Liam Neeson wants to kill a black man

[spudmunkey]

This thread is two days old, and still, every time I read the title that says "wants" instead of "wanted", my eyes roll so much I swear my coworker can hear it.

 

[GatherTheArsenal]

Yes my point was if he would've replaced black with any other race, it wouldn't be a headline. White on black racism seems to greatly overshadow other forms of racism in the US.

My bad, in this case I read into your post the wrong way.

Wow this thread went to a whole other level in the 24 hours I was away. There are a lot of good points that were made though.

I agree that Liam does deserve some commendation for what other ppl in Hollywood would feel like they would be unobliged to even bring it up in the first place.

For what it's worth at this point, I think another angle to this story is that ppl need to separate the character from the human being, which regrettably doesn't happen as much.

Let's not just assume that if Liam actually got into an altercation that he would go ahead and murder them, Taken style. The character may, but I'd be willing to bet that Liam may not do it regardless of what he convinced himself at the time.

I've never taken a life, but you do hear from those who did that it's one of the hardest thing to do when your finger is on the trigger. I'm talking real life here not movie scripts, and this is barring psychotics or those with an afflicted past which Liam doesn'tseem to be.

So maybe chalk this up to being an unpopular opinion, but unless those (including me) who are commenting on it have taken a life before in revenge or cold blood, then I really think we're just engaging in load of assumptions that we seem so sure of.

 

[crankyrayhanky]

Thread Fail. Thought this was a new action flick.

 

[Xaios]

I don't care.

Just kidding. Sorry. It may not unrape someone, but that son of a bitch won't rape anyone else. And sure, it's only one rapist out of millions or so, but that's a few more people that won't be affected by that person and that's good enough for me. Sorry, but I've got a different view of justice than most everyone here and when justice fails, well... yeah. If that makes me a piece of shit or a monster to you, again, I'm comfortable with that.

It doesn't make you a monster or a piece of shit, and I at least appreciate that you're willing to be honest about how you feel and to not interpret what I said as an attack on your values.

I do think that it's a myopic perspective, though. You say that you'd be happy to take out one rapist out of potentially millions. On its face, that's totally reasonable. The problem though, is that it does nothing to stop the problem of rape in the larger sense. First, that one rapist that has been dispensed has already permanently damaged someone by that point. You might have protected more people from being victimized by that specific rapist, but that initial victim is a casualty that can't be undone. Second, without systemic changes, society will keep manufacturing more rapists who will continue to do the same damage by hurting those people you sought to protect. In the end, it doesn't actually reduce the number of rapists or victims, it just changes their names. I don't know about you, but any satisfaction that I might get from hurting or killing a rapist would be pretty fleeting, knowing that it ultimately accomplished nothing significant except getting blood on my own hands. Seems like a pretty futile gesture, kind of like stepping on a single carpenter ant after the swarm has already damaged your house so badly that it's falling apart.

Wouldn't it be more productive and ultimately more satisfying, then, to work towards changing the system so that, instead of stopping one of a million rapists after they've already victimized someone, we stop the grand majority of those people before they've hurt anybody, by making it so they never go down the dark path to becoming rapists in the first place? Not only does it stop way more people from becoming criminals, most importantly, it stops way more people from becoming victims. If there is a failure in justice, it's not that society doesn't always punish criminals to the degree that our own personal sense of right and wrong demands. The failure in justice is that our society is a place that produces these kinds of broken people in the first place, who then go on to create victims as a byproduct in their wake.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

It doesn't make you a monster or a piece of shit, and I at least appreciate that you're willing to be honest about how you feel and to not interpret what I said as an attack on your values.

I do think that it's a myopic perspective, though. You say that you'd be happy to take out one rapist out of potentially millions. On its face, that's totally reasonable. The problem though, is that it does nothing to stop the problem of rape in the larger sense. First, that one rapist that has been dispensed has already permanently damaged someone by that point. You might have protected more people from being victimized by that specific rapist, but that initial victim is a casualty that can't be undone. Second, without systemic changes, society will keep manufacturing more rapists who will continue to do the same damage by hurting those people you sought to protect. In the end, it doesn't actually reduce the number of rapists or victims, it just changes their names. I don't know about you, but any satisfaction that I might get from hurting or killing a rapist would be pretty fleeting, knowing that it ultimately accomplished nothing significant except getting blood on my own hands. Seems like a pretty futile gesture, kind of like stepping on a single carpenter ant after the swarm has already damaged your house so badly that it's falling apart.

