No.6125[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1596131446549.png (177.01 KB, 640x319, 640:319, qupRvcb_d_1.png) ImgOps Google
How do you judge a person? Do you believe in sorting people into strict categories such as good and bad? When trying to understand a person's negative traits, how much leniency can we give them? How do you balance a person's good actions with their bad actions?
File: 1596141914669.png (279.77 KB, 2307x2846, 2307:2846, dashie-bat.png) ImgOps Google
I think it would be fruitful to try define precisely what we mean by "bad person" and "good person". I have a suspicion that sometimes when people say things like "X
is a bad person", what they are really doing is just booing X
, like saying "Fuck X
!", rather than asserting a claim about the degree of goodness or badness of X
I'm not sure that the notions of "good person" and "bad person" are even conceptually coherent or useful. Additionally, the concept of "bad person" might actually be harmful overall in civilized society, since it makes it easier to dehumanize those whom one considers to be "bad people".
It isn't like people carry a good person and bad person card you can check. The only way to understand a person is to learn about them, and if you have to go to that effort then what value does the label give? It makes it seem like an immutable trait. People can shift between good and bad, it's very natural. I don't see the value, at all. It's like trying to take a shortcut to the truth.
How do you feel about China's social credit system? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System>>6130
I kinda agree, in full. Especially about the detrimental aspect of labeling a person as bad. The only thing I think we gain from a label like "bad person" is the ability to do the otherwise unconscionable to them.
Actions and motivations, and especially their own standards.
I typically combine actions with motivations, as somebody can be stupid, but not necessarily evil, when they do something wrong.
I am usually a bit harsher as it retains to hypocrisy, as far as their standards go, though. Condemning others for something you do is simply unjust. Regardless of if you didn't realize it. >How do you balance a person's good actions with their bad actions?
Volume and consistency, mainly.
not necessarily it's impact, though. Doing one really good act, for example, doesn't really negate from stealing the rest of your life I'd say.
Stealing once, though, hardly erases years of charity.
>>6132>The only way to understand a person is to learn about them, and if you have to go to that effort then what value does the label give?
If you've gone through the effort to learn about them and discovered they are bad, you can use the label to 1) Protect yourself in the future and 2) protect others. >People can shift between good and bad, it's very natural.
Oh, no doubt they can. But it's rare because it requires a lot of work on the part of the person trying to change, and they have to be willing to admit they were wrong. Genuine efforts to change should be appreciated because of that difficulty, but like I said, it's very rare.
I don't like China's system because it's run by the government. They decide what "good" and "bad" actions are. Not morality or what's creates less suffering. There's too much room for it to be abused when governments run it.
What about stubborn ignorance? If someone just keeps producing bad results with their actions because they don't want to learn new things. How's that play in when they are not exactly stupid, just think they know better when they don't?
How would you feel if I was a really good person, and knowing your system, I deliberately steal from you once because I know your rules. How would you handle that? Kinda a weird hypothetical but I'm curious now. >>6140
I don't see how it protects you more than just recognizing they are a person to be careful around.
Protecting others, again you don't need a label to do that. You can do both these things as effectively without labels, right?
What if they did put in the effort? If everyone hangs onto them being "bad" then we're not really rewarding positive change. Earning back trust is kinda impossible if nobody will give you chance because you are "bad".
What stops people from abusing it just as much? The only thing I can think of is scale. But whether a government goes it or an individual, is an equally flawed approach.
No, the label is useful for protecting others. "You should stay away from that person." "Why?" "I dunno, just because." Is much less compelling than "You should stay away from that person." "Why?" "They're a bad person. They do bad things."
And a person has much less incentive to do that than a government does. A government might want to silence whistleblowers on their bad behavoir or people seeking reform. They are trying to retain their power, and so have an incentive to abuse such a system.
Arrogance is a side effect of ignorance. It's hardly unique, either.
People here, I would say, exhibited from time to time. I'd call it out, but I wouldn't call it evil.>If someone just keeps producing bad results with their actions because they don't want to learn new things
Results don't make people evil. I'd call out unwillingness to learn, but I don't consider it evil.>How's that play in when they are not exactly stupid, just think they know better when they don't?
Again, I'd say that's most people. Probably most people here, for that matter.
Unless I'm going to condemn 90% of the population as evil, which doesn't really seem reasonable, I don't think I can consider believing they're right to be evil.>How would you handle that?
