You won't leave it will you? — unenlightened

The thread is 34 pages long. You raised the issue of psychology being somewhat to blame for the related issues brought up. I gave two responses asking you to defend such an accusation and that's somehow become such an intolerable distraction it must be hived off? Is the idea we just accept your divine wisdom and move on to the next sermon?

OK... So what evidence do you have that ""Environmental factors" is an abstraction to lead the gullible psychologist to believe that "all the bases have been covered", but they have not."? — Isaac

"Environmental factors" does not consider the moral dimension of our political environment, only that behaviour and mental states do indeed depend on context. "Environmental factors" ignores the fact that the patient is able to participate in collective action to change the political conditions, and such activity will be, if justified, by definition frustrated, resisted, imprisoned, killed by the state, for which the psychologists are an agent and can do nothing of significance to help (that's not what they're paid to do).

The key question is whether the state is legitimate or not, everything hinges on this reality. To attack state legitimacy, the psychologist must deny their own authority on the subject of psychology, which at the end of the day, is completely inseparable to state authority.

And to be clear, I have no problem with any attempts to besmirch my character with accusations and implications of "mentally illness". My words remain untouched.

Indeed, I whole heartedly embrace it.

I am depressed. I am unstable. I am schizophrenic. I am bipolar. I have a deficit of coming to attention. Above all, I am the authority opposition disorder. I am a madman.

I would not only rather be found among, but be considered as exactly the same as my down trodden brothers and sisters. I would rather not only hold out my arms to the refuse of society to comfort them, but also run to their arms to be comforted.

I would rather be among the mob desperate and frantic to find a new light, a fresh breath of air, than pass the pipe of the privileged around in the ivory tower of disdain.

"Environmental factors" ignores the fact that the patient is able to participate in collective action to change the political conditions, and such activity will be, if justified, by definition frustrated, resisted, imprisoned, killed by the state, for which the psychologists are an agent and can do nothing of significance to help (that's not what they're paid to do). — boethius

I'm not seeing what that's got to do with perception of object permanence in the under fives? Perhaps you could join the dots for me?

I would not only rather be found among, but be considered as exactly the same as my down trodden brothers and sisters. I would rather not only hold out my arms to the refuse of society to comfort them, but also run to their arms to be comforted. — boethius

Credo!

Perhaps you could join the dots for me? — Isaac

No problem connecting the dots.

Political analysis is not only about the organization of society today, in the past, and potential future organization and what actions might go where, it is also the moral evaluation of such organization and such actions.

It is not simply a part of the "environmental conditions" that we happen to find ourselves in, but includes the moral argumentation to evaluate those conditions, where we might want to go, and how to get there.

What is reasonable to do is completely different under a illegitimate and an legitimate state. What is reasonable in terms of doubting what society claims is acceptable behaviour, much more the truth, is completely different under an illegitimate and legitimate state. Psychology does not make this fundamental and totally obvious observation from which analysis of particular situations becomes completely different.

A person killing agents of the state in a legitimate government is a deranged serial killer. A person killing agents of the state in an illegitimate government is a war hero. When the US army and co. killed all those Iraqi, Afghani, Libyan etc. state agents it is not considered deranged serial killing if those state agents represent an illegitimate government and the US army represents a legitimate government acting in self defense; those soldiers are therefore war heroes under such an assumption. When the US revolutionary fighters killed all those British soldiers they were war heroes and not deranged serial killers, under the assumption that taxation without representation is an illegitimate form of government. The Nazi's were deranged serial killers (with varying degrees of apologetics we can engage in depending on the Nazi) because the Nazi government was not legitimate, either in representing the people's will or then, if so, that will itself was not morally acceptable and had no moral legitimacy.

Evaluation of behaviour cannot be concluded without first concluding the form of government is not only legitimate (enough) but moral (enough) to justify adhering to norms promoted by that society. Such an evaluation is outside the purview of psychology as an intellectual edifice, rendering psychology, at best, a hypothetical exercise.

Such an evaluation is not only beyond the purview of psychology but beyond the purview of science as a whole.

As I have stated from the beginning of this conversation, the argument that the US government in it's current form of minority rule is legitimate and therefore all civil disobedience relative curfew and police instruction as well as looting and destruction of objects are simply criminal, can be made. I have yet to hear it, but I am willing to listen.

You didn't even mention perception of object permanence in the under fives. I was asking how the political influence (let's take your example of the legitimacy of the state) should be taken account of when researching, for example, the perception of object permanence in the under fives. Such a researcher might be gathering CR gaze tracking data in response to object manipulation. They want to report the statistical analysis of their findings. At what point do they introduce the question to the legitimacy of the state?

