Showing understanding and leniency towards hardcore criminals on account of them being "large, violent, dangerous children" is the sympathy route.

Why choose sympathy for them over sympathy for their many victims?

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" seems to be the words of a fool in your eyes, no? :smile: — Outlander

When dealing with ordinary people it works fine. When dealing with criminals or politicians, it does not.

While most people will state they "don't care", the reality of the individual is they simply don't understand. It's like dealing with a dog. It hungers, so it eats. It is blameless until one tries to view it as anything but what it is—an equal—which is unfortunately what you seem to be doing for reasons I cannot imagine. — Outlander

I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly.

Are you saying that criminals are essentially subhumans I ought not judge on the same basis as I would ordinary people?

I doubt it. Real death and violence is not fun to watch (for mentally healthy people, at least). Sports have a tendency of getting safer, with more emphasis on the long-term health and safety of the participants.

Even combat sports are generally enjoyed in the knowledge that the fighters are by and large safe. Deaths or serious injuries in the ring are not celebrated, health risks (like CTE) are taken seriously, etc.

The fantasy violence that people are provided through media is nothing like actual violence, but it has people forming opinions and views on what actual violence must be like. It detaches people from reality, and on a large scale that can start to be problematic.

It doesn't make people more violent (it's hard to imagine a less violent being than a modern western person), it makes them dumber and more ignorant - easier to goad into supporting wars the reality of which they will never have to experience.

It's not a sign of intellectual rigor, broad-mindedness or virtuous humanity to empathize with career criminals; it's cowardice masquerading as such.

I can assure you none of you would be pleading for nuance if you had had a single experience of the pitiless malevolence with which such individuals operate.

These people ruin lives, communities, entire societies for petty monetary gain. They deserve no sympathy nor quarter.

That's not the point. There would be no "you", period, were it not for immorality. — Outlander

I doubt we have the same idea of what immorality entails, but even so it doesn't follow that judging the actions of others is somehow inherently hypocritical.

Hypocrisy is to chastise others for moral infringements you yourself are guilty of.

It has nothing to do with what my ancestors did or didn't do without my asking.

People end up doing things that others would consider reprehensible but when put in less comfortable position in life would consider doing bad stuff to survive or even prosper. — Malcolm Parry

Stealing a loaf of bread is something I would consider "doing something bad in order to survive".

The narcotics scene on the other hand runs purely on ego and greed, as do the majority of criminal circuits. Just like a rapist or a murderer, they know what they're doing is wrong but do it anyway, and I would rank drug dealers and traffickers among rapists and murderers in terms of how inexcusable their actions are.

You're literally the spawn of immorality, in a way, we all are. — Outlander

Speak for yourself.

I bear responsibility for my own actions, and not for those of others.


Sob stories about how drug dealers/traffickers came to be, I don't buy either. Base greed is the principal motivator - people looking to score a quick buck at the expense of someone else.

If you want to look for victims, why look beyond the often-vulnerable people who fall prey to drug addiction and are then ruthlessly exploited? Dealers and traffickers are not victims, they're utter scum.

And no, it's not the government's fault that they lack a moral compass. It's no one else's fault but their own.

It's rather odd you apparently don't believe people ought to take moral responsibility for their own actions, but instead expect the government to take action? The modern mindworm at play, I suppose.

He doesn't get them hooked on meth. He is supplying a product that there is a demand for.This could be easily seen as an amoral act. There is an awful lot of nuance between your statement and mine. (I don't necessarily endorse the statement I made.) — Malcolm Parry

Oh, one might very well apply nuance, but at that point I would start doubting their capacity for sound judgement.

He starts as a pathetic man who no one respects and has seemingly never stood up for himself, and is now faced with his own mortality, which is both terrifying and freeing. — BitconnectCarlos

That's the crazy part.

He is freed, and with this freedom he chooses to turn himself into an even more pathetic man.

But it tells us something about the modern zeitgeist that we apparently feel that it's better to be a petty criminal who ruins lives for a living, than to be a father who works an honest job to support his disabled child.

I understand that this is the way the series is deliberately framed, and most people just go along with it without ever looking at the picture critically, but it's just so hopelessly confused I can't help but wonder what gives rise to media like this.

