Some Nazis were nice people, but they were still Nazis.

Nice but evil people?

Spearthrower wrote:

Some Nazis were nice people, but they were still Nazis.

Nice but evil people?

Yes, of course.

Have you read Eichmann in Jerusalem? He was nice. He got along with everyone. He was just an administrator doing his job.

Nazis didn't have fangs, they didn't have claws, they didn't have horns, they didn't have red glow-in-the-dark eyes. They were normal people for the most part. They were neighbors, they were coworkers, they were fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, janitors, cobblers, chefs, doctors, teachers, musicians, poets, accountants. They were normal people who bought into a destructive ideology that scapegoated minorities for their country's problems.

They weren't all the machine gun-toting, trench coat wearing, steel helmet wearing, mass murdering monsters that we see portrayed on film. They were mostly just normal people. They had relationships. They had friendships. They got a long with their neighbors. They had dinner parties. They celebrated birthdays and holidays.

But at the end of the day, they were still Nazis. They put in place a regime that liquidated millions of Jews and other undesirables, and they gave us the worst war in human history. And if Nazis aren't evil, I don't know who is. Republicans are pretty close to what Nazis were in the 20s to early 30s.

Nazis didn't have fangs...

Again, I think we can safely say that I no more suggested any such thing than I said 'don't be mean to Nazis'.

For me, you're using the term 'Nazi' to mean 'evil', and thus it's a bit of a shell game. A granny who bakes cookies for her grandkids could well be evil, but the fact that she lived in Nazi Germany doesn't make her evil, even if she supported the Nazi party that doesn't make her evil. It took Germans more than a decade to come to realize and accept that the Nazi party had enacted such atrocities - they simply were not aware it was happening; they lived in the most organized propaganda state the world had yet seen. That's not evil - it can be ignorance, it can be exploitation, it can be apathy, laziness, or any number of other flaws that may contain some degree of responsibility, but to call it 'evil' is to infer an intentionality, contending that the notional granny wanted Jews to be burned in ovens rather than just living in a system that did so, whereas she would only plausibly described as evil if this awareness and intent on her part were true.

I absolutely reject the idea that every individual German was guilty by association, just as I absolutely reject the idea that Republicans are guilty by association with the nastiest elements of the GOP membership, just as I absolutely reject that all Muslims bear responsibility for the actions of every Muslim terrorist. It is not reasoned or reasonable to claim otherwise. Every instance of such simplistic binarism is bullshit for the same reason, and such arguments should never become acceptable currency.

The same informational paradigm that is letting otherwise good people unwittingly support the nastiest elements of the GOP is telling them the same argument you're making here: that the other side is evil. How are they wrong, according to your argument? My answer is that they're wrong not because of their position on abortion, but because they're being led into simplistic binarisms that grossly simplify reality and make reflexively hating the other rather than engaging with them become the norm. Again: do you dispute that anti-abortion advocates genuinely believe that abortion is evil? The desirable solution to this societal conflict isn't to force them to support abortion, but to educate them why abortion is not evil - to make them understand tolerance in a pluralistic society. They can go on being anti-abortion for themselves all their lives, and it will never harm anyone - but let them see it as evil, and they naturally want to do something about it, to stop evil.

If your side believes the other side is all evil, and they all believe your side is evil.... what's left but mutual destruction? I would think that anyone who values reason should readily agree that this is not a desirable outcome. Leave the stupid positions to the gullible and ignorant - they're better at it than you, and it's not something you want to build up experience with.

Republicans are pretty close to what Nazis were in the 20s to early 30s.

Some indeed are. Most aren't. You can't defeat the some by collectively demonizing the rest in with them. The binary gives the close-to-Nazis cover; dismantling that and exposing them to the millions of Republicans who aren't close to becoming Nazis is what will take away their power. Remember, it was Hitler and the Nazis who were telling the German people that there were evil enemies within - the Jews, the gypsies, the Communists.... and that powerful propaganda regime's ability to create such a psychologically primal paradigm is precisely what gave them the cover to commit atrocities.

Some indeed are. Most aren't. You can't defeat the some by collectively demonizing the rest in with them.

hmmmmm I said that about capitalism and corporations but you seem willing to collectively condemn, even infer "evil intent" due to the inherent nature or some such blather

Carry on

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/fun-g ... 57118.html

It's bad enough to be misrepresented as claiming that I state that 'profit is bad' despite explicitly stating in this thread the first time you tried this that I made no such comment, but to somehow have the idea tacked on that I am therefore in support of corrupt law enforcement is outright batty. Why, Macdoc? Why on Earth are you going to such lengths to misrepresent what I have written? I have to assume it's because I've challenged something dear to you that you don't want to think about, and that this is the result.

