Who’s to Blame?
When I was a kid, my parents repeatedly explained to me that I was in control of my actions. I’ve always thought this to be common knowledge and widely accepted. However, when assigning blame there seems to be a lot of variation that I can’t find a reasonable explanation for.
Some examples:
Charles Manson was blamed and imprisoned for actions he himself did not commit. He’s actually quoted as saying “… you are as much responsible for the Vietnam war as I am for killing these people,” at his trial.
Now, although not so in the past, it is deemed unreasonable to blame music/musicians for things like suicides and school shootings. However, video games have become a substitute scapegoat in recent times.
Trump was blamed for the Capital riots.
So which is it? Are we agents that act of our own volition, or are we helplessly swayed to act under certain, very specific circumstances?
To circle back to my upbringing, the response my parents gave when I tried using the excuse “because X said so” for my poor decision making was “if X said to jump off a bridge would you do it?” Apparently in society, if someone is actually dumb enough to jump off a bridge because they were told to, it’s the other person’s fault.
Some examples:
Charles Manson was blamed and imprisoned for actions he himself did not commit. He’s actually quoted as saying “… you are as much responsible for the Vietnam war as I am for killing these people,” at his trial.
Now, although not so in the past, it is deemed unreasonable to blame music/musicians for things like suicides and school shootings. However, video games have become a substitute scapegoat in recent times.
Trump was blamed for the Capital riots.
So which is it? Are we agents that act of our own volition, or are we helplessly swayed to act under certain, very specific circumstances?
To circle back to my upbringing, the response my parents gave when I tried using the excuse “because X said so” for my poor decision making was “if X said to jump off a bridge would you do it?” Apparently in society, if someone is actually dumb enough to jump off a bridge because they were told to, it’s the other person’s fault.
Comments (79)
Was Donald Trump "guilty", "blame-worthy", or "responsible" for the capitol riot? His role was clearly provocative, without being literally responsible--the way a general may be responsible for a failed defense. Provocation, though, establishes a connection between the provocateur and the agents. While DT didn't lead the charge into the capitol building, he also did nothing (at the critical time) to prevent continued rioting. So yes, he is blame worthy.
The individuals who rioted in the capitol building are likely to be found guilty of illegal acts for which each of them is responsible.
We are both self-responsible agents and can often be swayed to act against our better judgment. There is, after all, a large industry (marketing) bent on swaying our behavior toward buying stuff we do not need or even want. Some people tend to be highly influenced by other people. Others are not.
Charlie got railroaded by a country hysterical about the crimes of his followers. Not unlike Derek Chauvin. When the mob bays for blood they usually get it.
Truth is I'm not all that familiar with the case. I Googled around and found an on-point article.
Did Charles Manson kill anyone? No. Who said he ordered any killings? Only the killers themselves. So, in truth, what did Charles Manson do?
https://allthatsinteresting.com/who-did-charles-manson-kill
There was a case a few years back where a woman was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for texting her suicidal boyfriend that he should just get on with it. After her seemingly loving encouragement he killed himself with carbon monoxide in a Kmart parking lot. Though he died by his own hand, by his own volition, the court deemed her guilty of homicide as if a person could kill another by text message.
This is an age-old, superstitious problem that few have spoken about: an overestimation of the power of words. One can see it everywhere once one notices it.
And then there's that striking similarity between a zombie and an individualist ...
Zombies are not real, friend.
Both. That should be obvious, right? No-one seriously believes people are either 100% in control all the time, or never in control.
The basic principle here isn't very difficult. You are responsible for your own voluntary actions, and you are to blame for the foreseeable consequences of said actions. One implication of this is that blame is not a zero-sum game. More than one person can bear the blame for a result, it isn't split between actors.
Quoting fishfry
And here I was thinking it was Derek Chauvin himself who knelt on that neck, and not some "follower" of his.
Quoting NOS4A2
I think the superstition is to treat words as if they were not physical phenomena like any other.
That’s one aspect. Another is to treat words as poison, drugs, or pollution, capable of manipulating matter in fantastic ways.
