Hamas operates like a small nation, the IRA is a domestic terrorist organisation, the scale is incomparable. Just the premise of this latest conflict, Hamas launching thousands of missiles from the territory they govern into Israel, is incomparable to anything that occurred in the conflicts being mentioned.

I do think race, religion, poverty, culture, geopolitics, all of these things do play a role in public opinion about what happens in Gaza and the West Bank. Western nations are guilty of this in domestic affairs, it only makes sense that it makes a difference here. Probably the biggest factor is narrative, Hamas talk, dress and act like stereotypical Islamic terrorists, they terrify people and neatly fit into the war on terror narrative. The change in tone this time has a lot to do with social media, the narrative isn't so easily controlled by governments and the news media. I don't think public opinion on Israel is advanced enough that people abandon their empathy due to racism.

I'm sure 180 condemns any hostile treatment of LGBTQ...


What didn't you understand? By calling Israel an apartheid state, by saying they're guilty of systematic oppression and racial discrimination, all such words naturally carry on to the head-of-state. These words are obviously harsher than saying you're pretentious or self-important, you little princess.

Being called pretentious and such is harsher than being called a human right's abuser? 180, what's telling is that you actually believe that what I called you is worse than what I said about the Israeli government. You're always deflecting, you label me an ethnic cleansing and apartheid supporter because I called you out on some bad behaviour. You value how you're treated as a "critic of Israel" more than an explicit condemnation of Israel, which just proves everything I had to say about you.

This is a philosophy forum, not a board arbitrating real-world matters, the quality of the discourse is actually the most important thing here. This is a place to discuss issues, many of which are highly sensitive and important, but that is not an excuse to degrade the quality of the discourse. The outcomes of these sensitive matters aren't decided here, the stakes are only as high as the posters make them.

It's a great term, one can't understand the modern left without it.

"Tone" is a generous euphemism for being belligerent and disingenuous, you actually seem to think you're important in the matter of Israel, your status as a "critic of Israel" counts for shit. You value how I treat you - as a critic of Israel, over my criticism of Israel as an apartheid state, guilty of systematic oppression and racism. You're so self-important, 180, it's amazing. "Critic of Israel", you're a pretentious, ego-driven, virtue signalling fraud and I'm not forced to compromise on that view, no matter what.

THEN this thread's ethnic cleansing (post-1967 zionist US client-apartheid state) apologists:
@BitconnectCarlos ☆
@Joshs ☆
@Echarmion
@Number2018
@Judaka
@Andrew4Handel ☆ — 180 Proof

When did I make any excuses for Israel? I agree that Israel is an apartheid state, they annexed land in 1967 but they don't want the people who were living on those lands. They have been and are still trying to evict those people, they treat them as second-class citizens.

Others among these posters listed made no excuse for Israel. That you named me just demonstrates what you're really about, this is an ego trip for you. Baden seems to think you should be allowed to say literally whatever you want and if it's addressed that's off-topic. Number2018 never even commented on whether Israel was justified. However, because this is your "moral stance" or whatever Baden calls it, you're all good to call people ethnic cleansing, apartheid apologists with no repercussions. Great. Wonder how many of these other posters are guilty only of saying something about you, that you didn't like.

@Maw "Tone", lol. At least half of my posts on this thread have explicitly called out Israel as being in the wrong, being an apartheid state. Yet, because I criticised among others, 180 proof, he decides to list me as an ethnic cleansing, apartheid state apologist. You try to downplay it as "mean names" but it's more than that, these aren't the acts of someone motivated by sympathy, it's something else.

Hamas might be sensitive to that but I've heard their objective here is probably more to do with elections that were supposed to take place in Gaza and West Bank. They're taking a tougher stance on Israel because they believe it will help with those elections, that Hamas will do better in those elections.

The government can't execute the will of the population, because the population has no idea how to govern a nation. The main purpose of the government is to govern. Governing requires institutions, to perform the basic functions that we take for granted, could list some but everyone should know at least some. People have no idea what is or isn't possible for the government to do, it is really the government that does the most to keep the government in check. Even the election itself in a democracy only exists because of the strong governmental institutions which ensure it happens and happens fairly. Democracy gives people some - very limited ability, to determine what the government does but it's not much.

Idiot, moron, nincompoop.

@Maw how am I doing? I am sympathetic to Palestinians and here's the proof.

