mymanmickey
New member
Ah, your ideology is showing. 
A quick aside, my personal beliefs are that the ideas of "the individual" and "free will" are illusions maintained by ideological state apparatuses to breed complacency and self-assurance. Basically, believing that you matter, that you're special, and "capable of overcoming" makes for more obedient subjects.
I guess the "Individual" exists insofar that there is never anyone quite like anyone else(due to the unpredictable results of a combination of influences), but to use the word individual in the strictest sense is to assume that men are completely responsible for their identity and their actions, which is simply not true. In this essence, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps sense," the "Individual" certainly does not exist.
Someone "overcoming poverty" happens just enough, and only barely enough, that we can use them as an example to justify inaction against regimes that perpetuate cycles of poverty, and injustice.
"Feel Good Stories" are just prevalent enough to keep us inoculated from many of the struggles of our fellow man.
And "Free Will" is a joke. Nobody has complete agency, and as such, your will is never "free."
Then we are in agreement here.
Yes, but you can deliver the advice without the venom of "well you're retarded." To this effect, your input would only be constructive, and you would avoid falling in the trap of reinforcing negative self-image.
See point above. While I am aware that you did also give good, solid advice, that does not mean it negates the fact that you were also actively reinforcing his behavior. Again, you can deliver advice and aid without malice of any kind.
Of course not, but most of you were condemning him as stupid with your word choice. You did not say "Your actions are reprehensible, you should avoid that."
Read through the thread again and tell me in all seriousness with your macros and word choice, that most of you were not implying that he was an idiot, as well as condemning his actions?
Actions should always be considered separately of the individual to insure absolute "fairness."
See above.
"It is not what a man is that concerns me, but what he can become." -Jean-Paul Sarte
Exactly, you can condemn the actions without calling the person themselves stupid, moronic, etc. But can you read through this thread, and tell me in all honesty that many of you were simply condemning actions, and not the man himself?
You couldn't. This man deserves that chance as well. We know nothing about him except for his actions, and thus, it is unfair for us to condemn anything but his actions.
I think we're still in agreement here.
No, again, of course not, but go through this thread and tell me, in all honesty, that many of you were only labeling his actions, and not the man himself, as moronic?
Even if it is true, what good does calling the man "stupid" do?
A quick aside, my personal beliefs are that the ideas of "the individual" and "free will" are illusions maintained by ideological state apparatuses to breed complacency and self-assurance. Basically, believing that you matter, that you're special, and "capable of overcoming" makes for more obedient subjects.
I guess the "Individual" exists insofar that there is never anyone quite like anyone else(due to the unpredictable results of a combination of influences), but to use the word individual in the strictest sense is to assume that men are completely responsible for their identity and their actions, which is simply not true. In this essence, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps sense," the "Individual" certainly does not exist.
Someone "overcoming poverty" happens just enough, and only barely enough, that we can use them as an example to justify inaction against regimes that perpetuate cycles of poverty, and injustice.
"Feel Good Stories" are just prevalent enough to keep us inoculated from many of the struggles of our fellow man.
And "Free Will" is a joke. Nobody has complete agency, and as such, your will is never "free."
Then we are in agreement here.
Yes, but you can deliver the advice without the venom of "well you're retarded." To this effect, your input would only be constructive, and you would avoid falling in the trap of reinforcing negative self-image.
See point above. While I am aware that you did also give good, solid advice, that does not mean it negates the fact that you were also actively reinforcing his behavior. Again, you can deliver advice and aid without malice of any kind.
Of course not, but most of you were condemning him as stupid with your word choice. You did not say "Your actions are reprehensible, you should avoid that."
Read through the thread again and tell me in all seriousness with your macros and word choice, that most of you were not implying that he was an idiot, as well as condemning his actions?
Actions should always be considered separately of the individual to insure absolute "fairness."
See above.
"It is not what a man is that concerns me, but what he can become." -Jean-Paul Sarte
Exactly, you can condemn the actions without calling the person themselves stupid, moronic, etc. But can you read through this thread, and tell me in all honesty that many of you were simply condemning actions, and not the man himself?
You couldn't. This man deserves that chance as well. We know nothing about him except for his actions, and thus, it is unfair for us to condemn anything but his actions.
I think we're still in agreement here.
No, again, of course not, but go through this thread and tell me, in all honesty, that many of you were only labeling his actions, and not the man himself, as moronic?
Even if it is true, what good does calling the man "stupid" do?
