4 ms·

> They probably saw themselves as being able to, in the long run, save far more people and create a greater, safer, and healthier society for everybody It's ea

by LanceH 2y ago

> They probably saw themselves as being able to, in the long run, save far more people and create a greater, safer, and healthier society for everybody It's easy to view this as bad in this article's case, but nobody views their version of getting to play god when it comes to politics so long as their side is in charge. And the funny thing about this statement is how volatile a reaction it will get from both sides who think assume I'm supporting one or the other.

lupusreal 2y ago
> It's easy to view this as bad in this article's case, but nobody views their version of getting to play god when it comes to politics so long as their side is in charge This is just lazy rhetoric. Some political groups go murder crazy as soon as they gain power, while others don't. Obviously not everybody is equally bad as everybody else.
- DFHippie 2y ago
  Yes, and the more you convince people that everyone is equally bad, the more you empower bad actors. If there is no profit in being good and there is profit in being bad, being good is for suckers. If everyone's a thief, you'd better start stealing. Otherwise you're just a victim.
  - jonathanlydall 2y ago
    In fantasy arguments I have in my head about someone justifying their bad behaviour with “but everyone does it”, my reply would be, “most people I know don’t do it, so it’s definitely not everyone, just people like you”.
    - DFHippie 2y ago
      "Everyone does it" translates to "I don't think I will suffer consequences from doing it". It's a justification based on self-interest, not ethics. It looks like they are applying a version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, which is roughly "what if everyone did it?" The justifier is saying everyone does do it and everything is fine. The proof is in the pudding. But as you say, if literally everyone did it, they wouldn't be having this conversation with you. So what they mean by "everyone" is "enough people that I'm safe".
- LanceH 2y ago
  > Some political groups go murder crazy as soon as they gain power, while others don't. Obviously not everybody is equally bad as everybody else. This is just lazy rhetoric and ignores what I said. Both sides of the aisle in the US right now want to be in charge. The right is popularly portrayed as crazy, but the left has a strong authoritarian streak as well -- and they justify the restriction of rights because they will get it right -- this time, of course. I'm not even going to start a discussion of which one is worse, they are both authoritarian and bad. Both sides view their version of playing god as correct. Neither side seems to take a view of stepping back and letting people be on their own -- refusing to use force of government to impose their plans on the people.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    You didn't say "both American parties", so I didn't ignore that.

by LanceH 2y ago

lupusreal 2y ago

> It's easy to view this as bad in this article's case, but nobody views their version of getting to play god when it comes to politics so long as their side is in charge This is just lazy rhetoric. Some political groups go murder crazy as soon as they gain power, while others don't. Obviously not everybody is equally bad as everybody else.

DFHippie 2y ago
Yes, and the more you convince people that everyone is equally bad, the more you empower bad actors. If there is no profit in being good and there is profit in being bad, being good is for suckers. If everyone's a thief, you'd better start stealing. Otherwise you're just a victim.
- jonathanlydall 2y ago
  In fantasy arguments I have in my head about someone justifying their bad behaviour with “but everyone does it”, my reply would be, “most people I know don’t do it, so it’s definitely not everyone, just people like you”.
  - DFHippie 2y ago
    "Everyone does it" translates to "I don't think I will suffer consequences from doing it". It's a justification based on self-interest, not ethics. It looks like they are applying a version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, which is roughly "what if everyone did it?" The justifier is saying everyone does do it and everything is fine. The proof is in the pudding. But as you say, if literally everyone did it, they wouldn't be having this conversation with you. So what they mean by "everyone" is "enough people that I'm safe".
LanceH 2y ago
> Some political groups go murder crazy as soon as they gain power, while others don't. Obviously not everybody is equally bad as everybody else. This is just lazy rhetoric and ignores what I said. Both sides of the aisle in the US right now want to be in charge. The right is popularly portrayed as crazy, but the left has a strong authoritarian streak as well -- and they justify the restriction of rights because they will get it right -- this time, of course. I'm not even going to start a discussion of which one is worse, they are both authoritarian and bad. Both sides view their version of playing god as correct. Neither side seems to take a view of stepping back and letting people be on their own -- refusing to use force of government to impose their plans on the people.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  You didn't say "both American parties", so I didn't ignore that.