People support Israel? What a surprise. Oh, wait, no it's not, you're already aware that hundreds of millions of people across the globe support Israel. Do you actually believe your actions here make even a tiny difference? That if you berate the handful of people here to disagree with you that you're going to change their minds - or even anything at all? If you were even trying to change their minds, you wouldn't talk the way you talk. This is the crux of the problem, this false pretence, the only thing you're doing here is stroking your own ego, virtue signalling and acting a fool.

The people who support Israel may be ignorant, or even willfully ignorant or maybe it's something more insidious. I already made my opinion on the matter clear, what do you want me to do? Join in with you and berate any poster who dares to argue something I disagree with on a sensitive matter? Sympathy? Are you sympathising with the Palestinians because of what Israel is doing or because literally 2-4 people on an obscure philosophy forum think it might be justified?

This thread is really ugly, the usual suspects are really just going hard on the name-calling, insults and hyperbole. Just like the Trump thread a while back, I do more or less agree with their main view. In this case, Israel is an apartheid state, centred around the idea of being a "Jewish" state. The evidence on their systematic oppression and institutionalised racism is crystal clear. "Self-defence" can't be the label given to a one-sided massacre and it's not as though Israel isn't partaking in the escalation which gets things to the level of violence. One doesn't need to know "all the facts" to come to these conclusions.

Nonetheless, we've got posters in this thread who have little interest in doing anything except feigning moral indignation, virtue signalling and just trying to drag others through the mud. There are some interesting conversations to be had about this situation and you'd think a philosophy forum might discuss them but this thread is about as bad as it gets. The very same people who are generally being retards on this forum, back at it again, many of them moderators - or at least streetlightx.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

The guidelines on this site are a complete farce. No need to like me or care about what I think, just read the guidelines and try to match them to this thread to see its quality.

Are you asking if those who organised the Holocaust thought their actions were morally abhorrent? Isn't it self-explanatory by the fact they organised it that the people in charge didn't think that?

This is the problem with trying to use logic as a base for morality as if it's a purely intellectual idea. There is no concrete logic to morality, there is no concrete logic to value - they are the result of the desires, feelings, emotions, interpretations of humans - or a human. Since it is closely tied to emotion and psychology, that's where to look for what makes something moral. If people don't feel anything when watching a bug die, killing one isn't evil, if seeing a baby die has you in tears then killing one is absolutely unforgivable. Likewise, if you see a whale as a tasty dinner then killing one isn't immoral, if whales are beautiful and majestic creatures and the thought of them being killed horrifies you then killing one is immoral. It's pretty much that simple, although, there are exceptions to the rule, not many.

I did some more thinking, considered your comments and, apart from some racially conscious policies, I don't believe that CRS and liberalism clash. In fact, I don't even think it is that much of a threat to anybody except insofar as it is detrimental to the cause of social justice by framing the issue almost purely in terms of race and by being a little too aggressive. I still maintain that white fragility is a concept fraught with issues (not all whites take defensive moves to avoid racial considerations; whiteness cannot be as homogeneous as it is claimed to be). I also still maintain that hypostatizing whiteness and attributing it to all whites will just reinforce the attitude I originally expressed in the OP; no one wants to think that their very identity is an artifact of someone else's oppression, even if white privilege exists. — ToothyMaw

Di Angelo does not claim that every white person is affected by white fragility and that would be an absurd claim. I also think that a lot of what she calls white fragility, is actually just basic resistance to being called racist or oppressor, words that carry such weight in this day and age, it's too heavy for anyone to bear. Accepting racism in many cases isn't easier for non-white people because they're exposed to more racial tension, it's easier because they're not being accused of being supporters of a racist, oppressive system - benefactors of a racist history and guilty of doing nothing to challenge the injustices. On top of that, Di Angelo speaks in a way that is accusatory, judgemental and offensive, there's no empathy, the stakes just keep rising higher and higher until merely not having an opinion makes you a horrible person. She thinks white people have an obligation to help and if they fail to do so, that this is an indictment on their character, inaction amounts to collaboration with the racist system.

CRT can have valid points but overall has serious issues.

