Never Forget: Jack Dorsey is a commie [464x550 - 443KB]

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (29).

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

this asserts there is not a qualitive difference, let alone morally, between action and reaction.

Exactly, because everybody is the good guys, or rather, everybody is trying to come up with a narrative where they are the good guys so their conscience/morality gives then the permit to kill without a second thought essentially, that's what you're looking at; hate fueled hypocrisy. Even when they are the bad guys, that's when concepts such as "bad for the greater good" come into play

Take communists, they are the good guys. Take NATO, they are the good guys.

They are the good guys, and the others are the bad ones... From their respective point of view of course

So, no need to look for a justification for anything, such as "I got attacked first therefore I'm entitled to self defense!" No no no... That's submissive... You're merely reacting here...

And when I say "you" it's not you, I'm speaking in general

When bullets start flying at you it's completely irrelevant whether you're the good guys or not, whether you're in the right or wrong, you want to survive the rest is literature, end of story. Think of the guys who got stuck in vietnam, be him. The morality of the whole affair, and who started what, is at the bottom of your list of concerns, you'll think about that later eventually when nobody is firing at you

Edit:

In other words, the end justifies the means... Is it moral? Some say yes some say no... Depends who wins, that's it

Anarchy as a means to an end. That's what the far left and the far right and the boogaloos and the accelerationists or whatever bird names those who want to get rid of the established social order, have in common

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

We seem to be discussing two different notions here, but very interesting take.

I thought you were arguing positionally, my mistake.

You're merely reacting here...

Thats the whole point.

First your people still have to live with themselves at the end of the day, and second, the first to act is the first to lose the support of the middle and moderates, which are both essential in mass politics. The only strategy that beats mass politics, is mass politics. So reacting rather than acting, is essential.

Do you mean to suggest theres any other alternative?

When bullets start flying at you it's completely irrelevant whether you're the good guys or not, whether you're in the right or wrong, you want to survive the rest

But thats a tautology because it is always the case that when wars start, the reasons and reasoning for them cease to matter. In otherwords its not a unique observation about the specific moral reasoning here, but universally applicable, so it doesn't tell us anything new about what we're discussing.

Aside from that, the reasons people fight, or organize, or do anything together, beyond the personal (e.x. teams of all sorts are most motivated by their team mates), it is a matter of morale, which is not a small factor in any sort of competition or conflict.

To conclude after all this, merely that the "ends justify the means", presupposes that a man in some war, because his concerns are not on the morality of what started the conflict, that therefore these concerns cease to exist in principle and materially, philosophically, morally, and strategically, that because there is no great priority of who-started-it, that therefore this is no longer a variable to consider, is to discard the very grievances that brought people into any such conflict.

Its not to say everyone doesn't have their own reasons--you draw an excellent distinction. Its simply that I see this as a proxy for the level of general dissatisfaction or grievance level sufficient to motive people at all. It's a macrovariable for who shows up.

We seem to be discussing two different notions here, but very interesting take. I thought you were arguing positionally, my mistake. > You're merely reacting here... Thats the whole point. First your people still have to live with themselves at the end of the day, and second, the first to act is the first to lose the support of the middle and moderates, which are both essential in mass politics. The only strategy that beats mass politics, is mass politics. So reacting rather than acting, is essential. Do you mean to suggest theres any other alternative? > When bullets start flying at you it's completely irrelevant whether you're the good guys or not, whether you're in the right or wrong, you want to survive the rest But thats a tautology because it is *always* the case that when wars start, the reasons and reasoning for them cease to matter. In otherwords its not a unique observation about the specific moral reasoning *here*, but universally applicable, so it doesn't tell us anything new about what we're discussing. Aside from that, the *reasons* people fight, or organize, or do anything together, beyond the personal (e.x. teams of all sorts are most motivated by their team mates), it is a matter of morale, which is not a small factor in any sort of competition or conflict. To conclude after all this, merely that the "ends justify the means", presupposes that a man in some war, because his concerns are not on the morality of what started the conflict, that therefore these concerns cease to exist in *principle* and *materially*, philosophically, morally, and *strategically*, that because there is no great priority of who-started-it, that therefore this is no longer a variable to consider, is to discard the very grievances that brought people into any such conflict. Its not to say everyone doesn't have their *own* reasons--you draw an excellent distinction. Its simply that I see this as a proxy for the level of general dissatisfaction or grievance level sufficient to motive people at all. It's a macrovariable for who shows up.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

First your people still have to live with themselves at the end of the day

Everybody will do horrible things, nobody's going to heaven, let's get shit straight here

I mean we're talking about system collapse and opposed factions fighting for power, and there's no place for the loser, winner takes all. That's what we're talking about ultimately