I'm really curious if this was the creators' intention. Can you elaborate on your idea? — Astorre

Eh, I'm just riffing, really. I don't know if it's there, though it wouldn't surprise me.

Walter as a stand-in for "dissatisfied middle-aged white man", with his terminal illness being a vessel to have him act out his ultimate power fantasy (which apparently is becoming a petty criminal).

It sounds just about bad enough to come from Hollywood, doesn't it? :lol:

A man voluntarily chooses to spend his final days on earth destroying the lives of as many people as possible by getting them hooked on meth - what room for nuance is there in our judgement of such a person?

To suggest this man would be in any way an anti-hero there seems to be a missing link here.

The MC is conspicuously named Walter White, and considering this is an American series I'm sure there's a clumsy attempt at societal commentary in here somewhere that we're missing.

Pretentious nonsense.

That is, this simplistic version of "he was just like that for no other reason than to have been so, therefore, he and his works are to be despised." Not a very good argument, even if true. — Outlander

I'm giving the "short story" obviously, but what I suggested was that people read his biography for themselves.

If it's true, it's a good argument. It might not be a pretty argument, but alas sometimes the facts aren't pretty.

You wouldn't take health advice from an obese, alcoholic, chainsmoker either.

He was obviously persecuted by the State for his beliefs when alive. A State that was not an open, free society and therefore has no problem ruining a citizen's life, if not outright taking it. — Outlander

Marx cannot blame the state for his utter lack of moral character. When I call him a "bum", I'm putting it extremely lightly.

Let me stipulate again, he let his family whither away in abject poverty (even by standards of the time) - resulting in the death of most of his children and perpetual ill health of his wife - while he himself was being showered in money by benefactors like Engels, most of which he squandered on cigarettes, drink and opium.

Of all of Marx's children, the only one to lead a long life was a son he illegitimately conceived with his maid (because of course he would) and was not raised in his household.

I pity his wife.

"I don't care what Mike Tyson does outside the ring." — unimportant

Fair. I don't care what Marx did outside of being a bum either.

Is it not a case of judge the message and not the man? — unimportant

A fair question, to which I would answer "no" - the man and the message are both important, especially when it comes to philosophy.

People may say and write many things, proclaiming to uphold lofty ideals, etc. - that all costs very little.

The resulting actions are what make the man, to serve as the living proof that one is able to live according to their professed ideals, and that doing so will result in an actual ideal.

Now, we are all human and I don't expect philosophers to be infallible, but Marx is truly an extraordinary specimen.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest you read his biography.

You'd believe anything you read, now wouldn't you? — Outlander

Well, it is attested to by Marx himself in writing, and you seem to ascribe some special value to his written words.

If his were my legacy, I'd rather not be remembered at all.

Thanks for the invitation, but there are no good conversations about Marx or Marxism to be had.

I don't hate anyone, by the way. I'm just not one for mincing words. Marx was a lowlife who made his wife and children suffer in destitute poverty to fund his smoking, alcohol and drug habits. He did this off other people's money, of which he received copious amounts.

A cartoonist couldn't come up with a better caricature of a useless bum.

The only interesting question about this man and his "philosophy" is what lapse of sanity had people taking him or it seriously.

In fact, Marx affirmed his own state of weakness for his entire life.

Before you read his philosophy, I suggest reading his biography and then ask yourself the poignant question whether this is the sort of "man" you would take economic advice from.

'Penniless bum', 'deadbeat husband', 'petty thug' and 'shameless antisemite' are some of the nicer terms I could use to describe his person.

That might sound like an ad hominem to some, but it's not even half of it. It's like these terms were especially invented for this absolute hog of a man.

I think it's just about possible to argue that the popularity of Marx's philosophy might have been partly based on ressentiment—and that actions by some of his adherents were motivated by it, e.g., in the violence of revolutionary movements—but not that his philosophy is itself based on it, since ressentiment, at least in Nietzsche's use of the term, includes not only projecting blame on to the stronger party but also and obversely celebrating or affirming one's own state of weakness. This is something Marx's philosophy does not do: it seeks to abolish the conditions of weakness. — Jamal

No one who is accused of harboring Nietzschean ressentiment believes of themselves that they are 'affirming their own state of weakness'. However, Nietzsche would argue that is exactly what Marxism does by glorifying the role of the worker while leading them to the promised yet hitherto conspicuously absent communist utopia (a century and counting, by the way).