Wouldn't it be more productive and ultimately more satisfying, then, to work towards changing the system so that, instead of stopping one of a million rapists after they've already victimized someone, we stop the grand majority of those people before they've hurt anybody, by making it so they never go down the dark path to becoming rapists in the first place? Not only does it stop way more people from becoming criminals, most importantly, it stops way more people from becoming victims. If there is a failure in justice, it's not that society doesn't always punish criminals to the degree that our own personal sense of right and wrong demands. The failure in justice is that our society is a place that produces these kinds of broken people in the first place, who then go on to create victims as a byproduct in their wake.

I would like for justice to get to the point where we can honestly give those pieces of shit what they deserve. In opinion, you start by no longer protecting them in general population. Put them in with general population, make it known what they've done. If the justice system was better, there would never be a need or a want for a vigilante. I'm going to come right out and say it that I'm VERY biased on the issue. I've known people including very close family members who've been affected by people like that so knowing that, it doesn't trouble me at all to see every last one of them wiped out one way or another. As far as blood on my own hands, I guess you see it differently than I do, because thinking about it in depth, whatever blood on my hands would be washed off the minute I hit the bathroom. Now do I expect everyone else to see it like I do? No. I'm not going to tell you I'm in my right mind when it comes to this issue. I might be considered mentally ill for all we know. I just know that while one more will take its place, getting rid of a person like that? It'll do someone a favor in the long run.

I tend to look at this from two perspectives: Yeah on the grand scale, killing one or two, that won't do shit. But on the local down to Earth level? Someone who hates people like that just as much as I do? They might sleep a little better at night and to me, that's worth something.

As far as stopping them from becoming rapists in the first place, I don't know exactly how you plan on doing that. It's going to require a massive culture change on our behalf. If you could make that happen or come up with a way, I'd be more than happy to hear it, especially since people who go after those sick fucks shouldn't be tried for murder, they should be given a "thank you" but they're not. They're tried and then locked up for getting rid of a major detriment. Again, that's just how I feel. On the grand scale? Yes, fix it. To me, I spend more time in my own feelings and the feelings of those around me, which is probably why I feel the way I feel.

 

[Xaios]

I'm going to come right out and say it that I'm VERY biased on the issue. I've known people including very close family members who've been affected by people like that so knowing that, it doesn't trouble me at all to see every last one of them wiped out one way or another.

That's fair, I get that you're close to the issue, probably much closer than I. However, imagine asking one of these affected people you know the question, "As a victim of this horrible act, how can I best honor you? By punishing the person who did this to you? Or by committing myself to changing the world into a place where this never would have happened?"

If you asked this question of them, what do you think their answer would be?

There's a reason that the greater part of the activism done by victims of sexual assault is directed towards eliminating "rape culture" as opposed to being limited to ensuring punishment against those who are guilty of rape. On an individual level, targeting rape culture as a whole instead of one specific person lets them prove to themselves and to the world that they aren't defined solely by what that other person did to them, thus allowing them to reclaim their agency. Collectively, it's an acknowledgment by the victims themselves, the people who are far more affected than either you or I, that confronting the aspects of our society that allows people to develop to the point where they choose to commit sexual assault is more likely to offer tangible results. Yes, of course they want justice to be done as well and recognize that at times it's definitely not (what happened with Brock Turner is still very much a relevant issue), but even they, the people who are most hurt by such crimes, see that judgment and retribution against one Brock Turner is pointless by itself in a world that's ready and willing to provide a practically unlimited supply of Brock Turners. Instead, they've determined that focusing their efforts on long term change is the more worthy pursuit. If they, arguably the only ones who have any real claim to vengeance, have judged that simply destroying the fruit is an exercise in futility and have instead opted to begin the task of ripping the tree out by the root, a process that likely won't be accomplished in our lifetime, who are we not to follow their lead? To waste our time and energy on getting even, justified or not, would be a slap in the face to those people who, in spite of how they've suffered personally, have chosen the path of progress.

As far as blood on my own hands, I guess you see it differently than I do, because thinking about it in depth, whatever blood on my hands would be washed off the minute I hit the bathroom. Now do I expect everyone else to see it like I do? No. I'm not going to tell you I'm in my right mind when it comes to this issue. I might be considered mentally ill for all we know.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Being angry that someone we love was the victim of such a horrible crime is the most natural thing in the world. However, when you say that murdering a rapist wouldn't bother you, I don't really believe that would be the likely outcome in the end, at least if you're an at all normal person.