Whatever side "my people" picked, they'll have a very hard time living with themselves if they lose. Remember bolshevicks? Well we can hardly say they were "the good guys", we can hardly say anything they did after the takeover was moral, especially when it comes to sending dissents to gulag, work them to death etc

So "my people" still have to live with themselves at the end of the day yeah, if they get to see another day top begin with. And nobody wants to spend the rest of their days in a gulag or death camp gitmo type of stuff, nobody wants to lose on this one... So the morality.... Yeah why not, but victory is above morality in my list of priorities, way above

The winner gets to define the world we're going to live in, to put it simply

and second, the first to act is the first to lose the support of the middle and moderates, which are both essential in mass politics. The only strategy that beats mass politics, is mass politics. So reacting rather than acting, is essential.

There's hardly any moderate left in that scenario, we're talking about radically opposed factions finally getting at each others throat with anarchy/total collapse as a background, it's not an election, it's a war

Nobody's going to rescue the losers, look at germany when it surrendered after wwII, the german masses were hopeless, women got raped left and right en masse by the allies, and remaining men, soldiers, got sent to die in camps, gulags, american camps

Of course allies don't brag about it and masses are mostly clueless about what really happened

So reacting rather than acting, is essential.

That's starting with the premise that you can afford a reaction/counter attack... To me that sounds very like the concept of "proportionate response" like you have to wait for the guy to shoot at you first, and then you can shoot at him... You know, those retarded european self defense concepts, where the law implicitly state that everybody is basically required to be a fucking black belt navy seal

We're reacting, a tad too late if you ask me, we're reacting because we wake up to the fact that they have power, they are in charge and we're what's for dinner essentially. I mean look who's in charge

There's no guarantee "we" will win, as a matter of fact we're not really well under way for victory, to say the least... Preventive measures should have been put in place, now it's too late for that

Aside from that, the reasons people fight, or organize, or do anything together, beyond the personal (e.x. teams of all sorts are most motivated by their team mates), it is a matter of morale, which is not a small factor in any sort of competition or conflict.

Bolsheviks... Islamists... Their moral values are what they are... But they sure did have enough morale to provail, morale as in esprit de corps yeah. Cults usually are strong on that

>>First your people still have to live with themselves at the end of the day Everybody will do horrible things, nobody's going to heaven, let's get shit straight here I mean we're talking about system collapse and opposed factions fighting for power, and there's no place for the loser, winner takes all. That's what we're talking about ultimately Whatever side "my people" picked, they'll have a very hard time living with themselves if they lose. Remember bolshevicks? Well we can hardly say they were "the good guys", we can hardly say anything they did after the takeover was moral, especially when it comes to sending dissents to gulag, work them to death etc So "my people" still have to live with themselves at the end of the day yeah, if they get to see another day top begin with. And nobody wants to spend the rest of their days in a gulag or death camp gitmo type of stuff, nobody wants to lose on this one... So the morality.... Yeah why not, but victory is above morality in my list of priorities, way above The winner gets to define the world we're going to live in, to put it simply >> and second, the first to act is the first to lose the support of the middle and moderates, which are both essential in mass politics. The only strategy that beats mass politics, is mass politics. So reacting rather than acting, is essential. There's hardly any moderate left in that scenario, we're talking about radically opposed factions finally getting at each others throat with anarchy/total collapse as a background, it's not an election, it's a war Nobody's going to rescue the losers, look at germany when it surrendered after wwII, the german masses were hopeless, women got raped left and right en masse by the allies, and remaining men, soldiers, got sent to die in camps, gulags, american camps Of course allies don't brag about it and masses are mostly clueless about what really happened >>So reacting rather than acting, is essential. That's starting with the premise that you can afford a reaction/counter attack... To me that sounds very like the concept of "proportionate response" like you have to wait for the guy to shoot at you first, and then you can shoot at him... You know, those retarded european self defense concepts, where the law implicitly state that everybody is basically required to be a fucking black belt navy seal We're reacting, a tad too late if you ask me, we're reacting because we wake up to the fact that they have power, they are in charge and we're what's for dinner essentially. I mean look who's in charge There's no guarantee "we" will win, as a matter of fact we're not really well under way for victory, to say the least... Preventive measures should have been put in place, now it's too late for that >>Aside from that, the reasons people fight, or organize, or do anything together, beyond the personal (e.x. teams of all sorts are most motivated by their team mates), it is a matter of morale, which is not a small factor in any sort of competition or conflict. Bolsheviks... Islamists... Their moral values are what they are... But they sure did have enough morale to provail, morale as in esprit de corps yeah. Cults usually are strong on that

parent
link