It's a symptom of totalitarianism.

I would highly suggest watching some interviews with Mattias Desmet, a Belgian psychology professor, who explores this same phenomenon (closely related to the concept of mass formation) in the context of the covid-19 epidemic.

Here's a link (changed it because I think this one is more interesting):

Why are hunters entertained by hunting? Why do some animals play with their food?

We've already established that there needs to be no strictly rational reason behind the act of killing in order for animals to be excused, as per the example of wolves killing lifestock for no reason. So why the double standard?

So humans need to practice to hunt to survive? — L'éléphant

It's not inconceivable that during our lifetime there will come a point where we must fall back on such things - during a war for example.

So I ask again, why is it when an animal is cruel we excuse it as practice or instinct, but when a human does it we label it as malignant aggression?

Would you say these wolves are being cruel? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Possibly?

I tried to draw attention to why such an act is considered malignant when a human does it, but not when an animal does it.

No they have a reason-- training for hunting. If cattle is made available, that's where they're going to practice. — L'éléphant

Why is it that when an animal exhibits such behavior we excuse it, but when a human does it we label it as malignant, though?

To name an example; a human being cruel to animals is probably something we'd label as malignant. But we could just as easily argue this person is "training" for rough times that may be ahead, which isn't even that far-fetched.

Wolves are notorious where I live for killing cattle without eating it. Killing for the sake of killing, it seems.

In Russia... — Isaac

In Nazi Germany... — Isaac

In 1989 China... — Isaac

What makes you so certain that law enforcement and military units would side with the citizens to a sufficient degree? — Tzeentch

If your argument is that law enforcement and militaries siding with the civilians is enough of a safeguard against tyranny, then you must agree that they did not do so to a sufficient enough degree in these examples.

Or perhaps relying on law enforcement and the military alone is not enough.

In 1960s America the military and police were not recruited, but the neither did the protestors use armed insurgency to get what they wanted so the example is moot. — Isaac

The example is not moot. It's an example of how tyrannical modern governments can be, including western ones, and that law enforcement and militaries are more likely to stand by and watch it happen than to side with whoever is being oppressed.

1. It's vastly more likely, given historical precedent, that the military would be involved in any revolt and so private weaponry would be redundant. — Isaac

What makes you believe private weaponry would be redundant?

Civilians fight in such wars, and they own firearms exactly like the ones used in such wars. Moreover, militaries are potentially at a major disadvantage when fighting against another stronger military. That's why in these types of conflicts irregular approaches to warfare are chosen (i.e. insurgency) and often come out on top.

By your own example you've shown that militaries and law enforcement are often not enough to make a significant change.

2. It's extremely unlikely that the people currently armed would ever for a cohesive unit opposed to government tyranny, especially in America. — Isaac

Why could the Polish, Afghans, Iraqis, Vietnamese, etc. form cohesive fighting units, but not Americans?

And what do you mean with cohesive?

Government's there are becoming increasingly right-leaning and most gun-enthusiasts are also right-leaning. You'd have to envisage either a left-wing tyranny or a sudden arming of left-wing militia. Neither show any signs of likelihood. — Isaac

Tyranny has no political affiliation, and considering the last two US presidents, and the West's recent trend towards authoritarianism per Chinese model, I politely disagree.

It's a slippery slope. We may go down it, or we may not. I don't trust people enough to blindly assume it will not happen.

3. Modern warfare is fought on three fronts - informational, technological and territorial. Weapons are only of any use in the third. What we'd need for a revolution are hackers and bloggers, not rednecks with guns — Isaac

Yes and no.

Modern warfare between modern nations is fought on multiple fronts, not all of which are physical.

But during irregular warfare all such rules and concepts go out of the window. The US military had to reinvent itself multiple times during its wars in the Middle-East, and still ended up losing them all to farmers who fought with nothing but the most rudimentary weapons.

You're avoiding any type of discussion. Run along now.

Let's see if I understand you correctly:

Part of your argument is that if a citizenry would be in a position where it wanted to revolt, enough members of the law enforcement and military apparatus would join them to make armament of the citizens unnecessary.

- This implies that you agree some form of insurance needs to be in place to protect a nation's people from its own government.

