Critical Miss: Riotous Anger

[Guitar Gamer]

Not much I can say that hasn't already been said. However I must concur with your lefty views on the matter. The Vancouver stanely cup riot had me worried about this sort of thing,

 

[Schoengeist]

I can't see a firearms division pinning a guy down and shooting him because they know how well their activities are examined and vetted.

If there is any chance of succesful cover-up, it will be covered up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/deaths-police-custody-officers-convicted

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e76BZialpPk

"Oh how my life sucks for not having a big TV!"
Go to Somalia to see what poverty is; fuckers!

That's right. So be glad with what you have and hope that the super rich aren't robbing you some more. And as long as you're not starving to death, there isn't a reason why you should be malcontent anyway.

 

[Schoengeist]

Since your economy can't afford to grant these people the benefits they want, I think you should probably let a lot of their visas expire, otherwise you'll have more violence on your hands. It's a shame, but you can't take on other peoples' burdens when your own people are struggling. You'll have to raise taxes and give stimuli to the business sector in order to make up for the loss of cheap labor.

So after we deported all those "misfits", the working class has to flat out subsidise the business sector for the priviledge to work there? And that's going to improve the situation for the remaining people how exactly?

 

[Gunner 51]

there is a way to protest and this is not it. My fellow brits i must ask you:
[HEADING=1]WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!! HAVE YOU NO PRIDE OR HONOUR FOR YOUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN[/HEADING]
been gone for a year and you let the economy go to pot and act like bloody savages!

*thanks for pointing out the typo*

The only ones who went around destroying stuff and acting like animals were the Chavs. Everyone else stayed home. They were looting under the banner of a protest, but in reality - they were looting for the sheer hell of it.

It it's any consolation to you, they're being caught and convicted already.

 

[Gunner 51]

My apologies - double post.

 

[Schoengeist]

People die, big deal. Especially when they can't breath because they are restrained. Which reminds me of case from my home country, were seven people stood on an already sedated person to restrain him. He died of suffocation and nothing would have happened, if it hadn't been for the fact, that they were filmed. So they received a slap on the wirst.

But Great Britain is different. Except maybe in the case of Ian Tomlinson, were action was only taken (and then very hesitantly) after a video surfaced.

But I forgot: We are talking about the saintly "firearms officers" who are under close scrutiny. I heard the same argument after the Berwyn Heights incident, where some people cited the high professionalism in such units as an evidence against such slip-ups.

But Great Britain is different. Except maybe in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes. However those were very exciting times back then and mistakes happen - to bad he died. But before I get hurt, better an innocent man to die (as long as I don't know him). And his family received money too ...

 

[Something Amyss]

People always look for some larger thing to blame. It's not senseless enough that this stuff is happening, there has to be an easily fixable cause. Like video games.

I bet there's some branch of psychology that deals with this sort of thing, but the world makes more sense to a lot of people if there's something to blame the senselesness on.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

That's just common sense.
Come on people, we all remember that humanity has a history of blaming thing on different forms of art, like books, paintings, movies and now, naturally, videogames. Truth is, it's all about douchebags who should be imprisoned and put to death and those douchebags trying to put the blame on someone else.

 

[JoJo]

When you break it all down, the only reason this crap is actually happening is one very simple answer.

People suck.

No that's wrong, just a few people suck and ruin it for everyone else. Don't tar us all with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots, there are about 9 million people in London and just a few thousand rioters in total.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life

Umm... you should realize that: A) I was largely using hyperbole for the sake of humor, B) refusal to criticize average people doesn't help them, C) there's always room for improvement and even self sacrificing people are probably flawed in other ways, and D) the self sacrificing examples you just cited would have to be .01% of the population so they're really the exception that proves the rule.

Read some Nietzsche. He's a perfect example of how you can be a harsh social critic and still look on the bright side of life.

Same as I told the other guy, nothing is perfect, that doesn't mean that it sucks though, which is generally used to mean something is overall negative. If you don't mean that, use a different phase next time.

