vigilante "justice"

[Deranged Nasat]

Let's be careful before we come down too hard on those puffing out their chests and wishing for mob justice. Read just about ANY thread here where a crime is talked about (or, sometimes, not even a crime, but perceived misjustice), and many posters HERE take the same exact tone. Wishing for prison rape, violent murder, severe beatings, etc. The BBS can't exactly see the high road on this topic from where I'm standing.

Hell, remember Flux's thread last week? A few people were advocating that he beat the guy's face in for kissing his girlfriend. How's that different? Sure, we can say we're just talking shit, and don't really MEAN it, but that's what you're condemning, so...

Well, seeing as I'm a bit of a broken record in condemning those attitudes when they show up here, I don't see any problem with me ranting about this. I don't see how I, for one, could be accused of hypocrisy over this. I don't think any of the people who have posted here so far are guilty of it, either. That said, your point is well made; I just haven't seen any hypocrisy in this thread yet.

 

[Scout101]

No, no hypocracy in this THREAD yet, just saying that a lot of what you're talking about happens on this board all the time. Hell, even J.Allen does it a lot (forget which Mod, but someone took him to task for it a couple weeks ago, so it stuck out in my head). As for the posters in the thread being safe, probably true, but while you've got a couple pages of posts, only about 5 unique posters in here so far

 

[KimMH]

Welcome to our unique thread! We should all hug now before we get stampeded! DR for prez!

 

[Rii]

A man is ultimately accountable only to his conscience. To refrain from action against a criminal merely because the law forbids it is to submit oneself to a system that one knows to be flawed, to place its integrity above what one knows to be right or wrong. "Because the law says I must do nothing, I can do nothing" is an abrogation of personal responsibility, of the very sentience that charactises us as human beings. It's a power exchange that the state will fall over itself to accept.

"Due process" is not justice, it is merely the best means we have yet arrived at to ensure that justice is carried out, and there will always be exceptions. I can certainly envision situations in which I would act regardless of the state's wishes, just as there are situations in which I would act against the state. I am bound by no law, the law functions merely as a means to communicate norms, and to salve the consciences of those who enforce it that they merely play their part in the system, that they are not ultimately responsible for their actions. As with the uniform and authoritarian structure of military institutions, this systemic de-individualisation allows one to commit horrific acts free from one's conscience, serving ultimately to perpetuate human suffering.

Let's be careful before we come down too hard on those puffing out their chests and wishing for mob justice. Read just about ANY thread here where a crime is talked about (or, sometimes, not even a crime, but perceived misjustice), and many posters HERE take the same exact tone. Wishing for prison rape, violent murder, severe beatings, etc. The BBS can't exactly see the high road on this topic from where I'm standing.

... and?

Sure, we can say we're just talking shit, and don't really MEAN it, but that's what you're condemning, so...

So let it be condemned.

The hatred which characterises these predictable responses is abhorrent, but worse is the way in which responsibility for the acts advocated is deflected from oneself onto others. The "he'll be taken care of in prison" crowd is the face of the faceless mob which, once the act is done, will disperse into pretensions of civility. If one really believes that a man should have his balls removed with a rusty knife, then step up and make it happen.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

A man is ultimately accountable only to his conscience. To refrain from action against a criminal merely because the law forbids it is to submit oneself to a system that one knows to be flawed, to place its integrity above what one knows to be right or wrong. "Because the law says I must do nothing, I can do nothing" is an abrogation of personal responsibility, of the very sentience that charactises us as human beings. It's a power exchange that the state will fall over itself to accept.

"Due process" is not justice, it is merely the best means we have yet arrived at to ensure that justice is carried out, and there will always be exceptions. I can certainly envision situations in which I would act regardless of the state's wishes, just as there are situations in which I would act against the state. I am bound by no law, the law functions merely as a means to communicate norms, and to salve the consciences of those who enforce it that they merely play their part in the system, that they are not ultimately responsible for their actions. As with the uniform and authoritarian structure of military institutions, this systemic de-individualisation allows one to commit horrific acts free from one's conscience, serving ultimately to perpetuate human suffering.