In reference to the Fanon lecture I linked to above, I can relate that when I lived in the South of France in the 80s, and probably still, there were enclaves of Algerians, well established, but completely separate, and this in every village of a thousand or so French, perhaps 50 or 100 Algerians slightly out of the village in prefab houses, rather like gypsies - tolerated but mistrusted. An equivalence to the redlined zones of American cities on a small scale.

At what point do they introduce the question to the legitimacy of the state? — Isaac

Roughly at the point where, we hope, they get the permission of the parents, but probably, alas, not of the children themselves to experiment on them. It is the state that allows parents that authority, or denies it to them and the state also demands of psychologists that they gain such permissions. Though it is not well enforced.

You didn't even mention perception of object permanence in the under fives. I was asking how the political influence (let's take your example of the legitimacy of the state) should be taken account of when researching, for example, the perception of object permanence in the under fives — Isaac

Dealing with this is a trivial extension of the argument I present.

As representing state authority in a legitimate state, psychological research is a tool primarily for legitimate government actions to inform decisions and actions for legitimate purposes. In my moral system, in a state adhering (close enough) to my moral system, knowledge of object permanence in children under five will be used to inform educational and parental support policy to ensure society as a whole is promoting the best conditions we can for our children in order to have the mental tools later, as best as we can hope, to be morally autonomous participants in fair political process.

Under an illegitimate state, psychological research is primarily a tool for further maintenance of state illegitimacy. Under my moral system, states that depart (far enough) away from my moral system, will use knowledge of object permanence in children under five to inform educational and parental support policy to dissuade our children from becoming autonomous moral agents able to understand and act to change unjustifiable social organization.

In a legitimate state (according to me) you may find long maternity and paternity leave to support parent engagement in children to help develop, in part, that "object permanence", you may find universal health care, free and fairly distributed child care and educational resources, etc.

In an illegitimate state (according to me) you may find maternity and paternity leave does not exist for the poor classes that must be kept uneducated, ignorant and docile, in part, due to a frustration of the development of "object permanence" and other skills at an early age. When an illegitimate state maintaining oppressive class relations hear's of the critical importance of the earliest years and parent engagement in the developing cognitive and social skills, it rushes to ensure such resources are distributed to the privileged classes and, whenever possible, further taken away from the oppressed classes.

Exactly the same can be said of all science.

The state is capable of manipulating any data at all to legitimise its interventions.

Should we abandoned the whole project?

If we do, what should we use instead to decide maternity and paternity leave? Should we just guess what the impact of any given policy is likely to be? Should we put it out to public vote (and let those with the loudest campaign voices decide)?. I'm not seeing the alternative to just finding out to the best of our (biased, conceptually shackled, culturally influenced) ability.

Exactly the same can be said of all science. — Isaac

No.

The same can only be said of all academic scientists: the primary roll of mathematics, physics and engineering becomes the arms industry, the primary roll of "political science" becomes apologetics for the state, the primary roll of creative pursuits becomes entertainment and distraction, the primary roll of psychology becomes manipulative marketing, the primary roll of philosophy becomes the denial of moral courage as a component of "the good life", if not the denial of any moral truth as such.

However, other sciences, apart from academics, may form, from time to tome, intellectual structures that are independent of academics as an extension of state authority.

The physics student outside of academics does not require state authority to understand a ball dropping to the floor.

The psychology student within academics requires state authority to ever imagine being able to say: "I know what's wrong with you and how to cure you."

Roughly at the point where, we hope, they get the permission of the parents, but probably, alas, not of the children themselves to experiment on them. It is the state that allows parents that authority, or denies it to them and the state also demands of psychologists that they gain such permissions. Though it is not well enforced. — unenlightened

I'm not sure what point you're making here, unless, in addition to accusing my profession of perpetuating racial segregation you'd like to add child abuse. I expect we had something to do with the coronavirus outbreak too.

Since parents currently have the authority to dictate virtually every minute of their child's lives from 0 to 16, I'm not seeing how the child psychologist playing with them in the lab has become the bogeyman here.

Do you object if the parent takes them shopping without their permission?

: the primary roll of mathematics, physics and engineering becomes the arms industry... — boethius

OK. So the idea is that all scientific research (in academic institutions) is actually just aimed at propping up the state in some way? So how far back does this go? What's the full extent of human knowledge we must abandon as nothing more than state propaganda?

