Jacob Rothschild: "Covid is a distraction from climate change"

submitted by magnora7 from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

WHAT makes people "evil"?

The definition of "evil" itself? We're competitive organisms, so our individual goals and desires don't necessarily align on a fundamental level. One way to define "evil" would be a mismatch between behaviors furthering our individual goals and behaviors furthering the goals of the "evil" perpetrator.

Another way to define behaviors considered "evil" is to subscribe to a set of religious beliefs, where behaviors in the category of "evil" are predefined for us. We all know which set of religious beliefs is correct, but are the subscribers to the off-brand belief-sets "evil" in intent, or only in effect?

But back to the WHAT; I'm going to suggest that the WHAT that makes people "evil" really comes down to ones perception of the intent and effects of the behaviors of others. It's not the behavior itself, it's the perception and judgement of the observer that makes it "evil". People themselves can't be "evil". Only the perception of the intent and/or effects of their behaviors can define "evil".

u/JasonCarswell

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Agreed. That's why we need subjective definitions of what "evil" actually entails, that defines and IS the source.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

One way to define "evil" would be a mismatch between behaviors furthering our individual goals, and behaviors furthering the goals of the "evil" perpetrator.

Depends on what the definition of IS is... How does my above definition fail to impress?

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Depends on what the definition of IS is...

Mr. Clinton, I already said what it is, "subjective definitions of what "evil" actually entails". Horrux just wants to fight about his own definitions again, now trying to reinvent what "source" means, while belittling others.

One way to define "evil" would be a mismatch between behaviors furthering our individual goals and behaviors furthering the goals of the "evil" perpetrator.

Very good, along with the rest. I'd tweak it thusly...

I'd define "evil" as conflicting ideals, expressions, and actions between individuals and/or groups that are perceived to do harm, steal, or deceive. Mindless (systemic, mechanical, accidental, etc.) or malicious (intentional via greed, hate, etc.), the perception may be real or not, religious or not, clear or muddy, etc.

[–]Node 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

conflicting ideals, expressions, and actions

All behaviors.

do harm, steal, or deceive.

All goal mismatches.

Perceptual inaccuracy isn't relevant, because the entity or individual doing the evil/not-evil analysis is basing their judgement on the data they possess, not data they lack.

what "source" means

First time I'm seeing this in this thread. What is this about? Source of what?

This exchange is an interesting microcosm of the topic at large, as perceptions of what constitutes reality and how it works appear to have some significant mismatches.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

conflicting ideals, expressions, and actions

All behaviors.

Ideals are not, but the others are, and I thought it worth separating talk from deeds as people often believe (ideals) or say one thing and to another.

do harm, steal, or deceive.

All goal mismatches.

Agreed technically, but IMO "goal mismatches" is soft and ambiguous, though perhaps better for others with their own subjective definitions that may or may not include my 3 broad strokes.

Perceptual inaccuracy isn't relevant, because the entity or individual doing the evil/not-evil analysis is basing their judgement on the data they possess, not data they lack.

I disagree. Few people think they're doing evil when they do it. They can justify it any way they like. If they never get caught doing evil in the forest does it make a sound? IMO, the term "evil" is usually wielded by someone not doing the alleged evil, and they may or may not have inaccurate perceptions (ie. faith, etc). Because no man is an island, we all live in society and have cultural norms, including concepts of "evil" - thus most of us simply behave when we get evil thoughts.

First time I'm seeing this in this thread. What is this about? Source of what?

Ask Horrux. He's the one who raised the questions, doesn't like the answers, and attempts to belittle you for being too simplistic for his simple question.

This exchange is an interesting microcosm of the topic at large, as perceptions of what constitutes reality and how it works appear to have some significant mismatches.

Indeed. They've dumbed down our education and communication (and social media with simplistic up/down votes), weaponized the mismatches, and limited, hijacked, or thrown monkey wrenches in our common /s/Terminology.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Indeed. They've dumbed down our education and communication (and social media with simplistic up/down votes), weaponized the mismatches, and limited, hijacked, or thrown monkey wrenches in our common /s/Terminology.