Let's be careful before we come down too hard on those puffing out their chests and wishing for mob justice. Read just about ANY thread here where a crime is talked about (or, sometimes, not even a crime, but perceived misjustice), and many posters HERE take the same exact tone. Wishing for prison rape, violent murder, severe beatings, etc. The BBS can't exactly see the high road on this topic from where I'm standing.

... and?

Sure, we can say we're just talking shit, and don't really MEAN it, but that's what you're condemning, so...

So let it be condemned.

The hatred which characterises these predictable responses is abhorrent, but worse is the way in which responsibility for the acts advocated is deflected from oneself onto others. The "he'll be taken care of in prison" crowd is the face of the faceless mob which, once the act is done, will disperse into pretensions of civility. If one really believes that a man should have his balls removed with a rusty knife, then step up and make it happen.

A very interesting post, Rii. You raise some good points about the dangers of going too far in the opposite direction from the one I'm condemning, and submitting to the power structures of rulers who are likely self-serving. You're right, I think, to point out that is equally dangerous and disturbing. In some cases, the law will be too steep and must be rejected

Shadows Vs Vorlons, eh? (Sorry if anyone doesn't get the reference!)

Rather than law per se, I put my faith in community; empathy, inter-personal connection, the desire not to see anyone suffer. As you hint at, law will arise as a means for that community to objectively find justice- and as long as that original empathy and state of community remains, law will not be perverted into that which you so eloquently condemn above. The problem isn't law- law is good- but the problem is law without that original sense of community and empathy. Then the law becomes dangerous, oppressive, etc.

I say we must promote law- but remember that law cannot and must not serve without the human spirit that establishes it.

Sadly, we still need law in the absence of that spirit and community empathy- otherwise the majority of people won't be prevented from turning on each other like wolves. Of course, then we run the risk of the law becoming heavy-handed and just as bad as the anarchists.

*Sigh*

Difficult this, isn't it?

 

[Kirkman1987]

Where is Batman when you need him.

I'd settle for a streetwise Hercules...

No, no........you all meant to say Charles Bronson

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFY5xMih3fo&feature=related[/yt]

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I can certainly envision situations in which I would act regardless of the state's wishes, just as there are situations in which I would act against the state.

Just don't expect to escape consequences for those actions.

I am bound by no law, the law functions merely as a means to communicate norms, and to salve the consciences of those who enforce it that they merely play their part in the system, that they are not ultimately responsible for their actions.

I disagree. We are all bound by law - as it should be. If that was not the case, then there would be chaos and disorder and death. The system has a vital role to play. The law exists not necessarily to impose order, but to prevent disorder. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's better than the alternative....Individuals cannot be trusted to police themselves. Because in a world where people can do anything, they will do everything, and that cannot be allowed to occur. Otherwise no one would be safe and we'd all have to turn our homes into armed encampments just to survive.

 

[Rii]

Rather than law per se, I put my faith in community; empathy, inter-personal connection, the desire not to see anyone suffer. As you hint at, law will arise as a means for that community to objectively find justice- and as long as that original empathy and state of community remains, law will not be perverted into that which you so eloquently condemn above. The problem isn't law- law is good- but the problem is law without that original sense of community and empathy. Then the law becomes dangerous, oppressive, etc.

I think a lack of empathy lies at the heart of most of the world's ills. For the most part it's unavoidable, part of our primate nature; we're simply not built to live in communities as large as we do. Within a family there's no talk about whether one "deserves" to have a life-saving operation, the love shared by the family makes such questions irrelevant.

It's only when it comes to people we can't see and don't know - people who aren't really 'people' in our minds - that such things become an issue. We speak of them collectively, the act of labelling them - as Americans, Muslims, Women, etc. - acting, often inadvertently, to further dehumanise them and detract from the awareness of our shared humanity. People will cry for a murdered child and cheer for a war, because one is a person and the other is conducted behind a facade of inhumanity: nations, uniforms, ideologies, law.

