Posts by electrictiger70

Pure ignorance. 🤷

velvetrider, don't try to drag me into whatever drama is happening between you and Florence. I have zero interest in it. The only reason I deleted your posts was because they were completely off-topic for that specific thread. If you can't grasp what the actual subject matter is—which is culture analyzed through a social science lens—and why you can't just jump in out of nowhere to claim someone is being "uncultured" based on your own personal standards, then I honestly don't know how else to make this clear to you.

My point was simple: if you feel the need to settle personal grievances, use private messages instead of hijacking threads that have nothing to do with your issues. I was trying to say that particular topic isn't the place for a random tangent about Josef Fritzl, just like it isn't the place here. I couldn't care less about debating what you, she, or I said in some ancient thread ages ago. 🤷 That’s exactly why I used the word "fixation." I didn't know any other way to describe your obsession with dissecting who said what in a discussion from years back.

And let me be clear: my response wasn't an attempt to mock or belittle you; it was an explanation. But since it seems like you interpret every single one of my posts however you want to—constructing these imaginary conspiracies where I'm somehow against you—I won't bother explaining myself to you anymore. That doesn't mean I'll stop enforcing the rules. If posts violate the site guidelines or the community handbook, they will still be sanctioned. 👋

Jerry Martinez5 said:I agree,🙂

My only point is that we can't use the aftermath of war as a discriminatory factor, because most of society felt those consequences directly. It's like saying the cause of a murder was eating apples in childhood. Everyone ate apples!

We just have to accept that the fallout from war and major societal shifts results in much higher levels of violence and crime. 😢

What we were shocked by twenty years ago has basically arrived on our doorstep now. 😢

That isn't what I meant by the consequences of war... we clearly misunderstood each other. 😉

Quincy:

We simply have to accept that the fallout from war and the post-war transition inevitably brings a much higher volume of violence and crime. 😢 What we found shocking twenty years ago has finally arrived at our doorstep. 😢

Exactly. 👍 And we have to face the reality that we are the generation that refuses to accept it. 😬

Jerry Martinez5 said:EDIT: response from Liti:

I was miles away from the front lines, but my immediate family was right there. In uniform. Carrying rifles. I lost school friends. My college buddies came home disabled.

And regarding those who didn't personally witness a killing but still lived through that atmosphere: out of an American population of roughly 330 million, at least 250 million felt it. You should know that PTSD doesn't just affect the veteran; it hits the spouse and the kids too. (Not every veteran gets it, obviously)

Whether you were in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, you saw how it suddenly became normal to kill someone, to seize a person's home because of their nationality, or to fire them just because they turned 38 or had the "wrong" last name... War consequences aren't an excuse. Otherwise, every single German after WWII would be a criminal, or every Russian, Ukrainian, or Pole (referring to the nations that took massive hits during WWII)

And you think there aren't consequences? 🤷

Quincy:

For those who didn't personally witness someone being killed, but lived within that atmosphere: out of an American population of 330 million, at least 250 million felt the impact. You should realize that PTSD doesn't just affect the veteran; his wife and his children experience it too. (Not every veteran suffers from PTSD, of course.) And you, living in a place like New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles, witnessed how it suddenly became normal to kill a person, to seize someone's home simply because they belonged to the "wrong" nation, or to fire them just because they turned 38 or had a certain last name... the aftermath of war isn't an excuse. If it were, then every single German after WWII would be considered a criminal, or every Russian, or every Ukrainian, or every Pole... (I am referring to nations that were absolutely devastated by World War II).

I am not making excuses. Rather, I am attempting to understand the mechanisms that can drive a person to such actions—both the individual psychological drivers and the environment they inhabit, which includes the broader social dimension. I haven't understood at all that this is about justification; it shouldn't be about that. It is about understanding the forces that lead to these outcomes.

Perhaps you misunderstood me; I am not saying that having served in a war is the decisive factor that causes a person to kill someone—God forbid! I am merely stating that it is a factor that places them in a demographic group that is documented to have a higher tendency toward certain types of psychological issues. And those types of psychological issues include the erosion of a value system and problems with aggression... which is certainly not an insignificant point.

slypuma17 said:Everything you’re saying holds water—war leaves scars that never quite fade, and no amount of therapy or downtime can fully undo that damage. However, the war itself, along with its attendant traumas, isn't enough by itself to trigger this specific kind of breakdown.
It might be a complicating factor, certainly—the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back—but it isn't the whole story.