If you are that kind of person that could remorselessly murder someone even if they deserved it, then, to be honest, your viewpoint on what severity would constitute an appropriate response to such a crime probably shouldn't be used in determining the direction of public policy.

I just know that while one more will take its place, getting rid of a person like that? It'll do someone a favor in the long run.

That's not as likely as you might think. There have been a lot of studies on sexual crimes and recidivism in the past few years, and they pretty much all agree that recidivism in such cases is much, much lower than previously thought. Even compared to 30 years ago, our understanding of the subject has changed quite drastically.

I tend to look at this from two perspectives: Yeah on the grand scale, killing one or two, that won't do shit. But on the local down to Earth level? Someone who hates people like that just as much as I do? They might sleep a little better at night and to me, that's worth something.

Unfortunately any resultant feeling of security would be based on a false premise. If they're at all the kind of person that recognizes that the ultimate reality remains unchanged, then there won't be any real comfort for them, regardless of whether or not they hate sexual criminals as much as you.

Also, if your goal is to ensure that a person feels secure by in knowing that a specific criminal can't hurt them, that would be accomplished just as well by ensuring that person is suitably sentenced to prison, something that's becomes more likely to happen if we address the larger social issues which allow certain criminals, your Brock Turners and so forth, to escape the consequences of their actions simply because of their gender, skin color and/or bank account balance.

As far as stopping them from becoming rapists in the first place, I don't know exactly how you plan on doing that. It's going to require a massive culture change on our behalf. If you could make that happen or come up with a way, I'd be more than happy to hear it...

That's ultimately the crux of the whole thing, isn't it. Honestly, it's gonna be one of the hardest things society ever has to do, and there is no panacea. It'll probably require several lifetimes of activism against sexism, racism, classism and any attitude in general which allows a person to either be marginalized and devalued or elevated unfairly by society. We'll be long dead by the time it actually happens. However, doing so will ensure that courts consider criminal cases purely on their own merits instead of basing sentencing on a litany a unjust and irrelevant socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, it will ensure that people in general grow and develop with healthier attitudes about the value of other people, instilling in them the moral fiber that will inform them how wrong things like the aforementioned forms or oppression really are. After all, rape is quite often not merely about sex, but also about power, and in order for that power dynamic to exist, a rapist has to lack whatever ethical quality is present in a normal person which keeps them from devaluing other people. If we change the narrative that our children learn both from us and their surroundings, and we completely immerse them in the lesson in all aspects of their life that not only is it wrong to discriminate based on gender, race and class but also that whatever differences may exist as a result are utterly meaningless, they'll be less likely to internalize the notion that the needs and wants of others are irrelevant compared to their own. But again, the only way to accomplish this is literally generations of hard, focused work.

...especially since people who go after those sick fucks shouldn't be tried for murder, they should be given a "thank you" but they're not. They're tried and then locked up for getting rid of a major detriment.

Eh, me and you just aren't gonna see eye to eye on this one. Vigilantism has never been an effective solution to problems like these, nor one I find personally acceptable, because it allows the actor in question to administer an incredibly flawed form of "justice" according to their own personal beliefs regardless of the larger conversation. It gave us things like the KKK and the New Orleans lynchings. Like torture, the only thing it ultimately accomplishes is degrading and debasing everyone involved. The justice system might be deeply flawed in its current incarnation, but it can at least be directed by public policy and cultural progress. Vigilantism is a loose cannon that blows up in everyone's face.

Again, that's just how I feel. On the grand scale? Yes, fix it. To me, I spend more time in my own feelings and the feelings of those around me, which is probably why I feel the way I feel.

Again, perfectly natural. Everyone in this world does things primarily for the benefit of the people nearest to them, because that's what affects them the most personally. There comes a point though where we have to recognize that the best thing we can do for the people around us is to acknowledge the need to act for the betterment of all people on a larger scale, because the world is getting smaller everyday, and just because we don't immediately recognize how something happening on the other side of the planet will affect those we love doesn't mean it won't have a profound impact on them. Nothing happens in a vacuum anymore, and if we want to do the most good locally, we have to think and act globally.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

And I have absolutely no problem with that. There are people like yourself who can talk these issues out rationally. I can't because I'm fueled with anger on this particular issue. I'm not saying everyone should go out and hammer every single one with a bullet to the head, but to be perfectly honest, you wouldn't be hurting my feelings. Logically, I know that's not the answer, but there are certain issues where I simply don't have the emotional capacity to get past my own feelings on it. This is one of those.
@Xaios

 

[Anquished]

That's fair, I get that you're close to the issue, probably much closer than I. However, imagine asking one of these affected people you know the question, "As a victim of this horrible act, how can I best honor you? By punishing the person who did this to you? Or by committing myself to changing the world into a place where this never would have happened?"