My two major issues are that CRT tunnel visions on race to the extent that it promotes racialised worldviews and hyper focuses on race, which has served to actually deepen racial tensions rather than resolve them. Secondly, it proposes race-based solutions to these race-based problems, most importantly, the issue of racial inequity, this is the wrong way to go from my perspective. Racism is not just happening but has happened and the consequences have been extreme, this accounts for many of the issues faced by minorities in the US and other countries too. The aftermath of racism is not racism, a lack of effort to reverse the effects of racism is not racism and trying to undo the consequences will be difficult and painful. What we're really talking about is poverty but I don't think the reasons why someone is born into a poor family should matter, was it due to racism or because their father had a mental illness or whatever the reason is, doesn't matter. Thus, place the aftermath of racism into race-neutral categories of larger social issues such as poverty, poor infrastructure, poor healthcare system etc.

Racism is such a broad category of stuff, from what an individual says or does and even what they don't say or do, implicit bias, internalised racism, often irrespective of their opinion. Then there's all of the components of the government, the private businesses, the social structures which can be racist and for so many different reasons with no agreed-upon way of determining guilt or innocence. Forget accounting for geography, demographics, history, economics, culture and all the variables which all play important roles. Navigating this issue responsibly is very difficult and while most people can see racism when it presents itself to them, people who look for racism can and will find it in almost everything. Problems in society can be reduced to racism and most CRT comes off that way to me, it is a reductionist, narrow-minded way of viewing the world. When we combine CRT with intersectionality, we get the identity-orientated reductionism where every societal problem, any imbalance, it's racist, sexist, classist, ageist, transphobic, body-shaming - whatever.

Is CRT is just doomed to be reductionist based on its structure? Researchers are looking for racism, they've got control over what information they present, over how things should be interpreted, over what elements of their research should be emphasised and so on. There are always going to be race-based conclusions, the number of uses of the words "white" and "black" in some CRT books, can be staggering. I wrote a thread about this problem, of "arranging truth", where we really construct the truth by reducing a subject to a manageable or convenient level. We need to decide what information is relevant, how to interpret it, what narrative to construct and characterisations to make and so on. CRT isn't even written by impartial analysts, they're often themselves activists such as Di Angelo. There's surely some good work out there that shines a light on real problems but I think people are right to be concerned about it and the effect it might - or does - have on people who study it.

That being said, I don't like socialism either but the average American right-wing voter seems to have no idea socialism is - even though they hate it and they hate all these people and parties for being socialist. So, I don't necessarily look for camaraderie with people who dislike CRT.

Besides liberalism, you're worried about white people being unfairly treated or town down, which does make it seem like you're proving Di Angelo right. Matters such as white privilege should be treated as pieces of an overall argument or sentiment. When we say "white privilege" how extensive is that, what exactly is being referred to and what does that say about white people or society overall and how is the term being used - this can vary greatly from person to person. If someone is merely trying to respectfully describe social reality, white privilege is not an unreasonable term to use, although I think "racial privilege" would be better because it's race-neutral, not a big deal. We need to give some lee-way to describe problems intuitively but we don't need to give lee-way to racist, aggressive uses of the term white privilege, I don't think the line has been crossed merely by using these kinds of terms.

I think that Di Angelo has a point, although, I take issue with her phrasing, putting that aside, I think that many people do feel threatened by the idea of racism, they don't know how to cope with being the benefactor of a racist society.

This kind of analysis dances on a tightrope, between using the exact same logic of real racism, to pin behaviours, mentalities, attitudes and so on to a race, ones which may be honest assessments of reality but nonetheless invoke a kind of emotional response. I genuinely think that there's no difference between this kind of characterisation of white people and many of the racist epithets which constitute and perpetuate real racism. On the other hand, it makes sense that within a racist society, the experiences and circumstances for different races create attitudes that need to be discussed.

I still don't see how even "white fragility" or "white privilege" interacts with liberalism, thus, I don't know what the topic is anymore. Personally, I think these kinds of concepts are fine, she is trying to describe reality, I don't think she's trying to tear down white people, even if white fragility was acknowledged by all, I don't see how that would tear down white people, it would just become something to "lookout for". It's not much different than the ideas of implicit bias or internalised racism or whatever.

Di Angelo is probably a huge reason as to why she sees so much white fragility, she's provocative, both in her ideas and her language, I don't know if it's intentional but you couldn't have done a better job at writing this book in a way that angered people more than it did. We can critique her in many ways but the "white race is being threatened!" response is probably the worst. I hope you can see why it sounds bad without it having to be explained.

