We should also remember that the pressure to provide plays a role in Walt's decision. He's got Jr.'s college to pay for. And we should not forget that he's in the business ofempire.

That would depend on whether there is karmic retribution, in which case one's mortality would not be freeing at all. A lot of modern culture is fundamentally nihilist - nothing matters in the end, right? — Wayfarer

True, but he does attempt to maintain Judeo-Christian moral standards, at least early in the show. It's seemingly not possible once you're in Walt's line of work, as the show portrays it. Walt's initial motivation is a mix of money and ego, but his family is not well off in the beginning.

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? — Tzeentch

He doesn't start off as a drug lord. 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. You cheer him on in the beginning.

As I noted above, this series is merely a successful illustration of the problems I would like to discuss:

1. The majority of screen time in such "masterpieces" is dedicated to the aestheticization and heroization of the sinner; the moral justification of atrocities.
2. The reckoning is presented as a "nod to the genre" or a payment for the right to glorify crime.
3. Punishment, even if inevitable, is perceived as the completion of the drama, as an atonement for all future sinners, and not as retribution.

I suggest we discuss this phenomenon if this topic resonates with you. — Astorre

I'm rewatching BB now, and I really don't see it this way. Walter's crime destroys his family and friends. At the end of the show, he is alone and miserable. In the moment the viewer cheers his victories, in the big-picture the show does not glorify Walt.

In Season 1, we're rooting for him, though. In S1, no one around him respects him. We cheer when he fights off the boys who are bullying Walt Jr. for his disability. We cheer those early victories where he puts assholes in their place and learns to stand up for himself. Over time, Walt turns less sympathetic, and by the time we hit season 5, Walt is a complete psychopath — but we've known him since S1 so it's a bit different than just turning on the screen and seeing a psycho.

So no, I don't see BB as glorifying crime upon reflection. If at the end of the show Walt lived in a giant mansion with all his friends and family, then yeah, I call it glorification. Walt's adventures are exciting and risky, but not ultimately good. In nearly all cases, financial success comes at the cost of family and friends.

EDIT: In the earlier seasons there's more of this in-the-moment glorification, for instance when Walt blows up Tuco's office. In season 5, it's much grittier, and you're likely terrified of Walt, e.g., when he coordinates the prison hit, it's conveyed in brutal detail. No one wants to be Walt in those later seasons.

dying unnaturally of natural causes(cancer, earthquake). — hypericin

Dying unnaturally of natural causes. :chin:

Medically, "old age" is never the cause. It's e.g., organ failure, heart disease, etc.

As long as man has free will, there will be evil in one way or another. God could remove our free will, then the problem of evil would be solved.

In any case, if we're all going to mindless oblivion, then whether one dies now or later makes no real difference. In the end, our minds will be destroyed, along with all our experiences and thoughts.

The end is nigh. :fear:

Both. In theory. But I’d like to see the destruction of the bigger terrorists in Likud. — Mikie

In theory, I'm ok with this. In the absence of Israel's enemies, there's no real justification for the Israeli right.

Because as long as Gaza is occupied in an open-air prison — Mikie

Do you really think this conflict is only about the "occupation" of Gaza and not the "occupation" of Palestine itself?

Historically, resistance movements — even those deeply rooted in a population — can be defeated.

Why is it not possible?

Also, notice I said "in theory." Are you, in theory, in favor of the destruction of Hamas? Or those who committed the massacre?

So you're good with Israel targeting Hamas and other terrorist groups who attacked on 10/7? You're ok with Israel destroying Hamas if Hamas refuses to surrender? About 3k Hamas fighters attacked on 10/7, and Hamas had around 40k fighters.

So you're saying you're fine theoretically with Israel destroying groups such as Hamas, but you want fewer civilian casualties and destruction?

Depending on the context, aggression can be either beneficial or detrimental. Sometimes aggression saves (or would have saved) many lives. It doesn't seem fruitful to me to discuss aggression per se.

"If you make me bleed, I make you bleed worse. That's the only way to be even." Unfortunately, you can see how it leads to a feedback loop when two unintelligent people (the only people who get into fights) get into a fight. — Outlander

This is not a fistfight between two individuals, but a clash of civilizations. My own fight history has no bearing.

What are you proposing Israel do after 10/7? Is Israel allowed to go after the savages who murdered its civilians in cold blood? Does it have your permission?

Japan only killed ~2800 of us at Pearl Harbor, why did we need to mobilize and kill hundreds of thousands? We should have stopped once we had 2800 Japanese dead. Then we say "war over" and both sides return home in peace.

Israel is a state, but before that, yes, there is a history of Jewish non-state resistance/terror groups.

You're the genocide apologist and fascist.

Weak doesn't mean good. Going from house to house murdering, raping, and torturing certainly doesn't mean good. Kinda even sounds like genocide, dontcha think?