If you asked this question of them, what do you think their answer would be?

There's a reason that the greater part of the activism done by victims of sexual assault is directed towards eliminating "rape culture" as opposed to being limited to ensuring punishment against those who are guilty of rape. On an individual level, targeting rape culture as a whole instead of one specific person lets them prove to themselves and to the world that they aren't defined solely by what that other person did to them, thus allowing them to reclaim their agency. Collectively, it's an acknowledgment by the victims themselves, the people who are far more affected than either you or I, that confronting the aspects of our society that allows people to develop to the point where they choose to commit sexual assault is more likely to offer tangible results. Yes, of course they want justice to be done as well and recognize that at times it's definitely not (what happened with Brock Turner is still very much a relevant issue), but even they, the people who are most hurt by such crimes, see that judgment and retribution against one Brock Turner is pointless by itself in a world that's ready and willing to provide a practically unlimited supply of Brock Turners. Instead, they've determined that focusing their efforts on long term change is the more worthy pursuit. If they, arguably the only ones who have any real claim to vengeance, have judged that simply destroying the fruit is an exercise in futility and have instead opted to begin the task of ripping the tree out by the root, a process that likely won't be accomplished in our lifetime, who are we not to follow their lead? To waste our time and energy on getting even, justified or not, would be a slap in the face to those people who, in spite of how they've suffered personally, have chosen the path of progress.


Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Being angry that someone we love was the victim of such a horrible crime is the most natural thing in the world. However, when you say that murdering a rapist wouldn't bother you, I don't really believe that would be the likely outcome in the end, at least if you're an at all normal person.

If you are that kind of person that could remorselessly murder someone even if they deserved it, then, to be honest, your viewpoint on what severity would constitute an appropriate response to such a crime probably shouldn't be used in determining the direction of public policy.


That's not as likely as you might think. There have been a lot of studies on sexual crimes and recidivism in the past few years, and they pretty much all agree that recidivism in such cases is much, much lower than previously thought. Even compared to 30 years ago, our understanding of the subject has changed quite drastically.


Unfortunately any resultant feeling of security would be based on a false premise. If they're at all the kind of person that recognizes that the ultimate reality remains unchanged, then there won't be any real comfort for them, regardless of whether or not they hate sexual criminals as much as you.

Also, if your goal is to ensure that a person feels secure by in knowing that a specific criminal can't hurt them, that would be accomplished just as well by ensuring that person is suitably sentenced to prison, something that's becomes more likely to happen if we address the larger social issues which allow certain criminals, your Brock Turners and so forth, to escape the consequences of their actions simply because of their gender, skin color and/or bank account balance.


That's ultimately the crux of the whole thing, isn't it. Honestly, it's gonna be one of the hardest things society ever has to do, and there is no panacea. It'll probably require several lifetimes of activism against sexism, racism, classism and any attitude in general which allows a person to either be marginalized and devalued or elevated unfairly by society. We'll be long dead by the time it actually happens. However, doing so will ensure that courts consider criminal cases purely on their own merits instead of basing sentencing on a litany a unjust and irrelevant socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, it will ensure that people in general grow and develop with healthier attitudes about the value of other people, instilling in them the moral fiber that will inform them how wrong things like the aforementioned forms or oppression really are. After all, rape is quite often not merely about sex, but also about power, and in order for that power dynamic to exist, a rapist has to lack whatever ethical quality is present in a normal person which keeps them from devaluing other people. If we change the narrative that our children learn both from us and their surroundings, and we completely immerse them in the lesson in all aspects of their life that not only is it wrong to discriminate based on gender, race and class but also that whatever differences may exist as a result are utterly meaningless, they'll be less likely to internalize the notion that the needs and wants of others are irrelevant compared to their own. But again, the only way to accomplish this is literally generations of hard, focused work.