I see liberalism and CRT as clashing in a meaningful way when one essentially defines a whole class of people as material objects of their oppression to be torn down instead of using racially conscious policies to address inequity. — ToothyMaw

Also: attacking whiteness, as if it were a thing that could be separated from and decontextualized from the practices and viewpoints of actual white people — ToothyMaw

This is a little ambiguous, is it really "white people" that CRT is trying to tear down? This is seemingly a big premise in your argument but can you substantiate it and go into greater detail on why you think this is the case?

seems to go against the (perhaps vaunted) principle of merit that defines liberalism; while white supremacy exists and confers myriad advantages to whites, many of them really have worked hard to get to where they are and this success might be partially explained in terms of culture and individual motivation to succeed. — ToothyMaw

The acknowledgement of racism goes against the principle of merit? As I said, it is not just about what CRT says, it's about what we do with this information. Should we accuse every successful white person of simply having everything handed to them? No, we can acknowledge they've worked hard to get there, that they are good at what they do while acknowledging that racism exists as something with meaningful consequences.

Overall, I still don't see how liberalism and CRT clash in your view.

I don't know why you are so insistent on having people read your paper, I listened to it for a bit and well first of all, if someone tried to read your thread rather than listen to it, I think they'd give up pretty quickly, need some formatting. You start out by describing what a moral act is, talking about how certain acts are indistinguishable from each other but no one in their right mind defines a moral act as something that makes you happy. How can helping people and working yourself to death for your corporate master be indistinguishable? I was already pretty much done by this point, your premises are far from reasonable.

You offer all your points in rhetorical questions and you write as though you were thinking out loud. These points could have been so much more succinct, you write so much while saying so little. Even after I was halfway through and I still had no idea where you were going with your argument. You gave me so much to disagree with before we even got to your main point that I had lost interest. It's not surprising to me that your paper is ignored, to even rebut it would be a tremendous task because of how many questionable claims you have in it.

Try rewriting it with statements rather than rhetorical questions, reformat it - give headings or something. Drop the raping children examples and rewrite your points so they're more succinct.

They're not mutually exclusive, a good deed doesn't have to involve self-sacrifice, acting appropriately doesn't require noble motivations. Morality begins with a set of guidelines or rules for how we should behave. Those guidelines do have to involve me doing anything at all, I can consider adultery immoral even if I'm single. "Best" interests? Doesn't even have to involve anyone's interests. Sometimes two people doing something that's nobody else's business like homosexuality can be considered immoral.

Perhaps you're just saying this is your preference but even then... well I don't want to get into any potential virtue signalling you're going to try on me, if you think it's about doing what's in the "best interests" of others then okay, lol.

Morality often just the logic used to justify naturally occurring emotional and psychological reactions to events. I think it correlates with ones emotions and psychology far more than most people want to admit. Even things like being afraid of violence and thus condemning it, thus, morality is in of itself the result of your motivations and that's why it doesn't make much sense for most people to ask "why should I be moral". Being moral means pretty much doing what you already wanted to do anyway.

If there's anything for me that answers "why should I be moral" then it's the concept of doing what is in my best interests and the best interests of others. I could bully and harass people, I could steal and cheat but I know that society will be better for everyone, including me if people don't do that. I want to be the change I want to see in the world and that's my motivation. However, I'm not sure if I didn't have that, whether I'd be out bullying and stealing, I don't think so, still think I'm mostly just doing what I want.

I don't think CRT is clashing with liberalism and I don't understand your argument for saying it does.

We already know that equal and fair treatment of people is insufficient for combatting inequality. The US is seriously lagging behind in this understanding, mostly because of the prevailing attitudes towards capitalism and the culture around capitalism. "Success is something you have to earn, it will not be handed to you". People who overcome the odds are held up as examples of what the average citizen could be if they worked hard enough, the systemic issues are covered up by unrealistic advertisements of meritocracy and the value of hard work.

I can guess through your debate with synthesis that you more or less agree with this, so now I really don't understand how CRT and liberalism are clashing for you.