"The meek (read: the workers) shall inherit the Earth."

Well, how's it going?

Marx called religion the "opium of the people," though ironically his philosophy is entirely ressentiment-based, and it is ressentiment that functions as "opium" for the weak and disenfranchsed to this day; never actually producing anything positive for them (except psychological self-gratification), and being responsible for the myriad of humanitarian catastrophes that communism is well-known for.

What did Marx expect a dismissal of the spiritual world to result in, other than mass capitalism? It's the logical consequence.

In a further twist of irony, religion, for all its faults, is often the moral glue that binds vulnerable communities together. Without it, they fall apart in a negative spiral of crime and demoralization from which there is no escape.

So Marx, in addition to having the blood of tens of millions on his hands, did the poor of this world a gigantic disservice by inviting them into a cult of godless materialism - the very thing it purports to fight.

UK, Australia and Canada recognise Palestinian state, Israel condemns decision

An important development.

The Anglosphere is the part of the world the US cares most deeply about, and three out of five countries comprising the Anglosphere have now recognized Palestine, with the fourth (New Zealand) presumably soon to follow.

It's important to stress that US relations with the Anglosphere are fundamentally different from every other part of the world. The US considers these countries as actual allies (rather than mere interests), since they are in practical terms all English-speaking islands and therefore share very similar geopolitical challenges.

You haven't experienced unsafety, so you fence with paper realities that describe a society that once was.

Good for you. I wouldn't wish such a thing on anyone.

But in essence all you're saying is, because you are safe, there is no problem. Unsafety, for you, is a statistical anomaly. For me and many others it is reality.

All I can say is, I wonder how many months of being terrorized in and around your home you'd be able to stomach before you sang a different tune.

When the authorities cannot or refuse to keep me safe, they have no moral grounds to deny me the means to protect myself. It is really as simple as that.

Just for the record, I would take my chances even running away from a gun wielder at 20 yards+ - they're not that likely to hit you lethally. A knife wielder in a small alley or corridor - you're chanceless.

Gun vs gun in a small alley - at least it's 50/50, and the other side will realize this as well. You have a counter-threat.

You don't get to choose from those options. The other guy has a knife, and you have nothing.

Or maybe you started to feel the gravity of unsafety, and you wield a knife as well. I'd love to hear your thoughts on fighting a guy twice your size in a knife fight. Keep in mind, if you manage to defend yourself using a knife (which in many countries you're prohibited from using in self-defense) you may also be guilty of murder - possibly premeditated.

And believe me, you wouldn't be debating college students in public if you had any awareness that there were serious threats on your life.

Running away is perhaps the most effective option. — Michael

Of course it is - and it would be the first option I'd consider.

Unfortunately, if someone is out to seriously hurt you, they will have considered it as well.

I'm talking about fending off a knife fighter and you only have your bare fists.

Also, I agree that wars would be less deadly without guns - they would be less deadly for the side made up of criminals fighting against the side made up of law-abiding, normal people.

It would be a landslide for the criminals.

You know what, maybe they are not effective, but they're a hell of a lot more effective than your bare fists I'll tell you that much.

But if you have any ideas on how to fight off a knife wielder with your bare hands without losing your throat, I am all ears buddy.

Of course they're effective. That's why we send people to other countries wielding them. :lol:

This is a straight-forward dodge. Fuck your paper reality.

Interesting.

To be clear, I think US gun laws are much too loose, but I think there are ways to sensibly mitigate the risks while still allowing citizens to carry protection when the authorities neglect their duties.

And I would much rather have "the great equalizer" as called it.

Criminals already have access to firearms, even in my country, that has virtually no legal firearms.

But what about a knife wielder? How are you going to protect yourself against that? What about a knife wielder who is also twice your size?

I'm in the unfortunate position where I've had to contemplate my options in such a situation, and my conclusion is that I would 1000% prefer to go toe-to-toe with firearms, than I would against a knife wielder. One stab in the neck and it's over, as recent events have shown.