I'd press charges. Because the action itself was immoral. I'd punishment for that individual action. I wouldn't call you evil for doing a single instance of theft, though, that would be a bit absurd I'd say.
I suppose that's a matter of my standards for justice, as d opposed morality, though
File: 1596161481692.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>How do you judge a person?
By what they do when no one is watching.
>Do you believe in sorting people into strict categories such as good and bad?
>When trying to understand a person's negative traits, how much leniency can we give them?
>How do you balance a person's good actions with their bad actions?
Depends on how much they actively hurt another person.
The problem is everyone has their own idea of 'bad'. What if someone you knew told you, "stay away Energetic Coyote, they are bad and do bad things" But those 'bad things' were that I participated in a civil rights protest that they saw as 'looting and rioting'. It just makes waaaaaaaaaay more sense to say:
"That's Energetic Coyote, you should be careful around them, they are bigoted. One time I saw them yell racist slurs at someone".
Instead of forcing your conclusion on someone else (they are bad) why not give them the evidence and let them make their own conclusion?
I don't really think a government has more incentive to abuse it than anyone else. We all have our motives to do shit like that.>>6144
Well, I wasn't specifically trying to jump straight to 'evil'. It was really more of how bad you'd call these things, not whether they were for sure awful things.>>6145
Do you like to spy on people to see how they act when they don't think you are watching?
File: 1596162395930.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I don't have the time to watch people.
I don't mean to make it sound so extreme. It was just to make clear the different items being talked about, more or less. Evil being about morality, whereas bad can be a fairly wider range.
What I'm trying to get out is more I wouldn't call a person "bad" in a moral sense for an action, just the action.
Well, that's why you specify what the "bad things" are. "Bad things" was just a generic example.
And I'm not seeing a reason why people would make up false criteria for what "bad" is the same way a government would. Most people don't need to silence others on that kind of scale.
Maybe not single individuals for that sort of control reasons you get from government, but, groups can absolutely. Look at cults throughout history.
Individuals can lie to influence others just the same, though the goal may be different.
I disagree completely. Any large enough social group has exceptional power in regards to this sort of thing.
In many cases, more so, thanks to the limitation on government actions at least in this country.
I'd point to cancel culture as a great example of this.
Okay. That's your perspective. I disagree with it.
I do not think that particular narrative is accurate to the issue. But, that doesn't really matter, as even if it is exactly as you say, it's still functions as an example.
The point is that people are using moral judgement to push companies and organizations to cave to an angry mob's demand and remove people.
Companies being by large often very immmoral themselves, I think it is safe to say they wouldn't do this unless there were others pushing it.
Maybe. That's not the point, though.
You said only government has that power. This is not true.
I would suggest for the exact same reasons why we wouldn't want to in government's hands, it's bad on the face of it.
It will be abused.
personally, I think it already has been. You evidently disagree, but I would suggest this is a difference in ideology, which is ultimately the same in regards to the state.
Only those the state declares evil need to fear the state's actions.
Similarly, only those the mob calls evil need to fear the mob's actions.
Individuals, groups, corporations, any collection of people can do the exact same thing.
Again, look at cults.
This is not unique to government. Rather obviously so, from a historical perspective. Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
I disagree. It merely requires a group of sufficient people to make enough noise that others wish to avoid.
Though beyond that; what you cite there is merely an accusation, which is a part of the problem.
If I say "Stay away from X, he's a racist", you'd agree, I presume it's safe to say, that makes him a bad person, yes?
But what if my accusation is unfounded? What if I say that because I disagree with them?
If North Korea says we're executing these people as "terrorists", while I think it's fine to say terrorism is bad, that doesn't mean it's actually what happened.
The state, along with people, can and will make up shit. Or just skew it enough for their agenda
It would be easy for you to provide examples of why they are racist. Then you can judge them based on the actions rather than the label.
But what you say goes the opposite way too. There would be people out there who would ignore or excuse those actions BECAUSE they agree with him or because the things you are accusing of being bad are beliefs and actions they hold or perform, so they MUST insist they aren't racist to avoid self-reflection. Like what happens with... certain politicians.
In the end, the label is being applied based on actions, so you can still look at those actions and decide whether you think they are bad or not.
I could. Or, I could just say it.>But what you say goes the opposite way too. There would be people out there who would ignore or excuse those actions
This is true; in the same way a court, due to the presumption of innocence, may let go a murderer.