Freedom of speech is under attack from the media, social media and social justice but I think we can separate these things from CRT. The media is either politically biased or profit-motivated or both, it's simply more profitable to portray a police killing as racist, the circumstances don't seem to matter. Really being biased either way could be profit-motivated. Social media is powerful, it allows for organisation on unprecedented levels between like-minded civilians and that's true of much more serious situations than social justice. Events like the Arab spring come to mind, even the authoritarian governments of the middle east couldn't control the situation, they had to resort to fight or flight. Liberalism actually protects social media users from censorship, even if their free speech effectively makes it more difficult for others to speak their minds but I think this problem is overexaggerated often for political purposes. Social media companies are starting to become more regulated but their freedom has also led to controversies.

I don't think CRT should be judged for what it says, we should judge what people say we should do about it. Does whiteness confer special privileges in the US? Yeah, I'm sure it does. But what impact should that have on the overall narrative? For white or non-white people? And what is the appropriate response? That's where the trouble starts, I don't think we should be getting annoyed about CRT for describing the situation in terms of race, it's reasonable given the context.

Would you say this is the same as ignoring race or broadening the perspective to be more holistic? — TLCD1996

Either? Or neither?

I can give different justifications for why selecting specific races for privileges is a bad idea. Keep things simple and help people who can be defined as needing help by their circumstances. I think even someone who is racially sensitive can understand why creating a ladder for which races deserve the most help, and giving or withholding help based on your race, will cause many problems. Socially, politically, culturally, it exacerbates racism and helps to justify it.

Agreeing that we need to pursue a more equitable society by more pragmatic disadvantages I think is at odds with wanting a more equitable society by race. Not because the end goal is different but because the race element hijacks the agenda and turns it into something different, both in how it operates and in how it is perceived.

Equality and equity are just two very different things, sometimes pursuing equality alone just perpetuates the unfairness. Such as leaving the rich and poor to their own devices, we'd just be guaranteeing that the wealth inequality will widen. Some people need more help than others, I'm just saying that we shouldn't define the people who need help by their racial features nor offer help exclusively to people based on their race.

Each racial group should be given equal treatment but accomplishing equity among racial groups should not be a goal. I see inequity as a product of systemic racism and past injustices, among other things. However, many see inequity as a component of systemic racism and as a current injustice. Both views see any insidious or intentional perpetuation or worsening of any contemporary unequal treatment as unjust but anyone can see that even if those offences were eliminated, the inequity between the races will continue to exist, it will likely never cease to exist. If the inequity itself is an injustice then we cannot simply strive for equal treatment, it would have to be addressed directly.

Like you say, race membership isn't clear cut and the concept itself can often be confusing. By attempting to achieving equity among racial lines, we need to hyperfocus on this issue of race and to implement controversial policies which select races for special assistances. This isn't just controversial due to the majority race feeling sidelined but every race would need to be evaluated for the kind of assistance needed to accomplish an equitable outcome and I think finding a method of doing this everyone agreed with would be impossible. I think such a move would be divisive and socially inflammatory, because it focuses on racial differences, however, I don't think we should treat everyone the same.

There are disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in society and there is a need for economic redistribution. Striving for a more equitable society is an absolute must, the economy is naturally trending towards a less equitable society just left to its own devices as it is and the way it is currently is already pretty bad. No matter if we treat everyone equally, life isn't fair, everyone knows this. Therefore, I don't think trying to achieve a more equitable society is naive or wrong but I don't agree with aiming for more equity across racial lines as an explicit goal. Once everyone is being treated equally then allow racial inequity to be addressed through programs that help those who are disadvantaged in more practical categories, within which poorly performing racial groups will certainly be overrepresented.

How is money less complex here? What is my dollar spent on? The coffee machine? The coffee? Actual instruction? Which instruction? What instruction is most effective in preventing deaths? etc. etc. — Benkei

It's a matter of how one's time, effort and wealth is dedicated towards one's personal goals and wants. It's that simple, the intricacies don't matter, I'm not going to fault someone who is dedicating their time, effort and wealth to help others if they can't prove they are saving lives.

I'm not sure in what sense it's insufficient. What do you mean? — Benkei

It's insufficient because I don't know the details. When I was a kid, I got saved at the beach, I was taken out by the current and couldn't get back, a surfer noticed me and saved me. What if the surfer saw an eight-year-old kid desperately trying to swim back and failing, like 80m from the shore, right next to a cliff with sharp rocks and just ignored me. That'd be comically callous. I've also heard of stories of people trying to save someone from drowning in a dangerous environment, only to themselves drown. You could be talking about a minor inconvenience to yourself + feeling like you did a good deed, really a net benefit for you and no wonder you'd do that instead of donating your money, or you could be taking a serious risk and since you said "I'm saving someone in the water", I don't know what you're talking about.