And what I actually originally wrote that you feel the need to continually misrepresent (read: lie about):-

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... t#p2778522

Spearthrower wrote:Predatory capitalism is bad for more reasons, but plain old capitalism is manifestly awful for the environment.

ETA: I've asked the moderators to unlock the thread you posted which wholly misrepresented what I'd written, as I will be more than happy to expose this bullshit there in a thread actually relevant to it.

Spearthrower wrote:

Nazis didn't have fangs...

Again, I think we can safely say that I no more suggested any such thing than I said 'don't be mean to Nazis'.

For me, you're using the term 'Nazi' to mean 'evil', and thus it's a bit of a shell game.

Not quite. I think it's fair to call Nazism evil. I think it's fair to call the Nazi party evil. I think it's fair to call Nazis evil (the voluntary ones, obviously. I'm not talking about those who were forced to join the party, forced to work in the bullet factories, conscripted into the Wehrmacht...).

Spearthrower wrote:
A granny who bakes cookies for her grandkids could well be evil, but the fact that she lived in Nazi Germany doesn't make her evil, even if she supported the Nazi party that doesn't make her evil. It took Germans more than a decade to come to realize and accept that the Nazi party had enacted such atrocities - they simply were not aware it was happening; they lived in the most organized propaganda state the world had yet seen. That's not evil - it can be ignorance, it can be exploitation, it can be apathy, laziness, or any number of other flaws that may contain some degree of responsibility, but to call it 'evil' is to infer an intentionality, contending that the notional granny wanted Jews to be burned in ovens rather than just living in a system that did so, whereas she would only plausibly described as evil if this awareness and intent on her part were true.

Firstly, I explicitly stated earlier that not all Nazis wanted to liquidate the Jews. If fact, that's kind of my entire point. That they weren't all monsters, but were complicit in the atrocities nonetheless.

Secondly, ignorance is no excuse. The death camps were hidden, but the fact is, the Nazis NEVER hid the anti-Semitism. The bigotry was all out in the open from day one. It was in Mein Kampf which was owned by tens of millions of Germans. Germans could see the oppression, they could see the persecution, they could see the ghettos, they could see the broken windows, they could see the violence in the streets.

Spearthrower wrote:
I absolutely reject the idea that every individual German was guilty by association, just as I absolutely reject the idea that Republicans are guilty by association with the nastiest elements of the GOP membership, just as I absolutely reject that all Muslims bear responsibility for the actions of every Muslim terrorist. It is not reasoned or reasonable to claim otherwise. Every instance of such simplistic binarism is bullshit for the same reason, and such arguments should never become acceptable currency.

Well of course, man. I have never claimed that every individual German was guilty by association, because that would be ludicrous. The Nazi party rose to power with support of less than a quarter of the German population. Of course not every German was guilty. Don't put words in my mouth.

But here is what I will say: every individual voluntary Nazi was guilty. If you support an explicitly anti-Semitic party, then even if you do not personally support genocide, you are still guilty because you helped pave the way.

Likewise, every single solitary American who continues to support the Republican party while it is still dominated by MAGA is complicit in the support of fascism in the United States.

You don't get to support a racist, misogynistic, authoritarian political party and then claim innocence when minorities and women start getting killed and oppressed and persecuted.

Spearthrower wrote:
The same informational paradigm that is letting otherwise good people unwittingly support the nastiest elements of the GOP is telling them the same argument you're making here: that the other side is evil. How are they wrong, according to your argument? Again: do you dispute that anti-abortion advocates genuinely believe that abortion is evil? The desirable solution to this societal conflict isn't to make them support abortion, but to educate them why abortion is not evil - to make them understand tolerance in a pluralistic society.

What has "genuine belief" got to do with it? If someone genuinely believes that the world would be better off without Jews or Black people, does that make it ok?

Spearthrower wrote:
If your side believes the other side is all evil, and they all believe your side is evil.... what's left but mutual destruction? I would think that anyone who values reason should readily agree that this is not a desirable outcome. Leave the stupid positions to the gullible and ignorant - they're better at it than you, and it's not something you want to build up experience with.

Republicans are pretty close to what Nazis were in the 20s to early 30s.

Some indeed are. Most aren't.

I disagree. The party is majority MAGA at this point, and MAGA is pretty unambiguously fascist. A majority of Republicans believe the Big Lie. A majority of Republicans think Trump is the rightful President. A majority of Republicans support Trump despite his racism and authoritarianism. A majority of Republicans think Jan 6th was a patriotic act. A large minority of Republicans feel that violence will be necessary to take their country back.