I think that we are all inclined to blame others, whether it is our parents, the government, the church or atheists. Of course, there are many sources of fault external to us, but it is also involves psychological processes of projection. It is so much easier to see faults in others and blame them rather to see our own. I am not saying that we should simply try to blame ourselves, but I do think that it is useful to be able to see the way blaming others can be about avoiding personal responsibility and can even contribute to a sense of victimhood and lack of empowerment.
. I would like you to understand this basic truth ...
. "Your Life is your Karma" ...
. You are 100 per cent responsible for what happened ... happens ... and will hapen in your Life ... One who do that ... is truly responsible ... Why is it so? ...
. Because ... unless you're in a tremendous conscious state of being ... you cannot and will never conceive yourself as the doer of your Life ... to this ... I call ... Ignorance ... an ignorant man ... a blind being ... trying to put his responsability on the society ... on politicians ... on the state ... on the government ... on the social structure ... and so on so forth ...
. The mediocre being ... therefore ... the ordinary mind ... the mass population ... always ... throws the responsibility on somebody else. It is always the other who is making you suffer. Your wife is making you suffer, your husband is making you suffer, your parents are making you suffer, your children are making you suffer, or the financial system of the society, capitalism, communism, fascism, the prevalent political ideology, the social structure, or fate, karma, God ... you name it!
. One is full of bull**** ... and one want others to be responsible for one misery ...
. People have millions of ways to shirk responsibility. But the moment you say somebody else – X, Y, Z – is making you suffer, then you cannot do anything to change it. What can you do? When the society changes and communism comes and there is a classless world, then everybody will be happy. Before it, it is not possible. How can you be happy in a society which is poor? And how can you be happy in a society which is dominated by the capitalists? How can you be happy with a society which is bureaucratic? How can you be happy with a society which does not allow you freedom?
. Excuses and excuses and excuses – excuses just to avoid one single insight that “I am responsible for myself. Nobody else is responsible for me; it is absolutely and utterly my responsibility. Whatsoever I am, I am my own creation.”
There is a difference between being personally culpable for a crime or being led by others to commit a crime and being blamed for a crime that you haven't committed.
In Trump's case, no criminal culpability can be found for the Capitol riots. Politicians use terms like "fight" all the time. Political speeches may in some cases, be deemed "inflamatory", but it's very difficult to infer criminal culpability from that alone. We can't tell beyond reasonable doubt what Trump's intentions were on that day. Therefore, no criminal culpability can be established on the available evidence. Fresh incriminating evidence may still surface at some point in the future, but right now the evidence seems insufficient for successful prosecution and conviction. And in the Western justice system you're innocent until proven guilty.
It's also the way the media reported the riot as having left a "trail of blood", or "killed five people", etc. In fact it wasn't any more "bloody" than other violent riots. One victim (a rioter) was shot by the police, one or two police officers committed suicide, one rioter died as a result of some medical emergency and I'm not sure if they found a precise death cause or culprit for the death of the fifth (a police officer), in which case only one fatality can be directly linked to rioter action if at all. and even that may not have been intentional.
Personally, I'm not condoning either Trump or the rioters. But the fact is that we perceive everything through the lens of the media and the media can be very influential in forming public opinion. Each case needs to be judged on its own merits and after examining all the evidence, both pro and against.
Having said that, I've heard people say that America was founded through revolution and that people should have the right to launch an insurrection. After all, insurrection is just a large-scale riot. I'm sure even a regular riot in the right conditions might lead to insurrection and maybe people should have the right to rebel when they think that their rights are being taken away from them.
The question is, On what criteria do we decide when or when not a riot or insurrection is legitimate? What makes it legitimate, majority support, objective, or what?
If we say objective then we say that the ends justify the means. If we say majority support, then we say that the majority is always right. But none of these statements are absolute rules and both of them can be problematic. So, who decides and how? There's a problem for philosophy to solve.
Not the place to discuss this case, but I see you didn't actually follow the details of the trial. I suggest you do so.
And by the way, Chauvin did not kneel on Floyd's neck; only on his upper back, in accord with officially approved Minneapolis police procedure for restraining a combative arrestee, as eventually admitted by the prosecution at trial. Like I say, study the actual trial.