No, as a rule humanity does kinda suck. It's not entirely bad, but it isn't good either. There's a lot of room for improvement. The only acceptable form of optimism is the optimism that takes pleasure in the struggle for self-overcoming. It is an optimism for what we can become, not about what we already are. Everything else is stagnation and wretched contentment.

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

You're construing "badness" far too narrowly. Under "badness" I would not only include violent behaviors but also greed, self centered-ness, a lack of critical thinking and a general disposition to uphold the consumption of goods as a more worthy life-goal than acts of intellectual, artistic or physical creation. These are crimes of which the vast majority of mankind is guilty.

Then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree as I will never accept the "lack of critical thinking" as a crime or badness. People should be allowed to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, so if they wish to consume rather than create then who are we to stop them?

I'm not a moral realist, values come down to individual will as far as I see it. So agreeing to disagree is perfectly reasonable. However, I will leave you with this thought: the holocaust couldn't have been perpetrated by a few individuals alone, no matter how bloodthirsty they were. The necessary conditions for the holocaust also included the lack of critical thinking and the downright willful ignorance of the German people. A lesser evil than those who ran the gas chambers to be sure, but still an evil by any reasonable account.

Even deontology, which ignores virtues and vices and merely judges people by their actions, requires that people be rational agents. How could someone possibly be considered a rational agent if they lack an ability to think critically?

The holocaust happened because of a minority of haters and evil people, it's a sad fact that certain times these people will emerge from the cesspool to commit attrocitys. I've met a number of people online and even a couple in real life who I believe could we become capable of that if put in the right circustance. Remember though the Nazi's were a repressive regime who oppressed those who opposed them so you can't blame people for willfully ignoring atrocities for fear of their own life, you and me would very likely act the same way.

Also, no person is a rational agent, that's just silly. Everyone is molded to some degree by their environment and peers, no-one is free from bias. Anyone who believes they are entirely rational is a class A fool.

You seem to be implying that a person is bad if they are driven by hatred. Critical thinking is directly tied to this. If one responds emotionally to an argument without analyzing it then one can easily be driven to extremes. While I of course agree that no one is a completely rational agent, it doesn't mean that there aren't different levels of rationality. A person who is incapable or unwilling to analyze claims for truth or falsehood has a very limited agency. While it is true that the basis for action ultimately resides at an emotional level, we also need the rational ability to analyze a situation and act so that we bring about what we desire.

While it is true that the Nazis rose to power partially due to violence and intimidation, it would be impossible for them to do so solely by those means. It is quite daft to think that the entire country assented to Nazi rule out of fear, even though that may have been the case at the very end after they had already come to power. The Nazis and their philosophy had the won the support of many ordinary people because of the spectacles they put on and their incredibly effective use of propaganda, both of which rely upon a lack of critical thinking.

Furthermore, someone who is unaccustomed to thinking critically and derives most of their views from faith and indoctrination is much more likely to respond to criticism with fanaticism rather than rational argument. If you value rational argument and understanding as a source of conflict resolution rather than violence, then you must admit the indispensability of critical thinking. How can a person be 'good' if they are incapable of adopting and entertaining opposing views and accepting that they might be wrong? Being a bigoted self-righteous ass and lacking critical thinking go hand-in-hand. Surely your definition of a 'good person' precludes application to such people?

Critical thinking is certainly a useful asset and one required for many important positions. However to paraphase To Kill A Mockingbird, most people are basically good but have a few blind spots in their morality. Everyone has them, including me and you, we just don't realise as we accept them without even thinking about it. Someone without critical thinking can certainly be good and to suggest otherwise is simply bigoted, take the majority of young children for example who have virtually no critical thinking skills but are generally innocent and adorable.

Another example I would put is G W Bush, I disagree with many of his ideas and things he did in power but I still think he's good at heart, just misguided in his application in my opinion.

