Forming groups is still important. We need it to find our place in the world. There is no single truth, therefore we argue and fight.

Absolutely. Forming groups defined by commonality is good. Discussions are important to check our own biases and misconceptions. Diversity is key to avoiding stagnation. Conflict can create opportunity for growth.

War, above all else, destroys. There are many great things we can do with each other that don’t involve violence.

Not saying anything you said is wrong, btw. Just wanted to state why we still have this stuff.

Good point, adding nuance is important.

I think we - collectively, as humanity, not any particular subgroup - need to get over that greedy, jealous, tribal “us vs. them” mindset that feeds nationalism, turns demographies against each other and leads to that security dilemma in the first place.

It made sense when our individual survival hinged on competing for the best land, subsequently forming groups to further that claim and drive others from their land to increase your own margin of subsistence.

But with modern farming, logistics, administrative capabilities and real-time communications across the globe, I think we should be able to do better by working together instead of against each other.

Of course, that would require people who like power to stop reaching for more and more, and that is an issue I don’t think I need to lay out in detail.

living in Germany

Your username and instance kinda gave it away, comfortable cushion ;-)

But I also like the saying “If you want peace prepare for war”.

It’s the cornerstone of the Security Dilemma: Increasing your own state’s security by increasing military strength may be threatening to other states that don’t know whether you’re just improving defenses or gearing up for an offensive war.

Particularly in pre-modern times where land was more valuable (compared to developing the land you already have) and battle wasn’t so destructive, war was more profitable, the threat was real. With the development of modern arms and mass mobilisation escalating the scale and destruction of war, the distinction between defensive and offensive militarisation is even harder to tell, and even though it’s not as lucrative, we haven’t outgrown the martial impulses so the issue remains.

So because you want to be safe, you improve your military. Because you improve your military, your neighbour fears for their own safety, so they improve theirs. This is why international relations and diplomacy are so important to prevent a runaway arms race.

One time long ago, a guy on the train (whether tweaking or mental issues, I don’t know) sat down across from me, which was probably the most spacious spot in a fairly busy train. I didn’t register any unusual behaviour, nor was I - white male teen, at the time - particularly concerned.

He suddenly leaned in and asked me what I’d do if he killed me. Die, obviously. He then followed up telling me he could punch me in the face. He did neither of these things, eventually got off the train, and I never saw him again. The incident obviously left an impression, but I wouldn’t say I am or was traumatised by it.

I think this exemplifies that difficult grey zone. I don’t think it was motivated by hate, given I’m a fairly “safe” demographic. I also didn’t take him for the type of bully that does it for the power fantasy, or the type of macho needing to establish superiority.

Was it a threat or just a rather unhinged musing on social restraints? Was there actual intent to hurt me, kept in check by some lucky circumstances, or was it just a brief outburst of intrusive thoughts? I did feel threatened and intimidated, but is what I felt enough to judge his actions?

Regardless of the legal question, he probably needed help - medical or social - rather than punishment. I’m not qualified to assess that, but that question has bounced around my head ever since. What led to this outburst? What could be done to prevent that? What could be done to help him?

It’s not strictly relevant to the legal question - his actions are his own to account for, though his mental state may be a mitigating factor - but I figured I’d add it as context because I think it’s worth considering.

He can also fire the secretary of state.

What duties does the secretary of state hold that would go unattended until a new one is installed? How long would that take? And would he be able to actually get the committee to approve a candidate of such (comparatively radical) inclinations? What political and social fallout would he risk?

My statement “locking down the entire government” was an exaggeration, granted. But firing senior members of cabinet is a minefield and political dynamics tend to be slow to change course and often highly speculative.

Quick changes require overwhelming and clearly visible popular support, particularly during moments both critical for a politician’s career and uncertain enough to affect their stance, and even then it may be counterbalanced by uncertainty and reluctance to change stance.

Congress, not Parliament.

My bad, I wasn’t aware of the distinction (or that parliament has a more specific definition than “assembly of elected representatives”). I’ll fix that. Thanks for pointing it out!

He’s angry behind the scenes but unwilling to take action, which may have to do with the ongoing election.

I don’t envy his position. It’s far easier for us to complain and point out problems - which I’m not downplaying, don’t get me wrong - than to come up with effective solutions. It’s his job to do that, he chose it and he must be held to that responsibility, but all the amenities of wealth aside, I doubt that I’d enjoy navigating this mess where your every move gets you yelled at.

Biden tried to delay the support. There’s just not much he can do short of locking down the entire government. The president does not hold absolute authority, and if the congress and secretary of state are being bitches…

An introduction to which topic?

Ah yes, let’s skip the social part and get right to the obligatory consumption.

I don’t really care for Halloween, but I don’t actively hate it either. I like seeing kids and parents in cute costumes walking around. To me, the whole point has always been one of social activity, of walking around the neighbourhood and showing off your cool costume and such. You know, the whole “reinforcing horizontal social ties” deal we’ve done since forever.

experiencing that annoyance in a live action format might give you more clues as to what exactly you dislike

Just for this, drag already has my respect. That is an incredibly analytical approach to the topic.