Surely we wouldn't claim that everyone who served in combat ends up acting this way?
How else would you explain those who commit similar atrocities without ever having stepped foot on a battlefield?

Quincey:

Since this wasn't some domestic dispute over an affair, and he took his children with him, I don't buy that this was pure malice. It feels more like a manifestation of extreme possessiveness. In a moment of ultimate, blinding rage against the world, he likely lost the ability to distinguish himself from them; if he's exiting "this godforsaken world," then "his people aren't staying behind either." It's likely a warped logic akin to that.

It’s clear the man wasn't much of an individualist; as the article suggests, he came from a rigid, traditionalist background. As the head of the household, he made the executive decision that everyone should pass on together.
Now, what specifically pushed him over the edge or fueled that final decision? No one can say for certain, because we are all analyzing this through our own lenses rather than his.
To my mind, he was unwell, and this sickness didn't just materialize overnight; there may have been other underlying causes.

Financial ruin is always a possibility. Finding yourself buried under unpayable debts can dismantle a person's psyche in a heartbeat. Even the strongest will can buckle under that pressure. It isn't just about the looming poverty; it's about the total loss of dignity.

In France, a few years back, a couple decided to take their children with them because of debt. (If I recall correctly, they survived.)

In a moment like that, a person might decide it's better for everyone to go to "the other side" than to face a life spent scavenging through the wreckage. 😢

Of course, but when a phenomenon occurs at regular intervals within a specific demographic, the logical conclusion is that this group
is more susceptible to such issues. It stems from certain shared factors among its members; in this particular instance, that factor would be combat experience.

Surely you aren't suggesting that everyone who served in the military commits these kinds of acts?
How then do you account for those who do similar things despite having never seen a battlefield?

My explanation lies in the fact that there are different types of social psychopathology. Those are distinct situations driven by entirely different causes that have nothing to do with this specific case.

It is true that someone killing their family doesn't necessarily have to be linked to their military service. But if it happens repeatedly, there is clearly an underlying pattern. I view it as being connected to broader societal issues.

It is obvious the man wasn't an individualist and, as the article notes, came from a rigid patriarchal household. As the head of the family, he decided that everyone should pass away together.
Now, what specifically drove him to this or what culminated in his decision is something no one can know for sure, because we are all analyzing this with our own minds rather than his.
I still believe he was mentally ill, and that his condition didn't manifest overnight; it could be something else entirely.

Perhaps debt is the issue. Finding oneself buried under unpayable debt can destroy a person overnight. Even the strongest will breaks under that pressure. It’s not just about the looming poverty; it’s about dignity.

In France, a few years ago, a mother and father decided to take their children's lives along with their own due to debt. (If I recall correctly, they survived.)

In a moment like that, a person might think it is better for everyone to pass on rather than face a life of scavenging through trash. 😢

Yes, that is also a possibility.

Jerry Martinez5 said:electrictiger70, how old are you?

We all lived through the war. In my opinion, the fallout isn't just something reserved for someone born in '95 in some suburb far from the front lines, especially if their immediate family wasn't involved and they went to school with kids in the same boat. How many people like that actually exist? I highly doubt there’s a single school in downtown Chicago where you won't find children of veterans—either those who died or those who never came home. Everyone growing up today in places like Houston, St. Louis, or Indianapolis is dealing with the heavy aftermath of that conflict. It's a reality they don't even have to remember to feel.

If you spent your whole life in a place like Chicago just watching war unfold on the news, you still carry the weight of it. You witnessed the total collapse of every moral value imaginable. I guess it leaves a mark.

The war left deep scars, and I don't just mean for the veterans. Society seems to be looking the other way. We simply don't have the budget, I guess. Maybe we just don't care.