Spearthrower wrote:
You can't defeat the some by collectively demonizing the rest in with them. The binary gives the close-to-Nazis cover; dismantling that and exposing them to the millions of Republicans who aren't close to becoming Nazis is what will take away their power. Remember, it was Hitler and the Nazis who were telling the German people that there were evil enemies within - the Jews, the gypsies, the Communists.... and that powerful propaganda regime's ability to create such a paradigm is precisely what gave them cover to commit atrocities.

It's not demonization if it's true.

Yes, I hate those Republican bastards, but they've given me every reason to hate them. I gave them every benefit of the doubt for decades, but Trumpism/MAGA is a bridge too far for me. So yeah, like I said, fuck 'em. Fuck ALL of them. I've had enough. My patience has run out.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Come on mate - don't fuck about, not right after Macdoc engaging in bullshit. I put no words in your mouth, even after you've twice suggested I mean something other than I've written.

I was clearly stating what I believe: that calling Republicans evil is as stupid as the other examples. The words coming from your mouth - the words I am contesting - are: "Republicans are fucking evil." I didn't put those words there. In fact, I think a fair characterization of what I've written is that I am trying to take them out of your mouth.

Ok, point taken, I misread that sentence.

But having re-read it, and the surrounding paragraph, I still have a problem with it. You're putting my hostility toward Republicans on equal footing with hostility toward Germans and hostility toward Muslims, which is ridiculous. Republicans are free to leave the party at any time. They weren't born Republicans, and no one is going to kill them if they leave the party.


Questions:

Do you feel that Jewish people living in Nazi Germany would have been justified in feeling hostility toward Nazis?
Do you feel that Jewish people living in Nazi Germany would have been justified in calling Nazis "fucking evil"?

Do you feel that black people living in the Jim Crow South would have been justified in feeling hostility toward the KKK?
Do you feel that black people living in the Jim Crow South would have been justified in calling Klansmen "fucking evil"?

Secondly, ignorance is no excuse.

This is in reply to me saying:

That's not evil - it can be ignorance, it can be exploitation, it can be apathy, laziness, or any number of other flaws that may contain some degree of responsibility, but to call it 'evil' is to infer an intentionality...

Some degree of responsibility is not 'evil'. Living under a propaganda system like the Nazi's meant that people were only told what the state wanted them to know. It's not like they were sitting around drinking tea discussing details of how many children the state had gassed that week. The German public were being told that the parlous state of their affairs was due to evil out-groups working against them, that the state was protecting them from that evil, but the manner of that 'protection' was hidden - Germans believed that Jews and Communists were being expelled from the country, not murdered en masse.

Similarly, a significant portion of Republicans live in a contrived information system - Fox is 'the news' to them. Do they have some responsibility for this situation? Sure - all Americans have some responsibility for it, albeit not much responsibility. But they can't be held morally responsible when that same contrived information system results in Proud Boys storming the capital or driving their cars into protestors because they are not doing that themselves - they are 'guilty' of being lied to while sitting on their comfy chairs at home.

What has "genuine belief" got to do with it? If someone genuinely believes that the world would be better off without Jews or Black people, does that make it ok?

What has your 'genuine belief' got to do with it then? If you genuinely believe that Republicans are evil - does it make it so?

Beliefs are an entirely different species than actions. Despite it being backwards and nasty, a person can continue believing that abortion is evil and that the world would be better of without Jews so long as they don't do anything about it. No one can mandate thought. Their thoughts mean they're stupid, not evil.

But here is what I will say: every individual voluntary Nazi was guilty. If you support an explicitly anti-Semitic party, then even if you do not personally support genocide, you are still guilty because you helped pave the way.

I brought up Muslim terrorism for exactly this point as it's what I typically hear: that Muslims, by being Muslim, are thereby guilty by association. Muslims who do not commit acts of terrorism or incite acts or terrorism are not guilty of anything other than being Muslim - their dogma is nasty and repeatedly leads to some percentage of Muslims acting in a manner that does coincide with the concept of evil, but just being a Muslim doesn't infer any condoning of those behaviors. For normal Muslims, they just don't see how their manner of belief has anything at all to do with what Muslim terrorists do.

That's the same situation here. Republican voters are not guilty by association with any violent or antisocial actions any member of the Rep party takes, nor do they see that their manner of belief has anything to do with it. My point is that they - the majority of Republicans who are not and would not seek to commit such violence - should not be treated as if they were as guilty, or in this case, evil. Rather, if you hope to get out of this terrible situation, you need to show them how they are unwittingly providing cover for these actions that they don't condone - they have to become your allies in this respect, not your enemies.

Yes, I hate those Republican bastards, but they've given me every reason to hate them. I gave them every benefit of the doubt for decades, but Trumpism/MAGA is a bridge too far for me. So yeah, like I said, fuck 'em. Fuck ALL of them. I've had enough. My patience has run out.