Unfortunately, I didn't follow the trial either. Would you care to clarify that a bit for those of us who haven't?
If I did, I'd become embroiled in an endless political argument about the case. I have no interest in that. If you don't know, for example, that Floyd swallowed drugs for his buddy in the car, his drug dealer who wanted to avoid arrest; and that the drug dealer then invoked his 5th Amendment privilege to not testify; and that obviously this information would have been exculpatory to Chauvin, what is the point of my enumerating a dozen other similarly exculpatory facts? If you remember the death of John Belushi years ago, the woman he was with at the time who supplied him with drugs was arrested, convicted, and spent time in jail for his death. Likewise Floyd's drug dealer buddy in the car with him at the time would have been legally culpable for Floyd's death, so he used his Constitutional privilege to not testify. Do you know this? Probably not, if you only watched the hysterical MSM reporting.
Floyd's already fatal blood level of fentanyl in him. The medical examiner said that if they'd found Floyd dead in his living room with that level of fentanyl in him, the medical examiner would have no problem calling it an overdose death. I know CNN didn't mention that, but it was recorded into evidence at the trial.
Floyd said he couldn't breathe long before the cops put their hands on him. Was that in the MSM coverage? No. But it's in the record of the trial, and it's in the news articles that didn't make it to the MSM.
Do your own homework or go along with a lynch mob. Not my problem and not my purpose in using Chauvin to illustrate what a modern day lynch mob looks like. There are as I say another dozen points I could make. If you prefer to be educated, everything's online. https://www.powerlineblog.com/ did fantastic day-by-day coverage direct from the courtroom but unfortunately they don't seem to have everything organized in one place anymore.
Here's Dershowitz on the Chauvin case. But why do I need to be the one who Googles things for you? You have a choice to mindlessly join the lynch mob or spend an hour Googling and reading. Even the fact that the judge refused to move the trial to a different city or sequester the jury will be grounds for appeal. One of the jurors tweeted earlier that he wanted to get on the jury to get justice for Floyd, lied to the court during jury selection about attending a rally wearing a BLM t-shirt that he was photographed in. This was a kangaroo court. That doesn't make Chauvin cop of the year, he was a bad cop in many respects. That doesn't make him guilty of all the counts against him, some of which logically contradict the others. I truly haven't the time or the interest to write you an essay about this case.
Thanks, you probably know more about the case than most. I probably shouldn't have name-checked Chauvin if I didn't want to get into a back-and-forth about it. But I said that Charlie didn't kill anyone and nobody batted an eye. If I'd written the same thing in 1969 I'd have been public enemy #1. Everyone in the country hated Charles Manson. Just like everyone in the country hates Derek Chauvin, who, as I've said, is no prince.
I really don't want to have hijacked another thread into some irrelevant political issue. Maybe I shouldn't mention the case of Tony Timpa, a white guy cruelly choked to death by cops in a case far more egregious than that of George Floyd. "Dallas police officers kneeled on Tony Timpa’s neck for 13 minutes while he yelled, “You’re gonna kill me!” He died, handcuffed and face down, while officers joked about his mental illness. A district court granted qualified immunity to the police officers."
Early in the Floyd story I vaguely remembered the Timpa case but couldn't remember his name. I Googled, "White guy choked to death by cops," and found page after page of Floyd links and not a single link about Tony Timpa. I put the same search into Bing and Timpa's name immediately came up. I don't think people realize the extent to which web search is censored and politicized by Google. And as of right now, Wikipedia has no article on his case. (There is an outline of the case on the Wiki page for the Dallas PD). That's how the Internet works. It's 1984 in our daily lives, and we don't even see it.
There is an fact an epidemic of bad policing in the US. Some of it is racial but most of it isn't. Cops kill defenseless and undeserving whites more than they do blacks; although on a per capita basis, they kill more blacks. You can make a case either way. The racialization of bad policing makes it impossible to effectively address the problem.
I definitely agree with that. It's a shame that in the 21st century people aren't rational enough to solve policing problems peacefully and without bringing culture and race wars into it. Plus I hear that BLM is being funded by Chinese organizations linked to the Communist Party of China on top of having links to Nation of Islam and other extremist groups.