More importantly, who found all this out? Did one researcher go rougue? Are they dining with the fishes now. I've written some pretty anti-government stuff in the past, do I need to get a Cupbearer?

I'm not sure what point you're making — Isaac

That's not exactly new. But generally, experimental psychology tends to be abusive in two ways; firstly most experiments involve deception, and secondly they always depersonalisation the subject by objectification.

I'm not seeing how the child psychologist playing with them in the lab has become the bogeyman here. — Isaac

Actually, your contemptuous language has irritated me sufficiently now. You are the bogeyman! I'm not discussing with the bogeyman about his bogies. But child psychologists are not playing; they are serious.

OK. So the idea is that all scientific research (in academic institutions) is actually just aimed at propping up the state in some way? So how far back does this go? What's the full extent of human knowledge we must abandon as nothing more than state propaganda? — Isaac

I said "academic scientists" in terms of their actual primary activity, their moral culpability in maintaining oppressive structures.

Secondary rolls might be making some bank for themselves and for the purposes of unfair appropriation by the investor class.

I followed this up with "other sciences, apart from academics, may form, from time to tome, intellectual structures that are independent of academics as an extension of state authority."

My argument does not go to a dysfunctional terminus of throwing out "all knowledge" only connects the level of reasonable doubt of state provided knowledge to the legitimacy of that state. If there does exist or has existed legitimate states with truly free intellectual discussion, such conditions maybe a source of more credible information that does not trigger aporic analysis of the roll of state authority in producing knowledge.

Psychology is in a special class because it's foundational reference, normal behaviour, is by definition state controlled. Fortunately, states cannot yet control the laws of physics and mathematical deduction.

firstly most experiments involve deception — unenlightened

So does a magic trick, is that abuse too?

secondly they always depersonalisation the subject by objectification. — unenlightened

Do they? How?

, your contemptuous language has irritated me sufficiently now. — unenlightened

What contemptuous language? When you have break from accusing my entire profession of class oppression, promoting racial segregation and abusing children, perhaps you could take a moment to quote some of my contemptuous language for my self-improvement.

Psychology is in a special class because it's foundational reference, normal behaviour, is by definition state controlled. — boethius

I'm still not seeing the connection between non-clinical psychology and state-controlled 'normal behaviour'. Could you give me some examples of a non-clinical psychology research area which relies on 'normal behaviour' as a foundational reference?

I'm still not seeing the connection between non-clinical psychology and state-controlled 'normal behaviour'. Could you give me some examples of a non-clinical psychology research area which relies on 'normal behaviour' as a foundational reference? — Isaac

I said "they are part of the problem", just like the vast majority of police who are not trying to be abusive are part of the problem if they tolerate and cover for police that are. — boethius

Dealing with this is a trivial extension of the argument I present.

As representing state authority in a legitimate state, psychological research is a tool primarily for legitimate government actions to inform decisions and actions for legitimate purposes. In my moral system, in a state adhering (close enough) to my moral system, knowledge of object permanence in children under five will be used to inform educational and parental support policy to ensure society as a whole is promoting the best conditions we can for our children in order to have the mental tools later, as best as we can hope, to be morally autonomous participants in fair political process.

Under an illegitimate state, psychological research is primarily a tool for further maintenance of state illegitimacy. Under my moral system, states that depart (far enough) away from my moral system, will use knowledge of object permanence in children under five to inform educational and parental support policy to dissuade our children from becoming autonomous moral agents able to understand and act to change unjustifiable social organization.

In a legitimate state (according to me) you may find long maternity and paternity leave to support parent engagement in children to help develop, in part, that "object permanence", you may find universal health care, free and fairly distributed child care and educational resources, etc.

In an illegitimate state (according to me) you may find maternity and paternity leave does not exist for the poor classes that must be kept uneducated, ignorant and docile, in part, due to a frustration of the development of "object permanence" and other skills at an early age. When an illegitimate state maintaining oppressive class relations hear's of the critical importance of the earliest years and parent engagement in the developing cognitive and social skills, it rushes to ensure such resources are distributed to the privileged classes and, whenever possible, further taken away from the oppressed classes. — boethius

What is not clear?

Very relevant for broader context. Some of it is on BlackLivesMatter as an international movement.

Also for the discussion about psychiatriy, relevant quote: "One of the things neoliberalism does is take social and economic problems and turn them into emotional and individual problems".

What contemptuous language? When you have break from accusing my entire profession of class oppression, promoting racial segregation and abusing children, perhaps you could take a moment to quote some of my contemptuous language for my self-improvement. — Isaac

Bogeyman, Bogeyman. You are the bogeyman!