Eh, me and you just aren't gonna see eye to eye on this one. Vigilantism has never been an effective solution to problems like these, nor one I find personally acceptable, because it allows the actor in question to administer an incredibly flawed form of "justice" according to their own personal beliefs regardless of the larger conversation. It gave us things like the KKK and the New Orleans lynchings. Like torture, the only thing it ultimately accomplishes is degrading and debasing everyone involved. The justice system might be deeply flawed in its current incarnation, but it can at least be directed by public policy and cultural progress. Vigilantism is a loose cannon that blows up in everyone's face.


Again, perfectly natural. Everyone in this world does things primarily for the benefit of the people nearest to them, because that's what affects them the most personally. There comes a point though where we have to recognize that the best thing we can do for the people around us is to acknowledge the need to act for the betterment of all people on a larger scale, because the world is getting smaller everyday, and just because we don't immediately recognize how something happening on the other side of the planet will affect those we love doesn't mean it won't have a profound impact on them. Nothing happens in a vacuum anymore, and if we want to do the most good locally, we have to think and act globally.

Just to weigh in gently on this, as it is a sensitive issue. I personally feel that for the most part, the activism isn't really tackling "rape culture", it's just creating a divide. I mean for example look at the recent backlash to the Gillette advert with it's "toxic masculinity" message. Whilst the message itself wasn't the problem, I feel where and how it was delivered was. People still preach the message of "teaching people not to rape" as if that's the defacto standard of people exiting the womb. However no one (to my knowledge) seems to be going after the Judicial process itself (atleast in the UK). I haven't seen any kind of major push to make sentences a hell of a lot harsher on convicted sex offenders, nor anything to make the Judicial process for victims less traumatizing. Whilst the cultural shift is needed to more strongly stigmatize sexual assault for sure, I'm surprised the actual deterrent/punishment hasn't had a more public push. Again I might be just living under a rock and that is actually happening, if that is the case I'd be interested to read what is actually being done and eat my words. Feel free to chuck an article at me and laugh.

Whilst I was out in Singapore last year, the underground tube stations had rolling video clips of someone sexually harassing someone and being dragged away in handcuffs with a warning of a jail sentence and/or caning. Whilst I'm not an advocate for physical punishment, I think even just showing this video in a public place is a far stronger deterrent than our current efforts.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

Here's what I want to know... Why is one of my best friends facing a longer jail sentence for marijuana (10 years) than a pedophile who hurt a member of my family and he only got three years? Take a guess as to which one is the bigger detriment. The guy at home smoking a joint not bothering anyone or the sick son of a bitch who made sure my mother and her sisters were never going to have a normal life?

 

[Anquished]

Here's what I want to know... Why is one of my best friends facing a longer jail sentence for marijuana (10 years) than a pedophile who hurt a member of my family and he only got three years? Take a guess as to which one is the bigger detriment. The guy at home smoking a joint not bothering anyone or the sick son of a bitch who made sure my mother and her sisters were never going to have a normal life?

And this is exactly my point. Sorry to hear about your friend man.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

I mean if we want to put people like this in prison? Fine. But stop separating them from general population and DON'T keep what they did from the other prisoners. The problem will take care of itself. As a young boy I used to think that all people in prison were bad. I used to think that the good people were on the outside. That's not always true, I found out. There are better people in prison right now than there are out of it and that includes people that should still be there.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Here's what I want to know... Why is one of my best friends facing a longer jail sentence for marijuana (10 years) than a pedophile who hurt a member of my family and he only got three years? Take a guess as to which one is the bigger detriment. The guy at home smoking a joint not bothering anyone or the sick son of a bitch who made sure my mother and her sisters were never going to have a normal life?

Because the "War on Drugs" is far more profitable and helps keep the poor and disenfranchised "in thier place" better.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

Because the "War on Drugs" is far more profitable and helps keep the poor and disenfranchised "in thier place" better.

Exactly. And I take issue with it. I take issue with it and that's why this country will never fucking turn around because they'd rather lock someone up instead of treating them. If I seem overly emotional in my posts the last couple of days, I'm sorry, but it's a slap of reality right to the fact when you realize just how fucked this country truly is. Make America Great Again? How about make it great FOR ONCE? Sorry for derailing by the way.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Exactly. And I take issue with it. I take issue with it and that's why this country will never fucking turn around because they'd rather lock someone up instead of treating them. If I seem overly emotional in my posts the last couple of days, I'm sorry, but it's a slap of reality right to the fact when you realize just how fucked this country truly is. Make America Great Again? How about make it great FOR ONCE? Sorry for derailing by the way.