...said with an apparently straight face...?
Again, is this satire? It seems not.
Imarn Ayton, one of the organizers of BLM rallies in the UK, has admitted that the BLM movement has been hijacked by far-left activists who believe in "smashing capitalism and abolishing the police".
BLM is not only being used by domestic extremists but also by foreign powers like China who share the agenda of the British and American Far Left. BLM activism is being backed by foreign powers such as Communist China.
China’s intelligence apparatus United Front Work Department a.k.a. “United Front”, that runs interference in Western countries, has been running a large-scale social media campaign and other covert operations in support of Black Lives Matter and similar movements as part of its efforts to amplify racial unrest and destabilize target countries.
- "The New China Syndrome", Newsweek, 06.10.11.2020
A report of 10 March released by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) shows that China's ally Iran, a major sponsor of Islamic terrorism, is another foreign power exploiting racial unrest in Western countries, "using overt and covert messaging and cyber operations" to "sow division and exacerbate societal tensions".
Black Lives Matter co-founder is being funded by group linked to the Chinese Communist Part – Daily Mail
Quoting Apollodorus
But you are implying it.
No. I'm saying they have links to Communist China according to the reports. That doesn't make the whole movement communist. Only that it is being used by Communist governments and groups.
...and your conclusion? Is BLM now unworthy because of that funding? Does Chinese money mean black lives no longer matter?
All lives matter. And it isn't a black movement. Most people that get involved are white at least where I live. It isn't only Chinese money. It isn't my type of movement, that's all.
Sad, to see you quote this reactionary meme.
Well, you need to explain what you mean by "reactionary". If you mean "reactionary" in the Marxist sense of "counterrevolutionary", i.e. someone who is to be eliminated by revolutionaries, then I must object to that label.
"If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence will already have been destroyed” Marx & Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, May 1850
Edit: posted before your reply came through.
Just keep it simple. Someone points out in the context of recent events that black lives matter. Someone else says "all lives matter". Did they react?
That's why it might be useful to clarify what is meant by "reactionary". It wasn't me who used that term.
It's got a particular meaning in Marxist literature. Hence my question.
"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists” F Engels, “On Authority”, Almanaco Republicano, 1874
Quoting Apollodorus
Again,in what sense could it not be reactionary? It is your use that is in contrast to the definition you invoked.
How could it not be reactionary?
Words mean different things to different people. I asked you if you meant "reactionary" in the Marxist sense illustrated above.
I'd say that's a reactionary statement. I don't think we need Marxism to help explain this...
But as I said, "reactionary" can mean different things to different people and can have different results in different circumstances. In some cases, if you called someone "reactionary" or "counterrevolutionary" or "Nazi", that person could be dead before you know it. So you need to be careful when you label people.
Dude, it's a reactionary comment. The Humpty Dumpty Defence won't cut it.
I've never heard that used of a comment except in a Marxist or far-left context. Obviously, we are from different villages or parts of the world. But that isn't my fault.
Friday essay: searching for sanity in a world hell-bent on destructionQuoting Pinprick
If everyone drinks from the poison well, ought you, too?
We are not so different that you do not understand me. You are avoiding the question.
How could that not be a reactionary meme?
Or do you now disavow the meme?
Yes, you do.
You perhaps do not care to own the label.
So you mean it in a Marxist or far-left sense then. And that's why I'm not interested in BLM.
SO now we can circle back to your comment:
Quoting Apollodorus
...the downplaying of culture and race in the interests of what you misunderstand as "rationality" in the same paragraph as the insipid repetition of a conspiracy theory.
You were earnest then. So there's nothing more to be said.
Likewise.
Sure, I guess.
And "black lives matter" is a part of "all lives matter".
There's some focus on that sub-set because some systemic discrimination has been seen in particular.
By refusing to say "black lives matter" and instead just keep saying "all lives matter" you haven't really said much, except to deny or ignore something that needs addressing.
Red herring? Ignoratio elenchi?
For sake of [s]discussion[/s] inviting people to throw rocks at me, I'll toss out a counterargument that I already mentioned a little earlier.