Of course, then we run the risk of the law becoming heavy-handed and just as bad as the anarchists.

Heh, when asked I usually label myself an anarcho-socialist.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I think a lack of empathy lies at the heart of most of the world's ills. For the most part it's unavoidable, part of our primate nature; we're simply not built to live in communities as large as we do. Within a family there's no talk about whether one "deserves" to have a life-saving operation, the love shared by the family makes such questions irrelevant.

It's only when it comes to people we can't see and don't know - people who aren't really 'people' in our minds - that such things become an issue. We speak of them collectively, the act of labelling them - as Americans, Muslims, Women, etc. - acting, often inadvertently, to further dehumanise them and detract from the awareness of our shared humanity. People will cry for a murdered child and cheer for a war, because one is a person and the other is conducted behind a facade of inhumanity: nations, uniforms, ideologies, law.

Again, a very interesting post. Thank you Rii.

I suppose the problem is that until we can encourage an awareness of that shared humanity- which is difficult because, as you point out, humans naturally live in smallish clans and families not in vast nations, a world-union, etc-we need some means of keeping the mobs from forming. The only way I can see to do that in the absence of a united world-mind (so to speak) is, as Mr. Laser Beam says, through the system of law. I think you're quite right about how easily law, nationality, organized systems, work to dehumanise, and ideally I would support a form of "soft anarchy", so to speak. Sadly, however, if we tried that at present it would lead to nothing but the same suffering and violence, only magnified, because a great, great many people couldn't be trusted with it. They need the authority of law to regulate that same primate behaviour you mention. I'd cheer if we got to the point where law can be relaxed and that pleasant near-anarchy embraced, but we're nowhere near that point. If we tried that, the mobs would rip civilization apart.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Hell, even J.Allen does it a lot (forget which Mod, but someone took him to task for it a couple weeks ago, so it stuck out in my head).

That was J. Axiom and I in the forum which must not be named (argument starts at post#8).

That thread is rated NC-17 for:

- Intense scenes of "lifestyle counselor" on "lifestyle counselor" bitchslapping.
- Random Jonathan Swift and Voltaire references.
- Implied wildebeest reach-arounds by Furries.
- Teddy Ruxpin saying "The gun is good, the penis is evil."
- Aquaman fighting the Flash.
- Disgusting displays of mutual respect and admiration in the wrong forum which needed to be covered up by calling my opponent an "asshole" to maintain said forum's evil rep.

 

[RJDiogenes]

"Implied... Wildebeest...." Er, never mind.

I'm always disgusted by the barbarism in modern society. As far as we've brought our civilization, the Human Race still hasn't been down long from the trees. Anger, fear and xenophobia are strong motivating factors; and it seems that we are going through a phase where that is especially true.

As for the posturing on news forums, keep in mind that the Internet serves as an outlet for weak-minded pussies who are afraid to leave their own homes; at least not without a gun.

 

[Deks]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

But the very reason extreme socialism failed was because of the desire to have power, because of greed and the idea that some should be "more equal than others" as it were. It was hypocrisy and the vulnerability of the system to abuse by the greedy, power-hungry and vindictive that made communism in part such a bad idea (I say in part- there were other reasons). You can't justify a supremely capitalist culture by pointing to socialism, because they both fail for the same reason- greed, the very self-centred attitudes Deks was condemning. The solution to the ills that caused extreme socialism and communism to fail so utterly is NOT to simply openly and overtly embrace those ideals, as extreme capitalist societies have.

I would also like to add that we already surpassed the level of technology decades ago where everyone on the planet could live comfortably with all the 'luxuries' as required, most of diseases/medical issues cured/taken cared of (or well on their way to be taken cared of), starvation practically non-existent, established moon bases, and starting to branch out.
Alas, the system we have in place, along with the mindset of numerous people in power (not to mention the general population), it will take far longer.

The technology is not the issue.
We can do it without a problem.
Money (as in lack thereof) is mentioned every time when something needs to be done that would radically alter the way of life of majority of people (for the better).

