5 ms·

It delivers justice. (if you've been taught to turn the other cheek you will not see why, but if you've been taught another way, you will. This is cultural and

It delivers justice. (if you've been taught to turn the other cheek you will not see why, but if you've been taught another way, you will. This is cultural and fundamental)

anthonyb 16y ago
It delivers revenge. Whether it delivers justice or not depends on the specific situation, but if you have to resort to vigilantism, probably not.
- TotlolRon 16y ago
  revenge is justice is productive. I didn't invent it. The concept of "turning the other cheek" is about 2,000 years old. The concept of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is over twice that old. They represent two different schools of thought that have been debated enough. PG introduced "turning the other cheek" as a means to resolve "the pain of having ... controversy constantly reintroduced as the top idea ..." and this is biased. There is another way to resolve the issue, it just comes from another culture. (Or in other words, it is true that "someone who does you an injury hurts you twice: first by the injury itself, and second by taking up your time afterward thinking about it.". You can "at least avoid the second half" - or - you can try and hurt them twice, no matter the cost. Culture choice.)
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Yes, yes - but it's not productive, is it? Particularly the biblical example that you gave. Suppose that I'm an evil supergenius - someone cuts me off in traffic or tells me that unitards are going out of fashion, so I use my orbiting death ray to blast the entire world into ashes. Perhaps it's assuaged my sense of injury, but at what cost? This is what happens when you use 2,000 year old fiction to support your moral choices.
    - TotlolRon 16y ago
      Now imagine you are me and this is the sugar-coated version of your story: http://www.totlol.com/t/story http://www.totlol.com/t/story
      - anthonyb 16y ago
        Good answer. It's a sad story, and I feel for you, but it's a fairly predictable outcome, particularly given the way that you were trying to make money from YouTube. There's all sorts of copyrighted content from 3rd parties, eg. Disney and others, and they'd likely sue both you and YouTube if you were to put ads up. The only part I would've changed if I were them would be to let you know upfront that you were likely to be infringing the terms of use - if not directly, then at least in spirit. But perhaps there were legal reasons not to. Back on topic, I think your situation is precisely the one that PG was talking about and where you should turn the other cheek. You basically have two options: 1) Hate Youtube, Stephanie Kuan and Google. Get bitter and twisted, stew over it for years and years, to the point where it's consuming the bulk of your waking hours. Gollum, gollum. I've seen friends who've gone down this path after being mistreated by companies, and it's not pretty. 2) Forget it - as in, completely forget it, and go on to something else. Hard to do, but you'll free up huge amounts of time for more productive things. Take a break and do consulting/day job stuff. Maybe build something cool on the side, or just rebuild your savings, ready for next time.
        TotlolRon 16y ago
        I don't have a choice. But they, still, do. (P.S - maybe I was wrong, maybe it is not a cultural bias. Maybe it is just the difference between -- cliché warning -- knowing the path and walking the path).
        anthonyb 16y ago
        You absolutely have a choice. And I've walked that path, so it's not just a meaningless platitude. There are assholes in the world (along with people who just don't care), they do fucked up things and they're not going to change. In the end, the best that you can do is distance yourself from them, both physically and mentally, and get on with your life. ps. I doubt that YouTube have much of a choice either. It's either shut you down or get sued by the content owners. I suspect that after all the work you've put in, you've lost a bit of perspective on that.
  - david927 16y ago
    revenge / eye-for-an-eye is a famous logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right It's not productive. It's not justice. It's just stupid.

It delivers justice. (if you've been taught to turn the other cheek you will not see why, but if you've been taught another way, you will. This is cultural and fundamental)

anthonyb 16y ago

It delivers revenge. Whether it delivers justice or not depends on the specific situation, but if you have to resort to vigilantism, probably not.

TotlolRon 16y ago
revenge is justice is productive. I didn't invent it. The concept of "turning the other cheek" is about 2,000 years old. The concept of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is over twice that old. They represent two different schools of thought that have been debated enough. PG introduced "turning the other cheek" as a means to resolve "the pain of having ... controversy constantly reintroduced as the top idea ..." and this is biased. There is another way to resolve the issue, it just comes from another culture. (Or in other words, it is true that "someone who does you an injury hurts you twice: first by the injury itself, and second by taking up your time afterward thinking about it.". You can "at least avoid the second half" - or - you can try and hurt them twice, no matter the cost. Culture choice.)
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Yes, yes - but it's not productive, is it? Particularly the biblical example that you gave. Suppose that I'm an evil supergenius - someone cuts me off in traffic or tells me that unitards are going out of fashion, so I use my orbiting death ray to blast the entire world into ashes. Perhaps it's assuaged my sense of injury, but at what cost? This is what happens when you use 2,000 year old fiction to support your moral choices.
  - TotlolRon 16y ago
    Now imagine you are me and this is the sugar-coated version of your story: http://www.totlol.com/t/story http://www.totlol.com/t/story
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      Good answer. It's a sad story, and I feel for you, but it's a fairly predictable outcome, particularly given the way that you were trying to make money from YouTube. There's all sorts of copyrighted content from 3rd parties, eg. Disney and others, and they'd likely sue both you and YouTube if you were to put ads up. The only part I would've changed if I were them would be to let you know upfront that you were likely to be infringing the terms of use - if not directly, then at least in spirit. But perhaps there were legal reasons not to. Back on topic, I think your situation is precisely the one that PG was talking about and where you should turn the other cheek. You basically have two options: 1) Hate Youtube, Stephanie Kuan and Google. Get bitter and twisted, stew over it for years and years, to the point where it's consuming the bulk of your waking hours. Gollum, gollum. I've seen friends who've gone down this path after being mistreated by companies, and it's not pretty. 2) Forget it - as in, completely forget it, and go on to something else. Hard to do, but you'll free up huge amounts of time for more productive things. Take a break and do consulting/day job stuff. Maybe build something cool on the side, or just rebuild your savings, ready for next time.
      - TotlolRon 16y ago
        I don't have a choice. But they, still, do. (P.S - maybe I was wrong, maybe it is not a cultural bias. Maybe it is just the difference between -- cliché warning -- knowing the path and walking the path).
        anthonyb 16y ago
        You absolutely have a choice. And I've walked that path, so it's not just a meaningless platitude. There are assholes in the world (along with people who just don't care), they do fucked up things and they're not going to change. In the end, the best that you can do is distance yourself from them, both physically and mentally, and get on with your life. ps. I doubt that YouTube have much of a choice either. It's either shut you down or get sued by the content owners. I suspect that after all the work you've put in, you've lost a bit of perspective on that.
- david927 16y ago
  revenge / eye-for-an-eye is a famous logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right It's not productive. It's not justice. It's just stupid.