I don't care, fuck society's institutional incentive structures. At some point you do the right thing whether or not you take heat for it.
At some point, you have to have enough moral courage and intestinal fortitude to do what is right regardless of what the potential consequences are from a limited utilitarian analysis. How else are you going to have good times with strong men, if no one's going to step in and be the strong man?
That line isn't necessarily everywhere, but that line needs to be somewhere. It should be somewhere around the public rape and molestation of an 11 25 year old.
Yeah, it does. And you wouldn't see that happen in a rural area. Ever. That's the thing though- it all comes down to where you are. If you're in that city and you see that, and you do something about it, well, it's your arrest and hate crime trial. But if I ever see that in my village, and put a bullet in the guy's brain, I'd be a fucking hero. Though the village I'm in is full of hunters, who would likely beat me to the punch by a long shot.
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying there is a logical throughline to not.
Logic and heroism are often different paths. In this case, I think there is enough clear and present evidence to send this cretin into his next life, but doing anything less than that will simply make you a criminal AND get him a lighter punishment (this is my biggest concern).
This might be a key point to my perspective. I see heroism as almost entirely defined by: "an individual taking extreme personal responsibility to change or alleviate a dire situation which has been caused by systemic and/or institutional failures."
To me, if you know the system is going to let a rapist continue to rape someone, and you stop them. That is heroic. If you simply stop him before the police get there to stop him, that is just an act of moral goodness.
In my opinion, I see heroism as directly intertwined to an individual's response to a system's actions.
Dude, that's a ridiculous definition of heroism. Stopping a dangerous violent criminal attempting to hurt someone is a heroic act regardless of whether or not the police are on their way.
I think you're confusing my definition of heroism with "commendable" or "praise-worthy".
I don't see heroism as something that you simply should do from a moral perspective, nor do I see it as something that you are obligated to do. You are not a hero because you did your duty. You are also not a hero because you did something that everyone agrees that they would also have done because it was right.
To me, a hero is doing something akin to an impossible task. A hero is going, literally, beyond the call of his duty. In fact, the institution that gave him his duty may have failed, and someone must take personal responsibility to put the weight of the system on their shoulders and orient the whole thing in the right direction. That seems more appropriate to the definition of a "heroic effort".
Heroism isn't a perfect solution though. Running into a burning building to save a child is heroic, but its also likely to get you trapped and need rescuing too.
That's part of my definition. Heroism is never perfect. In fact, by my definition, heroism is an insane effort to compensate for a systemic failure. The fact that someone had to be a hero, is the problem. If the system worked, you don't need heroes at all.
However, the greater evil is we live in a world where there is actual consequence worth hesitating over. That is the true horror.
Agreed, authoritarianism has a nasty habit of promoting the opposite behavior to what would be good.
Some of us wonder why that line of reasoning shouldn't also apply to the President. "Maybe the Federal government doesn't have the ability to intervene under a strict interpretation Federalism if the Governor doesn't request it, and maybe I'll be called a "tyrant" by the people already calling me one; but intervening is the right thing to do."
The state isn't a person though, it is a weapon. It's an extremely dangerous weapon we should always avoid pointing at people. The president is not a person, it is a position within the state to direct and order it's enforcement.
I would rather the people realize how awful communism is, and take the harshest and spiciest red pill in the world, so that they realize that the government can never be trusted to protect them. The government has not fallen. It is alive and well, and it is letting people's livelihoods be destroyed. They must learn that it is their responsibility never to let the government have that kind of power again.
The state is not father, a mother, a brother, a sister, or a friend. Anyone that tells you that wants to enslave you to it. The state is a weapon. Pointing it at yourself is rarely a good decision. Considering it's explosive radius, pointing it anywhere near you is a bad decision.
You are correct that the state is not a parent, sibling or friend. Which is why I also don't think it's the state's responsibility to "let people's livelihoods be destroyed" as an object lesson against communism. The track record of the state trying to "teach the people a lesson" isn't particularly good either.
Which I don't even think is what the Feds are doing. They're intervening when asked. That's not signaling to anyone that the government won't protect them; that's signaling that the government will protect them provided the "right" people are in charge (or the "wrong" people are causing trouble) and ask the right way.