Ok, so you have a terrible situation you want to resolve - you want this to stop, or am I mischaracterizing you? How do you imagine this occurring when it's all simplistic in-group/out-group hatred? To me, history provides ample examples of where this ends up, and it's not a place superior to the one you're in now.

As I said in the first exchange: I can understand based on the timing of events here why you're feeling impassioned, and thus could also understand how you might just want to blow off some steam. But if you let this settle into you man, it ain't healthy or smart, it's worse than not being a solution - it's just amplifying the same problem. It's pig fucking stupid, to be honest, and I am telling you that as someone who respects you and is essentially on the same side as you.

Direct your righteous anger at those systems which are working to divide the nation and make rapprochement impossible.

Don't say it's impossible, it is not. It's just not easy while dopey demonization absolutely is easy.

After Roe v Wade was struck down, I watched a YT video by an historian setting out a context of a couple of centuries.... interesting, informative, but not a particularly important video.... however, I made the stupid mistake of ever so slightly scrolling down and thereby witnessing a fuckhead being fuckheaded. A woman had posted that she couldn't understand why the same people who want to oblige women to carry their babies to term are those who also want to withhold state support like universal healthcare or financial aid for those women now obliged to give birth - Mr Fuckhead responded that she 'needed to learn to keep her legs shut and not engage in degenerate behavior'. It was the day after Roe v Wade was struck down, I was feeling the need to let off some steam too. After much fuckheaded back and forth wherein he kept trying to distort what was being said, he tried to pretend that I was supposed to be the one arguing for 'the murder of babies'. So I told him that for me, personally, were it just my choice, that I would never choose to abort a foetus (such fuckheads usually don't understand the distinction between foetus and embryo), that my personal value is pro-life, but that I don't believe my values should be imposed on others. If the state ever made it obligatory for him to contradict his values, to oblige him to have an abortion, I'd still be standing right where I am now in opposition, only this time he'd be standing next to me rather than opposing me. Then the magic happened, and it does happen, this forum has seen that magic happen even though we've all come to believe it doesn't.... his tone changed completely, he thanked me for the conversation, stated that the partisan break down in communication is detrimental to society, that we need to be having conversations like this, and that he now understood he could be both pro-life and support Roe v Wade.

We see bad faith actors like that recent moronic troll because they're the loudest - but they don't represent anyone other than bad faith actors. We can't let them become the mouthpiece of 35 million people else your nation's finished. We can't shove those 35 million people into the same box as those assholes because that's exactly how the assholes will win. Who's open to a conversation with someone who call them 'evil'? Really, we need to be making alliances against these fuckwits, alliances that may not be perfect, may entail standing next to people who hold views we don't abhor, but who can still act in good faith and recognize that their personal values don't need to be imposed on society, and shouldn't be imposed on society, even if purely for self-preservation. I doubt anyone would mistakenly believe me as being anything other than substantively opposed to Christianity and Christian teaching - as far as I am concerned, nasty Christian beliefs have a founding role in taking away women's reproductive freedom... but you can bet your ass I will stand next to any Christian who says that their form of Christianity respects the rights and freedoms of women to make up their minds when it comes to abortion - I don't care if it's scripturally true or not, I don't care if they're still small-minded bigots in the comfort of their own homes - to democratically defeat these totalitarian forces which are winning, we need to find common ground that we're being deceived into believing doesn't exist. We need good faith Republicans to win. There's no other way here that won't take generations.

Seabass wrote:Ok, point taken, I misread that sentence.

No worries!

Seabass wrote:But having re-read it, and the surrounding paragraph, I still have a problem with it. You're putting my hostility toward Republicans on equal footing with hostility toward Germans and hostility toward Muslims, which is ridiculous.

I wholeheartedly agree it's ridiculous, which is why I am trying to argue someone I respect out of taking such a ridiculous absolutist position!

Seabass wrote:Republicans are free to leave the party at any time. They weren't born Republicans, and no one is going to kill them if they leave the party.

They are free to leave in the same way as anyone else is free to leave - it's not about whether they'll be killed or not - it's that they don't see it as you're seeing it. They think they're Republicans, and whatever they believe is Republican. Decent Republican voters don't look at the Proud Boys invading the capital and think 'That's my side!'. That's what 'we' believe too, right? Being a Republican doesn't mean you need to be against abortion, be pro slavery, nativist, racist etc. - we believe that you can be Republican for political reasons without having to buy into all this alt-right bullshit. It's just about finding how to overcome the deceitful divide and expose what is being done in their name.



Questions:

Seabass wrote:Do you feel that Jewish people living in Nazi Germany would have been justified in feeling hostility toward Nazis?

Absolutely.

Seabass wrote:Do you feel that Jewish people living in Nazi Germany would have been justified in calling Nazis "fucking evil"?

Absolutely.