There's a lot of bad police behavior in the US. Some of it is racial and some of it isn't. If you define it as a racial problem, you can't solve the problem because you've misdiagnosed it. If you tell black people that "You're being hunted by cops," you don't solve any problems that actually exist; and you encourage a certain percentage of black people to resist arrest, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Dr. King dreamed of a society where people were judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin; in effect, "all lives matter." If you now characterize such a position as racist, or not sufficiently anti-racist, you simply polarize people and make society's problems worse.
Secondly, while it's undeniably true that black lives matter, Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization wholly dedicated to the destruction of the American way of life. This equivocation puts lifelong nonracist people like myself in the position of saying that black lives matter but that I oppose Black Lives Matter; subjecting me to to the charge of racism. And this equivocation is no accident, it's deliberate.
If saying that "All lives matter" is racist, then the word racist has been distorted beyond all meaning and is simply used as a political epithet; as has in fact happened in the present sociopolitical moment.
See you would be more convincing as an advocate against police brutality if you didn't feel the need to point to "circumstances" of George Floyd's arrest which are not related to the question of whether or not Derek Chauvin is guilty of intentionally killing a person.
Quoting fishfry
Ahahahaha. Right. The "American way of life", whatever that is. Quoting fishfry
Hey here is a hint: Displaying the Swastika doesn't identify you as a racist because swastikas have some kind of racist essence that rubs off on you. It's because it has been factually used by racists.
This is way better than Banno's effort.
You're arguing from ignorance there. I haven't "refused" anything. Please read my posts before butting in. It was a reply to @Banno's unfounded charge that by linking BLM with China I somehow thought that racial equality is not a worthy cause. Both of you are totally wrong and you're deliberately distorting what people are saying which is what far-left activists usually do. No different from Nazis. That's why you call people "reactionary", i.e. "enemy".
Two wrongs make a right? Nah. Still need to address systemic discrimination.
Quoting fishfry
Either way, we still need to address the social/cultural problem, systemic discrimination.
Quoting fishfry
I wouldn't say it is. Except perhaps in reaction to "black lives matter"?
, the comment was kind of memerific, often seen out there, as a reaction, which seemed to be what you were doing. No need to diverge off to semantics.
1. Observer/activist: "black lives matter"
2. Responder: "all lives matter" ? doesn't really say much (except perhaps to ignore 1)
If the commies are taking advantage of the situation, then that still doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Wasn't it Obama that once said something about cultural DNA, heritage, legacy, something like that, a lingering problem that needs addressing...?
You mean white cultural DNA, heritage, legacy, etc. being a problem that needs addressing, don't you? So, perhaps we should start building concentration camps to get rid of all that white cultural DNA, etc.? Some might see that as the fastest final solution.
In hindsight, I think Trump was a bad example to use. He was blameworthy for his actions. I’m more interested in how people are blamed for things they didn’t do. It would be like blaming Trump for murder if the rioters had killed someone. That’s what I have a hard time getting on board with.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That’s obviously true, but it’s unfair to blame McDonald’s for the obesity epidemic. We’re all influenced to greater or lesser degrees, but are expected to use good judgement when we choose to act. There’s an assumption of free will that we as a society endorse in most cases, so I don’t understand why in other cases we make exceptions. Was Manson so extraordinary that others were unable to resist his persuasions? I understand making exceptions for severely mentally ill or disabled individuals and for children. These are people who aren’t deemed capable of comprehending the consequences of their actions. Medical and psychological explanations can account for those type of cases.
Quoting NOS4A2
I remember seeing that case as well, and having a similar reaction. It’s concerning to think that our legal system seems to have no issue equating speech and actions. Free speech has slowly been chiseled away at, and may soon be a relic of the past. I hope not, but that seems to be the direction things are trending at the moment. I have a difficult time imagining how society, a supposed free society, can truly function if free speech isn’t maintained. Especially when it comes to the idea of justice.
I didn't say that and didn't bother to read further.