My failing to give cash doesn't cause a death and is therefore not morally condemnable, my failing to intervene when someone's drowning does. Giving to charity is commendable but saving a person is morally obligatory in my view. — Benkei

I agree with you, especially when saving the person isn't a risk to yourself. Everyone should agree that the moral option is to save the person on the tracks in OPs example. How can profiting from ignoring the needs of others be morally good? How can getting rich by letting others die be morally justifiable? The only way is to do the whole "I'd take the 100m and save as many as I could".

The question isn't about what is moral, it's about what your moral views are worth, what it takes to get you to betray them. Nobody thinks that abandoning a guy you could have easily helped for money is the ethical thing to do. My only point was that if you really won't look the other way to gain $100m, then that dedication should manifest in your life, otherwise they're just good-looking words. If it doesn't, does that mean you are lying and wouldn't take the money? Not necessarily but one shouldn't claim to be above prioritising themselves over the well-being of others when they generally do, that doesn't make sense right?

I'm trying to explain why I think there's a moral difference between contributing by giving cash, where there's no causal link between the cash given and a life saved but there is where I'm confronted with a situation where my actions can prevent a death and where failing to do so would be morally condemnable. — Benkei

I agree that there is, I'm not trying to morally condemn anyone for not donating their time and money, I'm saying that by not donating your time and money, you are prioritising yourself over your potential for helping or saving others. This is morally admissible but it's not that different from OP's example. Are there differences? Yes, there's a difference between failing to save someone in front of you and failing to look for people to save, a difference between failing to sacrifice your time and resources and receiving money for looking the other way and more.

As I said already, OP made this question comical by giving the value of $100m, he made it so that any answer which says they'd save the man, is effectively saying they're incorruptible, they value the morally right choice over any kind of monetary value. If he gave the value of $10,000, it's more reasonable, it's not life-changing money, but I still think many/most people would take $10,000 over saving a total stranger. $100m is so immense that you're giving up all measure of worldly desire for a complete stranger, it is quite a statement. I think philosophy tends to disregard the competitive aspect of society, it's all about collaboration and doing right by another, which leads to it being kind of removed from reality. The limitations of morality are stretched by $10,000, lmao, $100m, really? Do we all live in the same world or not? Is it even commendable to sacrifice such an opportunity of $100m just to save a stranger? Other than the fear of hell, does any other justification make sense?

What I'm saying is that money is easily transferable between hands, it's a singular value that is always present in life. The opportunity to part with money to help others always exists. The same can't be said for trying to save a drowning person, it's a rare circumstance, with an unknown value, an unknown risk, really, nothing is known at all, it's just overcomplicated.

Why not? — Benkei

Lol, it depends on the circumstances, sure. If someone watches a kid drowning in a pool and does nothing to help and you want to call it murder, fair enough. If someone doesn't rush into a potentially dangerous situation to save a drowning person, that's fair, I don't think they're a murderer for not taking on that risk. I shouldn't have even said anything, the more I think about your drowning example, the more obvious it is that it's incredibly insufficient.

Your example makes things unnecessarily complicated, what makes OP easier is that we're talking about money, money used to save someone's life, the saving is guaranteed. I would deal with your example very differently than I'd deal with OPs. Though, I do not agree that you're the cause of death by choosing not to intervene.

I'm not approaching this topic from a moral perspective, I think the moral answer is clear. It's really a matter of values. If materialistic desires or the value of money pales in comparison to the value of human life and that's your stance then live and act in accordance with those beliefs and don't be a hypocrite, that's all I'm saying. Don't just tell me the answer that looks good on paper and continue to live as though you're ignorant about what the world's like and live without even thinking to choose between buying nice things for yourself and using that money to help others, because it's not your problem.

My point isn't that things shouldn't be like that, I think it's fine, my point is saying "I wouldn't choose not to help someone for $100m" is really stupid because of this reality. I already choose not to help people all the time. If you want to say, well, it's different because based on whether you laid eyes on the person or because you don't have someone else who you can pretend might help this time, okay? You can list some differences but do they actually matter? Bottom line is that most of us prioritise ourselves and then there's just how honest you are about it.