Dude, I'm doing philosophy. I'm looking at the conditions of doing psychology, and making some serious criticisms, but you are not able to begin to address them because you are busy defending yourself. You don't need to defend yourself because I'm not attacking you. I am putting the whole subject and institutions of psychology under philosophical scrutiny and highlighting difficulties and you ought to be grateful. Instead you argue about side-issues, and make pointed remarks which I am not going to trawl back and find for you because it's NOT THE IMPORTANT ISSUE. The important issues are how humans can live together more happily and sustainably, and what is preventing us from doing that. And our theories of psychology play a very central role, so if there are systemic problems, they need exposing and sorting.

"child psychologists are not playing" this you don't quote, and this is the important bit. You do it a lot; find something off centre and make that the issue.

Magic does indeed have abusive roots in the scams of the fairs, find the lady etc, and some religious deceptions. It is defanged and presented now as entertainment; we agree to be deceived for our own amusement, not for the magicians purposes. But why do I have to argue this out? why are you bringing it up? It's such a simple thing Experimentation almost always involves deception, and always manipulation of the subject. It's undeniable. It may be unimportant compared to the wonderful good that is done - that remains to be discussed. But why do we have to go all round the magic circle just to say what we all know already?

So child psychologists pretend to play. It is a deception and a manipulation. It may be harmless or it may not. In general, deception is a bad thing. Manipulation is a bad thing. It may be justified sometimes and so there are ethical boards that consider the morality of experiments. But you know this, because you are psychologist, so you know there are moral issues, and you also know there have been various abusive experiments, I'll just say "twins" for now. So how about engaging in a less antagonistic and defensive way? I'm not totally up to date, but nor am I totally ignorant or stupid.

So I'd like you to consider seriously the central difficulty that I think plagues psychology and undermines its status as a science, which is that social behaviour is heavily influenced by the prevalent psychological worldview. So a scientific view leads to treating people as objects to be experimented on. It starts with an I-it relationship (as opposed to an I-thou relationship) because that's what objectivity means. This is the view that has held sway since Freud at least, and it has pervaded society in terms of the creation of a consumer society through the development of advertising, and this lead to the political development of propaganda again as psychological manipulation. It's not, obviously, my claim that every child psychologist is Goebbels. But it is my claim that they come from the same tradition and the same (scientific) psychological viewpoint. And this viewpoint as a social whole creates an inhuman humanity. Psychology graduates go into advertising, into human resources (there's an objectifying phrase for you) into health, social work, education, and they bring and promote the values and views they have been taught. So deception and manipulation has become the norm, not exceptionally, just to experiment harmlessly, and society and people suffer as a result.
Not that there wasn't always deception and manipulation, but it wasn't scientific. it wasn't dominant.

Evaluation of behaviour cannot be concluded without first concluding the form of government is not only legitimate (enough) but moral (enough) to justify adhering to norms promoted by that society. Such an evaluation is outside the purview of psychology as an intellectual edifice, rendering psychology, at best, a hypothetical exercise. — boethius

That's a highly dubious conclusion. Your examples leave out obvious differences between the way a serial killer selects and kills victims and the functioning of an organised military. It's also not at all clear why one cannot simply study aberrant behaviour without establishing the exact moral pedigree of the rules. This might be true in certain fringe cases, where we would suspect individual moral decisions to be statistically significant. That's not the case for things like juvenile delinquency or traffic infractions.

Of course, as @Isaac correctly points out, not all psychology deals with rules and rule following either.

As representing state authority in a legitimate state, psychological research — boethius

How does psychological research in any way represent state authority?

the primary roll of mathematics, physics and engineering becomes the arms industry, the primary roll of "political science" becomes apologetics for the state — boethius

It's "role" by the way. A roll is a round oblong object.

However, other sciences, apart from academics, may form, from time to tome, intellectual structures that are independent of academics as an extension of state authority. — boethius

You haven't justified this claim that academics are extensions of state authority anywhere that I can see.

secondly they always depersonalisation the subject by objectification. — unenlightened

I'd love to hear a justification for this. Is anyone who is an object of some study thereby objectified?

Roughly at the point where, we hope, they get the permission of the parents, but probably, alas, not of the children themselves to experiment on them. It is the state that allows parents that authority, or denies it to them and the state also demands of psychologists that they gain such permissions. Though it is not well enforced. — unenlightened

The permission is completely irrelevant to the experimental results.