This is still preferable to innocent people being harmed.
Though your example isn't even something relevant, anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is. Guess it was some political tribe type of idea? >In the end, the label is being applied based on actions
I disagree; I think that there are cases where it is placed based on the accusation of actions that don't necessarily occur.
Thus for the same reasons I oppose guilty until innocent legal systems as it is worse for innocent people to be punished, I oppose this.
>>6168> so I'm not sure what your point is.
You're the one who brought up "X is a racist" as an example. It just so happens that accusations of racism are things often denied by people in the face of evidence because of ignorance and/or denial. Maybe you weren't aware of this when you picked that example, so I'll let you give another one.
But getting back to the topic at hand. Yes, someone COULD make an accusation against someone of something they didn't do. For example "X has sex with dogs." But it's up to the person listening to determined whether to believe that claim, ask for proof, or even if they think having sex with dogs is a bad thing! It's all too subjective to ever really be a threat on a large scale like a government regulated system is.
You misunderstand; it's not relevant to me if people deny it.
That has nothing to do with cancel culture in regards to this conversation. It is the equivalent to citing starving kids in Africa, as I see it.>But it's up to the person listening to determined whether to believe that claim, ask for proof,
This is all well and good for an ideal, but the reality is people don't do this.
Might as well say it's okay to presume guilt in a court case, because it's on the jurry to make sure he's actually guilty.
That should certainly be what they do, yes. It's not guaranteed though. nor would I consider something we can reasonably expect from humans, honestly.
Oh, and, of course, "listen and believe".>It's all too subjective to ever really be a threat on a large scale like a government regulated system is.
Cancel culture is a thing that quite obviously exists, so I disagree.
>>6170>Cancel culture is a thing that quite obviously exists, so I disagree.
I disagree. See how that works?
You haven't really given any examples of people who were "canceled" unjustly. And you can't. Because the burden of proof would lie on you to PROVE that they didn't do the thing they are being accused of. And it's impossible to prove a negative. So this specter of "cancel culture" isn't something we need to take seriously. It's all hypothetical. Someone COULD be accused of doing something they didn't and "canceled". But there COULD be a teapot on the edge of the solar system. It's possible, but not really worth consideration.
I think judging someone as good or bad is too simple and not necessarily useful. For any trait someone might have that would result in calling them good or bad, the trait itself is more important, and you must already know that trait or you wouldn't be able to judge them anyway.
If someone is a pedophile, you could call them bad, that's fairly agreeable. But you could also just call them a pedophile, which I think is much more useful. Like you could also call someone bad for being racist, but them being racist might not mean they're going to hurt your children. They could be racist and in an emergency you could still be like "Here hold my child." "Bad" doesn't convey enough information.
And personally, if I were to judge humankind as a whole, it would be "bad". People are bad. They're driven by desires that bring harm upon each other, and I think exceptions to that are very rare and must be proven to me before I think "Actually this person is not bad." So calling someone bad is almost useless, because my basic judgement is "Of course they're bad, they're people." And even calling people good is like at most a badge of honor, because I already have to trust all these bad people with everything anyway.
In short, "How do I judge someone?" I don't, it's not worth my time.
>>6171>You haven't really given any examples of people who were "canceled" unjustly. And you can't.
ProJared. Was cancelled for 6 months to a year over some alleged happenings. Was very much later proven that none of that happened and the accusers were full of shit (barring his ex-wife, which was less proven to be full of shit, but was also less serious), which very much led to him largely being un
cancelled. But definitely for a time some assholes accused someone of shit that was just an outright fabrication, people bought into it and raged (because as mentioned, people are bad) and he was forced into hiding by the constant flood of angry trolls.
You disagree that cancel culture exists? Seems rather foolish to deny reality;
See ProJared, as Lizard points out. Count Dankula is also a solid example, as he had already shot some stuff with the BBC prior to them nagging the organization about having such a 'hate figure' on.
There's also people like Vic Mignogna, as well.
A quick search to a vid brings James Charles, as well. >You haven't really given any examples of people who were "canceled" unjustly.
That doesn't mean cancel culture doesn't exist. > Because the burden of proof would lie on you to PROVE that they didn't do the thing they are being accused of
We do not presume guilt. That is the actions of barbarians and tyrants. The types to stone women for witchcraft.>And it's impossible to prove a negative
Which is exactly why you DON'T have to.
You have never had to.
It's insane to suggest you do.
