-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Depends on your moral views. Are you an absolutist or a relativist?
Either way under each view "evil" people get born into the system because people are born with sociopathic traits. These traits can even be good(for instance, a selfless person gets born into a selfish community).
bad is a very nebulous unscientific term
im not interested "bad"
it's an entirely situational judgement call or to quote the goat Nietzsche "philosophy is prejudice"
to make it clear
there is no biological or essential source of the "bad" in people because "bad" is a historical constituted set of practices and ideas, therefore there's no basis to create an essentialist argument for prejusdice whatsoever
this is because at any point the ideology (the values and practices) are themselves a product of their environment and what came before
it's the ontological argument of the social sciences and i don't like entertaining it
im not interested "bad"
it's an entirely situational judgement call or to quote the goat Nietzsche "philosophy is prejudice"
to make it clear
there is no biological or essential source of the "bad" in people because "bad" is a historical constituted set of practices and ideas, therefore there's no basis to create an essentialist argument for prejusdice whatsoever
this is because at any point the ideology (the values and practices) are themselves a product of their environment and what came before
it's the ontological argument of the social sciences and i don't like entertaining it
No, it doesn't "depend on your moral views" if you think it's something genetic that people are born with. If you truly believe that, you also have to believe that good and evil are objective distinctions.
I would like to think someone who likes to murder is bad.
That's just me.
That completely contrasts with your statement that good and evil are something inherent in humans then.
OP
OP
Yes, that's what everyone's been saying, which is why it then goes into the material aspect.
No, because I said you are born with sociopathic traits.
Those can be good or evil(and provided an example of such).
Jesus Hunter, stop advocating for eugenics. You're 100 percent doing that, and you and everyone else would be better off if you did not do that. Like, are you suggesting, truly, that selfish people are just born that way and their selfishness is an inevitability?
What traits can someone be born with that are good
What traits can someone be born with that are good
If some people are born with "superior" traits then what does that mean that other people are...
The Nazis rounded up the mentally ill, the disabled, the infirm to remove them from the breeding pool because they were "born bad" and therefore had to be stopped from breeding.
So if they can change then they're not essentially evil?
Which is it?
Not everyone is capable of change.
And at no point have I suggested we "round up the bad people". Stop fucking saying that.
If they say, "Why? Why?"
Tell 'em that is human nature
Why, why does he do it that way?
If they say, "Why? Why?"
Tell 'em that is human nature
Why, why does he do it that way?
Tell 'em that is human nature
Why, why does he do it that way?
If they say, "Why? Why?"
Tell 'em that is human nature
Why, why does he do it that way?
The corollary to some people are born with "inferior" traits like psychopathy is some people are "superior" by virtue of not having those traits. The end point of that perspective is eugenics. Otherwise it's meaningless, i.e. "Some people are going to mess shit up, what can you do?".
Anyway, even taking this to be true, you'd want to structure society to diffuse power as much as possible so the psychopaths don't have it (various monarchs throughout history, Kochs, etc) so socialism/communism is still the ideal structure if diffusion of power is what you're after. Capitalism both rewards and concentrates power in sociopaths.
Anyway, even taking this to be true, you'd want to structure society to diffuse power as much as possible so the psychopaths don't have it (various monarchs throughout history, Kochs, etc) so socialism/communism is still the ideal structure if diffusion of power is what you're after. Capitalism both rewards and concentrates power in sociopaths.
If you think some people cannot be changed, what do you suggest we do with them?
Nothing. You do nothing with them.
They will exist and you just plan around the fact that murderors will still exist, assholes who are greedy will still exist. People who like the color tickle me pink will exist.
Why is it always the worst spot you jump to?
OK, so why do anything then? Why even care about discussing politics? It's all just going to stay the same anyway.
OP
OP
Some people are just better survivors than others. They have a natural ability to outwit, outplay, and outlast.
Because you can save a lot, and make better systems and plans to alliterate the problem of society.
Better systems? Are you not the same person who said that the systems aren't the issue, but rather the people are?
murder isn't always bad and which kinds of murder have been socially labeled as acceptable have been very different throughout histories and contexts
this also doesn't address the first question (which is ostensibly why we are still having this conversation). why do you think there's a essentialist case for prejudice?
i'm gonna say something that might sound hostile but it's honestly meant as constructive critcism because i think you could be approacing things better. You're not gonna get anywhere by constantly trying to do gotcha replies that don't really deal with what i say.
I might not always put the time in to sort my thoughts out (it's a forum) but all of this is coming from a solid foundation, i try not to speak with confidence on things i don't feel confident about.
For me?
Selflessness, compassion. Empathy.
For someone else it might be different. Perhaps someone values cunning and ruthlessness.
I'd bet most murders are not psychopaths, 1% of the population is estimated to be psychopathic and I'd bet a number of psychopaths are still capable of living peacefully. A lot of times people murder because of the environment, the material conditions if you will, they were born into. It's not a surprise that violent crime tends to be concentrated among the poor and in cities.
But if they are "born evil" as you said, and it's an inherent part of their genetic makeup then how can any of them change? The evil is just who they are according to what you keep saying.