Which is why I also don't think it's the state's responsibility to "let people's livelihoods be destroyed" as an object lesson against communism. The track record of the state trying to "teach the people a lesson" isn't particularly good either.
Your misconstruing my personal opinion with the state's obligation. These are not the same. The state's obligation ends with it's jurisdiction. Republicanism and Federalism are not things you abandon because it feels right, the same goes for the rest of the constitution. The state exists at the behest of the governed. The local government exists at the behest of the locals. If the local government is unprepared to accept federal support, but the locals are, then it is up to the citizenry to address that failing in their local government.
Which I don't even think is what the Feds are doing.
Correct, my opinion isn't state policy.
That's not signaling to anyone that the government won't protect them; that's signaling that the government will protect them provided the "right" people are in charge (or the "wrong" people are causing trouble) and ask the right way.
You've got completely the wrong perspective. The right way is the lawful way, it is the only way for the state to act. The right people are whomever the people place into power there. Federal intervention is a weapon, and can rapidly generate tyranny. This is not selective enforcement by the Federal government based on party affiliation, it is jurisdictional boundaries which are imperative for the survival of any local or state government.
If the local government is not acting in accordance to the will of the people, than it is up to the people alone to alter their government; as the final enforcer of the people's rights are the people themselves. NOT the federal government. Thinking so would be further authoritarianism which would guarantee the thing you claim already exists: arbitrary enforcement based on political affiliation.
Federal Law allows the Federal government to intervene against the wishes of the State and local governments:
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
The Federal government has used this law multiple times in history against the wishes of local governments. Most notably to integrate schools against the wishes of the local government.
This is not selective enforcement by the Federal government based on party affiliation, it is jurisdictional boundaries which are imperative for the survival of any local or state government.
Selective enforcement is guaranteed if a local government selectively requests aid of the Federal government and the Federal government is unable to act independently of the local government. The Federal government being able to independently act is a check over that abuse of power.
Conversely, if the Federal government said "we will not intervene under any circumstances" then the people could "secure their rights" without interference from the Federal government. But that's not what it's saying, and because that's not what it's saying any populist rebellion against the local government is doomed to fail because the local government would simply request Federal intervention against the rebellion.
the final enforcer of the people's rights are the people themselves. NOT the federal government
Agreed, but under our present Federal system the Federal government also has enforcement authority independent of the States.
Thinking so would be further authoritarianism
This has been a feature of our political system since the Civil War era, so if this is evidence of authoritarianism we passed that point long ago.
Was just going to post this but you beat me to it. This is the cultural enrichment feminists demanded.
Why would I intervene and risk being branded a violent white supremacist? Even if some people called me a hero, woke cultists would dox me and fuck my life.
And imagine if this poor innocent dindu-nuffin accidentally died when I intervened? Life over. BLM loves making black rapists their saints.
You try to get in there and stop the attack, and you probably get hurt... and you get arrested. And if you're really unlucky it turns out to be a domestic thing and both of them turn on you and you get convicted.
If the politicians (including Trump Jr.'s father) whose job it is to maintain order can't be bothered to stop it I don't see why private citizens should feel compelled to do so. Especially when other politicians are arresting them for it.
You absolutely do have an obligation to intervene when a guy is trying to rape a girl in broad day-light. If you have any evidence that this specific woman hates us, sure... but if you're making this assertion based on your regular delusion that all women hate you,then this is your worst take to date, and the first time I am having doubts about whether you are a decent person who is just wrong-headed on one issue.
If you have any evidence that this specific woman hates us, sure... but if you're making this assertion based on your regular delusion that all women hate you,then this is your worst take to date
No, I'm making it on the assertion that she's 90% likely to be a (D)onna Hylton Fan Club member. It's NYC, one of the most leftist places in the world. Trump is deluded if he thinks NY is in play.
And maybe I am a bad person, but it's more in the realm of why should I risk violent retaliation for someone who most likely thinks murdering me is okay? It's a decision made on pure numbers, independent of emotion. I'll report to the police, but past that, definitely not my problem. There is no obligation to intervene and put yourself in danger unless you know the person. That doesn't change just because tradcucks think women should be protected above all.