This is the type of thing that the KKK tried to pull in regards to black people, pushing for death penalties on black folk just for the accusation made by someone else.
It's the absolute most unjust way that you can conduct yourself.
I don't know what a "Count Dankula" is, so I can't really comment on that. Vic Mignogna's allegations are still being investigated, and they've been collaberated by several fellow voice actors including Monica Rial and Jamie Marchi. Unless you can definitively prove that the allegations are false (which you can't), then it's irrelevant. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Mignogna#Sexual_harassment_allegations
But I'm familiar with ProJared. Even if we take it at face value that ProJared is innocent of what he was accused of (which, for the record, I personally believe), if we take a look at how his career was affected, it's clear he wasn't "canceled". ProJared's latest youtube video on Marble Madness has (at the time of posting this) 175 thousand views and over 19 thousand likes. His channel still has nearly 900 thousand subscribers, which is very good for a youtube channel of his size. At his peak he barely had over a million subscribers. And his number of views (the thing that really matters to youtube content) has only only been on an upward path his entire career. (https://www.trackalytics.com/youtube/user/dmjared/
Doesn't sound too "canceled" to me. Sure, he was (ostensibly) falsely accused, but the accusation was based on actions. Actions that he was able to dispute. You're not really making an argument against what you think you are. What if the allegations hadn't
been false? And he was actually doing what he was accused of. I think the risk of bad people continuing to abuse their power or position of influence to do bad things is worth the very rare occasional false accusation that didn't actually end the career of the one accused.
File: 1596245155764.jpg (111.46 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, 1537072599972.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Examples of cancel culture harming innocent people? David Shor got fired for an innocent tweet that rubbed some people the wrong way.https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-culture-2020-election-theory-polls.html
>>6175>nless you can definitively prove that the allegations are false (which you can't), then it's irrelevant
No, because the goal was to prove that CANCEL CULTURE
">Cancel culture is a thing that quite obviously exists, so I disagree.
I disagree. See how that works?"
Again; The standard for justice is to prove GUILT. This is because presuming GUILT is fascistic. It results in the absolute worst systems of law and justice humanty's ever been guilty of. The kind of systems in which people are tied to posts and burned alive, strung up from a tree for nothing more than their race, and so on.
It's a system we wisely realized was a horrific injustice. Nobody should support such a thing.
ProJared was lucky, I'd say, as he was able to prove it. Some people are not so lucky.
It is not such an easy thing to prove your innocence over an accusation.
If I say "Talented Platypus is a pedophilic child-molester", it's probably not going to be easy for him to prove that's not true, right?
So, do we presume it's true, and thus treat him as though he's a child molester, or do we presume he's innocence as that results in the most just outcome?
I mean that's also fair, but you have to set standards for what you believe to be true. 'cause actually you can't prove it either way in a lot of cases. Rape for example has all sort of outs where you can't even be sure two people were near each other, especially as third parties across the internet.
So let's take your example of the clearly very evil pedophile, Talented Platypus. You've claimed he's a pedophile, but you actually have no proof at all. Literally nothing but your word to go on. It's easy to say we shouldn't presume guilt in that case.
In the case of Pro-Jared, though? You at least had corroborating stories and some doctored chat logs along with incriminating photos. There was proof of his guilt, the proof was just also false. If that was presented to a court, you'd now have to disprove the false evidence. Which again, eventually he did, possibly in court even, but it wasn't quite the same situation as your example.
Point being that it kind of is up to a jury in the end. A big argumentative jury that spams your social media a lot. Because nothing is ever certain and you have to decide what you want to believe.
File: 1596255225377.jpg (17.36 KB, 210x240, 7:8, 1529142380921.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6178>the side of people trying to paint the protests as illegitimate.
Only insofar as they were violent. He clearly supported peaceful protests.
And there aren't just two sides on complex issues. Individuals can hold nuanced opinions and shouldn't be pigeon-holed into a given "side".>then it looks like what was supposed to happen happened.
I strongly disagree. It is perfectly valid to oppose protests insofar as they are violent, destructive, or devolve into looting and other criminal behavior. Trying to get someone fired for voicing such an opinion is extremely shitty and toxic.
I can understand the perspective, but the goal isn't to prove you're innocent
in that case, it's to prove that the evidence demonstrating you're guilty
There's no way to know 100% for certain, but, that's what "beyond a reasonable doubt" is for, essentially.