- What makes you so certain that law enforcement and military units would side with the citizens to a sufficient degree? During the rise of communism in Russia, they did not. During the rise of nazism in Germany, they did not. During the era of racial segregation in America, they did not. In 1989 in China, they did not, to name just a few examples.


To move forward we also need to agree on whether or not a large armed citizen's revolt is an effective way of toppling a government. I think history clearly shows the effectiveness of irregular warfare and the failure of large nations to combat it, despite extreme advantages in manpower and technology.

Given that it cannot bomb and destroy indiscriminately, a nation fighting a large revolt on its own soil against its own people is unimaginable. Even with indiscriminate destruction bordering a genocide, (i.e. WWII Germany in Eastern Europe, the US in Vietnam) they couldn't manage it.

Most nations who tried could barely control a rogue province.

You will never be an "insurgent" kindly go back to playing a video game with your mountain dew instead of enabling the regular murder of children. Comic-con is a far better place to play out your fantasies than the blood-stained walls of classrooms. — Streetlight

Yep. As long as nothing changes and kids continue to die, these LARPers will simply say anything from one end to the other. — Streetlight

At some point, when your whole identity is nothing but the fantasy of playing rebel freedom-fighter from your TV couch, you will literally let classrooms of children be shot to death so that one can still maintain that fantasy in their head. These people want to role-play victims so hard, they will let any number of real life victims drop dead so they LARP about being some Hollywood 'insurgent'. May they all commit suicide. — Streetlight

Just say you want more dead children already. — Streetlight

It is settled on the side of being totally OK with murdering children, regularly. The rest is performance. — Streetlight

:yawn: You got nothing.

We can get into that, but I have to deal with this low hanging fruit first.

History is full of lots of things that aren't coming back. — Baden

And it is also full of things that are. If there's one thing that runs like a red line through history it's the corruption of power structures and the subsequent abuse of civilian populations.

... and cling to the fantasy that we'd heroically fend off the military. — Xtrix

You will never be an "insurgent"... — Streetlight

:yawn: Why are you so interested in talking about me? I don't even own a gun. But it's cute that you're trying.

For denizens of a philosophy forum you sure react like school children upon hearing an opinion you don't like. Many the animosity is insecurity?

Perhaps provide some good reasons why you put all your faith in the United States government.

Those did not include any real response to my arguments.

What am I to make of what you said? That you apparently find it hard to envision governments doing unacceptable things to its citizenry? I don't find that hard to imagine at all. In fact, American history has more than a few blemishes that I guess you're quick to forget.

Just put a little bandaid over it and trust that your government won't do it again, eh?

Christ almighty.

Oh, what part do you disagree with?

Are all of you just completely unaware of what an insurgency is and how it works?

We can talk about how likely it is for a government to misbehave to where a large part of the citizenry is willing to take up arms against it, but if that were to happen the army isn't going to stop it.

If the citizenry is unarmed? All you have is hopes and prayers that it never comes to that. An unshakable faith in the incorruptibleness of power structures - one that I do not share.

The power structures of the US and the EU, and probably of just about every other country in the world, are already corrupt. The only question is whether they'll turn violent.

Government serves us by enforcing a system of social relations that's conducive to mutually beneficial interaction and general personal security. The cost is we play ball and obey the law. Overall, it's a reasonable trade. — Baden

As of right now? I would probably agree.

But given the events of the last years, it is not obvious that things should stay that way.

Fretting about Mad Max scenarios, or fantasising about vanquishing tanks and planes with guns is a sad and delusional way to live, and completely unnecessary. — Baden

You speak as though the United States military, with all their planes, tanks, cruise missiles and artillery strikes never lost a war against armed peasants, when in fact that's all they did in the past decades.

The difference would be that in those wars the US could afford not to care about the land and people they destroyed.

Lol these fucking people think they are in a video game. — Streetlight

, he yelled from his glass prison.

What role are you playing?

That of the broken prisoner with Stockholm syndrome, or the king's dog?

Neither can stand to see others defy the power they so meekly subjugated themselves to.

What I object to about your argument is the pretty loathsome idea that the absolutely miniscule chance that an armed 'people's militia' will prevent such an outcome ... — Isaac

I'd say history and in recent times the track record of the United States military (the world's most advanced military) speak to the contrary.