I am putting the whole subject and institutions of psychology under philosophical scrutiny and highlighting difficulties and you ought to be grateful. — unenlightened

No-one ought to be grateful for badly argued oversimplifications. This post is the first time you ever actually provide an argument, your protestations that it's all so simple and obvious notwithstanding.

It starts with an I-it relationship (as opposed to an I-thou relationship) because that's what objectivity means. — unenlightened

As above, I disagree with that definition of objectification. By this logic, trying to guess how a person might react to something I say is objectifying them. As is trying to figure out why an infant might be crying.

Psychology graduates go into advertising, into human resources (there's an objectifying phrase for you) into health, social work, education, and they bring and promote the values and views they have been taught. — unenlightened

And I suppose there is some sociological evidence to back this claim up?

That's a highly dubious conclusion. Your examples leave out obvious differences between the way a serial killer selects and kills victims and the functioning of an organised military. — Echarmion

Yes please, how was the Nazi's process of selecting and killing victims obviously different than that of a deranged serial killer, except for the scale?

You haven't justified this claim that academics are extensions of state authority anywhere that I can see. — Echarmion

However, please feel free to continue the existing conversation on this topic Psychiatrys Incurable Hubris.

My central thesis in that conversation is as follows:

Yes, this is my central contention, that psychiatry/psychology is a better tool of oppression than plumbing, that there will be more attention paid to who gets to be a psychiatry/psychologists (that their beliefs are compatible with state policy) than who gets to be a plumber. Plumbers are a group I would argue most oppressive states categorize as general population needing to be generally controlled.

For instance, using pharmacology to make bad working conditions more tolerable, I would argue is a mechanism of oppression in an oppressive state; part of the control system. From the perspective of psychiatrists implementing this policy, people feel better at work, they feel they've "done good". This is not to pass moral judgement, as they may not have any information (thanks to control of media) to criticize what they are doing; but from the outside analyzing such a situation we can very much doubt if they are really "doing good".
— boethius — boethius

I'm not sure why reading things is not part of your approach to text base discussion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there's a psychological motivation for it.

Yes please, how was the Nazi's process of selecting and killing victims obviously different than that of a deranged serial killer, except for the scale? — boethius

Who are "the Nazis" you refer to? Hitler, Goebbels, Heydrich or Eichmann? Wehrmacht soldiers? Prussian police officers? The answer depends.

What about the rest of my criticisms?

Who are "the Nazis" you refer to? Hitler, Goebbels, Heydrich or Eichmann? Wehrmacht soldiers? Prussian police officers? The answer depends. — Echarmion

You say the difference is obvious, and yet you plunge directly into nuance.

I don't see where you are trying to go. Yes, there is more "decorum" in the killing apparatus of an illegitimate state, but lot's of serial killers had themselves "decorum", so it doesn't seem an obvious difference.

I understand racism as shorthand for manifest systemic discrimination — 180 Proof

It is not a good idea to give a restricted definition of a word that intuitively has a broader definition. What would you call personal racism if “racism” already means “systemic racism”? A lone individual who spits another person in the face because that person has a different skin color, couldn’t be called a racist if the word is reserved for another meaning.

You may of course argue that only racism that is connected to the dominant power structure has a social impact and is worth caring about, but a word is still needed to cover the general belief that one race is somehow superior to another. What would you call someone who thinks blacks are superior to whites? If you insist that the word “racist” should be reserved for something else, you would have to come up with another word for this phenomenon, but since language is not a private thing it doesn’t make much sense to use a word no one else uses.

What you are actually doing is trying to shut out a part of a potential discussion, maybe because you think it would derail the most important debate or bring forth unhealthy viewpoints. You may be right about that, but in a free society no speech should be suppressed. It must for example be allowed to ask if black animosity against whites is acceptable.

I'm not sure why reading things is not part of your approach to text base discussion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there's a psychological motivation for it. — boethius

Tools are not extensions of authority. They are tools. An extension of authority would be something that is vested, explicitly or implicitly, with an official function.

Otherwise you'll have to explain why a tool is responsible for its use.

You say the difference is obvious, and yet you plunge directly into nuance. — boethius

You're being dishonest. You didn't initially bring up the Nazis or anything similar at all. You brought up military operations. That's what I was referring to.

I don't see where you are trying to go. Yes, there is more "decorum" in the killing apparatus of an illegitimate state, but lot's of serial killers had themselves "decorum", so it doesn't seem an obvious difference. — boethius

For one obvious difference, a serial killer is a single person, whereas for the killing apparatus of a state, many different actors fulfill different tasks and make different decisions.