I didn't say you advocated for rounded up the bad people. You said "Just the same it is folly to think people aren't born "evil"." which is the exact beliefs that led to the Nazis rounded up the "bad people" and sticking them in camps.
Just because you don't like the label doesn't change the fact that you have repeatedly espoused eugenicist rhetoric.
Nobody is born wanting to kill others though. These traits manifest because of the environment, which is usually a direct result of the failings of multiple systems and institutions.
The people made those systems was always my point.
In order to have better systems, you need the people that make the systems to be "better". So you keep educating and fighting politically and then hopefully one day the future group makes a better system.
What I saw when I said "It's the people, not the system" was an insistence that if we just get rid of capitalism it will all be ok; I very much disagree with that.
tf are we having a eugenics debate in this thread for again?
Some ppl need to learn to sit back, be quiet, and listen. To read the things ppl give you and be open to being wrong. It's how we grow as ppl
It's ok to leave if you are not truly interested in honest dialogue and just insist on essentilist rhetoric.
Maybe take a moment to reflect on why you're even able to come in here and spout off/derail/talk down to ppl with impunity while they same behaviour in other threads would at the least get you thread banned and realize how privilleged you are to be able to talk down to a bunch of vulnerable minorities
Some ppl need to learn to sit back, be quiet, and listen. To read the things ppl give you and be open to being wrong. It's how we grow as ppl
It's ok to leave if you are not truly interested in honest dialogue and just insist on essentilist rhetoric.
Maybe take a moment to reflect on why you're even able to come in here and spout off/derail/talk down to ppl with impunity while they same behaviour in other threads would at the least get you thread banned and realize how privilleged you are to be able to talk down to a bunch of vulnerable minorities
You don't think that socialists try to keep educating and fighting politically in the hopes a future group will make a better system? It's liberals that want things to stay static. Voting is just a tool of the current system, if your argument that bad people already control it then voting will not change the matter.
And socialism will not result in a perfect world. A perfect world is impossible. What we want is a better world.
What, did you come out of the womb thinking "mommy, I'm sorry if that was painful. Are you okay?"
Bro, you weren't born selfless, compassionate, or empathetic. Hell, a lot of people who think they are these things right now are not, so I don't trust your judgment that you popped out of the womb with these qualities.
OP
OP
Liberation is a material act, not something born out of idealist good intentions. Whether the people who cobble things together are "good" or not is subjective and, frankly, not the most important part. The most important part is the conflict between groups over control of production and resources, and how that shakes out, since some groups' control is inherently more democratic than others. And that's not necessarily "tribal", it's dialectical.
Nobody actually thinks something thag reductive though. Socialism isn't the be-all-end-all. It's the end of prehistory and the beginning of history, not the end of problems!
Hey, my preferred policy platform is forgive student debt and make college free, it's the Democrats who keep shooting that down.
What do you think we're after in this thread? I'll quote Brecht here.
To Posterity by Bertolt Brecht
Comments & analysis: 1. / Indeed I live in the dark ages!
allpoetry.com
Most of us do not believe we'll live to see the world we want to build. All we do here in this thread is for someone else's sake.
User warned: Inflammatory accusations, please do not assume the worst interpretation of other members' posts
You know what a thread full of minorities and vulnerable people needed today? A white dude coming and going on about how some people are just born to be inferior, undesirable, deviant... very cool
OP
OP
Everyone hates my new avatar, but I will say, I much prefer your new one.
"Everything will be okay if we turn off capitalism" is a strawman. The transition to liberal democracies and capitalist societies saw countless wars, bloodshed, class struggle, and false starts and stops - primitive democracies existed before feudalism as well. But through those struggles a new world order was achieved and the citizens of societies that were born into that new world order internalized those beliefs. If we transitioned from capitalism to socialism/communism, you would see a similar level of struggle and change to the point where society is fundamentally unrecognizable, and the first generation born into it would not internalize the same values as those who lived under capitalism.
User warned: Inflammatory accusations, please do not assume the worst interpretation of other members' posts
Like the only thing TheHunter could be born with is egotism if he legitimately is not only talking himself up like this, but also arguing that he was born with a brain that did selflessness better than other people.
Maybe TheHunter is just arguing phrenology instead?
Maybe TheHunter is just arguing phrenology instead?
"Tribalism" is honestly a shit term to use in this context. Implying that tribal life is inherently hateful violent and savage.
Outside of shitposts saying people like Joe Biden should burn, I do think it is important to not moralize too much when discussing socialist theory. I'm certainly guilty of it at times, but things like revolution don't happen because everyone was morally convinced it was the right thing to do, but because the state lost its monopoly on violence and the revolutionaries agreed this would bring about the material conditions they wanted.
Good and evil don't exist, objectively. The ultimate irony is fascism is an ideology based around morality; you must believe in the hero mythology of a great and powerful savior who will bring the country and people to a made-up greatness. It uses morality to justify its own existence, with the ever looming threat of the "evil" and "deplorables" so that the fascist people can work together to crush them and achieve greatness. It is the only way it can justify itself as it is ultimately a reactionary ideology. It is no wonder, then, that reactionary sentiment is so popular in our society, as so much, almost all I would say, of our "hero" media is based on the idea that there exists an intrinsic evil in society, often an invasive force, that the heroes must ward off with force.
