The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince us he exists.
it is part of being good to want bad to disappear by every means
right, but they have been proven to be demonstrably evil. Or are we now sympathetic to cancer? If they want to be treated like people they should start acting like it. Just because one is a pacifist, does not mean they shouldn’t defend themself
Lemmy in a nutshell
actually , mostly facebook
(almost) Literally everyone inside and outside of social media. Everyone has a line for when they would murder someone, or at the very least think they deserve to die somehow. And almost everyone of those people would think they’re still a good person while wishing death on someone.
The op seems like a clever sort of epiphany about how everyone’s a hypocrite but it’s not that deep.
I think social media allows people to post their first gut reaction faster than they can think. And I think the op is maybe referring to specific online bubbles that will extrapolate “I don’t like dogs” into knowing that that person would be better off dead, but as it is I don’t think this post says much in itself.
90% of this thread: “nuh uh! I’m a good person and should be allowed to kill all those evil, bad cops and billionaire and nazis”
Also 90% of this thread: would piss their pants if given a gun and told to shoot another human being, no matter how evil they knew they were.
I can barely shoot pests in my backyard. I don’t know if I could shoot a nazi or oppressor
the pests are innocent, which makes the choice hard for me. the evil people who are just clearly evil… idk how I’d react. and I hope to never know.
but I do hope that somebody else already knows.
Pretty sure this is a subset of the freedom vs liberty concept. Just cause you technically have the freedom to take an action doesn’t mean you have the social, mental, or economic liberty to act apon it.
Hell I know damned well I can act on my violent impulses but even for myself I would have to work myself into a state where my social conditioning wouldn’t be a factor anymore. Pretty damned hard to override mental restraints you’ve had built up since you were nine, though I can drop into it pretty fast it’d take either me being attacked or me needing to work myself into it before hand.
My point is most folks don’t really have the mental infrastructure required to just drop into violence on a whim, which IMO is nominally a good thing since at minimum it means most threats to oneself has been abstracted away.
happy to be in that 10%
Everyone deserves to be treated exactly the way they treat others.
So be racist to racists. Throw homophobes on the street. Exploit the rich. And kill all Nazis.
And if they can’t handle that, then that is on them. It is the most neutral view you can have of the world.
There’s a line in The Republic that states something to the effect of “You cannot persuade someone who doesn’t want to listen” at that point firing their own venom back at them is justified.
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” -Gandhi
So should we just tolerate the intolerant? Cause that’s going to end well. We’d still have half a planet with stabbed eyes while they go scot free.
It turns out there are more than zero options between “do nothing” and “become what you hate”. Many in fact.
Edgy 14 year old logic
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
A system of fair rules does not always lead to fair outcomes, if the rules don’t accommodate the asymmetry in capacity, motivation, resources, etc.
Tolerance paradox in action!
The tolerance paradox does not exist. See BeardedSquidwards comment.
I remember being told it makes more sense when you realize it’s a part of the social contract. Breaching it prevents you from taking part in it.
Indeed. If one side breaks the contract, the other isn’t bound by it anymore either.
Blatant flaw in this: I don’t want to murder anyone. I don’t want to rape anyone. I don’t want to be racist to anyone (though I acknowledge I am). And the moment I would do something like that to anyone, I would be a murderer or a rapist, and that’s a shitty thing to be. So no thanks.
It’s just an endless line of good intentioned rapists.
Yeah, also, I’d like my moral reasoning to have evolved past Hammurabi.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I understand what that is supposed to mean, but it makes no sense. I have never taken anybody’s eyeball so if that was the law of the land, I would feel pretty safe. Eventually, everyone going around taking eyeballs would have no eyes and they would be much less likely to be able to take more, at least without some assistance I imagine.
Plenty of places have a “death for a death” law where if you kill someone you can be put to death. I’m against the death penalty personally, but that has never really been of personal concern to me since I don’t go around murdering.
If you take something from someone, should they not be able to take it back from you? If you steal $1000, do I just have to sit there? I should be entitled to take $1000 back. If anything, I should also potentially be entitled to more.
While for an eye is not my preference, it was used to make people as whole as possible and was considered an improvement at the time.
I understand what that is supposed to mean
It seems like your understanding is different from other people’s.
I think they’re taking it bit too literally
Same
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Exactly not. An eye for an eye ended the custom of escalating feuds. If only one eye can be taken in revenge, then all other eyes stay healthy.
It only continues if a taken eye is seen as unjust which leads to a chain of mutually unjustly taken eyes. But that’s a slow process so the elders may figure something out while it happens.
Been a while since I watched Death Note, but did Light brutally murder people? I thought it was mostly heart attacks, which was the default way for someone to die unless otherwise specified.
He killed innocents to avoid prosecution.
That I do remember. I just assumed that was also via heart attacks. Either way, still an evil act.
Even if he hadn’t caused a variety of deaths in a variety of ways, I think causing a variety of heart attacks still counts as brutally murdering people
I’ve never had a heart attack so idk how to gauge if it’s a brutal way to die or not. I’ll assume it’s not the best way to go lol
I think funnily enough heart attack was meant as a catch-all kind death for people that was the authors first thought to just move past that hurdle. Heart attacks are definitely not the least harmful way to die, well, it depends on the type of heart attack. Certain aneurysms might be more painless. But overall it’s a bit of a hand wave.