It's getting better, but we have to keep at it.

Right now, 10 states have legal pot, with 13 more decriminalizing it. Many of those states are vacating convictions for past offenders and clearing the records of those who have already served thier sentences.

This is why the little elections matter almost as much, if not more than the big ones. Even if you want to protest vote/not vote for President or Congress, you should really look at Governors, Judges and especially Attorney Generals, not to mention any ballot measures.

We have a long way to go, but if we keep pushing progressive ideas at the local level we'll see continuous change.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

It's getting better, but we have to keep at it.

Right now, 10 states have legal pot, with 13 more decriminalizing it. Many of those states are vacating convictions for past offenders and clearing the records of those who have already served thier sentences.

This is why the little elections matter almost as much, if not more than the big ones. Even if you want to protest vote/not vote for President or Congress, you should really look at Governors, Judges and especially Attorney Generals, not to mention any ballot measures.

We have a long way to go, but if we keep pushing progressive ideas at the local level we'll see continuous change.

Maybe it's just me but I feel like we should have already been there a long time ago. I can't help it, when I hear about other countries, sure they have their problems, but goddamn it, socially they're doing SO MUCH FUCKING better and am I the only one this is pissing off?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Maybe it's just me but I feel like we should have already been there a long time ago. I can't help it, when I hear about other countries, sure they have their problems, but goddamn it, socially they're doing SO MUCH FUCKING better and am I the only one this is pissing off?

You're not wrong, and you're certainly not the only one that's mad.

 

[Yul Brynner]

Americans have been conditioned by our system (run by people we think should be qualified since they have tons and tons of money) to be lazy, ignorant, fearful, hateful and complacent.

 

[Exchanger]

That's ultimately the crux of the whole thing, isn't it. Honestly, it's gonna be one of the hardest things society ever has to do, and there is no panacea. It'll probably require several lifetimes of activism against sexism, racism, classism and any attitude in general which allows a person to either be marginalized and devalued or elevated unfairly by society. We'll be long dead by the time it actually happens. However, doing so will ensure that courts consider criminal cases purely on their own merits instead of basing sentencing on a litany a unjust and irrelevant socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, it will ensure that people in general grow and develop with healthier attitudes about the value of other people, instilling in them the moral fiber that will inform them how wrong things like the aforementioned forms or oppression really are. After all, rape is quite often not merely about sex, but also about power, and in order for that power dynamic to exist, a rapist has to lack whatever ethical quality is present in a normal person which keeps them from devaluing other people. If we change the narrative that our children learn both from us and their surroundings, and we completely immerse them in the lesson in all aspects of their life that not only is it wrong to discriminate based on gender, race and class but also that whatever differences may exist as a result are utterly meaningless, they'll be less likely to internalize the notion that the needs and wants of others are irrelevant compared to their own. But again, the only way to accomplish this is literally generations of hard, focused work.

You obviously thought about this a lot. It makes me wonder where you're coming from in terms of education or activism or even job ? (out of pure curiosity). I agree with you on a lot of aspects. But I do think no matter how fair and ethical you make society as a whole, I think there will always be, at the end of the bell curve, people who will screw others, try to dominate them, in one way or another, including sexually, and you said it, it's all about power. And while I'm firmly against death penalty, lynching, and "eye for an eye" and all that jazz, there will always be a need to put these fuckers on trial and lock them up. Because not everyone comes out remorseful and chooses redemption. Social determinism is a thing, but at some point, we need to be accountable for the choices we make. You could even argue that the fairer the society, the less forgiveable it is to step over the line.
Again, I agree with you on the whole picture, we should favor rehabilitation over retribution, and at least aim towards an ideal society eventhough I think we will never fully attain it, even in centuries.

Again, perfectly natural. Everyone in this world does things primarily for the benefit of the people nearest to them, because that's what affects them the most personally. There comes a point though where we have to recognize that the best thing we can do for the people around us is to acknowledge the need to act for the betterment of all people on a larger scale, because the world is getting smaller everyday, and just because we don't immediately recognize how something happening on the other side of the planet will affect those we love doesn't mean it won't have a profound impact on them. Nothing happens in a vacuum anymore, and if we want to do the most good locally, we have to think and act globally.