But when it's Horrux who points out word misuse and meaning truncation by means of propaganda, then I'm just arguing definitions for the sake of arguing and belittling people, right? Interesting how that works.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

But when it's Horrux who points out word misuse and meaning truncation by means of propaganda, then I'm just arguing definitions for the sake of arguing and belittling people, right? Interesting how that works.

As you always perfectly demonstrate, your abrasive demands, hostility, and sarcasm are argumentative.

Change your tone and you might find more willing to civilly engage in the discourse you seek.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I disagree. Few people think they're doing evil when they do it.

I wasn't clear in that sentence construction, but then you make the point I meant.

the term "evil" is usually wielded by someone not doing the alleged evil,

Exactly. This is the entity or individual doing the evil/not-evil analysis. You probably don't think you're perpetuating evil with your current projects, but there probably are people judging that you're doing evil. They may or may not have accurate perceptions of you and your behaviors (probably not), but they go with the data they possess.

a mismatch between behaviors furthering OUR individual goals, and behaviors furthering the goals of the OTHER.

Perhaps neither of you are evil. Perhaps one or both are. This judgement comes from the individual perceptions of both parties, and may or may not be accurate.

Often times a homicide is correctly judged as evil, because "killing is wrong". But what if the homicide was to stop a killing?

So my main point ITT is that "evil" is mainly an individual judgement of 'disliked' behaviors of others.

If I were to go on for more paragraphs, I'd mention God, satan, and religious beliefs, but that's beyond this scope.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps neither of you are evil. Perhaps one or both are. This judgement comes from the individual perceptions of both parties, and may or may not be accurate.

Yes, subjective - as I said to Horrux.

an individual judgement of 'disliked' behaviors of others.

"Disliked" is too soft. I can tolerate something I dislike. Some folks may use "evil" casually. I think most consider evil deeds way beyond merely unacceptable or bad. Personally I don't like the religious associations and only use the term to describe the ruling class, their actions, and their systems.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ask Horrux. He's the one who raised the questions, doesn't like the answers, and attempts to belittle you for being too simplistic for his simple question.

You've simply ignored the question, and then started nagging when I asked it again. WHERE did you actually answer it?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Horrux just wants to fight about his own definitions again, now trying to reinvent what "source" means, while belittling others.

I object. I asked a question multiple times and you ignored it, then reproached me asking the question again. That is very disingenuous. I do not seek to belittle anybody, but when you go around ignoring my participation and then nagging about the questions I ask, you were simply asking for it.

Here is a much better definition of good and evil that communists will always object to: Good is life-affirming, and evil is life-negating. Earendil came up with that, I think. And it matches my own definition, although I had never worded it like that.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Good is life-affirming, and evil is life-negating.

It's not a new or unique definition. It's simplistic and good.

Again, it's subjective. What is "life-affirming"? What about neutral things that are neither affirming or negating, in part or in whole? Is a TV evil? No - it's a piece of furniture. Is the TV programming evil? Are education TV documentaries evil? Are documentaries on war and evil deeds evil?

You complain about being simple. You're complaining about yourself.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Once again Jason. Sigh.

I complain about overly SIMPLISTIC expressions, which means, statements that are artificially made too simple to serve the purpose they intend. Not about the natural SIMPLICITY of things. You just did it again by conflating simplistic and simple. Why do you do this.

You answer your own question: Is a TV evil? Is a TV life-affirming or life-negating? Neither, right? So why are you asking a question with such an obvious answer? An object is neither good nor evil, it is neutral. Only deeds are good/evil. I thought that was a given. But I guess not.

This definition is SIMPLE, but not SIMPLISTIC.