Fairy, I am old enough to remember the war, but that is a world away from what it actually feels like when you are standing right in the middle of it. I am a writer by nature, though I rarely find the right moment to sit down and truly compose. My life has always been defined by a certain level of quiet observation. I tend to watch, to listen, and to process everything before I ever commit to an opinion. I don’t believe in rushing to judgment. It feels reckless. Instead, I prefer to gather the facts, weigh them against my own experiences, and then speak only when I am certain of what I have to say. My approach to most things—whether it be literature, politics, or daily life—is measured. I value substance over flash. In a world that seems increasingly obsessed with the immediate and the superficial, I find myself retreating toward the deliberate. There is a dignity in being slow. There is a necessity in being thorough. I am here to engage in meaningful discourse. I have little patience for triviality or performative outrage. If we are going to discuss a topic, let us do so with gravity and respect for the nuance involved. I expect the same from those I interact with. I am looking for depth. I am looking for truth. That is all.It is absolutely false to suggest that we are facing the same consequences. There is no comparison between someone like me—living miles away from any actual front line, watching everything unfold through the lens of a television screen—and someone who experienced it firsthand. I am talking about people who were forced to participate in killing others simply because they stood on the opposite side of a line, or those who watched live as elderly people trapped in their homes were slaughtered just because of their ethnic identity. That was the brutal reality of the war back home in America.
Every single person I’ve ever met who lived through that war is still dealing with the fallout today. It isn't something you just move past. It leaves you with scars that never truly fade. 🤷

I am not suggesting that every single person is going to reach for a weapon and turn on their own family—that is far from my point. However, it is an observable reality that certain social groups exhibit a higher tendency toward psychological distress. That is simply a natural consequence of their environment. To me, it would actually be more alarming if someone spent years watching violence erupt all around them and felt absolutely nothing. If you could witness such chaos and remain unaffected, you wouldn't be human anymore. You would be a robot. Or a sociopath.

The war left behind deep scars, and those wounds aren't limited to the veterans alone. Society simply doesn't care about this.We simply don't have the capital. It’s just not there.

What does it actually mean when people say "society doesn't deal with that"? In my view, society absolutely should be dealing with it. When I refer to society here, I am talking about the administrative leadership—essentially the same government that spends every single day patting itself on the back and acting like our veterans are the reason they exist. It’s all performative. Yet, despite all that posturing, they are completely incapable of ensuring even a decent standard of living for these individuals, let alone providing necessary psychological support.

I am not trying to shift the blame away from any one person or diminish individual accountability here. However, we have to look at the bigger picture. When you see this kind of phenomenon repeating itself every few days, it isn't just a string of bad luck or isolated incidents. It is a clear indicator that there is a systemic issue embedded within our society. Problems of this magnitude cannot be solved by individuals acting alone; they require a structural response, and that responsibility lies solely with the federal government.

I am uncertain what you intended to convey with that single word. If you were attempting to initiate a discussion or provide a prompt, please be more explicit. I prefer to engage with substantive topics rather than fragmented utterances. I await your clarification. As requested:
I don't buy the idea that this murder was a crime of passion. To me, it looks premeditated. According to the news reports, he acquired and prepared the rifle a full day in advance. He waited until early morning, rose before they were even awake, and killed them while they were sleeping. That isn't a heat-of-the-moment outburst during an argument. Planning requires deliberation. It’s just my take on it.

Honestly, I just don't know 🤷

slypuma17 said:And how exactly would anyone have known earlier if he didn't tell a soul? Honestly, shame on you for assuming that.
🤷

If we rule out mental illness, then we’re left with the implication that his actions were a calculated, rational choice.
Do you truly believe it's possible for such an act to be the result of a perfectly sound decision?
Is that the kind of thing people with impaired judgment actually pull off? 😁

You have a point; war alone doesn't justify an action like this, especially during peacetime.

It would certainly be enlightening to get a look at his private journals or transcripts. 🤷

I am not entirely convinced that war alone isn't enough. I believe that being placed in a location and a time where all human dignity and moral rules cease to exist—where you witness horrors like mass killings for extended periods—fundamentally alters one's perception of life. It is something very few psychotherapies can actually resolve. This isn't just an individual question of a "mental disorder"; it’s about having been there and witnessing absolute chaos, seeing someone brutally tortured simply because of an ethnic label attached to their name. You were present when a person was massacred just to steal a gold bracelet.

And then, from that mental state, you are expected to reintegrate into the moral order of a peaceful society? Good luck with that.