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e76BZialpPk

Uh all I see is around ten posh people fighting. Last time I checked, the human population of Earth stands significantly higher than that.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

I'm not a moral realist, values come down to individual will as far as I see it. So agreeing to disagree is perfectly reasonable. However, I will leave you with this thought: the holocaust couldn't have been perpetrated by a few individuals alone, no matter how bloodthirsty they were. The necessary conditions for the holocaust also included the lack of critical thinking and the downright willful ignorance of the German people. A lesser evil than those who ran the gas chambers to be sure, but still an evil by any reasonable account.

Even deontology, which ignores virtues and vices and merely judges people by their actions, requires that people be rational agents. How could someone possibly be considered a rational agent if they lack an ability to think critically?

The holocaust happened because of a minority of haters and evil people, it's a sad fact that certain times these people will emerge from the cesspool to commit attrocitys. I've met a number of people online and even a couple in real life who I believe could we become capable of that if put in the right circustance. Remember though the Nazi's were a repressive regime who oppressed those who opposed them so you can't blame people for willfully ignoring atrocities for fear of their own life, you and me would very likely act the same way.

Also, no person is a rational agent, that's just silly. Everyone is molded to some degree by their environment and peers, no-one is free from bias. Anyone who believes they are entirely rational is a class A fool.

You seem to be implying that a person is bad if they are driven by hatred. Critical thinking is directly tied to this. If one responds emotionally to an argument without analyzing it then one can easily be driven to extremes. While I of course agree that no one is a completely rational agent, it doesn't mean that there aren't different levels of rationality. A person who is incapable or unwilling to analyze claims for truth or falsehood has a very limited agency. While it is true that the basis for action ultimately resides at an emotional level, we also need the rational ability to analyze a situation and act so that we bring about what we desire.

While it is true that the Nazis rose to power partially due to violence and intimidation, it would be impossible for them to do so solely by those means. It is quite daft to think that the entire country assented to Nazi rule out of fear, even though that may have been the case at the very end after they had already come to power. The Nazis and their philosophy had the won the support of many ordinary people because of the spectacles they put on and their incredibly effective use of propaganda, both of which rely upon a lack of critical thinking.

Furthermore, someone who is unaccustomed to thinking critically and derives most of their views from faith and indoctrination is much more likely to respond to criticism with fanaticism rather than rational argument. If you value rational argument and understanding as a source of conflict resolution rather than violence, then you must admit the indispensability of critical thinking. How can a person be 'good' if they are incapable of adopting and entertaining opposing views and accepting that they might be wrong? Being a bigoted self-righteous ass and lacking critical thinking go hand-in-hand. Surely your definition of a 'good person' precludes application to such people?

Critical thinking is certainly a useful asset and one required for many important positions. However to paraphase To Kill A Mockingbird, most people are basically good but have a few blind spots in their morality. Everyone has them, including me and you, we just don't realise as we accept them without even thinking about it. Someone without critical thinking can certainly be good and to suggest otherwise is simply bigoted, take the majority of young children for example who have virtually no critical thinking skills but are generally innocent and adorable.

Another example I would put is G W Bush, I disagree with many of his ideas and things he did in power but I still think he's good at heart, just misguided in his application in my opinion.

As Nietzsche put it, "I often laugh at those who think themselves good because their claws are blunt."

You can take most people and if you put them in the right circumstances they can either be saints or demons. The human mind doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in order to respond to the world around it.

The police call it the 10-80-10 rule: 10% of the people in a crowd would never commit a crime. Another 10% would always commit a crime. With the other 80% it completely depends on the situation.

When I say people suck, I don't mean that they are always doing bad shit with the worst intentions, that's ridiculous. I'm saying that the majority of people don't think things through, they could be made to do just about anything with the proper manipulation. If you want to judge people solely by their accumulative actions without reference to their characters then you're going to end up saying that a clever sociopath who obeys all the laws but feels no compassion whatsoever is a better person than the average Joe who has made a few mistakes and genuinely feels remorse.

