Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
guruilla » 30 Nov 2015 18:37 wrote:I think this sort of metaphysical/extremist viewpoint (that some people are just evil) is the consequence (one of countless) of the widespread lack of awareness about the predominance and nature of trauma, starting with our own.
There's a disturbingly common belief, regarding past trauma as well as present "evil," that what we don't know (remember) can't hurt us.
Yet the reverse is frequently the case: what we don't know is that much more likely to hurt us; and what hurt us the most, we don't know of (having suppressed into the unconscious).
Identifying others as "just plain evil" is very basic to the disowning the shadow process; and of course (because of that) is the primary justification for evil.
Not meaning to philosophize; I'm sure it relates to the OP somehow!
seemslikeadream wrote:maybe it's not that someone is born evil it maybe that a person is born with the lack of empathy
Wombaticus Rex » Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:50 pm wrote: It's going to probably be another 10-20 years before Glenn realizes how often his ego gets the better of his intelligence. I get the impression he barely realizes what he's really doing on the geopolitical level, probably because he spends all fucking day arguing with every single person on the internet.
guruilla » Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:11 pm wrote:Nordic » Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:43 pm wrote:The biggest mistake you can make in life is assuming that all people are born good, and are just damaged or misguided. I once thought this way. A lot of "good" people think this way.
But no, evil is real. Some people are just plain evil and they get off on it.
And as I've said before, they get away with so much because they are willing to do what is literally unthinkable to non-evil people. How do you defend against that which you cannot even imagine?
You've met these people, born evil?
Most people do want to do good.
Zero Degrees of Empathy: A New Theory of Human Cruelty and Kindness
In "Zero Degrees of Empathy: A New Theory of Human Cruelty and Kindness" Simon Baron-Cohen takes fascinating and challenging new look at what exactly makes our behaviour uniquely human. How can we ever explain human cruelty? We have always struggled to understand why some people behave in the most evil way imaginable, while others are completely self-sacrificing. Is it possible that - rather than thinking in terms of 'good' and 'evil' - all of us instead lie somewhere on the empathy spectrum, and our position on that spectrum can be affected by both genes and our environments? Why do some people treat others as objects? Why is empathy our most precious resource? And does a lack of it always mean a negative outcome? From the Nazi concentration camps of World War Two to the playgrounds of today, Simon Baron-Cohen examines empathy, cruelty and understanding in a groundbreaking study of what it means to be human. "Fascinating ...dazzling ...a full-scale assault on what we think it is to be human". ("Sunday Telegraph"). "Highly readable ...this is a valuable book". (Charlotte Moore, "Spectator"). "Important ...humane and immensely sympathetic". (Richard Holloway, "Literary Review"). Simon Baron-Cohen is Professor at Cambridge University in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. He is also the Director of the Autism Research Centre there. He has carried out research into social neuroscience over a 20 year career. His popular science book entitled "The Essential Difference" has been translated in over a dozen languages, and has been widely reviewed.
CONTROVERSIES
Published 18 hours ago
Glenn Greenwald slams rush to judgment about Kentucky student in viral confrontation with Native American
https://www.foxnews.com/us/glenn-greenw ... witter-mob
Why was the Covington students video a tempting narrative for the media?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-covingto ... 01568.html
Greenwald frequently appears on Fox News and in the past few years has often slammed Democrats for aggressively pursuing the Russia investigation in association with President Donald Trump. In Greenwald's most recent interview with Carlson, he explicitly denies political support for Gabbard, while going on to to suggest a deeper conspiracy behind the criticism of her.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tulsi-g ... ald-2019-1
Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson Go on the Attack Against Tulsi Gabbard’s Critics: ‘Democrats Hate Her’
by Aidan McLaughlin | Jan 15th, 2019, 8:27 am 192
submit to reddit
“I’m not a supporter of Congresswoman Gabbard’s candidacy,” Glenn Greenwald declared at the start of his Fox News interview with Tucker Carlson on whether the Hawaii congresswoman and 2020 candidate is being “unfairly attacked.”