Oh, and I'd probably be doxxed and murdered by BLM. That's another reason.
No, I'm making it on the assertion that she's 90% likely to be a (D)onna Hylton Fan Club member. It's NYC, one of the most leftist places in the world.
You'll understand that given your record, I'm a bit skeptical, but it's a relief at least.
Trump is deluded if he thinks NY is in play.
Let's hope he's too smart to believe that.
And maybe I am a bad person, but it's more in the realm of why should I risk violent retaliation for someone who most likely thinks murdering me is okay?
If there's an indication that this individual is anything like that. Sure, if she has purple hair and a nosering, I'm not going to risk anything to protect her either.
That doesn't change just because tradcucks think women should be protected above all.
Not all women, at least according to this tradcuck.
I think I would intervene in this situation. But honestly I don't know. I have intervened in a less severe situation where a crying woman was being chased by an angry man.
I think it's easy to reason this way or that, but when the situation arises you may do something different, either less than you thought but actually also more than you thought. Even just making a lot of noise might be enough to get him scared enough that to flee. It doesn't have to be some superhero move where you shank him with one blade in each hand.
I don't like Don Jr's attitude. The people who are filming are making a contribution in their own way. They are providing valuable evidence for getting the man caught and locked up.
I'd try and stop him. No offense to the rest, but the people saying this is what she deserves cause they assume she's a D or feminist etc, are pussies.
A speeding subway train up the ass would be good for him. Might delay the schedule but it's worth it. A peaceful jogger gets to go on a train ride into the hereafter.
If nobody watched, there wouldn’t be video identifying the culprit. By watching and recording, the bystanders both kept themselves safe and increased the likelihood that the culprit is apprehended. The crowd is also the likely reason that he fled.
Okay, so someone beats his ass.
Then they get called a racist, lose their job, we get even more riots, etc.
Nah, I'm good.
That's really it. I get what Jr. is trying to say, but we live IN A SOCIETY that literally punishes you for trying to be a hero.
So by doing anything, now there are two victims and a strong possibility the actual culprit gets less punishment by your actions.
I don't care, fuck society's institutional incentive structures. At some point you do the right thing whether or not you take heat for it.
At some point, you have to have enough moral courage and intestinal fortitude to do what is right regardless of what the potential consequences are from a limited utilitarian analysis. How else are you going to have good times with strong men, if no one's going to step in and be the strong man?
That line isn't necessarily everywhere, but that line needs to be somewhere. It should be somewhere around the public rape and molestation of an
1125 year old.25-year-old. At 11 (o'clock).
I can't believe I fucked that up.
None the less, I think my point still stands.
Yeah, it does. And you wouldn't see that happen in a rural area. Ever. That's the thing though- it all comes down to where you are. If you're in that city and you see that, and you do something about it, well, it's your arrest and hate crime trial. But if I ever see that in my village, and put a bullet in the guy's brain, I'd be a fucking hero. Though the village I'm in is full of hunters, who would likely beat me to the punch by a long shot.
Your neighbors: "Norenia you kill stealing faggot! That was mine!"
Oh my god, thank you. I have never had such a hearty laugh from a forum reply. Thank you.
"Hey blow it out your ass Gizortnik! That was payback for you shooting the fucker breaking into my shed last Thursday!"
Norenia probably.
With a scope
Oh please. I said hunters. They don't need scopes. Don't be expecting any 360s though.
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying there is a logical throughline to not.
Logic and heroism are often different paths. In this case, I think there is enough clear and present evidence to send this cretin into his next life, but doing anything less than that will simply make you a criminal AND get him a lighter punishment (this is my biggest concern).
This might be a key point to my perspective. I see heroism as almost entirely defined by: "an individual taking extreme personal responsibility to change or alleviate a dire situation which has been caused by systemic and/or institutional failures."
To me, if you know the system is going to let a rapist continue to rape someone, and you stop them. That is heroic. If you simply stop him before the police get there to stop him, that is just an act of moral goodness.
In my opinion, I see heroism as directly intertwined to an individual's response to a system's actions.
Dude, that's a ridiculous definition of heroism. Stopping a dangerous violent criminal attempting to hurt someone is a heroic act regardless of whether or not the police are on their way.