Peasants with rifles are apparently not so easy to get rid of, no matter how much barbarism one is willing to resort to.

Bla bla, willful failure to represent my position properly is just a tacit admission of defeat on your part.

Why would it be 'large scale', ... — Isaac

You don't think people would be prompted to resist against government tyranny? As people have throughout history?

It's just a fantasy. — Isaac

It's you who is living in a fantasy, I'm afraid. A fantasy in which government is man's best friend, of which we have nothing to fear. It is not. It has been and always will be the greatest enemy to peace and humanity.

Implicit in your views seems to be "the end of history" fantasy. That we've finally arrived at a point in time where large-scale corruption, war and atrocity are a thing of the past. That "man has figured it out".

If you had asked me 20 years ago, I might've been swayed by that idea. Today, not so much.

Force is the language of tyrants, force is the language of government, and all peoples who would wish to remain free should speak it.

And owning an assault weapon will do nothing to stop it anyway. — Xtrix

It is exactly what would stop it.

If government goes too far, they'd have to contend with a population that is already armed.

Waging a large-scale counter-insurgency on its own soil, against its own people? That'll be the end of whatever empire is foolish enough to try.

There are no reasons to own them ... — Benkei

Given the actions of governments world-wide over the past few years I would beg to differ.

Tyranny is not something we can look back at and marvel over. The events of the past years have shown that government still is the foremost threat to peace and humanity, as it always has been.

Force is the language of tyrants, force is the language of government, and all peoples who would wish to remain free should speak it.

If some government went barmy and demanded something of me I didn't want to give it, the government is going to win, hands down every time, my .22 hunting rifle is no match for fully armed AFOs, let alone the army. — Isaac

Civilians with guns are not going to stop the US military, ... — Maw

Peasants with guns have been besting professional militaries for decades (throughout all of human history, really), including the US military on several occasions.

And fighting against a guerilla on your own soil, against your own people? A modern military wouldn't stand a chance, no matter how much barbarism it is willing to resort to.

Laying waste to someone else's country and people is one thing, laying waste to your own - that'll be the end of whatever nation was so foolish to try.

Meanwhile, let's ban guns right now everywhere whilst we work that out. — Isaac

Given the last and the current US presidents, and the recent propensity in the US and the world towards authoritarianism, I'd say keep the second amendment right where it is.

When mass shootings occur, somehow the debate is always about gun control and never about why kids are massacring kids.

It's not normal, obviously. I would be wondering what kind of rot has seeped into society that's causing it.

One's own 'evil' tendencies must first be understood. Before understanding there is only a meaningless moral limbo known as ignorance, where one commits good and evil by pure coincidence and one is a slave to their lesser nature.

Evil is not an inherent part of man. When one understands why evil tendencies exist, it becomes a choice. It is therein that morality lies. From that point onward man becomes a moral agent.

Who was it that said that the strength of a man's character can be gauged by the amount of truth he is able to stomach?

The issue with the term 'toxic masculinity' in the way that it is often used is that it implies that there is something inherently toxic about masculinity.

Instead of regarding problematic behaviors as seperate phenomena, apparently the need is felt to link these behaviors to men and masculinity.

That is very problematic, and it has appeared to me as though the term has become a society-sanctioned way of projecting one's personal grievances with men on men as a whole.

Examples include - using physical strength and height to intimidate other people (especially women), hatred of gay people; hyper masculinity - sexually inappropriate towards women; use of violence (or threats thereof) to influence behavior or punish others; inability to access and fear of emotions (except aggression and anger). — Tom Storm

Women exhibit all of these behaviors as well, including hyper masculinity (ironically).

The suggestion seems to be that only men can exhibit 'toxic masculine' behavior, which is inaccurate, sexist and putting women on a pedestal.

And yes, women can be badly behaved too but, from what I've seen, not quite in the same pugnacious manner or as frequently. — Tom Storm

Ah, there's the pedestal.

I don't think the idea that killing / mistreating animals is unethical and killing / mistreating plants is perfectly fine holds much philosophical merit.

Both constitute life, both are in ways essential for our survival, and all life shows signs of consciousness. We don't have a moral right to mistreat an animal any more than we have a moral right to mistreat plants and trees.