If you were the only person next to a guy who got a knife through his spine for seven miles, it's your knife that's in his back, and you're the sole inheritor of his property, it's reasonable to say "You probably killed that guy".
It's not guaranteed, he could've tripped and fell after stealing your knife, but it's pretty unlikely.
The big thing here, though, is what you do not
say is "Well, you can't prove you didn't stab him, so you're guilty".
Ok, And ProJared was accused of something, and they weren't able to prove he was guilty of it. In fact, he was able to provide evidence that he was (ostensibly) not guilty. And so he was able to recover. But if he HAD been guilty of those things, it would have been important for the public to know.>>6180>So, do we presume it's true, and thus treat him as though he's a child molester
We entertain the possibility and ask for proof of his deeds before passing judgement. There's more to this than just dismissing accusations or blindly accepting them wholesale. >>6182>Only insofar as they were violent. He clearly supported peaceful protests.
Destruction of property is a valid form of protest. That doesn't change what I said.
>>6184>We entertain the possibility and ask for proof of his deeds before passing judgement. There's more to this than just dismissing accusations or blindly accepting them wholesale.
Unfortunately, many do just blindly accept. That has certainly been my experience.
"Listen and believe".>Destruction of property is a valid form of protest. That doesn't change what I said.
Destruction of innocent people's property is most certainly not fucking valid as a form of protest.
It demonstrates without a single shadow of a doubt you are not interested in justice.
That you do not care about punishing those who are guilty, protecting those who are innocent, or doing the right thing.
It makes it clear for all to see that you're only interested in your own self satisfaction. Your own selfish desires you can stand on a corpse and happily trod on an injustice to indulge.
My experience in regards to others. As to when, like I said, you've got guys like Vic Mignogna, Count Dankula, and plenty of others.
Certainly it does not seem at all the case that anyone waited to punish Vic after they made sure that the accusations were correct.
File: 1596260596443.jpg (87.51 KB, 828x598, 18:13, 101384426_1684288195043283….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6190>That's your opinion
Actually it's the Bible's. But that's besides the point. >How would you feel if people tried to get your fired for voicing it?
Holding the opinion that black lives matter will get you fired if you work for a white supremacist. It's nothing new to us. You have to know when to express your opinions and how.
The principle would be the same.
But, alright, let's work off of that:
What about those classic cases of early American racism in such judicial cases?
Was it justified for judges to presume guilt when a black suspect was brought before them, because "we can't prove they're innocent"?>>6191>Actually it's the Bible's. But that's besides the point.
Somehow I doubt that. Pretty sure the bible makes a point to distinguish the guilty from the innocent. But, even so, if the bible says it, that doesn't make it right.
If it is acceptable to punish Vic because he hasn't proven he's innocent, it should be acceptable to punish a black suspect because he hasn't proven he's innocent.
To say otherwise would be hypocritical.>. Just don't sexually harass anyone and you'll be fine
Just don't break the law. Police won't hurt you.
File: 1596261193057.jpg (565.95 KB, 1024x1079, 1024:1079, cia-jesus.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Jesus only destroyed the property of guilty
persons, not innocent people.>Holding the opinion that black lives matter will get you fired if you work for a white supremacist.
Not necessarily. White supremacists might hold that black lives do matter, but that they matter to lesser degree that white lives.
But my point was, you wouldn't like it if you got fired for voicing an honest opinion of yours, would you? Well, try to have to empathy for others in that same situation. Nobody deserves to lose their job for voicing a honestly held opinion unless the opinion is so far beyond the pale that it really makes you question the person's ability to do their job.
So what's your solution? No one should ever accuse anyone of bad behavior because it's possible someone else could falsely accuse someone? That's stupid. People need to be free to accuse people of bad behavior.>>6196>Jesus only destroyed the property of guilty persons, not innocent people.
The system isn't innocent. That's literally the point. > but that they matter to lesser degree that white lives.
That's not "mattering". If they matter less than another kind of life, and they can be discarded based on that judgement that's functionally no different than not mattering. >you wouldn't like it if you got fired for voicing an honest opinion of yours, would you?
Nope. Which is why one must be careful who and where you express your opinions to. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Of course not: But nobody should be punished because "you can't prove they're innocent".
What should occur is people need to PROVE
the bad behavior. A claim is not enough. The idea that "They didn't prove they're innocent" is insanely backwards.