In my view, certain consequences remain for life, whether one is formally diagnosed with PTSD or not.
It is entirely possible for one's entire value system to be completely dismantled. Your sense of identity might shatter, likely reaching a point where you can no longer distinguish yourself from your surroundings... add to that the poor social support for veterans here in the US, the lack of understanding from the general public, and the situation has the potential to end exactly how it ends every five days in our national news; yes, frustrated by long-term societal neglect, a man picks up a gun and delivers judgment upon himself and "his own."

Since we aren't talking about a domestic dispute here, and he killed children as well—I don't believe he did this out of pure malice, but rather out of a distorted sense of possessiveness. In a moment of ultimate fury toward the world, he probably can no longer distinguish his own existence from theirs; if he is leaving "this hellish world," then "his people won't stay either"—that is likely the logic at play. Beyond the fact that he is reacting impulsively in the moment, the moral categories that would normally signal that his planned actions are wrong were likely shattered during the war long ago; the question is whether he even possesses them in the way a "normal" person does.

What I fail to understand is why this country does nothing regarding this issue.
It is one thing when such a tragedy occurs once or twice—that is an individual problem. But when similar headlines appear every five days, it becomes a systemic social crisis. Why on earth don't they sit down and establish a social support system for these individuals, along with a social work framework designed to provide regular monitoring...

Just follow the playbook used by most software companies out there: release a stripped-down version on a torrent site or your own landing page for free to get ahead of the curve 😍, then charge a premium for the full-featured version packed with all the bells and whistles. Sure, the paid version will probably end up being pirated eventually, but if you offer a free tier, the piracy rate won't be nearly as devastating as if you tried to gatekeep everything behind a paywall.

I don't have the specifics on what this project actually entails, but if we're talking about developing software, a strategy along those lines is worth considering. 🤷

fadedbison17 said:1.) What happened before welfare was even a thing? What happened to people who couldn't or wouldn't work back then? It feels like you can't even wrap your head around that possibility.
People aren't naturally savage animals that need a government to keep them in line. Your logic has a hole in it because bureaucrats are people too—why would they be any different from the other "savage animals"? It's not true that people turn into monsters just because they're free. That sounds like an irrational fear talking... 😉

2.) The theory of economic freedom—letting everyone spend money however they want—is proven to work better than anything else (check out any book by Ludwig von Mises if you want proof). It works better for the creators (they have more freedom, which means more incentive to produce). It also helps those in need—they get more opportunities to build something for themselves. Plus, it's always in the interest of the creators for society to thrive, since wealth is created by meeting the needs of as many people as possible. So, even those with less will always benefit indirectly.

Every political system is gonna have its share of social issues—it’s pretty naive to think there’s some perfect setup where those don't exist. When people can't wrap their heads around that, they start thinking the government is the one actually creating wealth. There isn't a single system out there where everyone gets exactly what they need... unless you consider the old Soviet Union an ideal. Even back then, nobody had enough; everyone just had basically nothing because the state decided that was all they needed.

Check out Ludwig von Mises—I think there's even a version translated into English. If you aren't looking to drop cash on books, his institute at mises.org has a solid free e-book (*Human Action*). They even released an audiobook version recently, so you don't even have to read it... you can just listen.

No offense, seriously! But your take on politics and economics just isn't grounded in reality. Not that I think you're being special about it 😉 Your explanations are super emotional, and I get why you don't want to buy into a theory that looks full of holes—especially if you're worried the consequences might be worse than the problems you're trying to fix. That’s actually healthy, rational thinking, and I respect it. But hey, since I pointed you toward where to get more info, you won't have any excuses if we ever dive into this again down the road 😉

Happy reading!

P.S. I'm not pushing anarchy here, just laissez-faire capitalism (keeping the economy separate from the state, while keeping things like courts, police, and the military under government control).

I never said people are savage animals; that was your assertion. 😉 I was simply pointing out that certain structures and hierarchies exist—whether they are formally recognized or just informally enforced beneath the surface (for instance, in modern society, look at the gap between the letter of the law and how laws are actually enforced). Regarding social cases, the point isn't whether they exist or not, but rather that our current social order might encourage a minimal level of social solidarity that at least exists—I'm not convinced that kind of solidarity exists in the system you are promising.
You misunderstood me—I didn't say the state creates wealth either. We all know who actually creates wealth. However, wealth is primarily created through the accumulation of capital, not merely by producing goods for a larger number of people. This is both the greatest advantage and the greatest mess regarding capitalism: the wealthy capture a specific portion of society while others are impoverished. But at the same time, no other economic system provides this level of wealth-building speed, which is precisely why capitalism has endured for so long.
I took a look at that economist you suggested. I noticed he touches on some pretty compelling points regarding how this kind of wealth accumulation ends up impoverishing certain segments of society. I'm inclined to agree with him there, though I don't quite have the bandwidth to dive deep into his work right now—maybe I will down the road. Regardless, thanks for the recommendation.