The elaborate bus jacking was pretty violent. I think he also had some prisoners do things like write messages in their own blood when he was testing the notebook out.
I’ll allow you to call me bad if I’m also allowed to drop billionaires, the trillionaire, selected world leaders, and most of the Epstein class in to a woodchipper. It only seems fair.
What is more important: considering yourself a good person, or materially benefiting the world?
I’ll take option 2, thanks. Woodchippers! GET YOUR WOODCHIPPERS HERE!!
Fuck this noise. Milk Nazis and fascists.
Try them in court, convict, and then line them up with their families watching and shoot them in the face and make it required viewing for every kid on the planet.
So much for the tolerant left…
Motherfuckers, you labeled me as tolerant because I don’t hate people for immutable characteristics they were born with. That doesn’t mean I’m tolerant of nazis maga traitors.
Tolerance paradox is the only way forward. They deserve no quarter.
Hey now! Just look at history and you’ll see how often non-violence works! Like for instance checks notes …uh oh frantically flipping through notes guys, oh no!
“So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt!!”
Pictured: Antifa social group, North Africa club, 1943, being as tolerant as they can
Those Nazis really get my goat!
A trial with due process is key. But, they’d need to be kicked out of power, first. Somehow. Because Nazis won’t convict Nazis, obviously.
I’m not looking forward to what happens if they steal the mid-terms.
Nah, they should be treated the way they treat others.
Nazis are the only group that deserve to be gassed.
And if they don’t like this, there’s always the super easily, highly convenient solution of NOT BEING A NAZI.
It can be super difficult when your only opportunity for survival is to become one of Immortan Joe’s war boys, and are trained that your only path to redemption is to be a hero, to be witnessed as you sacrifice yourself in battle.
Exactly. A person can want every nazi dead and hope that nobody has to die while being completely logically and morally covered.
But that’s not fair my skin is white and that means I’m important because insert fascist leader said so.
But we must always focus on our goal of minimizing suffering. The path to evil comes when we focus more on us vs them and hurting the enemy than we are on building a better world. Fetishization of violence is a dangerous path.
I lament that I believe that violence and public executions are necessary, but I do. But I also don’t believe it’s sufficient. We must also build a better world.
Hooray
Let’s all have barbecue afterwards because these fucks don’t get to put a stain on our day
Barbeque the Naizis ALIIIVE!
Reign of Terror ass motherfucker
#2 electric boogaloo
I for one can’t wait to see who the modern John C Woods will be
I feel this way about cops, land lords and billionaires. Tbf tho if those didn’t exist the world would be a much better place.
The problem is that landlords are just the players who got the lucky drops, often the children of lords and merchants who lucked into success.
And once in that position, no one wants to give up their advantage.
Experimental psychologists have done tests on this, and found that it takes effect even in the short term. Monopoly players who are (selected at random) given extra salary money at Go! and extra turns will play, win, and insist that they won by their own skill and merit. Those advantaged also will indulge more in the table snacks.
Quite a severe lack of intellectual rigour is going on there. If nothing happens to bad people then they’ll keep being bad people. The difference between the bad people and the good people is that the bad people do bad things because they like it. Good people do bad things to stop bad people from being bad people doing bad things.
If you let the bad people do bad things because you’re a good person and as a good person you don’t do bad things then the bad things may as well be done by the good people. It’s all the same.
This is intellectual rigor?
Light went after people in the prison system or suspected of being criminals, without ever doubting the justness of the system in any way. He is useful idiot, delusional agent of the system or megalomaniacal bootlicker. Choose your pick.
Also, just a plain old idiot. Imagine having the magical power to kill anyone undetected and you’re like “hooray, I can go after local crooks!”. Had Light ever seen a newspaper? Did he know the world outside his city existed? If you aren’t starting with and primarily focusing on people globally known are you even trying?
I mean, wasnt he being led by a literal trickster demon…?
Ryuk was pretty hands off throughout the whole thing. He kind of just sat there and basked in the spectacle. Hell, there were points where he was shocked a human was even capable of going as far as Light did.
The “trickster demon” who in episode 1 hears Light’s plan and responds, “If you do that, you’ll be the only bad guy left?”
Ryuk didn’t make him do shit, he was just in it for the apples.
Maybe I missed that (I watched it twice), but to me it appeared very much so that he had (except after the intricate swaps, which erased his memory) full agency, and was the one pushing the limits/boundaries of the mechanic.
Of course one can make the point that power corrupts etc., and the Shinigamis are attached to that power. In a way, they embody power and could be seen as the corrupting force, but that is as far as I would take that. At least Riuk was emotionally detached/had no real stake in it. I don’t recall him ever endorsing or driving him to persue his mission. Maybe his subdued admiration of Lights “shenanigans” can be seen as adding fuel to the his (ego) fire, but that also is a defect Light has had before, not instilled by Riuk.
