4 ms·

> basically their worldview is that they're ripping off some first-world asshole who would be just as happy to destroy the scammers own country if it could make

> basically their worldview is that they're ripping off some first-world asshole who would be just as happy to destroy the scammers own country if it could make the cost of consumer goods slightly lower. I happened to watch "The Battle of Algiers" last night and the scammers' sentiments reflect what the FLN commander Ben M'Hidi (insurgent/freedom-fighter depending on who you ask) had to say in response to questions about the civilian death toll: Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people? Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets. I must mention here that I am not taking any ideological sides, and firmly believe that killing of innocent civilians, by any party whatsoever is plain wrong. I suppose in any battle, ideological or otherwise, the actors involved come to justify their tactics as being in service of a greater, grander goal which also, at least in their minds, allows them to subvert responsibility and accountability.

mcguire 5y ago
No one is the villein in their own story.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Autocorrect strikes again? villain - antagonist; evildoer villein - peasant ranking above a serf
  - smogcutter 5y ago
    Same root thought, funnily enough. Iirc the meaning of "villain" as evildoer actually grows out of the meaning of "relatively well off villager".
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Yep. It didn't look right, but autocorrect didn't complain. Works either way, though. :-)
eloff 5y ago
One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Even Hitler and Stalin thought they were the good guys. That doesn't mean one can't make moral judgments about which side is more or less evil, just that it's hard to be impartial., and in the end of the day, like in politics, it depends on what your values are.
- trhway 5y ago
  >That doesn't mean one can't make moral judgments about which side is more or less evil, just that it's hard to be impartial one would think it would be easy - just compare counts of innocents killed by each side. Unfortunately that would frequently make a "good"(winning) side look like a bad side and so they force other and more complicated criteria like this: > it depends on what your values are.
  - sgift 5y ago
    > one would think it would be easy - just compare counts of innocents killed by each side. It would also be a very flawed measurement unless you count the innocents the "evildoers" wanted to kill. The difference between what Hitler achieved (and that's already horrible) and what he wanted to achieve is rather big.

mcguire 5y ago

No one is the villein in their own story.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
Autocorrect strikes again? villain - antagonist; evildoer villein - peasant ranking above a serf
- smogcutter 5y ago
  Same root thought, funnily enough. Iirc the meaning of "villain" as evildoer actually grows out of the meaning of "relatively well off villager".
- mcguire 5y ago
  Yep. It didn't look right, but autocorrect didn't complain. Works either way, though. :-)

eloff 5y ago

One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Even Hitler and Stalin thought they were the good guys. That doesn't mean one can't make moral judgments about which side is more or less evil, just that it's hard to be impartial., and in the end of the day, like in politics, it depends on what your values are.

trhway 5y ago
>That doesn't mean one can't make moral judgments about which side is more or less evil, just that it's hard to be impartial one would think it would be easy - just compare counts of innocents killed by each side. Unfortunately that would frequently make a "good"(winning) side look like a bad side and so they force other and more complicated criteria like this: > it depends on what your values are.
- sgift 5y ago
  > one would think it would be easy - just compare counts of innocents killed by each side. It would also be a very flawed measurement unless you count the innocents the "evildoers" wanted to kill. The difference between what Hitler achieved (and that's already horrible) and what he wanted to achieve is rather big.