Straight-up assassination is the only violence I could get behind.
Murdering some influential politician or leader can be a good thing. Sure it might strenghten the followers' resolve but some movements are lost without their chieftain.
Punching some sad Nazi **** or vandalizing some **** is just pathetic and accomplishes nothing except making the perpetrators feel like badass dudebros.

Spencer's lack of power is certainly a factor, and if the US government can rebel over taxes then black people can certainly rebel over hundreds of years of slavery, a century of Jim Crow and segregation, and blatant policies in both the private and public sectors that have kept them down to a degree that was and still is to an extent inhuman. But the level of disparity between the two scenarios makes the comparison ridiculous. Black people have had their lives and liberty so threatened that rebellion has throughout much if not all of their history in this country been an option that might only be inadvisable due to pragmatism.

But the alt-right do not currently represent a threat on a level anywhere near the horror of white-on-black tyranny or the Third Reich. Perhaps it's a gamble to allow them free reign considering the possibility of their philosophy rising to prominence at some point in the future, but I consider it a risk absolutely worth taking if it means that "our side" can evolve culturally by finally realizing that you shouldn't punch people who disagree with you.

Oh and just on that pragmatic level I was talking about the Black Panthers are or at least were to my knowledge hopelessly deluded. What the **** did they think they were going to accomplish by arming themselves and revolting against the government? We would have shot them dead in the street and any retaliation from the black community at large would have more than likely been put down with extreme prejudice and resulted in absolute Nazi crackdowns on an entire race which would have been seen as justified by the white majority due to their newfound terror of an apocalyptic race war.

I’m cool with Antifa because at least they’re ****ing trying.

I wish their were an underground anarchist movement that targeted CEOs and politicians.

Kaczynski is the most inspirational activist of my lifetime.

Do you always lump justification and morality together? I don't see why you can't have circumstances that are both justified and immoral. Seems like something people do who want to feel good about themselves.

"Düül" is not a German word.

Right. As in Kaczynski.

But you’re too dismissive of Antifa. They do put **** on the line.

I've been pretty involved in AntiFa groups in my late teens. Fun, but dumb and douchey.

You know, considering how entrenched capitalism is in societies around the world, and how most people just accept the paradigm of working for a boss and dedicating their life to meaningless labor that pays the bills, I could maybe get behind such a movement. I don't see any change happening in people's perception of capitalism any time in anything resembling the near future so perhaps something as jaw dropping as Bill Gates getting gunned down in the middle of a shareholder's meeting, followed by Jeff Bezos getting car bombed, and then a strychnine poisoning death for whoever happened to be President at the time could change the dialogue to the point that people realized that they in fact didn't care and felt satisfaction that such ****s got what they deserved.

Or, you know, people might just be dumb and rally behind the oppressors.

Don’t underestimate how much influence on the public psyche these kind of theatrics can have. Creating a tiny seed of doubt on both sides about the permanence of the current power structure has to start with a van guard of radicalism. The results may not translate to simple cause and effect results in high school history books but you have to have a radical fringe that plants that seed of fear into the existing oppressor. And then the results of that can ripple.

It’s always taught that Nat Turner failed but I don’t think he did. I think he was the first wave of a movement that ultimately won.

Didn’t show it in that sissy movie but they chopped up ten white children and piled their body parts up for effect. It scared the **** out of whitey. Like 9/11 it said, we can touch you bitch.

Again, if the Black Panthers had ever actually conducted organized, violent resistance against the white majority I don't think it would have resulted in anything other than solidifying white supremacy because now the fear of black violence would have a very real justification that would have set back race relations at least a hundred years. It wasn't the Black Panthers' radicalism that changed whitey's mind, it was MLK and Brown v. Board of Education. The Black Panthers reinforced us vs. them, but the peaceful protests reinforced the perception of black humanity.

Maybe you should take a little more pride in your young self.

Maybe. Yeah, I mean ****. I’d respect that.

Some would and some wouldn’t.

People would think a lot harder about hoarding the world’s wealth. I’d bet on that. Bitches gettin got does that.

Okay but thats not what i asked. Do you believe justified actions can also be immoral?