If one lacks critical thinking skills then one has a character that is capable of doing just about anything given the right circumstances. It doesn't make sense to call people good or bad. This is why I judge people on their character traits, not what they do. A character trait is much more constant than people's actions. Value systems are subjective, as I said, and are almost always a result of indoctrination. Critical thinking, however, is a universal trait that everyone can have. While it hardly ensures that people make the right decisions, it at least prevents them from making stupid decisions. I don't see why you think it's so controversial to say that a person who acts without thinking things through exhibits a fundamental character flaw.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Since your economy can't afford to grant these people the benefits they want, I think you should probably let a lot of their visas expire, otherwise you'll have more violence on your hands. It's a shame, but you can't take on other peoples' burdens when your own people are struggling. You'll have to raise taxes and give stimuli to the business sector in order to make up for the loss of cheap labor.

So after we deported all those "misfits", the working class has to flat out subsidise the business sector for the priviledge to work there? And that's going to improve the situation for the remaining people how exactly?

Umm... no... the government would subsidize the business sector to improve the conditions of the working class. Once the working class has more money they can also spend more and improve the economy as a whole. But from what I've heard the immigrants are the targets of the riots, so the problem doesn't lie with them. But still, it seems pretty F-ed up to me that businesses would be allowed to give jobs to immigrants instead of improving conditions for the existing working class. Sure it's good for the immigrants and we should have compassion for their plight, but what ever happened to taking care of your own?

I'm not a fan of conservatives but it really sounds like the liberal middle class is taking out its feelings of white guilt on the lower class. There's no such thing as a one world society, while one should treat other peoples with respect and help them when possible, one's first duty is to one's own people. If Brits stand in the same relation to other Brits as they do to someone from India, then what does it mean to be British? Holding a piece of paper? Better recycle all of the history books then.

 

[Clonekiller]

You know, if I heard this much sense on CNN, I'd actually watch it for news. As it is, I watch it for a good laugh.

 

[ultrachicken]

Its this kind of situation that has me questioning the value of freedom. Dont get me wrong, its something that i have always seen as an essential human right, but then again it also allows scumbags to start shit like what happened in London. Talk about a double edged sword.

Not really. People just need to learn that there is a time and a place for police brutality. Large scale riots like the one in London are most definatly the correct time and place. You would not believe how fast a riot will stop when you start firing tear gas at them then move in to beat the crap out of everybody with clubs.

Thats a good point but it wasn't really what I was getting at. The thing I was talking about was how in a truly free society people will be able to do things like this by abusing their right to freedom while in an Orwellian society nothing like this would happen but people would essentially have no rights. But you're right, there has to me times where law enforcement is allowed to take extreme measures.

In an orwellian society, you would get a similar situation that occured over long periods of time rather than in bursts like this riot, and it would be the government performing the dickery.

 

[Schoengeist]

You'll have to raise taxes and give stimuli to the business sector in order to make up for the loss of cheap labor.

Umm... no... the government would subsidize the business sector to improve the conditions of the working class.

From where does the government take the money to subsidize the business? I read about new taxes, who's going to pay them?


Not that I'm a believer in the trickle-down-effect anyway.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

It happens in France every year. Deal with it, London.

 

[Biodeamon]

Just like the rape debate.

They weren`t raped cause of they`re clothing, they were raped someone raped them! duh.

why are the simple answers always the hardest?

 

[JoJo]

I'm not a moral realist, values come down to individual will as far as I see it. So agreeing to disagree is perfectly reasonable. However, I will leave you with this thought: the holocaust couldn't have been perpetrated by a few individuals alone, no matter how bloodthirsty they were. The necessary conditions for the holocaust also included the lack of critical thinking and the downright willful ignorance of the German people. A lesser evil than those who ran the gas chambers to be sure, but still an evil by any reasonable account.

Even deontology, which ignores virtues and vices and merely judges people by their actions, requires that people be rational agents. How could someone possibly be considered a rational agent if they lack an ability to think critically?

The holocaust happened because of a minority of haters and evil people, it's a sad fact that certain times these people will emerge from the cesspool to commit attrocitys. I've met a number of people online and even a couple in real life who I believe could we become capable of that if put in the right circustance. Remember though the Nazi's were a repressive regime who oppressed those who opposed them so you can't blame people for willfully ignoring atrocities for fear of their own life, you and me would very likely act the same way.

