4 ms·

His opinions may be credible. His methods to gain attention towards them were absolutely not. A travesty how he was treated in those medical experiments. It's

His opinions may be credible. His methods to gain attention towards them were absolutely not. A travesty how he was treated in those medical experiments. It's always tragic to find out reasons why people hurt others.

Shinma 3y ago
[flagged]
sneak 3y ago
Credible? Absolutely - I wouldn't have read his manifesto had he not systematically engaged in the premeditated slaughter of human beings. That doesn't make his methods not reprehensible.
- justinator 3y ago
  I think it's worth thinking about how climate science during the 80's and 90 s (at least) was suppressed by the very companies that were in business to profit from practices that actively harmed all life on Earth. There's rarely justice against huge multinationals. It's just business as usual. I don't condone domestic terrorism (especially with so many innocent hurt), but I also don't condone climate change denial for shareholder profit. Is that ever going to stop? Given the velocity already created, I would say: not in my lifetime.
dsego 3y ago
Would his methods be credible if he was doing it in the 40s and they were directed against nazi intelligentsia for example?
- justinator 3y ago
  LOL wut? I'm not a ChatGPT prompt - use your own critical thinking skills for your thought experiment.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- margalabargala 3y ago
  Of course they would be. Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not objective, it's collectively determined by society. As a society we have decided en masse that blowing up randomly selected people to draw attention to one's political views is not acceptable. As a society we also have decided that violent actions taken against the German government in the early 1940s were acceptable. This isn't a contradiction, nor hypocrisy, simply the ability to have nuanced opinions.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    People like Ted aren't even allowed in the room when society decides these things.

Shinma 3y ago

[flagged]

sneak 3y ago

Credible? Absolutely - I wouldn't have read his manifesto had he not systematically engaged in the premeditated slaughter of human beings. That doesn't make his methods not reprehensible.

justinator 3y ago
I think it's worth thinking about how climate science during the 80's and 90 s (at least) was suppressed by the very companies that were in business to profit from practices that actively harmed all life on Earth. There's rarely justice against huge multinationals. It's just business as usual. I don't condone domestic terrorism (especially with so many innocent hurt), but I also don't condone climate change denial for shareholder profit. Is that ever going to stop? Given the velocity already created, I would say: not in my lifetime.

dsego 3y ago

Would his methods be credible if he was doing it in the 40s and they were directed against nazi intelligentsia for example?

justinator 3y ago
LOL wut? I'm not a ChatGPT prompt - use your own critical thinking skills for your thought experiment.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
margalabargala 3y ago
Of course they would be. Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not objective, it's collectively determined by society. As a society we have decided en masse that blowing up randomly selected people to draw attention to one's political views is not acceptable. As a society we also have decided that violent actions taken against the German government in the early 1940s were acceptable. This isn't a contradiction, nor hypocrisy, simply the ability to have nuanced opinions.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  People like Ted aren't even allowed in the room when society decides these things.