IMO that's where the problem lies with modern "liberal democracy" and with liberalism in general. Liberalism started as a movement aiming to win freedom for certain social and economic groups. However, political power is a limited commodity. You can only acquire some for yourself by restricting the power of others. From a minority group, the liberals gradually became the majority and now that they hold most of the power they are beginning to take away whatever power the others have left. We are now getting close to full circle when we are reverting to a situation where freedom is becoming more and more limited. And this isn't just in the USA.
This may seem very unphilosophical but.
In the game Assassins Creed I vaguely remember a character explaining how assassin's are just daggers hired to kill, it is the wielder/person who hired that is the killer.
I get its a justifiable means of assassination given the context but the ideology is not to dissimilar.
This concept is very direct in relation to the post's example so ill try to explain a bit further:
If one were to directly ask you to do something then its easily understandable intent from both perspectives.
But if one were to influence you to do something through bias manipulation/deception then only the influencer would be aware of the intent which masks the intent from the influenced.
If you manipulated the individual culture of an person in a way that is accepting of certain ideology it can lead to that person acting out that ideology through cultural bias.
If an individual is raised closed minded it can lead to easier manipulation because the idea of considering other perspectives or willingness to consider other idea's is just not part of how they are raised/influenced.
Which is why a influencer can claim innocent but they are so so far from innocent.
Tort law is specifically centred around that principle.
We are responsible, according to articled and tested law, for the safety and well-being of others as much as for our own.
(A corollary of this is conscription or drafting soldiers: the duty of care may require a patriot to give up his life for others in his community, and he can get punished for failing to do so, such as in court-marshalling a defector.)
It's weird to claim that responsibility for the effects of your actions is an "exception to free will". This seems to assume the "free" in "free will" means "random", i.e. unrelated to previous events. But that's not the case.
Quoting Pinprick
I don't see why "inability to resist" should be the criterion. If I offer 5 million for someone's death, would-be assassins aren't "unable to resist" this offer, but it'd be ludicrous to argue I had nothing to do with the eventual death of the person.
Quoting Pinprick
Speech literally is an action.
I wouldn't venture to say people (most of them) act of their own volition, though one could say that, given one's own volition might be to do what others are doing. But I think I'm speaking too obscurely. In your proposition, either or, yes I think you're probably right, as such things go people act of their own volition. But if they get in trouble, then they might be able to pass off the blame on someone else. However it would be a mistake to say some people aren't greatly influenced by others. However you have a fair question. Maybe the determining factor shouldn't be one or the other, but exterior things, like the grand good. I mean after all don't people that do what others do represent a kind of collective? So it's an aggregate mass in consideration, not inviduals. Are its actions good, or bad? Perhaps too great a focus on an individual is overlooking that most are, well... otherwise. :)
For my money, the inconsistency reveals a bitter truth about us viz. we're thoroughly confused on many fronts, hence the inconsistency you were so kind to bring to our attention. I suppose it all boils down how strong the external influence in question is. Charles Manson was, to my knowledge, almost a godlike figure to the people who went on to commit the crimes he was held responsible for.
Since, Manson's followers were in in thrall of him, they could be viewed as virus-infected computers - their minds hijacked as it were by Manson and running code installed on them by none other than Manson himself. In essence, Manson's disciples were following his instructions or their corollaries.
Could Manson's "family" oppose Manson? In other words, were they capable of saying, "no" to Manson's influence? I don't know. I believe all of them were 18+ years old but then Manson was a god to them.
This, intriguingly, takes us back to Athens, roughly 2000 years ago, to Euthyphro's dilemma - is an action good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? The dilemma suggests/indicates everyone has a mind of their own in a manner of speaking and won't/shouldn't act out of mere faith in god. By that token Manson shouldn't be held responsible. However, the dilemma cuts both ways since one of its horns makes it explicit that once god enters the fray, people might just be willing, even eager, to do god's bidding even if it means committing the worst of atrocities.
I guess you can make the case that this is true collectively. Sports would be an example of this; no one person is responsible for winning/losing, but each individual is still only responsible for their actions. The QB isn’t responsible for the wide receiver dropping the pass, for example.
Quoting Echarmion
I’m claiming the opposite. Typically free will is assumed, but when Manson is blamed for a murder someone else committed, it implies that person did not have free will, or at least was not capable of exercising it. So in this case we make an exception, and blame Manson instead of the person who’s actions actually resulted in death.