Yes, they're comparable because our lifestyles already reflect our priorities when it comes to saving people we don't know.

If Lif3r's reasoning was that he is too much of a saint to not help someone like I said then what I said stands. If I Lif3r said "no, my reasoning is that now that this 1 guy is within close proximity to me and I'm the only one available to help him so I gotta save him" or "I won't sacrifice my cash to save others but I won't sacrifice others to make money" then yeah, I'd need to rethink my response.

You virtue signal and that's all, even now, you're focused on demonstrating the superiority you think you have and that's about it. Next Lif3r thread:

"Wealth drives the world but haven't people realised that our pursuit of profits is destroying the environment and causing wealth inequality? Why can't people figure out that we need to work together and that there's more to life than profits? It infuriates me that people can't figure out the most basic shit omg!"

or

"Global warming is bad and is destroying the planet and we need to do something about it!!! It's unreal to me that people are still asleep on this topic, have people forgotten their obligation to biology?? Wake up people! Stop doing things to cause global warming right now!"

I finally remember now, our interaction which I had forgotten about, I read one of your stupid threads and trolled you. I don't treat every thread trying to solve societal issues like that, only dumb ones like yours. :lol:

I don't expect kindness from someone I'm mocking but you made a thread about a moral question and your answer is that you're an incorruptible saint. You're a selfless hero. Did you think you wouldn't need to defend this position? You just started this thread as a way to virtue signal? Lmao.

Just scrolling through your other threads, it's pretty much always the same thing with you actually.

Your thinking is just too convenient, too one-sided, from start to finish. Any kid can complain about the issues they think society has, most people graduate that and develop more nuanced opinions but not everyone, clearly.

It is not true that my views are "anti-human", I'm guessing your answer shows what you think the correct answer is.

Money isn't just some abstraction that should be demonised by those who don't have it. You're willing to give up the status, power and the litany of benefits that come with such an amount of money. Any dreams or goals you have, any friend or family member you'd want to help, any place you'd like to visit, anything you wish you could have. Give it all up when it's literally handed to you for nothing. For what? Because you're too much of a saint to NOT help someone? Are you giving up the money to save the person or to save your conscience?

Except, you already live a life where you DON'T give up your time and wealth to help people YOU COULD HAVE helped. We all already prioritise our goals and dreams, our holidays, the nice things we can afford over the potential for those resources to be used in helping someone we could have helped.

Perhaps if in the actual moment you were emotional and decided you had to save the person on the tracks, you might. Then spend the rest of your life regretting it and beating yourself up about your choice, that strikes me as realistic for the average person. Saying you're above being bought, you would never, ever value money over someone's life, that's the reasonable position for you? I'm just being edgy by disagreeing? lmao.

At this point, there's no compromise between personal gain and morality for you, you'd give up $100 million to save up a stranger. You look alien compared to the world you live in, people don't give a dollar to a person in need but you'll give up $100 million for a stranger. People will sell drugs to get by, businesses will exploit people to make a buck but you won't give up a single person for $100 million. Okay, such a saint, I'm sure the way you live your life completely reflects your devotion to saving people.

Lol, 100m is super excessive, I would leave the guy on the tracks for much, much less.

I don't think this question is necessarily as worthless as people are saying but only because some people actually would save the guy over 100m. That's hilarious in itself. The only people who are saying they'd take it are saying that they'd use the money to help people around the world. Do the posters on this forum really take themselves that seriously? It's just so bad to take the money rather than save someone else's life? How hypocritical, how unbelievably pathetic.

What kind of risks are you referring to? The revenge of... who? How will they take revenge? What kind of people are you talking about?

This conversation was something special.

Some people might not take that risk and that's fine, instead, they just stop interacting with that person. It is unlikely that anyone will get physical or vandalise your stuff just because you called them out on a racist comment. It's true though, if I was dealing with a group of potentially violent young men, I might not think the risk is worth it, I would rather avoid a fight if I'm in a circumstance where one could occur and so I may refrain from saying anything. I've never been in such a situation where I felt I was taking a big risk to say my opinion but if someone was, it's understandable if they don't take that risk. Whatever shape that risk may take.

Rebuking or expressing disapproval - depends on the context. To not tolerate means to act, which act depends on the person.