9/11 didn't shame America into seeing the Middle East's point of view, it not only solidified nationalism and prejudice but created prejudices that Americans didn't really feel yet since they didn't see Muslims as a "clear and present danger" yet. The thing that started any kind of change in perception was the lack of any subsequent threat from Islamists at home and seeing American soldiers coming home in body bags. And even that hasn't really engendered sympathy for the Middle East, just a weariness for continued conflict. The vast majority still don't give a **** what happens to Muslims, we're just tired of neverending war.

Even if I’m limited in how eloquently I can can put this I hope you will just consider that the truth is social change needs a radical fringe even if they don’t get the results on paper. Even social scientists can’t measure for certain how minds were changed. Fear might inspire the ‘fight’ response in the short run but encourage dialogue later on.

Church

I disagree. Use your noggen and think about it some more. I dont have time to hold your hand right now.

I mean yeah, but unstable radicals with unrealistic expectations don't accomplish anything without moderate radicals to temper the reaction of the oppressive majority and provide realistic solutions that actually produce results (i.e. violence is worthless without calm minds to take up the cause). Radicals are a means to an end, but on their own they'll just stiffen resistance to their goals.

And accomplished nothing of substance beyond a bunch of dead people. Sure it and subsequent American reactions mobilized support for their cause, but who the **** wants to live in Afghanistan or Iraq who doesn't already live in Afghanistan or Iraq?

Close enough to the same page.


Two responses:

1) Islam in Europe after America’s short term response.
2) We’re a long way from seeing how it pans out long term.

Hell I’ll go a third, nothing works all the time.

Perfect example of what I was trying to convey. So ****ing patronizing.

Getting offended on behalf of other people now. Lul

Depending on who I'm talking to maybe, but considering it's you I think you just like the thought of karma too much to look at political violence objectively. You just get too much satisfaction out of seeing your oppressors die to calm down and ask yourself if this is actually productive.

Do you think that anyone's lives have actually been improved by the fallout of 9/11? Whether or not radical Islamists' goals are being achieved isn't the question, it's if humanity as a whole is better off for the violence. Millions of refugees fleeing their homes and Iraq and Afghanistan becoming destabilized warzones doesn't exactly sound like progress. It sounds like same **** different day.

I mean i can if you want since you dont seem to understand that justification is not linked to morality. All i wanted to know is if you always link them or have some view of morality such that no immoral act can ever be a justifiable one.

First part, fair point. I think I got my history straight but then again of course I do.

Second part- I was trying to argue that radicalism has a rightful place in social movements.

Big picture is the world a better place? No. I don’t think I could make that case.

At the risk at getting bitched at for jumping in do you mean like Hiroshima & Nagasaki to shorten the war?

@OH - Im not sure i agree wih that example but yes here are tons of things like that.

Well, if you assume that not bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing 200,000 people or whatever it was would result in more deaths then it kind of is a numbers game at its core. Would that be preferable or would the moral abhorrence damage humanity to an extent that would make the bombings a net failure?

Not trying influence anyone, just musing.

So your view of morality changes to suit the needs of the individual? Cant stealing still be immoral in your example but simultaneously justified?

The ends.

Hypothetical: If the Nazis Were Right Would You Agree with Some Form of the Holocaust

Depends on the severity of the action. My seemingly frivolous Holocaust thread was about questioning whether or not you'd be willing to change your moral paradigm if it became clear that it was completely incompatible with reality. Not so much that you should potentially change what you think is moral, but that you should potentially be willing to go against your morality if the cost of sticking to your morality worsened the existence of humanity.

I don't see how murdering millions of people could ever be considered moral considering the effect on society and the direct-genocide-perpetrators of murdering millions of human beings, but if the end result would in the end outweigh the immediate horror then might it not be worth the sacrifice?

Youre justifying if your action is reasonable. Lets try this without a moral question.

Are you justified in believing in god or the flat earth? Now apply the same logic to decide if an action is justified.

It sounds like you want to apply how we define truth to how we define morality. I’m not so sure why you’re following elph around with this question.

I still believe that the only objective knowable truth is the Cartesian I think therefore I am.