And, frankly, it should be relevant to their occupation if they're getting 'canceled' besides. If my mechanic does a good job of fixing cars, I really could not care less if he happens to have been found guilty of armed robbery in three states.
I come to him to get my car fixed.
>>6198>The system isn't innocent. That's literally the point.
If innocent people bear the brunt of what happened to George Floyd because of being a part of the "system", then by that logic, George Floyd himself was guilty of killing George Floyd, as a participant in the system.> If they matter less than another kind of life, and they can be discarded based on that judgement that's functionally no different than not mattering.
If I sell a bagel for 1$, and a loaf of bread for 3$, they both have value. They both cost money.
>>6198>The system isn't innocent. That's literally the point.
Then destroy property that belongs to this guilty system. But don't the property of innocent small-business sole proprietors.>>6198> If they matter less than another kind of life, and they can be discarded based on that judgement that's functionally no different than not mattering.
Clearly someone who believes that black lives matter would not believe in the second conjunct (i.e., "they can be discarded based on that judgement"). And it is not logically impossible for someone to both subscribe to white supremacy and subscribe to the proposition that black lives matter.>>6198>Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
The only sequence from making a good-faith argument in support of an honest opinion (assuming it's not done in an inappropriate time/place/manner) should be getting a counterargument. You shouldn't be met with a personal attack.
Because you're missing the point if you think Target is "innocent". >Then destroy property that belongs to this guilty system.
They did. We've been over that. We can talk about that in another thread where people can pretend systemic racism isn't a thing if you want. This is about labeling people as bad.
File: 1596262180778.png (563.48 KB, 700x526, 350:263, 1 CGcVFNqU4iG-wai2O7iA0w.png) ImgOps Google
Target was not the only place attacked.
To suggest it was is dishonest of you.>This is about labeling people as bad.\
Sure; And labeling people as "bad" because they oppose a bunch of asshole thugs who decide it's appropriate to attack people who have not wronged them is disgusting.
It's a prime example of why cancel culture is awful.
Because absolutely horrible people will abuse it to push their agenda.
Yeah, let's label the people exercising their right to protest as "assholes".
Really, you guys are still going on about this? You're really this afraid of black people? It's ridiculous. Now i'm not going to talk about the protests in this thread anymore and I'm going to ignore any posts about that.
File: 1596262377895.jpg (173.2 KB, 1440x810, 16:9, hanekawa-1404419294098.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6205>This is about labeling people as bad.
Well, what do you think about the following points mentioned earlier? >>6130>Additionally, the concept of "bad person" might actually be harmful overall in civilized society, since it makes it easier to dehumanize those whom one considers to be "bad people".>>6132>The only thing I think we gain from a label like "bad person" is the ability to do the otherwise unconscionable to them.
File: 1596262599096.png (264.03 KB, 486x361, 486:361, 1 WSKxbaG71sOEEYLtd1Emyg.png) ImgOps Google
You absolutely 100% do NOT have a right to VANDALIZE DESTROY AND LOOT private property.
This has NEVER, not ONCE been a thing.
This is not protest. This is not peaceful assembly. >You're really this afraid of black people?
Of course not. This is representative of your own personal lack of honesty, not anyone here's position.I
am opposed to a bunch of scumbags who think it's okay to attack innocent people.
Not all black people are like that. It's racist to suggest they are
File: 1596262801809.jpg (87.53 KB, 634x460, 317:230, Cat becomes surrogate to h….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6210>Well I think it's important that we keep the label of "bad person" to those who deserve it. Rapists and child molesters and things.
Why not just call them "rapists" and "child molesters" though? I don't see the label "bad people" is important.>In those cases, whether or not we "dehumanize" them isn't really relevant. They dehumanize themselves through those actions.
I kinda disagree. Even rapists and child molesters shouldn't be dehumanized. Even if they need to be sentenced to death, it shouldn't be an unnecessarily cruel death that strikes at their very humanity.
Because there's literally hundreds of ways someone could be a bad person.>Even rapists and child molesters shouldn't be dehumanized.
WHy not? They take away the humanity of their victims with their actions.
>>6213>You deny the problems that cause the protests, then denounce the people who get fed up.
Do I? How so? I am perfectly happy to say there needs to be police reform in America, and that police are inclined far too often to use force greater than necessary, especially when it pertains to warrants and such things involving breaking into someone's house.
I might say the issues are more class, than race, but it's hardly a major issue as it pertains to addressing the problems; It's a definitional difference that doesn't actually change the solution.