To make any kind of consumption ethical, some form of symbiosis needs to be reached.

Man has reached this symbiosis with plants and animals on many occasions, but it is often lost under the pressure of overpopulation and greed.

We are our mind and body in the present moment, and nothing else.

Good point by the OP.

Power doesn't corrupt, but simply liberates individuals to a degree that the corrupt parts of their soul can manifest more strongly.

I think you are trying to tergiversate the main point of the conversation. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Wouldn't it be revelant to your logically coherent conclusion that individuals in the way you describe them are not acting rationally?

Is the most coherent conclusion that we have to just "Live at war" indefinitely? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Should individuals live "at war" with each other in pursuit of a goal that they hold no stake in nor any influence over?

Doesn't seem very coherent to me.

Your promotion of the term 'strategic interests' ignores the reasonableness or not of those interests. — Tim3003

The reasonableness doesn't need to be taken into account at all. Whatever judgement we pass on the reasonableness of a nation's strategic interest, the fact of the matter is that they will pursue those interests regardless of our judgement.

All we can do is take note and act accordingly.

Ignoring them invites war.

I thought the UN was a tool for peace. — Tim3003

The United Nations are a means of communication between nations. Communication facilitates peace, but it cannot cause it unless the nations of the world want peace.

That's why kicking nations out of the UN is a terrible idea. It cuts off diplomatic routes, leaving violence as the only option.

And the reason certain countries, including Russia, have a veto in the UNSC, is because the founders of the UN realized the danger of backing nuclear-armed state actors into a corner.

Your vision will surely promote regional conflict ... — Tim3003

I've not proposed a vision. I've explained to you why the United Nations work the way they do.

Maybe the way the UN operates does in some way turn a blind eye on regional conflicts (mostly it just lacks the power to avoid it), but I'm not convinced there's a suitable alternative. Kicking nations out of the UN is certainly not it.

Twitter doesn't impede your right to speech. — Michael

It certainly does, and Twitter and platforms like Google have already been reprimanded on this issue.

That's what it means to live in a digital age.

Freedom of expression is a human right. When certain companies grow so large that they have the power to impede human rights you're asking me who is going to compensate them for not violating those rights?

That's a bit obscene.

For normal companies I'd say yes. But social media like Twitter hold a special, near monopolistic place in public discourse and should in my opinion be regarded as a public forum in the legal sense, and thus the right to freedom of speech should be observed especially.

Do I not have the right to choose who works for me? — Michael

Of course you do. You exercise that right by being able to sign contracts with whoever you like, and come to a mutual agreement about the terms of that contract.

If you happen to contract somebody who turns out to be a bit of a nutcase; tough luck! That's down to you being a poor judge of character or being careless with the terms of contract, and unless they do something illegal or breach the contract, I'd say you're morally (and in a lot of cases legally) obliged to uphold your end of the deal.

Such interactions between individuals are usually written down in a contract, and includes what is expected of both parties.

Why would your right not to be offended take precedence over contractual obligations?

No, the general principle is:

Premise 1: An employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing morally reprehensible opinions

I then apply this principle to the more specific case:

Premise 2: Racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-semitism are morally reprehensible
Conclusion: An employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-semitic opinions

Which of premise(s) do you disagree with? — Michael

Premise 1, obviously.

And while I would agree with premise 2, I wouldn't trust anyone with the power to decide what is considered racist, sexist or what have you. My moral opinions I hold to guide my own behavior, and I don't expect or desire others to follow it, except of their own volition.

Is "I like Hitler" a racist, homophobic or anti-semetic remark? Yet I'm sure such a remark would incur your wrath as an employer, would it not?

If we choose to ignore powerful countries' strategic interests, such as has happened in Ukraine with Russia, we invite war. To me that's not a matter of right and wrong, but of cause and effect.

If we want a peaceful world, powerful nations will need to have their strategic interests secure and not threatened.

Using a veto in the UN is a way for a powerful nation to say "This threatens my strategic interests", and thus is a proponent to a more peaceful world.

Of course, if we ignore these things and simply continue to threaten strategic interests anyway, we invite war. If we then take away all avenues of conflict resolution besides violence, we invite more war, etc.