At this point we should change this thread to genocide apologism”. — Mikie

Great idea — the Palestinian political leadership has been openly attempting to genocide Israel since its inception: "from the river to the sea."

I totally get the frustration, though. In any case, it helps to know when pieces are under attack.

It is a feeling beyond any and all description. — Outlander

Such is losing at chess.

Who are you? I know you're not cheating. But you might as well be. — Outlander

Looks like @praxis is just a chess god. I don't see grounds for cheating accusations.

Back to admission of condemnation, then. — jorndoe

What do you say we talk about all the Union's war crimes, and when anyone tries to ask about the Confederacy, we continue obsessing over the Union? We could have this discussion, so hurry up and condemn the Union. Condemn your favored side in every war. Do you see why this line of inquiry is generally unhelpful?

It depends. Many Westerners consider the US the Great Satan and Israel its sidekick in the Middle East. Besides, the reason why there are those in the West who consider the US "the good side" despite the evil committed is that the West has actually benefited for decades of the US protection and the support for Western-led international order. It's not clear to what extent the current war is benefiting Western countries and the Western-led international order (for example, Israel has not engaged in a direct, large-scale military campaign against ISIS, nor was it part of the official US-led anti-ISIS coalition, Israel has mostly refrained from strong, visible support for Ukraine, particularly in terms of military aid, compared with other Western countries, while the current war has lots of troubles: genocidal accusations, ambitions for territorial annexations, destabilized commercial routes to the West). Even more so after Trump's re-election. And Netanyahu's confrontational attitude showing a sort of full commitment to war in all directions, as long as possible doesn't bode well. — neomac

My earlier post was referencing WWII.

Islamic fundamentalism is more than ISIS. Israel currently fights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. It also provides valuable intel, but apparently, it's stopped giving intel to the UK. I fear the "Western order" is crumbling from within, but hopefully it's not too late. The West needs to be able to stand up for its values, but this would require a rejection of multiculturalism. I genuinely fear for the future of the West, particularly Europe. Fighting ISIS in Syria or elsewhere in the Middle East should be the least of their problems.

It's not "the Jews." It's Soros and maybe a handful of others. He's like Magneto.

I mean, he was a devout evangelical Christian, and it's not like he was talking about Soros all the time.

There do seem to be some influential Jews who hate Israel and the West more generally. Soros would be among them. As mentioned, there are wonderful and not-so-wonderful Jews. I think it's clear at this point that influential NGOs, some funded by Jews like Soros, have been financing the pro-Palestine movement and facilitating the flow of mass migration to the West. There seems to be a long history of contributions to left-wing causes.

I just think the strategy is reprehensible and not to be used by an actor that wishes to be in the moral highground. — ssu

Recently, pro-Palestinian sources, including Francesca Albanese, have reported 700k dead Palestinians, including nearly 400k Palestinian babies under 5. According to AI, there aren't even that many babies under 5 in Gaza. The figure jumped quickly from ~100k dead to ~700k. What I'm saying is, we're simply not getting a complete, accurate, or objective picture of this conflict. What I do know is that Israel has supplied unprecedented amounts of aid to Gaza. Access to Gaza itself is dangerous and limited, and all reporting from it requires the approval of Hamas; thus, an independent, objective investigation is not possible at this time.

I also recall that the Allies used a blockade against Germany in WWI. The blockade was considered decisive.

Perhaps. And perhaps we simply shouldn't judge Israel on the level we judge European or North American state, but as a Middle Eastern state. — ssu

Agree. Judge it as it is.

A bad guy taking out another bad guy don't make him an angel. It was still a totalitarian and imperialist regime, just with a Marxist ideology. Now we just don't have the fig-leaf of Marxism-Leninism anymore, but the monster of a regime is still there. — ssu

I hate the USSR, but in the context of WWII, they are good imho. It's a peculiar phenomenon that I occasionally ponder — how, theoretically, all the individuals within, say, a unit may be morally flawed and criminally guilty, yet the collective remains good.

Of course, it's easy to judge the USSR in WWII as bad; we could do the same with the US, which was a very racist country at the time, with brutal conduct in the war. Yet there's something distasteful about judging our ancestors as such, especially in times of war when they were fighting evil. In total, I'd consider the USSR (and the US) as "good" in WWII despite their many faults.

Well, if the enemy makes the living conditions of the civilians totally unlivable that leads to famine, that's a war crime. That's not inescapable. — ssu

There are a few factors here that complicate things: Israel and the GHF are distributing massive amounts of food, and naturally, in the course of war, infrastructure will be destroyed, making some parts of the land uninhabitable.