Also, no person is a rational agent, that's just silly. Everyone is molded to some degree by their environment and peers, no-one is free from bias. Anyone who believes they are entirely rational is a class A fool.

You seem to be implying that a person is bad if they are driven by hatred. Critical thinking is directly tied to this. If one responds emotionally to an argument without analyzing it then one can easily be driven to extremes. While I of course agree that no one is a completely rational agent, it doesn't mean that there aren't different levels of rationality. A person who is incapable or unwilling to analyze claims for truth or falsehood has a very limited agency. While it is true that the basis for action ultimately resides at an emotional level, we also need the rational ability to analyze a situation and act so that we bring about what we desire.

While it is true that the Nazis rose to power partially due to violence and intimidation, it would be impossible for them to do so solely by those means. It is quite daft to think that the entire country assented to Nazi rule out of fear, even though that may have been the case at the very end after they had already come to power. The Nazis and their philosophy had the won the support of many ordinary people because of the spectacles they put on and their incredibly effective use of propaganda, both of which rely upon a lack of critical thinking.

Furthermore, someone who is unaccustomed to thinking critically and derives most of their views from faith and indoctrination is much more likely to respond to criticism with fanaticism rather than rational argument. If you value rational argument and understanding as a source of conflict resolution rather than violence, then you must admit the indispensability of critical thinking. How can a person be 'good' if they are incapable of adopting and entertaining opposing views and accepting that they might be wrong? Being a bigoted self-righteous ass and lacking critical thinking go hand-in-hand. Surely your definition of a 'good person' precludes application to such people?

Critical thinking is certainly a useful asset and one required for many important positions. However to paraphase To Kill A Mockingbird, most people are basically good but have a few blind spots in their morality. Everyone has them, including me and you, we just don't realise as we accept them without even thinking about it. Someone without critical thinking can certainly be good and to suggest otherwise is simply bigoted, take the majority of young children for example who have virtually no critical thinking skills but are generally innocent and adorable.

Another example I would put is G W Bush, I disagree with many of his ideas and things he did in power but I still think he's good at heart, just misguided in his application in my opinion.

As Nietzsche put it, "I often laugh at those who think themselves good because their claws are blunt."

You can take most people and if you put them in the right circumstances they can either be saints or demons. The human mind doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in order to respond to the world around it.

The police call it the 10-80-10 rule: 10% of the people in a crowd would never commit a crime. Another 10% would always commit a crime. With the other 80% it completely depends on the situation.

When I say people suck, I don't mean that they are always doing bad shit with the worst intentions, that's ridiculous. I'm saying that the majority of people don't think things through, they could be made to do just about anything with the proper manipulation. If you want to judge people solely by their accumulative actions without reference to their characters then you're going to end up saying that a clever sociopath who obeys all the laws but feels no compassion whatsoever is a better person than the average Joe who has made a few mistakes and genuinely feels remorse.

If one lacks critical thinking skills then one has a character that is capable of doing just about anything given the right circumstances. It doesn't make sense to call people good or bad. This is why I judge people on their character traits, not what they do. A character trait is much more constant than people's actions. Value systems are subjective, as I said, and are almost always a result of indoctrination. Critical thinking, however, is a universal trait that everyone can have. While it hardly ensures that people make the right decisions, it at least prevents them from making stupid decisions. I don't see why you think it's so controversial to say that a person who acts without thinking things through exhibits a fundamental character flaw.

I have never said that critical thinking is a bad thing, it certainly is a large positive for someone to possess, however if someone doesn't possess it that doesn't automatically make them a bad person. Everyone has character flaws. Judging people by character traits seems very subjective and any measure of "goodness" in that way is destined to depend on how you measure it. Measuring it by actions on the other hand is easier as you can measure the net happiness/harm the person has caused, still somewhat subjective but more quantifiable.