As I have stated from the beginning of this conversation, the argument that the US government in it's current form of minority rule is legitimate and therefore all civil disobedience relative curfew and police instruction as well as looting and destruction of objects are simply criminal, can be made. I have yet to hear it, but I am willing to listen. — boethius

This strikes me as far afield and an entirely useless discussion from a pragmatic perspective. If you are able to prove the illegitimacy of the US government from a moral perspective with absolute certainty, the police will still keep doing as they are doing as will the citizens. It's not like a good solid argument is going to change the world or even change a single interaction between the government and its citizens.

As noted:

The important issues are how humans can live together more happily and sustainably, and what is preventing us from doing that. — unenlightened

The way that people are brought together is, well, by bringing them together. Explaining the psychology of the situation, even if you're dead on, really isn't going to move the needle one way or the other in terms of resolution.

So, what do I propose? First some leadership from anyone, whether that be Trump, Pelosi, or just anyone. All the marching in the street, be it peaceful or in fury, does nothing but inform me of the dissatisfaction felt by the marchers, but I kind of knew that already.

As a trial lawyer, I do love me a good jury, if for no other reason than you stick a bunch of disagreeable people in a small room and you tell them that that's where they'll sit until they reach a solution. So I'd put a representative of each in this room: a Republican, a Democrat, a police officer, a business owner, a minister, a teacher, a protester, and I don't know, but you get the picture. And their task will be to set up a march and to offer a speech, and they will need to figure out what they all need to say in unison. And if they can't figure out what they all agree upon and need to say, then they'll sit in that room until they get hungry enough, thirsty enough, and ornery enough to knock on the door and let us know they've reached a verdict. Surely there is something everyone wishes to say.

I love that word "verdict." It means to speak the truth.

That's what I'd do. I do think a march with the police and the protesters side by side would move the needle. While it might seem impossible, it's hard to know. No one has actually considered it. They are more interested in saying hooray for my sign.

Tools are not extensions of authority. They are tools. An extension of authority would be something that is vested, explicitly or implicitly, with an official function.

Otherwise you'll have to explain why a tool is responsible for its use. — Echarmion

Again, I suggest the tool of reading to participate in text base discussion:

Exactly the same can be said of all science.
— Isaac

No.

The same can only be said of all academic scientists: the primary roll of mathematics, physics and engineering becomes the arms industry, the primary roll of "political science" becomes apologetics for the state, the primary roll of creative pursuits becomes entertainment and distraction, the primary roll of psychology becomes manipulative marketing, the primary roll of philosophy becomes the denial of moral courage as a component of "the good life", if not the denial of any moral truth as such. — boethius

I am using the term "academics" to refer to the group of people in academics, not as synonymous with knowledge.

So, if you're trying to say the academic is a tool of state authority, I agree. If you are trying to say that knowledge is a tool in the hands of the academic to service state authority, I agree.

If you are trying to say the process of selection of who gets to be an academic is independent of state policy, then I disagree.

You're being dishonest. You didn't initially bring up the Nazis or anything similar at all. You brought up military operations. That's what I was referring to. — Echarmion

Again, what's with the not reading things?

The Nazi's were deranged serial killers (with varying degrees of apologetics we can engage in depending on the Nazi) because the Nazi government was not legitimate, either in representing the people's will or then, if so, that will itself was not morally acceptable and had no moral legitimacy. — boethius

We morally condemn the serial killer of legitimate state agents, we morally condemn illegitimate states and their killings and their state agents who kill.

When a illegitimate state kills a lot of people we say it is "mass murder" (i.e. serial killing, just with a difference in scale).

The nuances you might like to get into I am aware of and refer to as "with varying degrees of apologetics we can engage in depending on the Nazi". I agree each individual Nazi may not have the state of mind of a serial killer, but it is only because they are fully convinced they are engaging in just warfare on behalf of a legitimate state. Who we are not so morally lenient with are those orchestrating the serial killing and have the intellectual capacity to evaluate their actions and the system they are promoting as a whole.

However, you said specifically:

Your examples leave out obvious differences between the way a serial killer selects and kills victims and the functioning of an organised military. — Echarmion

You are not referring to individuals soldiers who may not know better (and have been selected by the organization for this quality), but you are referring to the organization as a whole and its process of selecting and killing victims.

This process of the organization as a whole is no different in it's essential quality than that of the individual serial killer: They do it because they can and it brings them immense fascination and satisfaction.