4 ms·

Someone who says there's no good and evil has never experienced the presence of evil. That's a form of privilege that rarely gets discussed. There are some pe

Someone who says there's no good and evil has never experienced the presence of evil. That's a form of privilege that rarely gets discussed. There are some people the world is objectively better off without. The issue of course is who gets to decide that, and under what circumstances. But there's no denying that violence, properly applied, can solve many problems very efficiently. I was quite relieved when Rush Limbaugh died, for example. I will feel a great deal of relief when Putin and Xi eventually kick the bucket. I feel no need to piss on their graves, but only because I have better things to do.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> There are some people the world is objectively better off without. “Better” is always subjective, so this is false. > The issue of course is who gets to decide that This is an issue exactly because better is always subjective.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  If you zoom out far enough reality itself is logically subjective. And you can sit still and starve yourself secure in the knowledge that you have logically derived truth and you're not actually hungry, it's just a bunch of chemical signals that signify nothing of importance. From a more practical perspective, we can all agree that there are more and less desirable states of human life, and that is the context where the term "objectively" is used in common parlance. I reject your nihilism and substitute my subjective values as a superior model.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > If you zoom out far enough reality itself is logically subjective Maybe, but value is subjective even when you zoom in. > I reject your nihilism and substitute my subjective values as a superior model. I never expressed nihilism, I stated that values are subjective, and describing them as objective is incorrect and obscures the source of the practical problem you yourself described with implementing them.
    - scottLobster 4y ago
      I guess no one should ever user the term "objective" when referring to anything that interfaces with morality then? If I say "curing cancer is an objective good for humanity", you'd wag your finger and call me out there as well? There is no pink, only salmon. Got it.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > I guess no one should ever user the term "objective" when referring to anything that interfaces with morality then? Correct, they should not. Where the statement without “objective” is uncontroversial and the discussion touches on nothing else to which objectivity vs. subjectivity is important, it adds nothing but pointless inaccuracy, when the claim is controversial or offered in a context where objectivity vs subjectivity actually matters in some other way, it is harmfully misleading.
mjr00 4y ago
> There are some people the world is objectively better off without... I was quite relieved when Rush Limbaugh died, for example. I will feel a great deal of relief when Putin and Xi eventually kick the bucket. There's nothing "objective" about this at all--this is an extremely Western/US-centric view of the world. Most of China does not consider Xi Jinping an evil person who the world would objectively be better off without.
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  > Most of China does not consider Xi Jinping an evil person who the world would objectively be better off without. I'm not sure we have any data on this either way. Most of China doesn't feel like they have the freedom to say anything negative about Xi in any sort of public or recorded way so taking a poll on Xi in China isn't likely to give you a true picture of how people there actually feel about him.
  - mjr00 4y ago
    You could just, you know... talk to people. I've spent a lot of time in Korea/Japan and in both of those countries Xi is not hyped up to be evil despot that Western media makes him out to be. There's a very good reason why American media specifically tries to make China seem like an evil empire, and it has to do more with data collection from undersea cables and owning the world's reserve currency than it does good or evil. If Xi is pure evil, you should be worried about how much investment American companies are receiving from evil CCP-affiliated entities, as well as how much money gets America is spending on evil CCP-sponsored manufacturing...
    - letmevoteplease 4y ago
      Pew found that, as of 2020, 84% of Japanese respondents and 83% of South Korean respondents have "no confidence in Xi to do the right thing regarding world affairs," compared to 77% of US respondents.[1] [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/pg_2020-10-06_global-views-china_0-03/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-vi...
unsupp0rted 4y ago
> I was quite relieved when Rush Limbaugh died, for example. Sure, and I can be relieved too when specific people, who cause great suffering, die and therefore stop. Relief is a different thing than taking great satisfaction in it. It's not schadenfraude I feel about their death: it's relief about having one less thing to worry about, not relief at finally getting my vengeance.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  I'd say relief and satisfaction are closely linked, arguably two facets of the same emotion. From an evolutionary perspective, it's likely those who gain at least some satisfaction from their adversary's death were more effective at eliminating threats.
  - unsupp0rted 4y ago
    > arguably two facets of the same emotion I don't think so. For example, when a family member's biopsy comes back clear, I feel relief but not satisfaction. I wonder if seen in brain chemistry and vital signs these emotions exhibit differently. I'd guess they would.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> There are some people the world is objectively better off without. “Better” is always subjective, so this is false. > The issue of course is who gets to decide that This is an issue exactly because better is always subjective.

