No, that’s the scary thing about ideology. Nearly anyone can be convinced to become a killer. Psychopathy isn’t required.
A psychopath can kill a child and be fully cognizant of their innocence and humanity. They know it’s wrong and just don’t care. That’s not what most are doing.
Ideology acts as a buffer, so these occupation soldiers don’t even acknowledge the children as innocent or human. Just “animals” - the soldiers truly don’t believe they’re doing anything wrong.
They all deserve to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they aren’t psychopaths. They’re just like us and you have to reconcile with that.
I guess I can’t argue that they’re shitty people, cuz like, they are. That kinda dodges my point about ideology, though! They’re normal people and that’s what’s scary about fascism - they grew up learning to hate Palestinians and dehumanize them, and now they’re acting on what they learned.
I guess part of my stance is that my definition of a “shitty person” includes those who would rather outsource their thinking to someone else, whether that’s a political, religious, or some other figure. Although a lot of that does get down to good education (whether formal or not), which not everybody has access to. Even with my relatively privileged upbringing I’ve had to unlearn a lot of crap over the years, and not everybody has that luxury.
Ideology is actually an internalized process. They think for themselves, they aren’t just mindless fascist zombies, but their ideology makes their thinking take this shape. It would certainly require a lot of unlearning!
Also, their ideology acts as a shield against the trauma of their own actions. Someone who snipes children needs that ideology to survive, because without it they’d likely kill themselves (or frag a superior officer, like sometimes happens when soldiers empathize with civilian victims)
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot be easily duplicated by a normal, kindly family man who just comes into work every day and has a job to do.
For what it’s worth the Stanford Prison Experiment was basically a lie. More than merely suffering from psychology’s massive replication crisis (which is enough of a problem on its own), the study was heavily manipulated by those conducting it in order to get the outcome they wanted. Its outcomes really shouldn’t be pointed to as evidence of anything.
As far as I know Milgram is still good and successfully reproducible, however.
The best defense against Nazism is to recognize that Nazis were ordinary people like ourselves. The scary thing about Nazism is not that Nazis were unusual monsters but that they were not. No society is immune to fascism, and no person can be sure they are. The same goes for military brutality and war crimes. The people who do it are for the most part like us, not unusual psychopaths.
Fair, but that argument stops working when it’s a large portion of a society. Our understandings of right and wrong are somewhat a social construct, and so subject to social change. All it really requires is a variation of ‘us v them’ mentality for most people to accept it as fact.
that argument stops working when it’s a large portion of a society.
Not the person you responded to, but I’d disagree with that. I’d say that if a large portion of a society can be said to be insane, then that doesn’t change the standard for sanity - it just means that the society itself is insane.
Our understandings of right and wrong are somewhat a social construct, and so subject to social change.
Only reasonably within a particular range. There are points beyond which societal notions of right and wrong become self-defeating, and thus irrational at best.
For instance, if one holds that the killing of innocents is such an egregious wrong that it justifies the killing of innocents, then one has created a closed loop in which every purportedly justified killing in turn becomes a wrong that purportedly justifies the next killing, which in turn becomes a wrong that purportedly justifies the next killing, and so on, endlessly.
That’s rather obviously irrational at best, and arguably insane, since it justifies that which it condemns and condemns that which it justifies. And that’s the case entirely regardless of how many or how few people believe it.
Have you considered the possibility that the majority of people are shitty and/or psychopaths?
Like most people will hear about companies using child slaves in impoverished countries and the biggest reaction is what, a boycott? Even that’s a minority of people, most just keep on truckin’ as if we don’t live in a disgusting fucked up world.
When’s the last time you heard about that Apple factory where people were regularly committing suicide? Why does Nestlé still exist despite widespread public knowledge of all the horrible shit they’ve pulled?
I’d argue that if ANY ideology can convince you it’s ok to shoot children in the head, you’re already a shitty person and/or psychopath.