You can easily fight the worse suicidal motherfuckers around and NOT have a famine among the civilians and the children. Here I would refer to look at how the US Armed Forces fought Al Qaeda and ISIS. Or to historically to ANY fighting force that has successfully put down an insurgency. — ssu

Sure, it's variable. In this situation, the Gaza government hordes food, prohibits its civilians from building wells, and has invested all its funds into concrete underground tunnels instead of infrastructure.

Analogies to family dynamics aren't good ways of understanding geo-politics if that's where we end. — Moliere

Agree; I was working within the framework I was given.

There are no saints in war. All parties are condemnable.

At least you aren't denying that it's a genocide — Moliere

I am, for several reasons. If Israel were committing genocide against the "Palestinians" why wouldn't it root out and presumably execute its own Israeli Arabs? Israeli Arabs and "Palestinians" are really the same people, and only differ due to location and citizenship. If anything, I'd expect Israel to start with its own Arabs. It would have been like Germany leaving its own Jews unharassed.

It's like if you're a father with children and you opened the door into your kid's room one day and your kid randomly said "oh I'm a nation all of a sudden and you can be my citizen". You'd smack that little s**t into next week. — Outlander

To make this example better, we need to imagine that that the kid is older than the adult because Judaism is older than Islam and has had a presence in Israel for longer. We also need to imagine that the "kid" had several houses (i.e. kingdoms) built in that location before the father was alive. Third, that the ancient child's religious/cultural identity was formed in those ancient kingdoms (houses), making him indigenous.

That's no normal child.

I'm not playing this stupid game about condemnable actions when we're talking about the broad categories of collective good and evil. E.g., The US committed constant and countless "condemnable actions" in the Pacific, yet remained "the good side." If I were to point out more "condemnable actions" by the US, does that make Japan good and the US bad? What real purpose would it serve besides historical interest?

This will likely be my last post on the issue since it's clear we disagree, and I don't feel like arguing forever.

What about the ones that don't have full rights?

Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law#Status_of_Palestinian_Arabs

They were forced from their land and required to apply for citizenship with Israel and if they couldn't -- which most didn't -- they lost their property.

Technically speaking they're not citizens so it's not a "second class citizen" de jure -- but it is de facto. — Moliere

If you do a bit of research, you'll see that the vast majority of Palestinians don't want Israeli citizenship. To accept citizenship would be to effectively validate the notion of a Jewish, non-Muslim state, which they have opposed since the very beginning. It is a humiliation to many of them.

And that's a central issue imho—the persistent refusal of the Palestinians to accept an independent Jewish state in what ought to be Muslim land. Jews lived alongside Hindus in peace for many centuries since neither group felt the need to convert or conquer the other. When one side refuses to accept the presence of the other, wars are launched, which lead to greater loss of land, more humiliation, and more victimization. It's a vicious cycle of victimhood.

After 10/7, Hamas lost its seat at the table. They shattered any prospective hope for peace. They acted like Nazis - summarily executing Israelis/Jews civilians and keeping Israelis/Jews in concentration camp-like conditions in captivity - and they deserve annihilation just like the Third Reich. Like the deaths of German civilians are ultimately the responsibility of the Third Reich, the deaths of Gazan civilians are on Hamas, as Israel takes considerable precautions to avoid disproportionate civilian deaths.

Losing wars sucks, but you cannot pass down hate and resentment about it from generation to generation.

There are significant differences between those and what's happening here, though, such that the "war" designation isn't exactly apparent to me. — Moliere

How can the Civil War be a war to you? The North didn't recognize the South as an independent country.

I see that situation as much closer to the situation in Israel -- Israel offers different rights to Jews than to non-News. — Moliere

Tell that to the Israeli Arab muslims who serve in Parliament and as judges and professors with full rights.

Palestinians are segregated into different locations within the state of Israel. This is largely due to a desire for an ethno-state -- i.e. Arabs over there and Jews over here.

I can't tell whether you're talking about Israeli arabs or Palestinians.

Suppose that South Africa, in response to a political act of terrorism on white people, set up artillery and began to systematically eliminate the Black neighborhoods in retaliation. — Moliere

I'm not entertaining this because Israel is not South Africa, nor has Israel begun bombing its own neighborhoods. Gaza is not an Israeli neighborhood or region. It is a territory possessed by an enemy political group that openly seeks the complete destruction of its neighbor and to establish hardline Islamic rule.

Did apartheid SA have blacks in Parliament? In high positions in society?

So my theory of war needs refinement, but I don't see an apt comparison to either the United States' civil war or its revolutionary war. — Moliere

:up: Keep in mind that over 10,000 rockets have been fired indiscriminately into Israel from Gaza since 10/7 and that 10-20% of these misfire and end up landing in Gaza itself. In any case, whether we call it a war or a protracted conflict doesn't matter much to me... although near 1,000 Israeli soldiers have been killed since 10/7 but ultimately 'war' or 'protracted conflict' both fit.