Seabass wrote:Do you feel that black people living in the Jim Crow South would have been justified in feeling hostility toward the KKK?

Absolutely.

Seabass wrote:Do you feel that black people living in the Jim Crow South would have been justified in calling Klansmen "fucking evil"?

Absolutely.


And in all these cases, I also feel that it would be perfectly understandable were a Jew living in Nazi Germany to consider all Germans responsible for the atrocities committed against Jews, and for black people living under Jim Crow and the KKK threat to feel that all white people were responsible for the atrocities committed against black people.

Wholly understandable, but also wrong.

I also want to point back to my post #8 wherein I tried to give a better accounting of evil.

What then is evil? It's something intrinsically anti-social, something that offends the foundations of one's beliefs, something that cannot be witnessed and ignored, but must be publicly rejected in order to stake a position in the world, to say what should be and what shouldn't. A line in the sand.

But because we're a social species, at least partly the motivation is to signal to one's fellows that one is not like that! whether true or not. A web of social expectations, alliances and rivalries - human primates verbal grooming and seeking comfortingly similar grunts in return.

I was actually rushed at the time, so I dropped in the last paragraph without expanding on it. But to me, from my experience both professional and lived - the time when evil becomes manifest, becomes actual evil action resulting in bodies on the floor is when the out-group is defined as evil. That's how I would characterize the rise of Nazism: the successful depiction of out-groups as evil, because it justifies enacting policies, behaviors and actions, that otherwise would be perceived as evil, in terms of self-preservation. We apes do this far too well; we've had an awful lot of practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Schenck

Schenck later stated that he was once part of a group that paid Norma McCorvey (also known as Jane Roe from the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision) to lie that she had changed her mind and become against abortion.[1][2][3] Schenck has since repudiated his anti-abortion stance and shifted leftward on some of his socially conservative views.

...

Buffalo anti-abortion activism 1992

In 1992, during Buffalo's large-scale abortion clinic demonstrations, Schenck grabbed national and worldwide attention when photos and video were shot of him cradling a preserved human fetus given the name "Tia" by a black pro-life group because the fetus was believed to be African-American. Much was written and aired about the event.[citation needed] In an opinion editorial in the June 15 Buffalo News, Schenck responded to the criticism. According to the op-ed, Schenck believed that pro-choice supporters ignored the truth in favor of ideology, and conversely he believed that the fetus demonstrated the truth of his own views. "Most have never seen an abortion, let alone the result of it. Baby Tia takes the argument out of the abstract and into reality."[11]

Some time after 2010, Schenck (apparently) changed his mind about abortion. He now says that banning abortion would cause more harm than good, and opposes the effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. He concludes his May 31, 2019 Op-Ed for the New York Times "No doubt, many of my former allies will call me a turncoat. I don’t see it that way. I still believe that every abortion is a tragedy and that when a woman is pregnant, bringing the child into the world is always ideal. Reality, though, is different from fantasy. I wish every child could be fully nurtured and cared for, and could experience all the wonderful possibilities that life can offer."[12] In the 2020 documentary, AKA Jane Roe, Schenck stated that the anti-abortion movement had exploited Norma McCorvey's weakness and that it was highly unethical to have paid her to support the anti-abortion movement.[1]

Wikipedia doesn't do much justice to how deeply involved Schenck was in the anti-abortion movement - so many of the slogans that have survived came from his mouth. He is, or at least was, the perfect poster boy for the Republican evangelical alliance and for the Republican party's relatively new opposition to abortion for electoral gain.

So how does a person like this change from demanding the state ban abortions to now being in support of Roe v Wade, even while personally believing that every conception should result in a child? How can we cultivate these Damascan revelations?

The man is a total fool - a trumped up fuckwit high on religious fumes thinking he knows what the creator of the universe wants. But given the chance today, I am going to stand next to him and hand him the microphone when it comes to any public debate about the state's role in addressing abortion because he's going to reach minds I simply cannot. What matters is what we agree on here, not what we disagree on.

The truth is that he is not and never was evil - he was just wrong (and fucking ignorant) - his wrongness might have resulted in evil, but he couldn't see that. Once he saw it, he repudiated it. I think we have to assume good faith, have to apply Hanlon's Razor no matter how hard that is because otherwise we let the extremists (whether they be Muslim or alt-right terrorists) frame the debate as in-group/out-group.


ETA

Spearthrower wrote:
The truth is that he is not and never was evil - he was just wrong (and fucking ignorant) - his wrongness might have resulted in evil, but he couldn't see that.

What about Hitler? Was he evil? Or just wrong and ignorant?
Himmler? Goebbels? Goering? Heydrich? Mengele? Eichmann? Evil, or just wrong and ignorant?

Cannot people who are wrong and ignorant also be evil? Are these mutually exclusive attributes?