Quoting Echarmion
I’m separating the two incidents. You would bear blame for hiring an assassin, but the assassin would be to blame for the actual murder. So, I’m fine with blaming Manson for whatever it is he actually did (which basically amounts to preaching as far as I understand it), but he isn’t a murderer.
Quoting Echarmion
Yeah, that’s true, but speech alone isn’t capable of forcing someone to do something, effectively eliminating their free will. It’s the difference between telling you to raise your hand, and forcibly grabbing your hand and raising it.
Actually, I think something similar to this argument is used to absolve the Beatle’s song “Heltor Skeltor” from blame for Manson’s actions. Due to Manson’s most likely mental illness he interpreted this song as a sort of prophecy about an impending race war. The song obviously was no such thing, nor was it intended to be.
This also brings up the other issue of interpretation. If someone doesn’t realize or recognize hyperbole, and then goes on to commit horrendous acts due to this misinterpretation, who’s to blame? Should the speaker have been more responsible, and chosen his words better or made it more clear it was hyperbole? Or is the actor to blame for not interpreting correctly? Or I guess a third option would be to say neither is to blame?
I'm fairly certain that Manson & his "family" were put through psychological tests of IQ, personality, schizphrenia, and the like. Given the court's verdict was guilty, it's safe to say they scored well on the IQ test (were not gullible) and the schizophrenia test was negative (they weren't insane). That you seem to think they were "gullible" and/or "insane" casts doubt on the validity of psychological tests, especially in borderline cases as must've been true for the Manson "family"
Quoting Pinprick
Indeed, I believe there are many real life instances of misinterpretation. Someone could pass an insensitive comment such as, "Blacks are more violent than whites" and the audience might (mis)interpret that as "kill/jail Blacks" or something like that. I suppose the chances of getting the wrong idea is proportional to the rhetoric in a speech/text which makes the speaker/writer liable to some degree for the effects of faer words.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don’t think it can be that cut and dry. Culture has a lot to do with it too. Mark Twain used a racial slur quite often in his writings. Does that mean he was racist? That’s a rhetorical question, but it would be easy to see how a reader may come to the conclusion that he was. Especially if they’re not informed about the author or when the book was written. But it’s ridiculous to expect Mark Twain to have the foresight to know how the word “nigger” would be interpreted 100 years after the fact.
Right! :up: I sometimes forget the 4th dimension (time) - things change, the new, allegedly better, replace the old, reportedly inferior. Perhaps this applies to us as well. Fast forward a 100 or so years, and people will probably mock/criticize us for how little we knew. Nevertheless, your comments are, like Shakespeare's plays, timeless - valid for all time as it were.
Quoting Pinprick
I think the idea expressed in this paragraph has broad applicability. As I mentioned vide supra, we need to be alert to the temporal dimension, specifically the change that takes place in our knowledge - outdated theories are discarded as new, hopefully better ones, replace them - which gives us an opportunity to recontextualize old issues in a newer, more truthful, set of ideas.
I feel like the adverse reaction to my ideas is indicative of that society is to blame.
Not really. Noone denies that you still have free will if I put a gun to your head and ask you to hand over your wallet. You can choose death, after all. But that doesn't mean me putting the gun to your head is somehow irrelevant to the question of responsibility / blame for the result.
Quoting Pinprick
Ok, but this is already what's happening in practice (the members of the Manson family who actually did the murdering were not acquitted). So it sounds like this is purely semantics. So one isn't a "murderer" but a "murderer hirer" or a "murderer preacher". Aside from the name, what's the difference? What's worse, hiring an assassin or being an assassin? Probably depends on the circumstances, right?
Quoting Pinprick
Nothing outside of literally taking control of someone's body is technically capable of eliminating someone's free will. But someone else's free will isn't a barrier that somehow shields one from consequences.
Quoting Pinprick
Yeah but what is that difference? How does it matter from a moral standpoint?
We're a community. We have a shared responsibility for each other! How can you be okay with yourself if you deny responsibility for the world we're living in?
. No ... TaySan ...