scottLobster 4y ago
If you zoom out far enough reality itself is logically subjective. And you can sit still and starve yourself secure in the knowledge that you have logically derived truth and you're not actually hungry, it's just a bunch of chemical signals that signify nothing of importance. From a more practical perspective, we can all agree that there are more and less desirable states of human life, and that is the context where the term "objectively" is used in common parlance. I reject your nihilism and substitute my subjective values as a superior model.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > If you zoom out far enough reality itself is logically subjective Maybe, but value is subjective even when you zoom in. > I reject your nihilism and substitute my subjective values as a superior model. I never expressed nihilism, I stated that values are subjective, and describing them as objective is incorrect and obscures the source of the practical problem you yourself described with implementing them.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    I guess no one should ever user the term "objective" when referring to anything that interfaces with morality then? If I say "curing cancer is an objective good for humanity", you'd wag your finger and call me out there as well? There is no pink, only salmon. Got it.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > I guess no one should ever user the term "objective" when referring to anything that interfaces with morality then? Correct, they should not. Where the statement without “objective” is uncontroversial and the discussion touches on nothing else to which objectivity vs. subjectivity is important, it adds nothing but pointless inaccuracy, when the claim is controversial or offered in a context where objectivity vs subjectivity actually matters in some other way, it is harmfully misleading.

mjr00 4y ago

> There are some people the world is objectively better off without... I was quite relieved when Rush Limbaugh died, for example. I will feel a great deal of relief when Putin and Xi eventually kick the bucket. There's nothing "objective" about this at all--this is an extremely Western/US-centric view of the world. Most of China does not consider Xi Jinping an evil person who the world would objectively be better off without.

UncleOxidant 4y ago
> Most of China does not consider Xi Jinping an evil person who the world would objectively be better off without. I'm not sure we have any data on this either way. Most of China doesn't feel like they have the freedom to say anything negative about Xi in any sort of public or recorded way so taking a poll on Xi in China isn't likely to give you a true picture of how people there actually feel about him.
- mjr00 4y ago
  You could just, you know... talk to people. I've spent a lot of time in Korea/Japan and in both of those countries Xi is not hyped up to be evil despot that Western media makes him out to be. There's a very good reason why American media specifically tries to make China seem like an evil empire, and it has to do more with data collection from undersea cables and owning the world's reserve currency than it does good or evil. If Xi is pure evil, you should be worried about how much investment American companies are receiving from evil CCP-affiliated entities, as well as how much money gets America is spending on evil CCP-sponsored manufacturing...
  - letmevoteplease 4y ago
    Pew found that, as of 2020, 84% of Japanese respondents and 83% of South Korean respondents have "no confidence in Xi to do the right thing regarding world affairs," compared to 77% of US respondents.[1] [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/pg_2020-10-06_global-views-china_0-03/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-vi...

unsupp0rted 4y ago

> I was quite relieved when Rush Limbaugh died, for example. Sure, and I can be relieved too when specific people, who cause great suffering, die and therefore stop. Relief is a different thing than taking great satisfaction in it. It's not schadenfraude I feel about their death: it's relief about having one less thing to worry about, not relief at finally getting my vengeance.

scottLobster 4y ago
I'd say relief and satisfaction are closely linked, arguably two facets of the same emotion. From an evolutionary perspective, it's likely those who gain at least some satisfaction from their adversary's death were more effective at eliminating threats.
- unsupp0rted 4y ago
  > arguably two facets of the same emotion I don't think so. For example, when a family member's biopsy comes back clear, I feel relief but not satisfaction. I wonder if seen in brain chemistry and vital signs these emotions exhibit differently. I'd guess they would.