Hell, at the end of the day, we're all just dumb meat sacks and electrical impulses eating and shitting our way through space, and free will doesn't exist, so can we really hold anyone accountable for anything? Hitler was just a product of his environment after all. A victim of circumstance, like all the rest of us. A bundle of cells reacting to stimuli.

Sympathy for Hitler, that's what we need. He wasn't evil; poor guy was just wrong and ignorant.

Does anyone qualify as "evil" in your view, Spearthrower? If so, how do you determine where the line is drawn, and what makes your line better than mine?

Seabass wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
The truth is that he is not and never was evil - he was just wrong (and fucking ignorant) - his wrongness might have resulted in evil, but he couldn't see that.

What about Hitler? Was he evil? Or just wrong and ignorant?
Himmler? Goebbels? Goering? Heydrich? Mengele? Eichmann? Evil, or just wrong and ignorant?

Can you do me a favour and read my post #6 so you can understand where I am coming from?

Seabass wrote:Cannot people who are wrong and ignorant also be evil? Are these mutually exclusive attributes?

Yes, of course they can, but being wrong and ignorant isn't tantamount or equivalent to being evil.

Seabass wrote:Hell, at the end of the day, we're all just dumb meat sacks and electrical impulses eating and shitting our way through space, and free will doesn't exist, so can we really hold anyone accountable for anything?

Doesn't follow from anything I've written.

Seabass wrote: Hitler was just a product of his environment after all. A victim of circumstance, like all the rest of us. A bundle of cells reacting to stimuli.

I hope that's you rendering your own argument, and not you suggesting that this is my argument.

Seabass wrote:Sympathy for Hitler, that's what we need. He wasn't evil; poor guy was just wrong and ignorant.

Seabass wrote:Does anyone qualify as "evil" in your view, Spearthrower?

Very, very, very few people qualify as evil in my view, Seabass. You'd be able to note that yourself from what I've written in this thread discussing evil.

Seabass wrote:If so, how do you determine where the line is drawn, and what makes your line better than mine?

Well, what makes mine 'better' is that I don't use it as a label against an outgroup.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/2 ... n-00043374

Liz Cheney wrote:It’s undeniable. It’s also painful for Republicans to accept. And I think we all have to recognize and understand what it means to say those words, and what it means that those things happened, but the reality that we face today as Republicans — as we think about the choice in front of us — we have to choose. Because Republicans cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the Constitution.

This provoked a standing ovation from a predominantly Republican crowd.

She also said:

One of my Democratic colleagues said to me recently that he looked forward to the day when he and I could disagree again. And believe me, I share that sentiment.

I am sure I disagree with policy and substance of much of her politics, but she's a damn sight preferable dysfunctional norm than what's at the bottom of the abyss the US is teetering on the edge of.

Who would've thunk that Dick Cheney's daughter... Dick fucking Cheney... would be standing up to protect the USA from totalitarianism?

What a crazy world.

Spearthrower wrote:

Seabass wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
The truth is that he is not and never was evil - he was just wrong (and fucking ignorant) - his wrongness might have resulted in evil, but he couldn't see that.

What about Hitler? Was he evil? Or just wrong and ignorant?
Himmler? Goebbels? Goering? Heydrich? Mengele? Eichmann? Evil, or just wrong and ignorant?

Can you do me a favour and read my post #6 so you can understand where I am coming from?

I read it. It doesn't answer my question.

Moreover, you are not the ultimate arbiter of what the word "evil" means. Maybe to some people, "evil" just means "really fucking terrible". Maybe I don't take the word as seriously as you do, and you're just going to have to learn to live with that.

Spearthrower wrote:

Seabass wrote:Cannot people who are wrong and ignorant also be evil? Are these mutually exclusive attributes?

Yes, of course they can, but being wrong and ignorant isn't tantamount or equivalent to being evil.

Seabass wrote:Hell, at the end of the day, we're all just dumb meat sacks and electrical impulses eating and shitting our way through space, and free will doesn't exist, so can we really hold anyone accountable for anything?

Doesn't follow from anything I've written.

Seabass wrote: Hitler was just a product of his environment after all. A victim of circumstance, like all the rest of us. A bundle of cells reacting to stimuli.

I hope that's you rendering your own argument, and not you suggesting that this is my argument.

Seabass wrote:Sympathy for Hitler, that's what we need. He wasn't evil; poor guy was just wrong and ignorant.

The point is that the rationale that you're using to defend these anti-abortion monsters can also be used to defend anyone, up to and including Hitler and high level Nazis. "Hitler wasn't evil, he was just wrong and ignorant."