So a TV is neither, but creating a children's TV show to confuse them about their gender is "evil". Then the parents might see this "evil" represented in the TV show and prevent their kids from watching it.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You perpetually pick and chose and complicate simple/simplistic definitions to suit your convoluted obscure needs, and you get upset when people don't align with your own custom terms and uncommon understandings and re-definitions of things.

My "TV is evil" example is a common trope that is easily understood - except by you apparently.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=TV+is+evil

I agree, intentionally confusing/brainwashing children is evil, on many matters, regardless how it's done.

Again, it's subjective how you define evil, and what you define as teaching useful things to better survive in and contribute to society/socialism/communism/community/nationalism/voluntaryism/anarchy/imagination/evil/live.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, I don't do pop culture referentials. Sue me.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's not pop culture.
It's a well known trope that's commonly used to demonize anything.
Video games are evil.
Rock and roll is evil.
Fast cars are evil.
Education is evil.
Fun is evil.
TV is evil.
Etc.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's why we need subjective definitions of what "evil" actually entails

Needing subjective definition implies there is no objective reality behind the term "evil". This means that "evil" is wholly imaginary and should in no way be part of anybody's views on how to structure their lives.

This is once again the implicit point of view of communists, of which I declare you to be a closet case. You espouse so many views that match that doctrine perfectly, you may not know yourself to be a communist but you seem to share everything with them. But go ahead, reassure me and demonstrate that you are not. Or that you are, I couldn't care less...

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

there is no objective reality behind the term "evil"

Yes. It it subjective.

This means that "evil" is wholly imaginary and

No. You've added your subjective meaning. And still you've not defined it nor its source.

and should in no way be part of anybody's views on how to structure their lives.

Again, you've added your subjective interpretation of what to do with the concept of "evil".

Why must people structure their lives? And what makes you their authority that says so?

This is once again the implicit point of view of communists,

Yet you are the one who advocates for totalitarian central national government under a great leader. The more you scream about commies the more I think you are one.

you may not know yourself to be a communist but you seem to share everything with them.

Outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

I'm a self-professed voluntaryist/anarchist, who rather than liking top-down privatized corporations supports bottom-up organizations like co-operatives (1/3 of Marx's socialism!!!) and decentralization of ALL things (tech, banking, government, defense, etc) rather than centralized government control, commies or not.

But go ahead, reassure me and demonstrate that you are not.

I don't owe you anything.

I couldn't care less...

If that were true you wouldn't keep accusing people of it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Oh, you are of the materialistic-rationalistic school if thought that implies that man is but an animal like any other, with a bit of a bigger brain. Well obviously from such a standpoint, no more discussion on the topic can be had, for it's all chemical reactions in our brains, therefore actually evil does NOT exist. Morality is imaginary, and that's the end of the story.

Now where's my flamethrower, I met some people I didn't like. Wait, I'm not from that school of thought.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Eliminating the chemical reactions in our brains would seem to make further discussion fairly difficult.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Yes. Funny.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not just funny, chemical reactions in our brains are our entry point to the reality of this place. Unless I'm missing a different school of thought?

man is ███ an animal like any other, with a bit of a bigger brain.

Observations appear to verify that humans are a mammal species, and that their brains are more powerful than most. The "but" part is a stretch, and it seems likely there is also a spirit or soul that animates the mammalian bodies we inhabit.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Chemical reactions ARE ASSOCIATED WITH "our entry point to the 'reality' of this place." Causation has not, cannot and will never be demonstrated.

Yes, we do possess immaterial components of a much greater order than any other "animal" species. This is knowable in the absolute sense. A mind properly unshackled can palpate these components.

"Evil" has worked tirelessly for millennia to dull our minds, make us ever more animalized, and to cut off our consciousness from the whole of reality. They've done a great job, to the point where relatively intelligent people hold for truth that we are ordinarh animals with a slightly bigger brain and opposing thumbs, that chemical reactions in our brains are the whole of the impression of consciousness, and that the only reality is that of physical matter.