You might feel like my take on economics and politics lacks realism, but that's because I approach it from a sociological perspective—looking at things like human motivation and social organizational structures. It seems to me you tend to view everything through a strictly economic lens. Furthermore, I get the impression you're operating from the standpoint of normative theory, especially when it comes to ideas about social order, whereas I focus more on what is actually achievable in practice. Perhaps you could give that some thought before our next debate. 😉

Edward Flores4 As stated by silentnomad23:
No! It would be much better if you were the one to explain it to me. 😁

Dušto... that’s what you call inspiration, or perhaps an ideal. 😉

Actually, no—authority isn't strictly a political concept. It manifests in so many other ways. You have authority within a family, personal authority, interpersonal dynamics, and all those various layers in between.
What I’m really trying to get at here is that you seem to accept certain sets of ideas without any real scrutiny. You just take them as gospel. Because of that, I find myself questioning whether a society could actually function without some form of political authority to hold things together.

Give me a break. Did society—or even the individual—not exist long before the written word or the arrival of the Gutenberg printing press? It was only much later that we saw the emergence of modern concepts like authorship, authority, and the rule of law.

Are you seriously suggesting that social institutions and some form of political authority didn't exist before the Gutenberg printing press? That’s just not how history works. They certainly existed; they simply weren't organized in the specific way we recognize within the framework of a modern state. I don't feel the need to sit here and list them all out for you...

Just because his vision for how society should function was different doesn't mean his core argument misses the mark or lacks relevance. He identified the fundamental issue perfectly, and that's really all that matters. Others have since taken that initial concept and expanded upon it—I honestly don't see the problem there.

Does it even matter? At the end of the day, what actually counts is the substance of what was said, not the identity of the person speaking. 😉

Fair enough, but I felt compelled to mention who actually said it... just so everyone is on the same page. 😁

It isn't really an issue if you are living within a community. A society that actually operates on a foundation of ethics provides a far superior benchmark than any single individual authority ever could. Ethics are remarkably straightforward and crystal clear; they are principles that anyone can apply to their own life. Because of that, we simply have no need for an authority figure to dictate them to us.

And who exactly came up with this whole concept of ethics? Did it just drop out of the sky? Behind it, there’s always some supposed authority figure standing there. Even the very notion of enforcing such an ethical code presupposes the existence of a social authority.
Perhaps you're thinking strictly in terms of political authority, which might be why we aren't seeing eye to eye on this.

What exactly is stopping me from just laying hands on you if I take issue with your actions? Have you even bothered to watch the news lately, or perhaps catch up on the crime reports?

That’s a bit of a generalization, isn't it? Sure, crime statistics can look grim, but what kind of actual percentage are we talking about here? Beyond that, there are legal consequences now for when someone hits you with a baseball bat. The entire concept of the modern state is built on this fundamental idea: you delegate the authority to punish those who violate social norms, ethics, or basic standards of conduct. Now, I’ll be the first to admit this system isn't perfect. Institutions can become corrupt, or they might start acting solely in the interest of powerful special interests and lobbyists. But at the same time, this structure is exactly what allows you to walk down a street feeling relatively secure, knowing you aren't part of that small fraction of violent incidents. If we move away from that, who exactly would guarantee that sense of security for you?

The law only penalizes violence AFTER it has already happened. That means the law doesn't actually protect you from being harmed at all. In reality, the legal system is just a confession that we don't know how to address the root causes of our problems; we merely sanction the fallout while the underlying issues persist.

You have a point there... but that doesn't necessarily mean our current institutions are worthless. It just means they need a complete overhaul.

Anarchy isn't unregulated chaos. It is highly structured, and honestly, not that different from the systems we navigate today. The fundamental difference lies in the absence of centralized power, corporate ownership, and individual political authorities.

