You idiot leftists have banned all violence, and now all entertainment is vicarious violence because real-life hatred has been banned.
While this is political and thus mind-killing language I think it is only fair that if Alicorn has the opportunity to talk about “tactical difficulties” in the debate Aurini should too. I think this hatefest he has attracted has strawmaned and demonized him to ridiculous proportions and that he is indeed right about the reasons for why this happened.
You idiot leftists have banned all violence, and now all entertainment is vicarious violence because real-life hatred has been banned.
Frankly, I don’t understand. Would someone here who’s not an Idiot Leftist—you, or Aurini, or whoever, clear that up, please? How do we get a real-life outlet for violent instincts that’s more safe, moral and convenient than entertainment? What precisely is he complaining about, and why is he so angry about it?
I’m an idiot leftist, who’s just wandered by from here. I don’t think Aurini or Sheen think real-life violence outlets can be more safe, moral, or convenient than watching simulated violence on TV or performing simulated violence in a video game. They (or at least Aurini) argues that a large social class finds a lot of value in cathartic violence, both the giving of it and the receiving of it, and that this value outweighs the physical and emotional damage.
I hadn’t considered it before, but I do think it’s not obvious which is correct.
This “value” is only an issue if you have utilitarian ethics in the first place. I don’t. Enforcing happiness against subjects’ will is usually insane, but enforcing virtue makes a scary amount of sense. I’d be willing to, in some form.
Yes, yes, I’m a creepy intolerant liberal-fascist who thinks that everything in the world is his business.
(Speaking objectively? Welcome to the human tradegy, where both action and inaction have such huge downsides that each one is very easy to construe as evil! We should all just hate ourselves even more, epistemically that’s my only advice here.)
While this is political and thus mind-killing language I think it is only fair that if Alicorn has the opportunity to talk about “tactical difficulties” in the debate Aurini should too. I think this hatefest he has attracted has strawmaned and demonized him to ridiculous proportions and that he is indeed right about the reasons for why this happened.
Frankly, I don’t understand. Would someone here who’s not an Idiot Leftist—you, or Aurini, or whoever, clear that up, please? How do we get a real-life outlet for violent instincts that’s more safe, moral and convenient than entertainment? What precisely is he complaining about, and why is he so angry about it?
I’m an idiot leftist, who’s just wandered by from here. I don’t think Aurini or Sheen think real-life violence outlets can be more safe, moral, or convenient than watching simulated violence on TV or performing simulated violence in a video game. They (or at least Aurini) argues that a large social class finds a lot of value in cathartic violence, both the giving of it and the receiving of it, and that this value outweighs the physical and emotional damage.
I hadn’t considered it before, but I do think it’s not obvious which is correct.
This “value” is only an issue if you have utilitarian ethics in the first place. I don’t. Enforcing happiness against subjects’ will is usually insane, but enforcing virtue makes a scary amount of sense. I’d be willing to, in some form.
Yes, yes, I’m a creepy intolerant liberal-fascist who thinks that everything in the world is his business.
(Speaking objectively? Welcome to the human tradegy, where both action and inaction have such huge downsides that each one is very easy to construe as evil! We should all just hate ourselves even more, epistemically that’s my only advice here.)