After that there’s very close to completely objective truths that come by virtue of definition: a triangle has three sides.

God and flat earth like non-truths are still very objectively true but less so by a **** hair.

We do not have moral absolutes in the same way. Every action is surrounded by and influenced by countless other actions. Morality is subjective. I figure most folks would conclude the same unless they believe in God and even more they don’t just believe that God chooses to be moral but rather that something is moral because God chooses it, like killing your own son, for example.

To address your last point, there are many views of morality, which is why I asked Elph about his. We can go round and round about this, but I tend to favor the side of Harris/Dillahunty, which basically equates morality to well being, which is not subjective.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the order goes: Justification -> Moral determination -> Action.

Elph seems to view morality as subjective as well and thinks it can be changed on a whim depending on the circumstances of an individual.. If I'm wrong, correct me. I'm glad I had this conversation though, because its consistent with the positions he tends to take, and it helps me understand the thought process behind the wall I get sick of talking to. Still don't agree with him.

That’s Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty (had to google- I thought we might be closer to Kant and Foucault). I’ve listened to those guys and I’ve read Waking Up.

It seems like if morality equals well-being it’s going to be subjective depending on whose well-being.

For an atheist Harris gets pretty deep into woo when he starts up on enlightenment and meditation.

The justification part has to be loaded with subjective reasoning.

I don’t get how your ideas about this differ from elph’s or anyone’s really.

Sometimes I find your writing cryptic. I need **** spelled out to get it.

I'll try and find a video for you that will do a better job of explaining it than I can.

I don't disagree that justifcation has to be loaded with subjective reasoning, but that's not in conflict with what I'm saying.

If you approach morality the way I do there are truths within it. If I am faced with a situation where I either kill or be killed, and I kill, that doesn't make killing moral all of a sudden, it's justifiable though. If we agree that morality is based on well-being killing another person goes against well-being.

What use is morality to us if it's not consistent? If everyone can just feel however they want, what's the point of the discussion? I never said Elph was wrong, I only said I disagree. It's a complicated subject, and I'm not well educated in moral philosophy. I'm arguing on behalf of the things I've heard that make the most sense to me.

Jordan Peterson says something very similar. It sounds great when he’s talking but honestly I’m not sure what it means.

Well we need some malleability over the centuries, don’t we?

If there are universal moral truths can you name them? And then explain when immorality is justifiable?

Since you brought up Peterson (who I'm not a fan of), and I was already looking for a video here:

Watch from ~44m-53m.. also ~58m-1h1m


I just gave you an example of when immorality is justified: I kill someone in self defense.

The video answers your other questions, but if you want me to reiterate my understanding of it, lemme know.

Edit: Here, ill try anyway: Yes, it needs to be malleable. If we discover something that promotes well-being better than the current model it is adopted. An example of a universal moral truth is that taking a life is immoral because it is in direct conflict with well-being, assuming we agree the morality is based around well-being.

You summoned a wild Elph.

I'm assuming he's talking about the basic concepts of thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, love thy neighbor, and whatever else society would destroy itself over if it didn't have those rules. Do the least amount of harm to the least amount of people seems like a pretty easy and obvious rule that you can't argue with. Plenty of wiggle room with legalese as the millennia have proven, but murder is still basically a universal no no so long as you don't complicate it with things like war and executions.

Basically the instincts all humans have that enable cooperative society to exist in the first place. Those are precepts that are so obvious that evolution has burned them into our brains. 1+1=2 morality.

Gramma done tole me I knows rights from wrongs

I hear you but once I get out of bed there’s so many ****ing angles it’s all meaningless

I always felt morality came from empathy. That which harms is wrong and that which helps is right.

In reality everything is really meaningless in the grand scheme of things and all that truly has any meaning is completely self contained meanings. So if you don't have any form of guilt or empathy and you really enjoy rape, then just go for it and pursue the things that mean something to you in this empty existence.

Edit: Because karma also does not exist, so if you don't feel any remorse and know how to escape societal punishment for following your passion of raping and torturing children you have absolutely nothing to fear and will live a completely fulfilled life with no consequences to your actions.