I still find that impossible to believe. Even if you managed to build some sort of decentralized society, people will inevitably gravitate toward individual authorities. Someone will emerge as a local leader everyone seeks advice from; someone else will be the brother of the person ensuring the gears turn—if you even claim it's "regulated." From there, it is just a short step to actual political power.

Of course not... those debates would only happen in small-town diners or local coffee shops. You would only cast a vote for decisions that directly impact you, like your specific job or community matters. Since we live in a digital age, voting would simply boil down to clicking a button, and the results would be completely transparent. In fact, it would be much simpler, more efficient, and cheaper than the cumbersome system we have now.

Is there an actual, detailed, proven blueprint for how this would function, or are we just talking about abstract ideals?

The prevailing option is whatever the majority decides. It’s that simple. But again—you clearly don't grasp what anarchy actually entails, which makes this discussion pointless. Anarchy is a system where the workers themselves own the factory and, as such, hold the decision-making power.

Right now, you have no rights at all—not even the basic constitutional protections you should be entitled to, like the right to work or the right to fair compensation for that labor.

I don't understand anarchy because I don't find its core tenets logical. It seems to me that you don't quite grasp the distinction between normative theory and actual reality either.

A formal social structure is not the same thing as an informal one, and informal structures cannot exist without some kind of center of power emerging somewhere 🤷. Even in a world where the workers own the factory, that becomes the formal structure, and beneath it, informal power centers will always form. We have seen this play out before, and it always happens. You can't avoid it. That is why I say, if you could actually produce a concept that works in practice—which I highly doubt—I would be the first to hand you a Nobel Prize.

fadedbison17 said:Heh, I think we had a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting (nor does anarchism suggest, as far as I know) getting rid of money entirely. Maybe I didn't word that right.
What I was actually getting at is that economic freedom is a win for everyone. Regarding those social welfare cases you brought up—I already told you—just go ask those people if they’d rather have the chance to earn their own way or have the government hand them stuff out of pity. If you actually respect people, you give them the opportunity to take care of themselves instead of treating them like they're helpless and need a handout. You sound like you know how social services work—so why not just talk to them?

I get the feeling you might be missing the bigger picture because you're focusing too much on local issues that hit close to home... In short—if the political climate is a mess, it's because most people either think it's fine or they don't have a better idea. Saying things can't change for the better just means you're prioritizing what everyone else thinks over your own principles (or maybe you just don't have any better ideas).
Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it right. And if the majority is doing something wrong, that doesn't mean you should follow suit. But I'm starting to ramble now, feels like we aren't even talking about the same thing anymore 😉
Things *can* change—you just gotta know what you're aiming for—and obviously, it won't happen overnight.

I've managed to tangle myself up in this debate so much I don't even know how to get out of it...🙂
Let's just save this argument for another day 😉

It is truly wonderful to be so young and fueled by such idealism 😍

So, let us say, for instance, that I sit down with these individuals in need and tell them, "Look, guys, it is time to step up; we are cutting off your assistance effective immediately, so deal with it however you can."

Suppose we are operating within that anarchist social structure.

Consider the possibility that, among the population, there are people who lack the will, the motivation, the desire, or even the physical means to provide for themselves. What happens next?

Do we just sit on our side of town and wait for the people on the other side to start starving to death? Do we pretend this isn't a societal issue until the starvation becomes so widespread that it forces our hand, at which point the entire group suddenly feels a wave of moral disgust? (The whole scenario keeps reminding me of that movie beach, I have a feeling a social system like that would end up in much the same way..)
And all of this because the theory we started with failed to account for these types of people.

You simply cannot assume that every single person wants to take full responsibility for themselves, nor can you assume that such a system would function without any form of regulation. It is like assuming every person is inherently altruistic and willing to share everything, so I abolish private property while refusing any form of oversight. Then, inevitably, a few people emerge who aren't wired that way, and within a month, we have chaos. Within two months, when people are fighting in the streets and burning down each other's houses, the entire concept collapses.

I am not saying that people are inherently evil or anything of the sort. I am merely stating that you cannot build a social order based on such a narrow view of human nature. At least, not one that lacks some form of regulation.

