Controversial General Political Discussion

[Bisoromi Bear]

But isnt that his point though? That they are monsters? Doesnt matter how they became like that if the point is just that they are

Shit logic

I believe in objective evil. If found guilty of the most heinous of crimes in a court of law (very important), then I do think that it should be allowed. It is not on the individual to administer that punishment.

Why tho? Legal systems are corrupted and those with the best lawyers win anyways.

People become evil once they commit evil.

I don't think so.

Effectively, those who are aggrieved (the Palestinians) have struck back at Israel through acts of terror. It is wrong. Why does not matter

Nah man. This post here is super wrong. What do you think should an oppressed group do to protect themselves and their future? Sit and pray and wait until they are annihilated?🤡

 

[Roo]

Nah man. This post here is super wrong. What do you think should an oppressed group do to protect themselves and their future? Sit and pray and wait until they are annihilated?🤡

not killing civilians is one thing

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

I agreed with his point on the Israel casualties. I don't agree about evil. Still, a rare gem from C4N.

What is even a 'casualty'? You mean a person that was killed?

 

[Okamakama]

Why tho? Legal systems are corrupted and those with the best lawyers win anyways.

I don't think so.

Nah man. This post here is super wrong. What do you think should an oppressed group do to protect themselves and their future? Sit and pray and wait until they are annihilated?🤡

I respect the rule of law as I do not agree with anarchy (it is not a better alternative). Vigilantism will cause more pain and suffering. To eliminate all injustice is impossible, but we can hope to minimize it.

You're free to disagree.

I never said I couldn't understand why. I think it's evil, but I know people will fight for what they think is right. Doesn't make them less monstrous.

Post automatically merged: Oct 24, 2023

What is even a 'casualty'? You mean a person that was killed?

Casualty -- victims -- those who died, were injured, kidnapped, etc etc. There were innocent civilians who were attacked. That should have been avoided.

I don't disagree with war on principle. Hamas should have attacked the IDF if they believe so much in their ideology. Not the civilians.

 

[Logiko]

But isnt that his point though? That they are monsters? Doesnt matter how they became like that if the point is just that they are

Yes, you are right, bad language habit, I shouldn't call them monster in the first place. Just murderers.

The dehumanization is problematic coming from me or anyone else.

I believe in objective evil. If found guilty of the most heinous of crimes in a court of law (very important), then I do think that it should be allowed. It is not on the individual to administer that punishment.

This would simply allow murder.

We don't reply to atrocity with more atrocity.

I think bad things can make people into monsters, but once they become monsters they are evil.

I shouldn't have call them monster in the first place. No one should be dehumanized. And no one is evil.

I don't agree. Not about the kid beating, but the concept of power being the most contributing factor. It's oppression politics and runs on intersectionality which is a divisive ideology. Law should be objective.

Neutrality is the mother of injustice.
Yes we should be objective. But objectivity means understanding WHO has the POWER. Only fool think that someone shooting rocks should be gun down with a pistol. In EVERY CONFLICT we must look at the power. This is a basic principle in understanding geopolitic and conflict diplomacy in general.

People become evil once they commit evil

No, they just do evil things. Becoming evil is only the discourse of someone that believe in divine essentialism. This isn't reality.

The Soviet revolution resulted in mass starvation and eventual tyranny. That is just one example.

The system is flawed, the people are not evil. They only do evil things. (which should not even be called "evil" in the first place. "bad" is more appropriate.

Which is what both the Palestinians AND the Israelites are doing to each other.

Not at all. You are completely ignoring delibarately or not the disymetry of the conflict here.

Again, WHO HAS THE POWER ?

The result is proof that you can come out of it without becoming a monster, no?

Possible, but very unlikely if noone is here for you or you have no hope of coming back.

 

[NAMELESS]

I agreed with his point on the Israel casualties. I don't agree about evil. Still, a rare gem from C4N.

I don't agree with "nobody is evil " take,but the rest is pretty spot on.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

I respect the rule of law as I do not agree with anarchy (it is not a better alternative). Vigilantism will cause more pain and suffering. To eliminate all injustice is impossible, but we can hope to minimize it.

Where is the court of law that can and will punish international war crimes? Most war crimes go unpunished.

Casualty -- victims -- those who died, were injured, kidnapped, etc etc. There were innocent civilians who were attacked. That should have been avoided.

Yes but using the word casualty sounds dehumanizing. That's still people we're talking about

 

[Roo]

The whole power imbalance argument can only take you so far. The Rwanda genocide was partially driven by the idea that one ethnic group had been oppressing the other for so long.