I mean, unless the solution is segregation, I guess. Some people seem to have that odd idea. Don't see its practical benefit.> When we peacefully protest at football games, the president calls us "sons of bitches", and Fox News villifies us.
Oh, yeah, how horrible, you get some mean words. That's totally something that justifies violence and destruction of people's property.
You can peacefully protest at football games if you like. Personally, I'm not a fan, as I see such things in the same way as video games, TTRPGs, and the like; Things people go to of all walks of life to relax and hang out. I find such things only end up dividing people, rather than bringing them together. But, then, I wouldn't call them a "son of a bitch" for it.> And now you want to cry because merchandise insured for millions is being damaged.
Not everyone has insurance.
Not everyone's insurance covers violent rioting.
Insurance often has specific limits on payouts, which may already be hit thanks to the virus.
Your callousness towards hurting innocent people's livelihood demonstrates rather clearly it isn't about justice for you. You seem to be the sort more after revenge, or just causing pain and misery to others for the sake of it.>You are luck that black people are looking for equality and not revenge.
Your behavior contradicts this. But, hey, continue your racial identitarian movement that has no trouble violently attacking its dissidents.
It's not like that has ended badly before, right?
Oh, wait, there was this one guy with a mustache...
>>6214>Because there's literally hundreds of ways someone could be a bad person.
Yeah, but why not just be specific and say precisely what they did wrong? That seems a lot more useful. Like, I'd be willing to have a child molester repair my car, but I certainly wouldn't hire one as a babysitter.>>6214>WHy not? They take away the humanity of their victims with their actions.
Because we should try to be better than that, rather than descend to their level.
In the case of Vic, as I understand it, he basically got booted from any events he was going to go to, was no longer able to get voice acting gigs, and had gotten removed from some credit types of things. But it's been a while since I last read that.
It's not quite just harassment and boycot. Or, perhaps I should say, as a consequence of the harassment and call to boycot, companies, being cowardly organizations uncaring about morality, will ultimately choose to remove the source of the mob's ire.
As to death and its difference, biggest one is you can't undo death. Otherwise, though, I see punishment as punishment, whether that's jail or a fine.
>>6216> Like, I'd be willing to have a child molester repair my car
I wouldn't. I'd want him to be in jail for the rest of his life, if not sentenced to death. >Because we should try to be better than that, rather than descend to their level.
there's a thin line between "sinking to their level" and "letting them manipulate you".
I think the label as "bad person" is useful because it's quick. You can say they are a bad person, and then elaborate on that if needed.
The problem here is, I don't believe it's a case of people not wanting to "consume his products".
I'm seeing a case of an angry mob of a few, that hardly make up a great percentage of the main consumer base, screaming and yelling until the company caves to their demands booting a guy because it's the only way they'll go away.
You do not have to buy products of someone you are not fond of.
I would say it's a pretty shit thing to do to harass a company until they fire the guy, though.
File: 1596265975107.jpg (195.66 KB, 690x488, 345:244, kyousaya-aquarium-14217200….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6220>I wouldn't. I'd want him to be in jail for the rest of his life, if not sentenced to death.
It is true that sexually molesting a child should be severely punished, possibly even by death. And perhaps child molesters ought not be released back to society until evidence of rehabilitation. (I think castration works well for rehabilitation?) But if somehow a child molester was allowed to work at repairing cars, it wouldn't really bother me too much to get my car repaired by one.>>6220>I think the label as "bad person" is useful because it's quick.
I supposed if your judgement is based on a lot of little things. But "rapist" is even quicker to communicate than "bad person".
The trouble is, companies are typically morally neutral, if not immoral entities.
They don't tend to do the right thing.
File: 1596266532130.jpeg (37.93 KB, 680x467, 680:467, cat-filter-canada-drawing.jpeg) ImgOps Google
Perhaps there should be more legal protection for employees against shitty behavior by their employers, especially if the employer is a large corporation run by MBAs focusing on quarterly earnings.
Not against it. Though, I imagine it's something that'd be difficult to pass for legislation.
Where would you really start?
File: 1596267749304.png (1.18 MB, 1200x900, 4:3, sleepy.png) ImgOps Google
It is a hard problem. I think California has some employee protections for political activity.
But now my brain is shutting down its logical reasoning centers; it is time for me to head to bed and get some sleep. Goodnight!