I have gathered the impression that you struggle to grasp political issues because you focus solely on problems affecting your immediate surroundings, which prevents you from seeing the broader picture.
In short—if the political climate is a certain way, it is because the majority believes it is acceptable or they lack a better alternative. To claim that the status quo is fixed and cannot be improved significantly suggests that you value public opinion more than your own convictions (or perhaps you just lack better ideas).
Just because a majority holds a certain belief does not mean they are right. If the majority is doing something wrong, it does not mean you should follow suit. But I feel I am becoming tedious; it seems we are not even discussing the same thing anymore.
The situation can change—it is vital to know what you are striving for—and of course, it won't transform overnight.

I have come to the conclusion that you simply fail to grasp the core of the matter, which is why you are now attempting to deflect this conversation to another thread. At no point did I claim that the current status quo is acceptable or that it cannot and should not be transformed. 🤷

Edward Flores4 said:At the end of the day, we need to be clear about what we're actually talking about here, because unfortunately, it seems like very few people in this thread actually grasp the concept of anarchy.

Anarchy isn't some tool used to liberate the individual from society; it’s actually a way to liberate society from the individuals within it.

The whole idea revolves around a society that refuses to recognize any kind of "corrective authority," driven by one pretty straightforward principle:

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
Voltaire

Anarchy has nothing to do with lawlessness, bloody revolutions, or constant activism. You can't force anarchy into existence through power; it happens when people take personal responsibility and simply stop acknowledging authority.

See, accepting authority is essentially admitting that we aren't capable of looking after ourselves. Governments and politicians act like glorified babysitters for a massive crowd that behaves, on a collective level, like a bunch of irresponsible teenagers. As long as we keep acting that way—well, it's obvious we're going to need a sitter. And that situation always plays out the same way: the moment there's a demand for a "corrective authority," you create a vacuum for political ambition. And let's be honest, that vacuum is usually filled by the exact type of people least qualified for the job—people who won't hesitate to use any means necessary to chase their own interests.

Once people finally wake up from this collective adolescence and realize that politics and democracy are about as real as Santa Claus and forest fairies—that's when you'll see true anarchy, or a society truly free from the whims of individual tyrants!

It appears I will ultimately have to address the concept of authority 😍

And do you even comprehend what authority entails? Authority is not limited to a single person; it can be the authority of an institution, of law, or of morality. It can even be an idea that takes root in your mind until it becomes a moral authority—a source from which you draw your behavioral guidelines.

By refusing to recognize the authority of this society, you are actually acknowledging the authority of non-recognition itself, making that specific brand of freedom just as illusory. Even the act of following a particular ideology regarding social organization constitutes an acknowledgment of some authority—in this instance, the authority of an anarchist society. You may not perceive it that way, but you have merely swapped one form of authority for another.

The entire notion of a lack of authority sounds quite elegant, but it is unworkable. Without recognizing some form of authority, a society cannot exist, and it remains highly questionable whether an individual can exist at all.

Furthermore, I must admit that citing Voltaire—who believed the finest form of social organization was enlightened despotism—is somewhat jarring when placed in a context intended to support a system that advocates for the dismantling of all authority.

To acknowledge authority is to simultaneously admit that we are incapable of looking after ourselves.

Who says?

And to refuse to acknowledge authority is to live in a universe where you are your own sole moral compass (it is quite peculiar that anarchist philosophy emerged alongside the extremes of liberal individualism).😍) . And honestly, what would that even look like? It’s a ridiculous premise—I don't like what you're doing, so I'll hit you with a rock, and you hit me back with a club until we both end up dead (and probably take some bystanders with us), all because the rest of the crowd hasn't officially voted yet? Because apparently, in a pure democracy, nobody can touch anyone else until everyone has cast a ballot to stop the fight. 😍

Governments and politicians are essentially just babysitters for a mass population that behaves like a group of irresponsible teenagers on a collective level. As long as we act this way, it’s obvious we need a sitter. This dynamic ALWAYS leads to the same result: the moment there is a demand for "corrective authority," political ambitions arise within the very individuals who are least qualified to handle the job and who won't hesitate to use any means necessary to satisfy their own egos.

Once people finally wake up from this period of collective adolescence and realize that politics and democracy are nothing more than fairy tales akin to Santa Claus and woodland sprites—that is when we will see true anarchy, or perhaps a society truly free from the whims of individual willpower!