I wouldn't enable racist behaviour but I would tolerate someone I knew had racist views, provided that they acted in a respectable manner.

It's better if everyone is playing a game of soccer with each other and tolerating or keeping these matters off to the side rather than declaring war on each other because of a difference in opinion. Deescalation, tolerance and empathy are key, focus on common ground rather than emphasise the differences.

I think what makes racism truly poisonous is not the views themselves but the intolerance, escalation and hate. If at a community gathering, the racist in the experiment was acting respectfully and courteously, without bringing up his racist views and others were calling him a cockroach and telling him to GTFO and threatening to dox him, I'd be siding with the racist. Such antagonistic behaviour isn't productive.

It's fine to say that there should be no more racist comments but that's about it.

What shouldn't be tolerated are actions that cause harm and disruption, things we can stop and make better. Domestic violence, animal abuse, child abuse, gang violence and so on. A racist comment, speech or joke - don't tolerate that but something like expulsion from the community should come after they've refused to stop and it's the last resort.

No, but this thread is about specific motivation #15 and it's different from #14 and #16

Now the bad kind of patience, if you're taking longer than necessary to get a job done or complete a goal just for the sake of being patient. If you're doing that you're wasting time and time is precious so taking longer to do something just because you want to be patient is foolish if you ask me. Provided that taking longer doesn't change the end result I see no point in taking longer than what's necessary and as I said, you're wasting time if you do that. This is especially true if you're working towards a goal that has a time limit and if you think about it, every goal in this life has a time limit. — HardWorker

I think you are describing procrastination, which is not a symptom of patience.

Patience generally refers to the ability to overcome or tolerate emotional and psychological pressures such as delays, setbacks, impulses and so on.

Procrastination generally refers to succumbing to the desire to avoid doing what you don't want to do.

I don't think someone can be acting patiently while procrastinating. I think too much patience can be a bad thing if you're missing opportunities in which there are many forms.

Aggression is normal, but this thread is about a specific kind of aggression with a specific kind of motivation.

I ask myself, are they complaining? Are they judging? Are they setting up straw men with inferences about another's argument that were not made? — James Riley

Complaining makes someone weak and judging makes them unwise? Is that right?

Your story, it's a very fine example of aggression motivated by inference. A community of men who belittle others as a way of demonstrating their manliness, sure, that's the kind of thing I am talking about. I think it's fine if you call "bitching" weak but probably not to say that being weak is to complain, anyway, I feel I can understand you better with this example.

Your example shows that we're on the same page about the topic of my OP. The men in your example have a hierarchy in their minds, of at least characteristics and aesthetics, their disdain and disgust towards those they view as being in the lower rungs of their hierarchy cements their occupation of the higher rungs. Thus, comes validation, status and the feeling of superiority, if not within their community then in their experience and perception of the world. This is likely a component of what drives them to act as they do because they enjoy that experience. What's important to this process are the feelings they evoke in each other and themselves, that's what is driving them forward - probably.

To be honest, I am still confused by the discussion revolving around weak/stupid and strong/wise, I don't understand what you're trying to say or where you're coming from. I also don't understand why leading by example and being silent and humble has been brought up. While your example demonstrates that aggression can be in the form of complaining, once again, I think it is confusing to make it sound like aggression is a form of complaining. I never said that Z was complaining, perhaps that is what you thought I was talking about but I didn't use this term.

We still agree X = weak/stupid, right? Z = my theoretical aggressor, Y = strong/wise. — Judaka

If Z was my theoretical complainer and I understood you to be saying "Z cannot be strong/wise because complainers are weak, therefore Z=X" then I would have had more clarity as to what you were saying. As it stood, I couldn't understand what aggression had to do with being weak/strong and felt you were being unreasonable.

I don't understand why you're X if you can't convince a buffoon like Trump, as if Trump hasn't ignored very competent, intelligent and accomplished people at every turn? — Judaka

I still don't understand this part, you're faced with a belligerent, arrogant or strong-willed person or group who refuse to be helped or changed. Why do you:
1) Feel this proves you are weak/stupid
2) Feel humbled by this?
3) Feel you should lead by example, refrain from judgement and be silent

To me, none of these things sound right, especially the first 2. And for the third, aren't you free to express your feelings and criticisms? What is being achieved by being silent?