There's more than one condemnable action here. — jorndoe

The Russians raped and murdered their way to Berlin, yet they are the good guys. Israel fights Islamic fundamentalism — today's Nazism. While Israel is not flawless (no country in war is), it shows much more restraint than the Russians.

If all you want to point out is the wrongs of one party, we're not going anywhere.

Whereas here we have the IDF carrying out the deliberate and systematic destruction of Hamas while killing anyone that gets in their way. — Moliere

If a German civilian were to "get in the way" of the Allies killing the Nazis, that civilian becomes a legitimate target. He has chosen a side.

Anyway, yes, Hamas and the Nazis are/were both political groups. Political groups deserving destruction.

A war is between two countries that recognize one another. — Moliere

So the Civil War wasn't a war? Or the Revolutionary War, for that matter.

It's not like Hamas just decided to be evil. There are reasons for why they were voted for that lead up to Oct 7th. — Moliere

Hamas is a hardline Islamist group that follows hardline Islamist ideology. At its most basic level it is simply seeking to expand the territory of Islam under hardline rule — nothing new in the history of Islam. Hamas isn't shy about this.

Nor is Hamas all that different (although a little more extreme) than "secular" organizations like the PLO, which also sponsors terror attacks.

Is the objective just to take out Hamas, or is it some kind of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Gaza by making the strip totally unlivable. — ssu

It's more than the Netanyahu administration running this war. Israel has a unity government in place to run the war.

If the strip is made unlivable due to the war, then it becomes a humanitarian imperative to evacuate civilians. That would turn "genocide" into a humanitarian imperative. :chin:

It does confront the issue.

Hamas's modus operandi is to target Israeli civilians deliberately. Israel targets Hamas, but in doing so, inevitably kills civilians as a byproduct. One of these is murder, the other is not. One of these groups would readily admit (and brag) that they murder; the other does not. I can't think of a sharper moral difference.

It's not just about body count.

I am also sad for the innocent Palestinians. I am sad for the innocent in all wars. Such is war.

If you check with the pro-Palestinian movement leaders like @NerdeenKiswani on X, the new death count is 700k with 400k babies dead. According to AI, there are not even 400k Palestinian babies in Gaza, but don't let that get in your way as a Palestinian activist. Push the numbers, yell the slogans, move on.

Last time I checked, it was 60k; now, apparently, it's 100k. Whatever the count is, it includes Hamas terrorists in a large count, given that it is what Israel is targeting. Gaza's figures do not differentiate between combatant and civilian because such a distinction is meaningless to them. Such distortions are run of the mill for the movement.

Can you imagine if we had this reporting in previous wars? I suppose it would be akin to "50k Germans indiscriminately killed" during Battle of the Bulge. Civilian, combatant, whatever, throw it all in one figure.

When a Hamas terrorist dies, the world is improved.

Wikipedia is biased and should not be used as a neutral source. I have a bone to pick.

The term "West Bank" encompasses the historic territories of Judea and Samaria — territories with thousands of years of Jewish/Hebrew history.

To just blatantly claim that the "West Bank" (a term only in use for a few decades) is "occupied Palestine" is nonsense, historically. There has never been a Palestinian state or a Palestinian nation. The term "Palestine" historically refers to the geographical or topographical characteristics of the region.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

Personally, despite having studied the history of the region, I've always wondered when the "Palestinians" arrived in Palestine. When does their history start? Or where can their coins be found? Or their artifacts? Hebrew/Jewish ones are abundant. Or are the modern "Palestinians" just the people (i.e., non-Jews) who have lived there since time immemorial, since it's in the name — and whoever claims the name "Palestinian" earns this eternal presence.

Anyway.

It's nice that you were able to describe Palestine, but Hamas has made it pretty clear that it considers all of Israel to be occupied, so the first step in the peace process — if there is to be one — would be removing Hamas.

What is a genocide, in your view? — Moliere

We can go by Merriam-Webster.

I wouldn't say that Israel is "holding back", but that's a vague criteria. — Moliere

Israel has complete air superiority over Gaza and is capable of inflicting much more damage. Israel possesses WMDs. Gaza has virtually no air defenses. Israel could do much more.

Now if you're killing combatants that's one thing -- but Palestine isn't even a state. It's an occupied territory where we have stories of people shooting Palestinians where they excuse their shot by "I just didn't understand why he cared about that body" -- drawing a literal line in the sand for when to kill. — Moliere

Gaza is a region. "Palestine" you will find nowhere on a map. When you say "Palestine is an occupied territory," I'm not sure which geographic boundaries you have in mind. What is "Palestine" to you?

All war crimes should be prosecuted. They occur in virtually every war on all sides. Propaganda, distortions, and lies are also a part of war.