Some people actually define the difference between left and right through this idea. A core definition would be to say that right-wing people thing more about themselves first, then about their direct circles (friends and family, sometimes a justification for nepotism) then their social group, country, religion, etc... and conversely, left-wing poeple would see the world as a whole first, and then into it's subdivisions. Of course, what is considered left and right depends a lot on the place we're talking about and it's history, and in reality it's not absolute, but more of a spectrum thing, and there are different ways to rank the circles (nation before social class or the opposite). I don't think there is that many truly altruistic or truly selfish poeple (sadly the latter tend to be over-represented in powerful positions).

 

[TedEH]

I personally feel that for the most part, the activism isn't really tackling "rape culture", it's just creating a divide. I mean for example look at the recent backlash to the Gillette advert with it's "toxic masculinity" message. Whilst the message itself wasn't the problem, I feel where and how it was delivered was. People still preach the message of "teaching people not to rape" as if that's the defacto standard of people exiting the womb. However no one (to my knowledge) seems to be going after the Judicial process itself (atleast in the UK).

I feel like this sort of misses the point though -
I used to be of a different mindset on this, but as I get older, and I've been watching/observing as my nephews, and the kids of coworkers, etc., are being raised and I'm seeing such huge divides and differences in the attitudes being conveyed down from parents to kids. It's not a "they are toxic right from the womb" scenario, it's that parents are basically doing a shitty job and imparting values into their kids that lead to less-than-great behavior. Teaching kids that not every life is equally valuable. Teaching kids that the world is shitty so you should respond to that by just saying screw everyone and doing whatever you want. Like it or not, we lead by example, and without the opportunity to provide context to those observing our actions.

I hate to use PunkBill as an example, but if you took the same attitude you have here, and imagine putting that on display while raising a kid- they learn so many things by observation without context. I would be very concerned that you would raise a kid who who find a lot of ways to justify murder to themselves, whereas I would probably produce a kid with the opposite flaw of being unable to defend themselves against the unfair reality that violence is out there even if I don't like it.

It's an uncomfortable truth that the valuation system that allows a person to rape or murder has to have come from somewhere -> It's picked up from parents and teachers and other kids and TV shows etc etc etc etc. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the fact that we have raised people to become monsters - people are not monsters by default. IMO it's a societal cause, and therefor needs a societal solution.

Edit: And that comes back around to the Gillette thing. I'm very often on the side of "lets not define masculinity as toxic by default", but the message that we're responsible for shaping the behaviors of the people we bring into the world is IMO absolutely the right message. Marketing BS and political/activism/political correctness aside.

 

[Anquished]

I feel like this sort of misses the point though -
I used to be of a different mindset on this, but as I get older, and I've been watching/observing as my nephews, and the kids of coworkers, etc., are being raised and I'm seeing such huge divides and differences in the attitudes being conveyed down from parents to kids. It's not a "they are toxic right from the womb" scenario, it's that parents are basically doing a shitty job and imparting values into their kids that lead to less-than-great behavior. Teaching kids that not every life is equally valuable. Teaching kids that the world is shitty so you should respond to that by just saying screw everyone and doing whatever you want. Like it or not, we lead by example, and without the opportunity to provide context to those observing our actions.

I hate to use PunkBill as an example, but if you took the same attitude you have here, and imagine putting that on display while raising a kid- they learn so many things by observation without context. I would be very concerned that you would raise a kid who who find a lot of ways to justify murder to themselves, whereas I would probably produce a kid with the opposite flaw of being unable to defend themselves against the unfair reality that violence is out there even if I don't like it.

It's an uncomfortable truth that the valuation system that allows a person to rape or murder has to have come from somewhere -> It's picked up from parents and teachers and other kids and TV shows etc etc etc etc. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the fact that we have raised people to become monsters - people are not monsters by default. IMO it's a societal cause, and therefor needs a societal solution.

Edit: And that comes back around to the Gillette thing. I'm very often on the side of "lets not define masculinity as toxic by default", but the message that we're responsible for shaping the behaviors of the people we bring into the world is IMO absolutely the right message. Marketing BS and political/activism/political correctness aside.

Absolutely, I agree that it is environmental and parental guidance which impacts how someone is going to turn out, for the most part.

Which is why I said I don't take issue with the message presented. The point I am trying to make is the aggressive activism which can easily be interpreted as misandry by a majority of people, as you can see with the Gillette ad.