Grim, I know, but this is reality. We are not living in the '90s anymore. Society has changed.

But you know, if you have any advice for me I'm all ears.

General unsafety, police being completely powerless to stop it - it's obvious what he means.

UK and many other countries in Europe including my own are turning into shitholes. The sense of safety that once was is now just an illusion. People feel safe because they had the good fortune not to be confronted with reality, which is that if they cross paths with the wrong people the authorities can't and won't do a single thing.

I am being confronted with such a situation right now.

In my opinion, evidenced by fact, a firearm is an equalizer between men. Otherwise, the bigger guy basically always wins the fight, fights the bigger guy often picks because it gives him purpose to be superior over a stranger (when it's easy for him to be). Any other weapon aside from a firearm has its effectiveness basically determined by the size (and sometimes skill) of the user.

I find it pleasing to know I live in a society where an elderly man or woman or even child home alone can fend off a large, armed man with murder or rape on his mind, with ease, in the event of such an emergency, whereas the only other fate would be unspeakable tragedy. — Outlander

I agree.

If the authorities cannot reasonably keep you safe, there's no moral grounds upon which they can prevent you from keeping yourself safe.

Many places in the West are degenerating when it comes to crime and the state's ability or willingness to fight it. Clever criminals can basically do whatever they want.

You talk and act like fascists and extremists, you’ll be identified as such — accurately. — Mikie

If you genuinely believe anything that's happening in the US is remotely "fascist", it is you who is the extremist here.

Despite all of the legitimate criticism one could have of Trump, almost all of what this forum produces on the topic reads like a toddler's temper tantrum.

Get over yourselves already, and stop this childish posturing as 'crusaders against fascism' - it's embarassing, and, as we see with the Kirk assassination, potentially dangerous.

I hope the forum takes this as an opportunity for self-reflection.

By unironically labeling people as 'fascists' you're exactly contributing to the political climate in which murder becomes justified.

It's a tried and true tactic of those who want to see radicalized individuals take matters into their own hands.

Unfortunately, it has become commonplace on this "philosophy" forum.

As miniscule as this forum's influence is, many of you have done what little you can to feed this dysfunctional climate further (and the various threads may act as a testament to this). Some of Kirk's blood is, unironically, on your hands as well.

What a laughable pretense that such people take themselves seriously intellectually.

Some of you might want to strap on your masks a little tighter.

My prediction: he will not send troops to a city, like Chicago, because that would be a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. — Relativist

But Trump is Hitler, and America is becoming fascist!

A fair few of them, sure.

Therapy.

People who showcase an unhealthy obsession with things in the past that they have little to no connection to, are often running away from their problems in the present.

Žižek underscores the point that morality is power in disguise. — praxis

I don't disagree with Zizek or Nietzsche there, but I do believe the group that classifies themselves as "the victims" are doing so out of a sincere (though misguided) bid for self-validation. Resentment and a desire for revenge (and a corresponding desire for power) are a part of that.

Then there's the grifters, the profiteurs and politicians who jump on this bandwagon; they see emotionally vulnerable people as an opportunity for profit.

For them morality really is power.

The emotionally vulnerable are just being exploited and led in destructive circles, because the grift depends on them not finding a proper cure.

They appear to be convinced from the outset of the righteousness of their moral or ideological stance. How would you explain this phenomenon in a way that differs from Žižek’s interpretation? — Number2018

I would offer a slight twist on the subject.

The woke category that characterizes themselves as 'the oppressed victims' are absolutely shirking responsibility; they blame history, they blame the system, they blame other people's faults and "unconscious biases", etc.

This category exhibits something that I would almost consider a collective inferiority complex, which I believe stems from their own, unconscious rejection of their historical or cultural identity. That is then projected on society.

When one reduces one's own historical and/or cultural identity to "subservience to patriarchy", "slavery", etc. the 'other side of the mirror' is that one is indirectly admitting to one's own inferiority. Hence, observing the woke is like watching a dog chase its own tail.

But only a one of them is having sex for money. And that is called prostitution. Not commodifying one's body. We do not call builders football players. Because they are builders. We don't call prostitutes football players. Because they are prostitutes. — AmadeusD

Nowhere was I suggesting we start calling everything "prostitution".