Also, it doesn't help when majority of people hold the mindset that certain individuals are 'naive' or 'idealistic'.
What the heck is that supposed to mean to begin with?
Society and numerous parents try raising kids with the premise to be 'good', 'kind', 'humane', to 'fight for a better future' ... and when they actually turn out like that, they are called 'idiots', 'naive', 'idealistic', and put them down on virtually every turn.

Why can't they simply be honest with kids from day one and tell them the truth, instead filling their head with lies that will for the most part backfire, unless they find themselves in a proper situation, or have extraordinary power to change things (or know someone who can, and is willing to affect change).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I would also like to add that we already surpassed the level of technology decades ago where everyone on the planet could live comfortably with all the 'luxuries' as required, most of diseases/medical issues cured/taken cared of (or well on their way to be taken cared of), starvation practically non-existent, established moon bases, and starting to branch out.

And you know this how, exactly?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Where is Batman when you need him.

I'd settle for a streetwise Hercules...

No, no........you all meant to say Charles Bronson

I prefer my vigilantes masked than 'stached.

 

[Deckerd]

Hell, even J.Allen does it a lot (forget which Mod, but someone took him to task for it a couple weeks ago, so it stuck out in my head).

That was J. Axiom and I in the forum which must not be named (argument starts at post#8).

That thread is rated NC-17 for:

- Intense scenes of "lifestyle counselor" on "lifestyle counselor" bitchslapping.
- Random Jonathan Swift and Voltaire references.
- Implied wildebeest reach-arounds by Furries.
- Teddy Ruxpin saying "The gun is good, the penis is evil."
- Aquaman fighting the Flash.
- Disgusting displays of mutual respect and admiration in the wrong forum which needed to be covered up by calling my opponent an "asshole" to maintain said forum's evil rep.

Locutus is more of a force of nature than purely a mod.

 

[Gepard]

"Implied... Wildebeest...." Er, never mind.

Completely Locutus's doing, I assure you.

 

[Deks]

I would also like to add that we already surpassed the level of technology decades ago where everyone on the planet could live comfortably with all the 'luxuries' as required, most of diseases/medical issues cured/taken cared of (or well on their way to be taken cared of), starvation practically non-existent, established moon bases, and starting to branch out.

And you know this how, exactly?

By taking a good look at what we were technologically capable of several decades ago (not to mention today), the amount of things western society considers as waste despite the fact it can be used to a great extent, then taking into consideration the obstacle 'money' presents in virtually every aspect (which is a recurring theme) and how a capitalist based system manages to stop any technology that could affect a market based system in a significant capacity and provide an actual benefit for people around the world.
Of course, the mindset of those in positions of power is one of the more important factors here.
Because, even if we invent replicators and transporters, they probably wouldn't change the way the world works because corrupt individuals who control the tech would use it to further their own goals and wouldn't look for betterment of mankind in general (much as it's being done right now) ... or would simply put into production a specific aspect of the tech in question and get even richer, or would completely lock it away.
Oh ... there is a possibility it could also be used for betterment of our lives of course ... but taking reality into account, chances of that happening (while there) are slim.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ So you don't know. Gotcha.

 

[Deks]

^ So you don't know. Gotcha.

Recycling technologies capable of converting specific amount of trash into exactly same amount of fuel,
the ability to grow food in deserts, not to mention the fact how the western world wastes tons of perfectly fine food from supermarkets on a daily basis they failed to sell and just trashes them without even trying to re-use them or divert those extra resources to countries suffering from food shortages.
These are just to name a few.
The computer world is filled with examples of how capitalism is negatively affecting technological advancement and that numerous aspects remain out of reach for plenty of individuals.

But I can probably quote a whole bunch of similar aspects throughout the day and you likely wouldn't care one bit.
You have an interesting way of jumping to an incorrect conclusion btw, which you demonstrated with that response.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Putting blame on Capitalism aside, it's true that we could accomplish everything you mentioned with technology that is decades old.

"Implied... Wildebeest...." Er, never mind.

Completely Locutus's doing, I assure you.

I don't doubt it.