“There are some really legitimate and serious concerns that I have that have been raised by the real left, not the Democratic Party liberals,” Greenwald said of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI). He listed them: “her support for the war on terror, her affinity for Hindu nationalism in India, her affection for some really terrible dictators.”
Those do seem bad! Praising the “courage” of dictators like Sisi certainly raises a few red flags. But while those are apparently serious concerns for Greenwald, he continued that they are not the reasons why Gabbard is being unfairly smeared by the Democratic apparatus.
“What’s really going on,” Greenwald told the Fox News audience, is that “Democrats hate her” for two other reasons. (1) She supported Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in 2016 and (2) “She’s been questioning a lot of Washington orthodoxy,” including the impulse for regime change.
SPONSORED CONTENT
How One Haircare Brand Is Solving an Unseen Challenge: Learn More
BY HERBAL ESSENCES
“She deviates from a lot of the Washington consensus, she’s hard to put into a liberal or a conservative, a right wing or a left wing box, and that’s what Washington really hates the most are people who are kind of independent minded and critical thinkers,” he explained.
Greenwald’s contention that Washington hates Gabbard because she’s a critical thinker is interesting, but that’s not usually what her detractors point to when they criticize her.
Mostly, they mention other more substantive issues: the problems Greenwald noted at the start of the segment, for one. But also her views on same sex marriage, which Tucker Carlson very charitably compared to the former views of Barack Obama.
It’s worth noting that Gabbard did not just oppose same sex marriage. While serving as a state legislator in the early 2000s, Gabbard boasted of her work for her father’s anti-gay organization — one that promoted conversion therapy for homosexuals — and railed against “homosexual extremists” trying to push marriage equality. She now says she regrets those views.
Greenwald is also upset with “one particular smear” on Gabbard: allegations she’s a supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
This is inaccurate, Greenwald said, pointing out that Gabbard has called Assad a “brutal dictator.” He told Carlson the reason she’s being smeared in this way is because she opposes the United States arming rebels in Syria and attempting to overthrow the Assad regime.
But is that really the case? It strikes as outlandish that Gabbard has earned such disdain from Democrats simply because she opposes a war. Again, Greenwald is pushing a caricature of Gabbard’s critics.
He downplays her highly controversial trip to Syria, where she took an impromptu meeting with Assad, a mass murderer. He doesn’t mention that when she returned home to the United States, she brought with her pro-regime talking points. He omits that her meeting with Assad has earned her fans from the far right, like renowned racists David Duke and Richard Spencer (she has disavowed their support).
What’s more, attempts to cast Gabbard as a dove are dishonest. She may oppose regime change, but certainly not intervention. She self-identifies as a “hawk” in the war on terror, and once complained that the U.S. wasn’t bombing Syria enough — while criticizing those who questioned Russia’s devastating bombing campaign of the flattened country.
I suspect those reasons are more important to critics of Gabbard 2020 than her “critical thinking.”
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-green ... l-thinker/
Fox News has done extensive coverage of the incident. It brought on one of the group’s chaperones who claimed the boys were targeted because of “what they stood for” and “partially because of the color of their skin.” Fox News host Tucker Carlson said the response to the incident was “people in power attacking those below them as a group.” Laura Ingraham interviewed Glenn Greenwald, co-founding editor of the Intercept, who said the reaction had been a sort of “trial by Twitter mob.”
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/22/18192908/ ... dmann-maga
Shortly before Trump’s Inauguration, Greenwald wrote an article for the Intercept titled “The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer.” The Drudge Report promoted the article, and it went viral. This had the effect of offering the phrase “deep state”—which, until then, had been a murmur among political scientists and fringe bloggers—as a gift to Trump defenders. Roger Stone referred to the article in an interview with Alex Jones, on Infowars; Greenwald spoke of “deep-state overlords” on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” According to data from the gdelt Project, the phrase “deep state” then took off—first on Fox, then on other networks, and then in the tweets of the President and his family.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 ... resistance
The 'exhausting' work of factcheckers who track Trump's barrage of lies
Since taking office, Trump has made 7,645 ‘false or misleading claims’. In October he said 1,200 things that were false or misleading, according to Fact Checker database
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ctcheckers
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 147 guests