I just always took his “admiration” as a subtle nod to the darker forces at play. Like he isnt directly telling him to do it but he is definitely feeding off of it in a sense and lightly encourages it. Its not blatant. I always took the apples to be that kind of metaphor
Ok, but you do realize you can punish someone without killing, right? It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Bad people can be prevented from doing more bad things without any blood being shed.
You can try but look what happened when we didn’t finish off the slavers and the Nazis. They linger on until an orange shitstain comes along and empowers them.
The mistake with the Nuremburg Trials is that we didn’t hang enough Nazis
The problem with most things that use good and bad as a foundation is that they never account for perspective.
Good and bad are made up and subjective.
If you don’t account for that in your positions then you’re setting yourself up for fundamentalism.
Absolutely I am merely responding with the same level of intellectualism as the original comment.
If we can’t even get as far as sometimes violence is necessary and absolutism is a useless philosophy, then there’s no point getting into nuance.
I don’t think good and bad are that subjective. You can get into the weeds but it can be pretty well boiled down to “treat others the way you want them to treat you” is good and “treat others in a way you wouldn’t want them to treat you” is bad. We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.
“One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” is a concise way that the goodness or badness of an actions or outcomes is filtered through the subjective lens of the whoever happens to be considering the topic.
On an individual level, “don’t be a dick” is a pretty useful guideline , but even that is subject to what each person thinks constitutes dickish behaviour.
We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.
Even that is subjective, think about what is socially acceptable in Finland?, how about Russia?, Morocco? France?
Do they all have the same idea of socially acceptable behaviours?
How about now vs 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years in the future?.
Sure, there are some that are fairly common, but i wouldn’t consider those to be of a sufficient percentage of the whole that i could disregard behvaioural subjectivity, but that’s just my opinion.
That’s why America has so many “good guys with guns”.
That whole idea is poorly thought out. In the split second of danger presented in the situation where a good guy with a gun could stop something, no one has any idea what is happening or why or to who and the decision must be made in seconds. No wonder good guy with gun doesn’t just start blasting. If their goal is to not hurt good people, blasting away is a good way to hurt Innocents.
Not to mention, people don’t like getting shot themselves.
What is good or bad? Whats bad on one side is good on the other. Both sides are good with the other side bad, from their point of view. With no objective good or bad, neither is, and morality means nothing so you can do anything with a clear conscience.
With no objective good or bad
Where do pedophilia and rape fall in your intellectually lazy, moral relativism argument? What about freeing enslaved people?
Saying there is no objective good or bad only shows your lack of moral convictions.
Are you going to apply this logic to the activities which took place on Epstein Island?
Sorry but that’s irrelevant. Who personally views themselves as good and bad isn’t relevant to how I apply your logic from my perspective.
The danger comes in thinking that everything you do is good simply because you do it.
You shouldn’t hurt people if you don’t have to but that’s not the same as saying that violence should be avoided at all costs and that it’s never useful, or even ultimately the lesser evil.
I have a problem with these absolutists the tried to suggest that the situation should never be taken into account and that violence is always bad. It’s intellectually dishonest and it’s naive.
Light Yagami would say that
I mean, I know we should not generalize, but the Epstein class are bad people who deserve to be murdered in awful suffering.
It’s rare to see someone wno is evil without a doubt, but anyone from the Epstein class is one.
Who are “the Epstein class”? Just Epstein and Ghislaine? Just the rapists? Everyone in the files?
Seems like, whatever the punishment, you still need a process to determine guilt according to the evidence, rather than trial by public opinion.
I’ll settle for “anyone accused of any wrongdoing in the Epstein files in any manner.”
We can sort through the gritty details afterwards and apologize to the single person that was wrongly accused.
Can’t apologize to someone you murdered (their words).
Call me crazy, but I don’t think being accused of a crime should be enough for a death sentence.
In any other circumstance I would agree with you. This about the survival of the species. This isn’t a normal bad government structure that needs to be rooted out. This isn’t the same oppression that we’ve been dealing with for thousands of years. The people in that list are specifically the most powerful and untouchable people that have ever lived and they are ACTIVELY MURDERING THE PLANET FOR THEIR OWN PLEASURE. This isn’t something that can wait for the normal process to take it’s time. If we don’t act this minute, we will be too late. It’s quite likely that we are already too late.
I’m sure that apology will do a lot of good to them after they’re dead.
Me, I’ll be over here standing up for the rule of law instead of “just kill whoever is accused in a particular set of documents”.
In a normal situation, I would agree with you that we should follow the rule of law. But there is simply no time to beat around the bush for a few decades sorting through all the docs and having trials for everyone involved when everyone involved OWNS THE JUDGES. the system must change before we can achieve justice, and there is no way to change that system through the legal system.
I dunno just making a list for people that are apologetic about it, positive towards it, partial to the acts or on the receiving end of a cashflow would be just insta killable if I was suddenly dictator of the world
People that treat people as things deserve the same courtesy.
.ml in a nutshell.
Guilt tripping is a tactic often used by the abuser to control the abused.