Marxism is about the inevitability of revolution as power becomes absorbed into lesser and lesser individuals up top. It's not about fighting the nebulous evil, it's about transforming society into something more democratic and materially equitable, often as the state is literally crumbling and the revolutionaries seize a small window to destabilize it.
"Marx says that revolutions are the locomotives of world history. But the situation may be quite different. Perhaps revolutions are not the train ride, but the human race grabbing for the emergency brake." - Walter Benjamin
Good and evil don't exist, objectively. The ultimate irony is fascism is an ideology based around morality; you must believe in the hero mythology of a great and powerful savior who will bring the country and people to a made-up greatness. It uses morality to justify its own existence, with the ever looming threat of the "evil" and "deplorables" so that the fascist people can work together to crush them and achieve greatness. It is the only way it can justify itself as it is ultimately a reactionary ideology. It is no wonder, then, that reactionary sentiment is so popular in our society, as so much, almost all I would say, of our "hero" media is based on the idea that there exists an intrinsic evil in society, often an invasive force, that the heroes must ward off with force.
Marxism is about the inevitability of revolution as power becomes absorbed into lesser and lesser individuals up top. It's not about fighting the nebulous evil, it's about transforming society into something more democratic and materially equitable, often as the state is literally crumbling and the revolutionaries seize a small window to destabilize it.
"Marx says that revolutions are the locomotives of world history. But the situation may be quite different. Perhaps revolutions are not the train ride, but the human race grabbing for the emergency brake." - Walter Benjamin
Well stated comrade.
One of the interesting things I've learned on my journey is de-registering the myth that Marxists simply believe "capitalism bad, communism not capitalism, so communism is good".
Marx recognized and respected the hell out of capitalism:
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground—what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?"
It's just that he also saw it for all the horrific shit it is too that far outweighs any discernible good. It's done some good, but ultimately it's a trash system and as MLK said, "it has outlived its usefulness".
That's not believing we'll achieve a utopia if we just overthrow capitalism. That's just calling a spade a spade and arguing for a better and more fair system that isn't stoked in the continued blood of the many for the benefit of the few.
It's also arguing for a system that won't fall headfirst into fascism as soon as biosphere collapse starts seriously affecting the material conditions of those already privileged...
OP
OP
Capitalism is a historically progressive force and far superior to feudalism. It's also a mess of contradictions that cause it to implode on itself, and it is impossible to prevent violence within capitalism since it is based on violence.
Like most stuff in history, it's better than what came before it, but still bad, so it needs to go.
Like most stuff in history, it's better than what came before it, but still bad, so it needs to go.
Last edited:
I think if we survive... uh, all of this, in a couple of centuries and establish socialism, historians will look upon capitalism as a necessary force for the development of humanity, but also view our behavior for the latter half of the 20th century and however long this goes on in the 21st century as wasteful, destructive, and incredibly shortsighted, saying we should have transitioned a long, long time ago. I do not see history being kind to post-WW2 society on a whole. I hope that's the case, certainly.
What comes after communism? I couldn't tell you, that's for communists to decide in the new world. Not many people were sitting around during the feudalist societies thinking "what if we developed industry on a global scale, and then gave the means of production to the laborers?" I've said it before, unlike liberals, communists don't believe communism is the end of history, or that it will create a perfect peaceful utopia, it's just where we have to go next.
What comes after communism? I couldn't tell you, that's for communists to decide in the new world. Not many people were sitting around during the feudalist societies thinking "what if we developed industry on a global scale, and then gave the means of production to the laborers?" I've said it before, unlike liberals, communists don't believe communism is the end of history, or that it will create a perfect peaceful utopia, it's just where we have to go next.
OP
OP
It's quite literally the beginning.
"The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production - antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence - but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation".
That's a tough question. Goddamn I need to go two work.
As individuals, we have a tendency (some more than others) to put people into boxes, and stuff like skin color or religion can be one of these little boxes. So in that sense, everyone is more or less "racist".
But.
When people fight against racism, they usually condemn the systemic aspects of it. They don't focus on this particular person which may view someone differently due to some supposedly apparent difference. No. They'd rather state that, as a whole, some people suffer from discrimination. And while that may not be a problem exclusive to capitalism, capitalism definitely plays a role in that. See triangular trade and primitive accumulation of capital.
But.
It's also interesting to keep in mind that at individuals levels, seeing racism as a binary thing may hinder the anti-racism fight. There aren't "racists" on one side and "not racists" on the other side. Everyone is somewhere along the spectrum of "I wanna kill all XYZ people" to "I don't even notice your skin color unless pointed to". And even the most well intended anti-racists may have some racist reflexes on a day to day basis, as that's what society taught us.
And, maybe more importantly.
Even the most progressive anti-racists may be actually causing their fair share of systemic racism if they're supporting e.g. capitalism, no matter how much they don't genuinely care about the skin color or religion of their fellows, as they're supporting a system where e.g. blacks are poorer on average, and that's not the result of some "natural" phenomenon.
Last edited: