4 ms·
I don't think it would be a hugely wrong to say both ends of the spectrum think they're "outside" of the normal world. Their world has different rules and moral
by waihtis 6y ago
I don't think it would be a hugely wrong to say both ends of the spectrum think they're "outside" of the normal world. Their world has different rules and morals and thus they would be executing along those.
In their world, you're the one who needs to ask if you're crazy agreeing living your life while agreeing to conditions X,Y, and Z.
[amrchair psychology disclosure]
- aww_dang 6y agoThe willingness to use violence against people or property seems like it would be a further leap. Operating outside of the mainstream ideologies isn't necessarily a slippery slope. Reasonable people should be able to disagree without using violence.
- dempseye 6y agoDo you believe, by extension from this, that states are governed by unreasonable people, and that if they were reasonable war would never be necessary?
- aww_dang 6y agoUnreasonable or perhaps immoral? If we start from the premise that the state is defined as an institution monopolizing violence, then it stands to reason that one or the other is true. If the ends justify the means and the morality of the methods used are irrelevant, then perhaps we can say that the state generally or wars specifically are rational. These are questions of absolutism, which is fine in theory, but in practice we need to make room for pragmatism. But back to the specific context of the article, the use of violence against an Amazon datacenter seems unreasonable. It fails a basic sanity check. The individual undoubtedly could have chosen other non-violent methods to express himself.