I think you're confusing my definition of heroism with "commendable" or "praise-worthy".
I don't see heroism as something that you simply should do from a moral perspective, nor do I see it as something that you are obligated to do. You are not a hero because you did your duty. You are also not a hero because you did something that everyone agrees that they would also have done because it was right.
To me, a hero is doing something akin to an impossible task. A hero is going, literally, beyond the call of his duty. In fact, the institution that gave him his duty may have failed, and someone must take personal responsibility to put the weight of the system on their shoulders and orient the whole thing in the right direction. That seems more appropriate to the definition of a "heroic effort".
Heroism isn't a perfect solution though. Running into a burning building to save a child is heroic, but its also likely to get you trapped and need rescuing too.
In this case, these people should have jumped in. There is no horror depraved enough to cast shadow over impurity, nor is there a consequence worth letting this go on.
However, the greater evil is we live in a world where there is actual consequence worth hesitating over. That is the true horror.
That's part of my definition. Heroism is never perfect. In fact, by my definition, heroism is an insane effort to compensate for a systemic failure. The fact that someone had to be a hero, is the problem. If the system worked, you don't need heroes at all.
Agreed, authoritarianism has a nasty habit of promoting the opposite behavior to what would be good.
Some of us wonder why that line of reasoning shouldn't also apply to the President. "Maybe the Federal government doesn't have the ability to intervene under a strict interpretation Federalism if the Governor doesn't request it, and maybe I'll be called a "tyrant" by the people already calling me one; but intervening is the right thing to do."
The state isn't a person though, it is a weapon. It's an extremely dangerous weapon we should always avoid pointing at people. The president is not a person, it is a position within the state to direct and order it's enforcement.
I would rather the people realize how awful communism is, and take the harshest and spiciest red pill in the world, so that they realize that the government can never be trusted to protect them. The government has not fallen. It is alive and well, and it is letting people's livelihoods be destroyed. They must learn that it is their responsibility never to let the government have that kind of power again.
The state is not father, a mother, a brother, a sister, or a friend. Anyone that tells you that wants to enslave you to it. The state is a weapon. Pointing it at yourself is rarely a good decision. Considering it's explosive radius, pointing it anywhere near you is a bad decision.
You are correct that the state is not a parent, sibling or friend. Which is why I also don't think it's the state's responsibility to "let people's livelihoods be destroyed" as an object lesson against communism. The track record of the state trying to "teach the people a lesson" isn't particularly good either.
Which I don't even think is what the Feds are doing. They're intervening when asked. That's not signaling to anyone that the government won't protect them; that's signaling that the government will protect them provided the "right" people are in charge (or the "wrong" people are causing trouble) and ask the right way.
Your misconstruing my personal opinion with the state's obligation. These are not the same. The state's obligation ends with it's jurisdiction. Republicanism and Federalism are not things you abandon because it feels right, the same goes for the rest of the constitution. The state exists at the behest of the governed. The local government exists at the behest of the locals. If the local government is unprepared to accept federal support, but the locals are, then it is up to the citizenry to address that failing in their local government.
Correct, my opinion isn't state policy.
You've got completely the wrong perspective. The right way is the lawful way, it is the only way for the state to act. The right people are whomever the people place into power there. Federal intervention is a weapon, and can rapidly generate tyranny. This is not selective enforcement by the Federal government based on party affiliation, it is jurisdictional boundaries which are imperative for the survival of any local or state government.
If the local government is not acting in accordance to the will of the people, than it is up to the people alone to alter their government; as the final enforcer of the people's rights are the people themselves. NOT the federal government. Thinking so would be further authoritarianism which would guarantee the thing you claim already exists: arbitrary enforcement based on political affiliation.
Federal Law allows the Federal government to intervene against the wishes of the State and local governments:
The Federal government has used this law multiple times in history against the wishes of local governments. Most notably to integrate schools against the wishes of the local government.
Selective enforcement is guaranteed if a local government selectively requests aid of the Federal government and the Federal government is unable to act independently of the local government. The Federal government being able to independently act is a check over that abuse of power.