That type of language justifies almost any atrocities in the name of “justice”

 

[Logiko]

The whole power imbalance argument can only take you so far. The Rwanda genocide was partially driven by the idea that one ethnic group had been oppressing the other for so long.

That type of language justifies almost any atrocities in the name of “justice”

If you have the power to commit a genocide, then you are in power. Simple.

 

[Okamakama]

Possible, but very unlikely if noone is here for you or you have no hope of coming back.

A lot of our differences lie in our ideologies, so I will not spend my time arguing each point. We can agree to disagree.

However, on this point? I dragged myself out. I made a life for myself. I worked hard. Worked on a lot of my problems. This is not to self-aggrandize, just to point out that it's not impossible. In fact, it feels like a movement of the goal posts. First it's "tragedy makes you do evil," and now it's "tragedy makes you evil if nobody is there to stop you." No. You always have a choice. I made mine. Hamas terrorists made theirs.

Where is the court of law that can and will punish international war crimes? Most war crimes go unpunished.

Yes but using the word casualty sounds dehumanizing. That's still people we're talking about

I agree with the first point. I wish we had one.

As for the second part, eh, not particularly. I was just trying to classify a group that was impacted. I feel it's no different than calling the Palestinians who have been killed 'victims' which so many are happy to call them. However, in the interest of sensitivity: The Israeli PEOPLE who were injured, killed, kidnapped, etc.

 

[Zenos7]

Shit logic

Me explaining another posters point is shit logic? Or his point is shit logic?

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

The whole power imbalance argument can only take you so far. The Rwanda genocide was partially driven by the idea that one ethnic group had been oppressing the other for so long.

That type of language justifies almost any atrocities in the name of “justice”

Now you're making this up and cherry picking people's argumens.
Explaining and understanding how a conflict came to be does not mean justifying anything.

 

[Roo]

If you have the power to commit a genocide, then you are in power. Simple.

Issue with your statement is that the Tutsi did have power until they were targeted by the Hutu. It’s no secret colonial powers preferred them

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

I dragged myself out. I made a life for myself. I worked hard. Worked on a lot of my problems. This is not to self-aggrandize, just to point out that it's not impossible.

''Me,me,I,me, myself and I''

You always have a choice. I made mine. Hamas terrorists made theirs.

Things change fundamentally when you fight for more people than yourself

 

[Zenos7]

What do you think should an oppressed group do to protect themselves and their future?

Fight the oppressors, not random civilians though.

Just like with the riot topic we had couple weeks ago, that kinda shit will just make the entire movement look worse in the process

Post automatically merged: Oct 24, 2023

not killing civilians is one thing

^

 

[Okamakama]

Now you're making this up and cherry picking people's argumens.
Explaining and understanding how a conflict came to be does not mean justifying anything.

Not really. He's pointing out something that those who disagree with his ideology think. It's an excuse for vigilante acts and evil crimes in the name of justice.

For example, a black man from the middle class told me that I "could never understand poverty and should just be quiet on the issue because I'm white," which was just ridiculous. Not only is poverty a class issue, but it's just stupid logic. People use their positions as "the oppressed" to bludgeon others. It's evident. It doesn't always happen, but you cannot ignore that there are malicious actors.

 

[Roo]

Now you're making this up and cherry picking people's argumens.
Explaining and understanding how a conflict came to be does not mean justifying anything.

I am not cherry picking, C4N doesn’t seek to only explain. Whenever the atrocities are brought up he likes to caveat with a “but Palestinians are the ones oppresses”

his world view is an entire oppression Olympics, and that can be dangerous.

 

[Zenos7]

Yes, you are right, bad language habit, I shouldn't call them monster in the first place. Just murderers.

Whatever you wanna call them. You call them murderers, he calls them evil for being murderers.

 

[Logiko]

However, on this point? I dragged myself out. I made a life for myself. I worked hard. Worked on a lot of my problems. This is not to self-aggrandize, just to point out that it's not impossible.

Indeed, but you had the chance not to be under bombing during this process or under occupation and oppression.. Far from me to compare the two situation but in this case, this is uncomparable.

Issue with your statement is that the Tutsi did have power until they were targeted by the Hutu. It’s no secret colonial powers preferred them

In those cases, a third party must intervene. And once you get the power, you must forfeit your right to an equal responce.

 

[Okamakama]

''Me,me,I,me, myself and I''

You done now? You're acting like a child. I was speaking my own anecdotal evidence and why I think he is wrong. I'll speak in the third person from now on.