RE: Antithesis of Morality in the 21 Century
So what if violence is the only way an individual feels they themselves can be kept in line?
I've spent the past year trying to better understand people that disagree with me. Namely conservatives. One in particular that speaks fondly of "Unkle Adolf".
I've found that, from a point of understanding their thought processes, you really do have to look at them as another kind of human. Not sub-human, that just exacerbates the communication problem, but a different type of human. The same is true for both sides (all sides?)
So where you call it grotesque, these people can't understand how you could take such a weak stance that would never work. Not only what they've been taught, but their life and the experiences therein have molded a mind that feels violence is the only way.
I'll stop short of saying they're possibly right, but I feel certain there are elements of how they think that are the best answer. And there are elements how you think that are wrong, or inefficient to your goal.
I vote for thoughtful understanding before we start labeling people grotesque.
You make a good point about looking at everyone as equal humans and avoiding labels.
However, note that @profitgenerator is labeling the situation as grotesque, not the people. So I believe part of the point it valid: some mindsets are indeed worthy of revulsion... people aren't "evil" (nor "good"), but some ideas might be.
Fair point, but calling the situation grotesque still implies that we're right and they're wrong, even if they're "wrong" because of a misunderstanding.
Though some situations are cut-and-dry, with numbers to back them up, a lot of political issues are more nuanced. There are factors that can be difficult to comprehend the consequences of, and I for one can't claim to know enough about how every aspect of government and politics work to be certain I have the best stance possible. We work with the information we're given, but that information can be corrupted no matter what side you're on.
Certainly politicians who work for their donors are circumventing democracy, which is hard to argue for, but the idea that politicians do so is based on the assumption that they get donations to work for companies rather than companies donate because that politician's philosophies happen to align with their interests.
We're not mind readers. We don't know the whole story. We think we're right, and we should take action to move forward with what we believe is right, but that shouldn't give us permission to dismiss the other opinion outright which all too often happens.
You may have heard of the moral dilemma where pushing one heavy man in front of a train will save the hundreds of passengers. If you break down the thought process to "I will push this fat man in front of a train" then it sounds repulsive. But when you consider the lives saved your position would hopefully be altered a bit.
There are a lot of people commenting without asking why. Speculation is a fine starting point, but we should be better about going deeper before making a verdict.