><item><author>hoorayimhelping</author><text>&amp;gt;&lt;i&gt;There is a large chunk of society who&amp;#x27;re easily swayed by purely emotional rhetoric based on in-groups and out-groups&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think this sentence is the biggest indicator of the problem. The Problem being not that there are large parts of society swayed by emotional rhetoric, but that to most people, the emotional swaying happens to &lt;i&gt;others&lt;/i&gt;. It&amp;#x27;s never me who&amp;#x27;s swayed by emotions, it&amp;#x27;s always less rational people, and if only those people could get their shit together, &lt;i&gt;like me&lt;/i&gt;, we&amp;#x27;d be in a much better place.&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;re just as swayed by emotion as those non nerds, you&amp;#x27;re just swayed on different values. Pretending like you&amp;#x27;re above it gets us nowhere, because it perpetuates an unhelpful me vs everyone else mentality. It&amp;#x27;s very satisfying to the ego but it just serves to further drive a wedge between you and everyone else.</text></item><item><author>jasim</author><text>In &amp;quot;How to Make Wealth&amp;quot;, pg points out that the emergence of the rule of law made the modern economy as we know it possible. It did - social progress has made institutions like democracy and ideas like liberty and rationalism more popular than it has ever been in history.&lt;p&gt;This used to give me a dangerously false sense of optimism - that the modern society is a stable scientific one, where good intelligent people are in charge, and that the state of affairs are always improving. This notion partly came from the privilege of never having lived in a war-zone. The life of chaos of those who are unfortunate to be in one is even now beyond my understanding.&lt;p&gt;I think that the idea that humanity is always marching forward to better days is something implicit among people who live in peaceful affluent societies. But if you look at history, the world has always gone through cycles. No matter how much we improve socially, a regression seems almost inevitable. The Roman Empire did fall, and was followed by the Dark Ages.&lt;p&gt;Even in the most democratic countries of the world, fascism is only just around the corner. There is a large chunk of society who&amp;#x27;re easily swayed by purely emotional rhetoric based on in-groups and out-groups, and likes to follow leaders who make a show of macho masculinity. The status-quo is pretty fragile. The nerds aren&amp;#x27;t safe. Those with warrior tendencies always have upper-hand over those with nation-building tendencies, and that reads like a tautology.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Triumph of Stupidity (1933)</title><url>http://russell-j.com/0583TS.HTM</url></story>