The wrongness and ignorance of these pro-birth assholes is irrelevant to the suffering of the 12 year old girl who is forced to give birth to her sister after having been raped by her father. If forcing girls to give birth to rapist's babies isn't evil, then nothing is, and I'm comfortable calling the people who are forcing these laws on women evil. If you're not, that's your prerogative.

Spearthrower wrote:

Seabass wrote:Does anyone qualify as "evil" in your view, Spearthrower?

Very, very, very few people qualify as evil in my view, Seabass. You'd be able to note that yourself from what I've written in this thread discussing evil.

Seabass wrote:If so, how do you determine where the line is drawn, and what makes your line better than mine?

Well, what makes mine 'better' is that I don't use it as a label against an outgroup.

Really? What, you only apply the word "evil" on an individual basis? You mean to tell me that you wouldn't even call high ranking Nazis, as a group, evil?



Here's the thing, Spearthrower. I used to be you. I used to be the guy defending these backwards assholes from angry lefties. I used to appeal to empathy and use some of the same reasoning that you're using. Then they chose Trump. They took the proverbial mask off, so I am done with them. The angry lefties that I used to argue with were right all along, and I was wrong. I see that now. These people aren't getting better, they're getting worse. They're getting bolder, they're getting more extreme, they're getting more aggressive, they're getting more authoritarian, they're getting more intolerant. I am done giving these motherfuckers the benefit of the doubt. I am done trying to empathize with them. I am done trying to sympathize with them. I am out of patience, I am out of empathy, I am out of sympathy, I have no more fucks left to give, I simply do not give a shit anymore. Fuck 'em. Fuck ALL of them. They can all drop dead tomorrow and I wouldn't give a single flying fuck because I am fucking sick to death of these fucking fascist assholes. And if you have a problem with that, tough shit.

I mean for fuck's sake, these motherfuckers just took away bodily autonomy from half the women in American, and they have made it clear that they will be coming after the rest of the women next, and you're scolding me for calling them "fucking evil"?! Really?! Get a grip, man.

I'm not going to stop calling them evil, Spearthrower. I will probably also call them "dicks", "cunts", "assholes", "shitheads", "fucksticks", "fuckknuckles", "dumbfucks", "morons" and other assorted unpleasantries, so I'm afraid you're just going to have to learn to live with it.

Have a nice day, Spearthrower.

Seabass wrote:
Moreover, you are not the ultimate arbiter of what the word "evil" means. Maybe to some people, "evil" just means "really fucking terrible". Maybe I don't take the word as seriously as you do, and you're just going to have to learn to live with that.

Given the rest of your post, it looks like daring not to agree with you on entirely reasonable grounds also might be something you can shove in your little evil category. Apparently, I am now defending evil...

If Republicans are evil in a passive way just for not leaving a party you hold as evil, then what must I be for supposedly 'defending' them?

But because we're a social species, at least partly the motivation is to signal to one's fellows that one is not like that! whether true or not. A web of social expectations, alliances and rivalries - human primates verbal grooming and seeking comfortingly similar grunts in return.

I didn't make the right kind of grunt, so I am defending evil.

You were never me, Seabass - I've always challenged numptyism like this and always will and it's got absolutely fuck all to do with moronic binary political tribalism, all the way back through this forum's history. One lovely chap who wanted us to know that all Muslims were evil ended his conversation wishing I would die in a fire. That's what this kind of 'thinking' leads to. It leads to labeling 35 million people 'evil' and thus to the consideration that these evil people are not deserving of anything other than wishing them dead. But of course, it's played out in the social landscape, not in the privacy of your own mind where you'd normally keep such outrageously violent ideas.


ETA: morning grammar

Seabass wrote:Really? What, you only apply the word "evil" on an individual basis? You mean to tell me that you wouldn't even call high ranking Nazis, as a group, evil?

The above is replying to this:

Spearthrower wrote:Well, what makes mine 'better' is that I don't use it as a label against an outgroup.

If you want to argue with someone else's point of view, feel free to do so - but don't pretend it's mine or anything to do with what I've written, eh?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group

In sociology and social psychology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, race, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

...

Out-group derogation is the phenomenon in which an out-group is perceived as being threatening to the members of an in-group.[23] ... Some research suggests that out-group derogation occurs when an out-group is perceived as blocking or hindering the goals of an in-group.

I'm not going to stop calling them evil, Spearthrower.... so I'm afraid you're just going to have to learn to live with it.

I never said you have to stop - it's entirely up to you if you want to look like a plumb in public. But just as I am going to have to 'learn to live' with you making self-damaging statements in public, so you also are going to have to learn to live with the fact that I will always be here to challenge such expressions of vapid bigotry. That's the grunting noise of me signalling to my preferred in-group.

Seabass wrote:Republicans are fucking evil. And yes, I mean that in the supernatural sense. I mean, what other than demonic possession can explain these motherfuckers?