. Your common word for ... responsability ... is not responsability ... You're not talking about responsability ... your're talking about respectability ... you're talking about Duty.
. In the so-called dictionary they're synonyms ... but in Life ... in existence ... not in a stupid dictionary ... they're not synonyms ... in fact ... they are diametrically opposite to each other ... as sky-earth ... as Hell-Heaven ... but paradoxically ... they may be complementary ... because the whole Life is a Paradox ...
. Duty and respectability are a social contract ... they are ugly phenonema ... they're not natural ... it's useful ... it is not an end unto itself ... Duty is mind-oriented ... goal-oriented ... responsability ... is heart-oriented ... Love-oriented ... do you understand ... Responsability means ... that ... you responde to the moment ... regardless the consequences ... you're whole in the moment ... and everything whole ... friend ... know well ... that is Holy ...
. Responsability is not something cultivated by you ... it rises through you ... through your innermost core ... it is existencialist ...
. Unless you're responsible to yourself ... unless you Love yourself ... as an unique human being ... not as a personality ... but as an individual ... you cannot and will not respect others ... respect the whole universe ... One who plays the duty role ... pretends to love others ... In fact ... he's an hypocrite ... that's the reason why he needs to be confined to stupid rules ... made by stupid people ... He does not trust in his heart ...
But I do understand the Ouroboros now. It's not eating itself. It's kissing its own ass :flower:
Right. That’s why putting a gun to someone’s head is illegal/blameworthy.
Quoting Echarmion
Being blamed for someone else’s actions vs. being blamed for your own.
Quoting Echarmion
Not sure what you mean here…
Quoting Echarmion
Consider the tendency some have of blaming the victim. Is a woman to blame, in any way, for the actions of the rapist? Feel free to imagine whatever scenario you like; she was coming on to him, was dressed provocatively, etc.
If we’re going to blame someone for someone else’s actions, then we have to contend with examples like this one. If she’s not to blame, why not? I have a feeling whatever argument you use to justify not blaming her can also be used to justify not blaming Manson for murder.
And that, according to you, is unrelated to the actual intent and result? I.e. it's always the same blame, regardless of your reasons and the result?
Quoting Pinprick
Well one obvious reason here is that it's the [I]victim[/I] we're talking about. We're not blaming the victim because they weren't the ones that decided to break the rules. It's important here to distinguish between intention to cause harm and negligence. The victim does not intend to be victimized, so the charge can only be one of neglecting precautions. Every society has to define it's own standard of acceptable precautions. Those cannot be absolute, lest everyone be paralyzed. So we make decisions about what we should and shouldn't demand of people, and many societies have decided that asking women to make precautions such as dressing in specific ways isn't acceptable (besides the actual causal connection being suspect in the first place).
Intentional behaviour is under much stricter rules. If you intend to cause a certain result, in generally does not matter how many intervening decisions there are, unless the connection is so tenous as to be effectively random.
If I understand you correctly, no. I think intent and result both matter. For example, someone that is starving to death and steals bread should be treated differently than a CEO that funnels millions of dollars illegally into an offshore account. The former act is understandable, maybe even justifiable, whereas the latter is not.
Quoting Echarmion
But can’t the Manson family be viewed as victims of Manson’s brainwashing? Isn’t that the logic used to make him culpable in the first place?
For example, Socrates. He was convicted of corrupting the Athenian youth. Was the fact that his intention was innocent, that he was only seeking rational truth, exculpatory? That so many of his disciples—Alcibiades comes to mind—were influenced by him to corrupt politics suggests he was the origin of that corruption.
Again: is Marx responsible for Stalin? Is Machiavelli responsible for any prince’s atrocities who came after? Is Nietzsche responsible for Hitler? Is Thales accountable for revealing that Zeus does not control the heavens?...
...on the other hand it is clear that certain freedoms allowed by the legislator in society necessarily lead, by nature, to certain corruptions. The left, in America, has always viewed violent video-games as free speech—yet who can doubt that such customary exposure to virtual violence leads to actual such? Women in the west have been allowed to dress suggestively now for a long time. Who would doubt that revealing young women’s bodies in public would lead to an increase in rapes and sexually inspired murders?