Conversely, if the Federal government said "we will not intervene under any circumstances" then the people could "secure their rights" without interference from the Federal government. But that's not what it's saying, and because that's not what it's saying any populist rebellion against the local government is doomed to fail because the local government would simply request Federal intervention against the rebellion.
Agreed, but under our present Federal system the Federal government also has enforcement authority independent of the States.
This has been a feature of our political system since the Civil War era, so if this is evidence of authoritarianism we passed that point long ago.
She's 25, so I guess we can stay on the sidelines.
Thank you for pointing that out.
That being said, that makes it slightly less egregious, but my point still stands.
I think that is what he's trying to say: that Democrat anarcho-tyranny has created this society that punishes you for being a hero.
That is the attitude that brought us to the point we've reached
Was just going to post this but you beat me to it. This is the cultural enrichment feminists demanded.
Why would I intervene and risk being branded a violent white supremacist? Even if some people called me a hero, woke cultists would dox me and fuck my life.
And imagine if this poor innocent dindu-nuffin accidentally died when I intervened? Life over. BLM loves making black rapists their saints.
Sorry, but no thanks.
You try to get in there and stop the attack, and you probably get hurt... and you get arrested. And if you're really unlucky it turns out to be a domestic thing and both of them turn on you and you get convicted.
You punt the fucker in the head and you dont have to worry about getting hurt
If the politicians (including Trump Jr.'s father) whose job it is to maintain order can't be bothered to stop it I don't see why private citizens should feel compelled to do so. Especially when other politicians are arresting them for it.
part and parcel of living in a blue city.
Looks like Colin Kaepernick, kinda. ?
If Obama had a son, he would look just like him.
DEMOCRAT MAJORITY'S AMERICA
I'd rather not be killed by blm or Me too'd by the woman if i intervened. I'll call the cops and maybe kick the dudes head in if no body's around.
There are two paths of justice now. Back on the street for the left and hung out to dry for the right.
THAT'S the real problem, Don Jr.
You absolutely do have an obligation to intervene when a guy is trying to rape a girl in broad day-light. If you have any evidence that this specific woman hates us, sure... but if you're making this assertion based on your regular delusion that all women hate you,then this is your worst take to date, and the first time I am having doubts about whether you are a decent person who is just wrong-headed on one issue.
No, I'm making it on the assertion that she's 90% likely to be a (D)onna Hylton Fan Club member. It's NYC, one of the most leftist places in the world. Trump is deluded if he thinks NY is in play.
And maybe I am a bad person, but it's more in the realm of why should I risk violent retaliation for someone who most likely thinks murdering me is okay? It's a decision made on pure numbers, independent of emotion. I'll report to the police, but past that, definitely not my problem. There is no obligation to intervene and put yourself in danger unless you know the person. That doesn't change just because tradcucks think women should be protected above all.
Oh, and I'd probably be doxxed and murdered by BLM. That's another reason.
You'll understand that given your record, I'm a bit skeptical, but it's a relief at least.
Let's hope he's too smart to believe that.
If there's an indication that this individual is anything like that. Sure, if she has purple hair and a nosering, I'm not going to risk anything to protect her either.
Not all women, at least according to this tradcuck.
Something Something nearby railroad tracks.
I love not being on Reddit.
I think I would intervene in this situation. But honestly I don't know. I have intervened in a less severe situation where a crying woman was being chased by an angry man.
I think it's easy to reason this way or that, but when the situation arises you may do something different, either less than you thought but actually also more than you thought. Even just making a lot of noise might be enough to get him scared enough that to flee. It doesn't have to be some superhero move where you shank him with one blade in each hand.
I don't like Don Jr's attitude. The people who are filming are making a contribution in their own way. They are providing valuable evidence for getting the man caught and locked up.
I'd try and stop him. No offense to the rest, but the people saying this is what she deserves cause they assume she's a D or feminist etc, are pussies.
A speeding subway train up the ass would be good for him. Might delay the schedule but it's worth it. A peaceful jogger gets to go on a train ride into the hereafter.
If nobody watched, there wouldn’t be video identifying the culprit. By watching and recording, the bystanders both kept themselves safe and increased the likelihood that the culprit is apprehended. The crowd is also the likely reason that he fled.