Um, try reading don't get me started's examination of evil:

don't get me started wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Define "evil"

You may find it harder than you think.

Indeed, defining evil may be a task that is beyond most of us.
In fact, fully and comprehensively defining many, (if not most) words is often a very hard task indeed.

Now, the linguist in me wants to make a foray here and try to unpack the concept a little.

The classical method of definition, handed down to us from the Greeks, is based on the concept of ‘necessary and sufficient’ conditions. That is, a core of traits which all members of a category must possess. In this classical schema, there is a sharp dividing line between category members and non-members.

However, in the 1970’s a new view emerged – prototype theory. This rejected the Aristotelian ‘necessary and sufficient’ view and argues that human defining structures are based on graded membership. The classic example is of the category ‘bird’. For the biological sciences the category is fairly well defined. But innate human categorization will see something like a thrush or a robin as a prototypical bird, while seeing a penguin or an ostrich as a more marginal example of the category ‘bird’.
Similarly, a chair or a table are more prototypical examples of members of the category ‘furniture’ than say, a refrigerator or a hat stand.

(This is a vast simplification of the theory. See here for more: https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Prototype_Theory)

Anyways, if we set ourselves the task of defining the concept ‘evil’, we will come to see that the concept is centered around a cluster of sub-components, with some of these being more prototypical and others less so.

So, what might some of these sub-components be?
Well, clearly the notion of doing harm is in there. This could be lethal harm, or bodily injury or causing mental distress. Lethality is probably more central than causing mental harm. A combination of mental harm (terrorization) followed by drawn out death is probably more central to the concept of evil than a surprise attack and shot to the head.

Then we have something like intent. Doing harm for harm’s sake is probably more central than attempting to justify the harm by an appeal to self-defense, revenge or doing justice, or causing harm through recklessness, carelessness, intoxication etc. (Consider a drunk driver who mows down a bunch of kids, versus a school shooter who enters a school and begins a shooting spree.)

There also has to be some notion of community standards. The darker corners of the internet contain many videoed instances of mob-justice in out of the way places. Those accused of witchcraft in some societies can meet gruesome ends and the hands of their community members. In these communities, witchcraft and casting spells are a very real concern- no matter how backward and superstitious they may seem to us. Burning a witch to death in public is a matter of community practice. Like if we had a gun to hand and witnessed a black clad teenager with an AR 15 scaling the fence of an elementary school and starting to loose off rounds. Most of us would feel compelled to act, even if it meant killing the person. Our own societies used to validate public torture and execution by various gruesome methods. The second world war saw the allies dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities. This was done openly and without obfuscation. By 1945 it seems that the allied community standards of acceptable behavior included this. Perhaps with the reasoning that ‘when we win the killing stops’ as opposed to ‘when the Nazis or Japanese take over, the killing is just about to start.”

Then we have some notion of scale. Torturing a child to death is clearly beyond the pale, but causing hundreds, thousands, or millions of people to die is probably a seen as somehow ‘more’ evil. The 9/11 hijackers who killed 3,000 people in New York would have been happier if they could have collapsed the two buildings upon impact and killed in the tens of thousands at a swoop. What is your intent in causing harm in terms of the scale? Is there a limit after which you will stop, or is it unlimited in scope? Do you just keep going on until you are stopped?

Moving on to the concept of involvement. How ‘hands on’ do you have to be to get right in the center of evil? The SS guards in the death camps were merely one part of the machinery of annihilation. The train drivers, the police who did the rounding up, the neighbors who refused to hide a fugitive, what about them? There is a gradation here, it would seem.
The tobacco company executives who suppressed data showing harmfulness, promoted smoking through advertising and got rich from the process, in the final analysis never actually held a person down and forced them to inhale the product. This is unlike, say, the murderers of the Khmer Rouge at the Tuol Sleng torture center in Phnom Penh who held people down while they poured acid up their nose. It seems to me that they had a much more proximate relationship to the harm they did than the tobacco company executives.

Then we have the difference between the evil thought, the evil word and the evil deed. I think most people would admit to having, on occasion, thoughts of doing harm to some enemy, real or imagined. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, it seems to me. I know that I have a clear blue ocean between the occasional thoughts I have that may be described as ‘evil’ and the act of making these thoughts real through word or deed. I’m fairly sure that my filter is in place and robust.

This is just a quick, off the top of my head, list of things which may constitute some of the components of the abstract concept we invoke when we use the word evil. In its linguistic manifestation it can be an adjective or a noun. The adjective is linked to specific instances (an evil deed, an evil man etc.) but as a noun it is extremely abstract and belongs in the irrealis category.

Having noticed in a discussion elsewhere that you are incapable of a change of mind, I'll leave you with this piece of whimsy: