8 ms·

idk how to tell you this in a way you'll listen to but doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad.

purec 6y ago
You can't use "good intentions" to justify horrific actions.
- 8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
  ya man what they did to that target was an atrocity lol someone call the hague
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  The idea that you can do so is pretty fundamental in politics. It's how the federal government justified the US Civil War, for example, and how the Founding Fathers justified a lot of things that tend to get glossed over in grade school history books. The debate ultimately hinges on sympathies. For someone who wholeheartedly supports BLM, the riots might be regarded as something that was regrettable, but also understandable. In the words of Martin Luther King, "A riot is the language of the unheard." The observation also works in the direction of the Capitol insurrection. The rioters were there because they believed that their opinion on the election was not being heard. Deciding which group had more grounds to be angry is left as an exercise for the reader.
a-posteriori 6y ago
Violence is categorically bad, regardless of what the intentions are. Referring to violence as "doing things" purposely avoids recognizing this.
- bananabreakfast 6y ago
  The BLM protests were explicitly non-violent. The riots that broke out were swiftly condemned and not supported by any organizing group. At no point did any leader express any kind of approval of violence. And most importantly, no one told the rioters that they love them and that they are special.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Agreed. Additionally, it's important to recognize that "peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive -- but they were explicitly non-violent.
    - loveistheanswer 6y ago
      >"peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive peaceful: 1. free from disturbance; tranquil. 2. not involving war or violence.
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        Yes, thank you for agreeing. There are two different definitions, and the first (free from disturbance) is the one used in this context. The protests aimed to be non peaceful (eg, causing disturbance) and non violent.
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        The protests were neither free of disturbance nor non violent (on the fringe)
  - djrogers 6y ago
    I'm sorry, but that's revisionist history. Ariel Atkins - Chicago BLM leader: "That is reparations,” Ariel Atkins, an organizer, told NBC Chicago. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it" She said that about a riot in which 13 police officers were injured, and at least one rioter fired at police. This is just one example of many where BLM leaders justified (or glorified) violence.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Violence is not categorically bad, I don't think. Rarely, violence is necessary in self defense. It might be the option of last resort, but sometimes violence can stop worse consequences. I'm not justifying any particular actions that anyone has taken in specific, just objecting to the categorization that it is always bad. (For example, someone suffering from domestic violence might strike back in an effort to escape.)
  - d0100 6y ago
    It doesn't matter if violence is necessary, it is still bad
    - makeworld 6y ago
      What does this mean? If something is necessary, is it not justifiable? If it is justifiable, how can it be bad?
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  If we're saying all violence is categorically bad, I guess you'll want to abolish the military and the police, too, right?
- btamadio 6y ago
  Violence is not categorically bad. Violence is a tactic that is sometimes necessary and sometimes good. For example if you are being attacked, it is completely justifiable to defend yourself, violently if necessary.
trident5000 6y ago
You do realize that everyone has their own opinion on what is good and bad right? I cant believe how naive this statement is.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Golly it's just so hard to know who to trust. The crowds protesting racial injustice and police brutality? Or the literal, self identifying nazis, white supremacists, and cultish conspiracy theorists trying to kill political leaders. Alas our moral non cognizance in a post modern perspective. edit: to the below, really, no. There's no hyperbole. If your group features nazis, and your group is not making every effort to expel associations with said nazis, your group is, at best, nazi adjacent. Nazis are the hyperbolic euphemism of peak historical immorality. It is preposterous that anyone feels they're making a good faith argument throwing whatabout comparisons when the starting point is nazis.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Another issue is how any individual frames either side and bases good and bad off of that, often using hyperbole, inaccuracies, wide brushes of their opposing views. Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot. “My group” I didnt know I was in a group. You certainly seem to assume a lot and form knee jerk conclusions. Actually proving my point quite well.
    - multjoy 6y ago
      The ‘Camp Auschwitz’ hoody and the “6MWE” (6 million Jews wasn’t enough) not enough of a signpost for you?
      - trident5000 6y ago
        Continuing to prove my point. "wide brushes of their opposing views" Thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a nazi because you saw a a guy with a t-shirt is something stupid people do.
RobRivera 6y ago
from my point of view, the jedi are evil
pjc50 6y ago
Hacker news seems to really struggle with this, partly because there are still Trump supporters here somehow.
- chillingeffect 6y ago
  > somehow Computing has long been an interplay of curious, light-hearted hacker types and business/military types. e.g. Woz/Yannes/Stoll/Stallman and Jobs/DARPA/Musk/Thiel. I don't think the values of skill, sacrifice, daring, and greed (sorry if that offends anyone) that roughly underlie HN are effective filters to remove Trump values. In fact, they move the needle toward the business/military side. HN appreciates the fun hacks, but, by design, amplifies the business side.
refurb 6y ago
“The ends justify the means”?
imgabe 6y ago
Yeah, I'm sure the guy burning down someone's small business and looting television sets was doing it with the intention that it would stop police brutality.
seneca 6y ago
> doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad. "Things are justified because I support them or unjustified because I don't support them". This is how children and narcissists think. Reality is that a lot of arguments are really this with a layer or two of post-hoc justification though. I can't tell if this post was meant as a joke, but if it wasn't it's either impressively self-aware or completely and utterly lacking self-awareness.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

purec 6y ago

You can't use "good intentions" to justify horrific actions.

8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
ya man what they did to that target was an atrocity lol someone call the hague
mumblemumble 6y ago
The idea that you can do so is pretty fundamental in politics. It's how the federal government justified the US Civil War, for example, and how the Founding Fathers justified a lot of things that tend to get glossed over in grade school history books. The debate ultimately hinges on sympathies. For someone who wholeheartedly supports BLM, the riots might be regarded as something that was regrettable, but also understandable. In the words of Martin Luther King, "A riot is the language of the unheard." The observation also works in the direction of the Capitol insurrection. The rioters were there because they believed that their opinion on the election was not being heard. Deciding which group had more grounds to be angry is left as an exercise for the reader.

a-posteriori 6y ago

Violence is categorically bad, regardless of what the intentions are. Referring to violence as "doing things" purposely avoids recognizing this.

bananabreakfast 6y ago
The BLM protests were explicitly non-violent. The riots that broke out were swiftly condemned and not supported by any organizing group. At no point did any leader express any kind of approval of violence. And most importantly, no one told the rioters that they love them and that they are special.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Agreed. Additionally, it's important to recognize that "peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive -- but they were explicitly non-violent.
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    >"peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive peaceful: 1. free from disturbance; tranquil. 2. not involving war or violence.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Yes, thank you for agreeing. There are two different definitions, and the first (free from disturbance) is the one used in this context. The protests aimed to be non peaceful (eg, causing disturbance) and non violent.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        The protests were neither free of disturbance nor non violent (on the fringe)
- djrogers 6y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's revisionist history. Ariel Atkins - Chicago BLM leader: "That is reparations,” Ariel Atkins, an organizer, told NBC Chicago. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it" She said that about a riot in which 13 police officers were injured, and at least one rioter fired at police. This is just one example of many where BLM leaders justified (or glorified) violence.
Pfhreak 6y ago
Violence is not categorically bad, I don't think. Rarely, violence is necessary in self defense. It might be the option of last resort, but sometimes violence can stop worse consequences. I'm not justifying any particular actions that anyone has taken in specific, just objecting to the categorization that it is always bad. (For example, someone suffering from domestic violence might strike back in an effort to escape.)
- d0100 6y ago
  It doesn't matter if violence is necessary, it is still bad
  - makeworld 6y ago
    What does this mean? If something is necessary, is it not justifiable? If it is justifiable, how can it be bad?
cmrdporcupine 6y ago
If we're saying all violence is categorically bad, I guess you'll want to abolish the military and the police, too, right?
btamadio 6y ago
Violence is not categorically bad. Violence is a tactic that is sometimes necessary and sometimes good. For example if you are being attacked, it is completely justifiable to defend yourself, violently if necessary.

trident5000 6y ago

You do realize that everyone has their own opinion on what is good and bad right? I cant believe how naive this statement is.

klmadfejno 6y ago
Golly it's just so hard to know who to trust. The crowds protesting racial injustice and police brutality? Or the literal, self identifying nazis, white supremacists, and cultish conspiracy theorists trying to kill political leaders. Alas our moral non cognizance in a post modern perspective. edit: to the below, really, no. There's no hyperbole. If your group features nazis, and your group is not making every effort to expel associations with said nazis, your group is, at best, nazi adjacent. Nazis are the hyperbolic euphemism of peak historical immorality. It is preposterous that anyone feels they're making a good faith argument throwing whatabout comparisons when the starting point is nazis.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Another issue is how any individual frames either side and bases good and bad off of that, often using hyperbole, inaccuracies, wide brushes of their opposing views. Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot. “My group” I didnt know I was in a group. You certainly seem to assume a lot and form knee jerk conclusions. Actually proving my point quite well.
  - multjoy 6y ago
    The ‘Camp Auschwitz’ hoody and the “6MWE” (6 million Jews wasn’t enough) not enough of a signpost for you?
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Continuing to prove my point. "wide brushes of their opposing views" Thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a nazi because you saw a a guy with a t-shirt is something stupid people do.

RobRivera 6y ago

from my point of view, the jedi are evil

pjc50 6y ago

Hacker news seems to really struggle with this, partly because there are still Trump supporters here somehow.

chillingeffect 6y ago
> somehow Computing has long been an interplay of curious, light-hearted hacker types and business/military types. e.g. Woz/Yannes/Stoll/Stallman and Jobs/DARPA/Musk/Thiel. I don't think the values of skill, sacrifice, daring, and greed (sorry if that offends anyone) that roughly underlie HN are effective filters to remove Trump values. In fact, they move the needle toward the business/military side. HN appreciates the fun hacks, but, by design, amplifies the business side.

refurb 6y ago

“The ends justify the means”?

imgabe 6y ago

Yeah, I'm sure the guy burning down someone's small business and looting television sets was doing it with the intention that it would stop police brutality.

seneca 6y ago

> doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad. "Things are justified because I support them or unjustified because I don't support them". This is how children and narcissists think. Reality is that a lot of arguments are really this with a layer or two of post-hoc justification though. I can't tell if this post was meant as a joke, but if it wasn't it's either impressively self-aware or completely and utterly lacking self-awareness.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]