An old woman defends herself against a mugger.
Pacifist centrists: They are equally evil.
This is what happens when you try to put morality into a Cartesian model.
As smug and insufferable as Adam Conover's character was in that show, IRL he's making progress leftward and has been an active labor organizer for years, so he's earned my respect.
Wish he would read some theory. He's sooo fucking close and would make a good ally.
I don't think Adam's character is insufferable, though that probably says more about me than him.
Actually the day I beat the shit out of my bully was incredibly satisfying and did not leave me wanting. It was also relatively easy to achieve. I fulfilled a primal desire that day. It was very nice.
You don’t know the things I have done to people ≖‿≖
Lmao what the fuck is this edgelord shit
Yeah, it's a very weird moral argument. I want to say, one based around idealism, if I'm recalling my terms correctly (maybe some individualism in there too). The general argument of it being that evil acts come from inner evil, not from outer circumstances, so doing something that is under the umbrella of "bad stuff" has a "corrupting" influence and will "make you evil" like some sort of Evil Meter that fills up each time you do a "bad thing." (As much as I like them as games, video games like KOTOR sort of do this literally.)
This position also seems to treat "bad stuff" as all corruptive and all on a sliding scale. So like, petty thievery would probably be on the lower end, but might "corrupt you" into "darker stuff" like physical violence.
I think the only truth in that conception of it is that if you become desensitized to certain acts, you might be more apt to do them again without the normal mechanisms of shame, guilt, traumatic reaction stopping you. But as we know from history and present, sometimes people go through with horrific acts in spite of there being collateral damage in the form of them having a traumatic reaction to doing it. Because the external processes and pressures supersede the internal "striving." Which is a fancy of saying, "The world is not defined solely by personal willpower. Fuck you, rugged individualism."
The reason I liked Andor was that it portrays the revolutionaries (Luthen, his assistant, and later Andor himself) as understanding that they need to do the "bad stuff" to achieve results. They are not burdened by idealistic notions of a utopian and pure fight of good vs evil. There's a scene where Luthen monologues that he sacrificed his soul to the cause. That he is trying to bring about a sunrise he will never be able to enjoy.
Liberal media usually use the arc of the gruff vengeful revolutionary softening towards the end, as they are faced with fateful choices, and not having the courage to go through with it. Andor reverses this arc and I think it's better for it.
I have not seen Andor, but sounds like a refreshing portrayal worth a watch some time.
I'd like to read or watch one of those stories, just once, so I can decide if I actually like it. Cause it's a cheap way of showing how a character has grown, they started off wanting revenge and now they've transcended that and see how far they've gone on their arc? I liked the bit in Princess Bride so maybe it'd be good in general
Seconding this, Red Rising is the shit. The first book definitely has its rough patches, but it rapidly improves starting in the second.
The House of the Spirits has characters that fit this description to a tee. The book was written by Isabel Allende, a cousin of Salvador Allende, and is a stylized retelling of life through the transition in Chilean politics post-colonialism through Salvador Allende to Pinochet.
The book ends with the character and narrator Alba saying that, despite previously organizing for Allende's socialist party, and gettingremovedd by the military coup forces after, she will not seek vengeance on those who have injured her, choosing to believe in the hope that one day the human cycle of hate and revenge will be broken.
Yes, let me lie down and let myself get run over by capitalists because then maybe they won't also run over my children.
Because of her simplistic writing on 'cycle of violence bad' while ignoring Marxist analysis, Isabel Allende seems to be a darling in liberal circles. Obama gave her a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Not sure it fully fits the description but there is the classic french novel The Count of Monte Cristo that is known for its Machiavellian vengeance plot. It was adapted to cinema recently, not bad imho
Park Chan-Wook's vengeance trilogy (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy, Lady Vengeance) is a deconstruction of this genre. It explores basically all the contradictions of revenge that people in this thread mentioned.
Word of warning that it's extremely gross in several ways though.
I've been saying this for years. If I was an Evil Villain Ruling The World, the very first thing I'd do is pay a bunch of bards to sing songs about how it would totally own me to turn the other cheek and history will judge me harshly anyway so no reason to do anything apart from protesting otherwise you're just as bad as me. I'd put the idea whereever I could.
one can include elements of the other.
maybe there's just something wrong with me. perhaps the majority of you are out here acting purely rationally or whatever but i know i want blood to pay for the innocents harmed by those in power
Considering that the billionaire class will fund the fascists who try to kill us during a revolution, I would argue it's largely rational to want them dead.
Why should you degrade yourself by exacting violence on the ruling class of old?
Do you think they'll just give up their power?
No, they'll use economic weapons (eg. scorched earth policy, sanctions, IMF structural adjustments), if not military force (eg. air bombs, drones, missiles), and propaganda campaigns, with their media structure, as we've seen in history before
It's not only just, but necessary, in many times
i make no bones about this: i am a zealot. i run no risk of sullying my conscience by calling for these people's deaths because i believe their deaths would be just. even after they lose power, they will still be the people who killed the world and immiserated billions. there is a line past which redemption is no longer an option, and they are very well on the other side of it, regardless of whether or not their ability to cause harm has been neutralized.
what china did to puyi was kindness. what the bolsheviks did to the romanovs was just.
The liberals, their tankiejerk alias, and their Pax Americana secret policy should apply this principle on themselves before they judge victims of relation by this logic.
![[Insert title]](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/86574de7-71a5-4d08-825a-5850270a2291.webp){kind=link}