No, that’s the scary thing about ideology. Nearly anyone can be convinced to become a killer. Psychopathy isn’t required.
A psychopath can kill a child and be fully cognizant of their innocence and humanity. They know it’s wrong and just don’t care. That’s not what most are doing.
Ideology acts as a buffer, so these occupation soldiers don’t even acknowledge the children as innocent or human. Just “animals” - the soldiers truly don’t believe they’re doing anything wrong.
They all deserve to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they aren’t psychopaths. They’re just like us and you have to reconcile with that.
Yeah you’re not wrong, that’s why I put the “and/or”.
I guess I can’t argue that they’re shitty people, cuz like, they are. That kinda dodges my point about ideology, though! They’re normal people and that’s what’s scary about fascism - they grew up learning to hate Palestinians and dehumanize them, and now they’re acting on what they learned.
They need deprogramming. Preferably in prison.
I guess part of my stance is that my definition of a “shitty person” includes those who would rather outsource their thinking to someone else, whether that’s a political, religious, or some other figure. Although a lot of that does get down to good education (whether formal or not), which not everybody has access to. Even with my relatively privileged upbringing I’ve had to unlearn a lot of crap over the years, and not everybody has that luxury.
Ideology is actually an internalized process. They think for themselves, they aren’t just mindless fascist zombies, but their ideology makes their thinking take this shape. It would certainly require a lot of unlearning!
Also, their ideology acts as a shield against the trauma of their own actions. Someone who snipes children needs that ideology to survive, because without it they’d likely kill themselves (or frag a superior officer, like sometimes happens when soldiers empathize with civilian victims)
Human history begs to differ on that
You should read about the Milgram Experiments. And the Stanford Prison Experiment.
For what it’s worth the Stanford Prison Experiment was basically a lie. More than merely suffering from psychology’s massive replication crisis (which is enough of a problem on its own), the study was heavily manipulated by those conducting it in order to get the outcome they wanted. Its outcomes really shouldn’t be pointed to as evidence of anything.
As far as I know Milgram is still good and successfully reproducible, however.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Stanford Prison Experiment was basically a lie
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The best defense against Nazism is to recognize that Nazis were ordinary people like ourselves. The scary thing about Nazism is not that Nazis were unusual monsters but that they were not. No society is immune to fascism, and no person can be sure they are. The same goes for military brutality and war crimes. The people who do it are for the most part like us, not unusual psychopaths.
Fair, but that argument stops working when it’s a large portion of a society. Our understandings of right and wrong are somewhat a social construct, and so subject to social change. All it really requires is a variation of ‘us v them’ mentality for most people to accept it as fact.
Not the person you responded to, but I’d disagree with that. I’d say that if a large portion of a society can be said to be insane, then that doesn’t change the standard for sanity - it just means that the society itself is insane.
Only reasonably within a particular range. There are points beyond which societal notions of right and wrong become self-defeating, and thus irrational at best.
For instance, if one holds that the killing of innocents is such an egregious wrong that it justifies the killing of innocents, then one has created a closed loop in which every purportedly justified killing in turn becomes a wrong that purportedly justifies the next killing, which in turn becomes a wrong that purportedly justifies the next killing, and so on, endlessly.
That’s rather obviously irrational at best, and arguably insane, since it justifies that which it condemns and condemns that which it justifies. And that’s the case entirely regardless of how many or how few people believe it.
Have you considered the possibility that the majority of people are shitty and/or psychopaths?
Like most people will hear about companies using child slaves in impoverished countries and the biggest reaction is what, a boycott? Even that’s a minority of people, most just keep on truckin’ as if we don’t live in a disgusting fucked up world.
When’s the last time you heard about that Apple factory where people were regularly committing suicide? Why does Nestlé still exist despite widespread public knowledge of all the horrible shit they’ve pulled?
Bruh, that sound like either projection or very bad place you live in.