I’ll get to the list later, but I wanted to express my appreciation for that sentiment.

If you can find an anime that is entirely unlike all the mainstream anime, do let me know. I’m trying to pin down the exact element it is that I don’t like, and so far it seems to be the exaggerated expression of emotion and actions, but maybe you have a counterpoint.

From my own experience, it’s probably intended to forestall the inevitable “Oh but have you tried…?” “I don’t like Anime either, but … was great!” or any other variant of “surely there must be some anime you like”. Some Anime fans seem to struggle with accepting that their favorite medium just isn’t for everyone, no matter how broad and diverse they think the range is.

The willingness to be responsible for consequences does factor in. If you round the corner and crash into someone, you probably didn’t intend to, but whether you’ll be an ass about it and yell at the other person or whether you’ll apologise and check they’re alright makes a difference.

In a perfect-information-setting, intent equals result: If I know what my actions will cause and continue to carry them out, the difference between “primary objective” and “accepted side-effect” becomes academic. But in most cases, we don’t have perfect information.

I feel like the intent-approach better accounts for the blind spots and unknowns. I’ll try to construct two examples to illustrate my reeasoning. Consider them moral dilemmas, as in: arguing around them “out of the box” misses the point.

Ex. 1:
A person is trying to dislodge a stone from their shoe, and in doing so leans on a transformator box to shake it out. You see them leaning on a trafo and shaking and suspect that they might be under electric shock, so you try to save them by grabbing a nearby piece of wood and knocking them away from the box. They lose balance, fall over and get a concussion.
Are you to blame for their concussion, because you knocked them over without need, despite your (misplaced) intention to save them?

Ex. 2:
You try to kill someone by shooting them with a handgun. The bullet misses all critical organs, they’re rushed to a hospital and in the process of scanning for bullet fragments to remove, a cancer in the earliest stages is discovered and subsequently removed. The rest of the treatment goes without complications and they make a speedy and full recovery.
Does that make you their saviour, despite your intent to kill them?

In both cases, missing information and unpredictable variables are at play. In the first, you didn’t know they weren’t actually in danger and couldn’t predict they’d get hurt so badly. In the second, you probably didn’t know about the tumor and couldn’t predict that your shot would fail to kill them. In both cases, I’d argue that it’s your intent that matters for moral judgement, while the outcome is due to (bad) “luck” in the sense of “circumstances beyond human control coinciding”. You aren’t responsible for the concussion, nor are you to credit with saving that life.

So if YouTube provided an RSS feed for its channels, all videos would be podcasts because they can be processed as audio-only and are distributed via RSS?

I was responding to the “Look, they’re all nice people” defense you quoted, not contradicting you. I agree with you in principle.

I don’t consider “misguided” a valid defence.

My view of morality is largely centered on intent, so “I thought it would be a good thing” is a valid defence (though there is also a degree of responsibility to check assumptions; if you never made any effort to check if it actually is a good thing, that’s negligence)

So it’s hard to be good when your salary depends on you being bad.

…and by extension, when your livelihood depends on you being bad, yes. Not everyone’s livelihood depends on their salary, but for many people it does. If it’s hard to find a job that can pay the bills, I don’t fault people for the human reflex of justifying bad things to yourself in the name of survival.

(But if they do have a choice and choose to enrich themselves at the expense of others, they’re obviously pricks - just saying this might not apply to all the devs involved here).

You can be a great person and still write garbage software. Whether you’re just doing it because you need money or whether you’re misguided and think it’s actually good, that doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person (and remember: It’s hard to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it).

Doesn’t make the software less garbage.

What exactly makes a podcast then?

Probably because there are no sanctions against them that his government is cracking down on? I don’t think he wants to get involved in politics so much as stay out of prison.

I mean, if you asked me something like that about our system’s sales, I’d have an answer for you in a few minutes. But then, I’m BI and not Accounting, so I’m probably more proficient at pulling aggregated data straight from the archive DB.

That doesn’t preclude taking a moment to write such a letter.

If anything, it serves to challenge the pretense of dignified and harmless “opinions” that fascists like to leverage. I’d argue that is much more productive than the way discourse has occasionally evaded calling out the cruel, sadistic, violent, bigoted assholes and enemies of human progress and dignity as just that.

As Russel notes, there is no reasonable discussion to be had with someone so openly endorsing violence beyond reason, whose entire worldview is so diametrically opposed that there is no common ground to found a discussion on in the first place.

Giving fascists the “Eh, just opinions” benefit normalises their hateful views as permissible. For anyone valuing freedom, tolerance, progress and justice, opposing these rhetorics is not just sensible, but even crucial to combat the spread of this ideological cancer.

There can be no peaceful disagreement with an ideology that, given the chance, will suppress all disagreement violently.

“I hate bigotry” is quite a strong opinion