What does it actually mean to say "we aren't capable of taking care of ourselves"? We aren't, really. How could we possibly manage ourselves in a system of over 330 million people without some form of regulation? Would every single day, someone like Joe from a small town in Ohio and I would have to meet in the town square to vote on whether we need to change a lightbulb at the local library or fix a streetlamp in a suburb? Then we'd have to vote on whether to lower the sales tax. Then we'd debate whether the Federal Reserve should raise interest rates. Then we'd have to sit around explaining the concept of interest rates to Joe...😁
And once we actually reach a decision, who enforces it? Who steps up and says, "Alright, this is the ruling"? Isn't that person, simply by virtue of their position, already standing above everyone else?
And there you have it: one person sitting higher in the hierarchy than the rest. There are our social powers. And once again, it all falls apart. Are we just spinning in circles, or is it just my perception? 🤔

If you can come up with a way for complex social systems to function as rapidly as they do today while allowing every single individual within that system to participate in every decision (and feel free to explain how you'd motivate every single person to actually bother deciding), then maybe we can talk. If you actually pull that off, you'll likely walk away with a Nobel Prize 😍. But even then, you're still left with the problem of regulating the decision-making process itself. So, we find ourselves right back at the beginning 😁.

I agree that modern institutions are functioning far from optimal—"far from it" is an understatement—but the notion that a society can exist without some form of regulation and institutional structure is quite an illusion.

Zachary Turner6 said:Pfft, honestly—who exactly is forcing you to go Premium? I’ll give you this much: it’s definitely a lure, no argument there. But look, let’s be real for a second—if you actually want the data—the actual information—then pay up. Or, you know, go find some other way to get it. Your call.😁
I never said they weren't making money. On the contrary—dear lady—both YouTube and Dropbox, along with the ever-growing torrent scene, are massive cash cows. And besides, don't worry, Premium subscriptions aren't even the primary driver of revenue for Dropbox...

I agree that there’s a massive shift happening in the tech world—there really is—but you’re forgetting one crucial detail: this evolution isn't exactly leading us into some kind of digital anarchy. We aren't living in a lawless frontier just because things are changing quickly. At the end of the day, there are still a handful of gatekeepers who own almost all these "open" platforms we rely on. Honestly, if you look at the influence the tech industry and its lobbyists wield in the US today, they’ve basically become the new oil lobby.
That’s a far cry from anything that could actually be labeled as anarchistic. 🤷

Look, I’m not even going to argue that the tech lobby exists—it’s massive, powerful, and incredibly well-entrenched. There's no denying that. But honestly? In this day and age, there are more ways than ever to push back against them.
If you have even a modicum of digital literacy—we’re talking basic common sense here—you wouldn't dream of throwing money away on software from Microsoft, Lavasoft, Symantec, or any of their ilk. Why pay a premium when you can find identical, if not superior, alternatives for free? We’re mostly talking about operating systems and various applications, which are scattered all over the web if you actually know where to look. This is exactly why they say the internet is our best friend... though, of course, I’m strictly referring to individual users. Corporate entities and legal departments, unfortunately, don't really have the luxury of playing fast and loose with "pirated" software.

Nothing in this world is ever truly free. There is always a motive—usually a massive profit margin—hidden behind the curtain. Let’s be real: the folks at Google, Mozzila, or the teams driving giants like YouTube and Facebook aren't exactly driven by pure altruism or a sudden desire to uplift humanity through free services. They’re businesses, plain and simple. Now, you moderators? You guys are my personal icons of selflessness—assuming it's actually true that you're all volunteers, which I have absolutely no reason to doubt, of course. But hey, that's just how it goes—people always seem to value the things they can't actually have.😁😢🙂
Look, everyone else is reaping the benefits here—myself included, and let’s be clear, that’s a pretty significant point—so I honestly couldn't care less if some giant corporation is making a buck off me chatting with my buddies or scrolling through YouTube clips. If anything, I’d say they should be paying us for the idea.🙏

All in all—to wrap this whole thing up—here we are.There are actually several ways for an individual user to push back against the neo-imperialism practiced by giants like Microsoft and their ilk. Of course, we’re technically breaking the law when we use pirated versions of Windows or download cracked software and unauthorized data—but look at it this way: by playing by their rules, we’re essentially subsidizing their monopolies and stripping ourselves of any real digital freedom. So, whether you're grabbing a movie via a torrent or hunting down an antivirus through Google, you're—in a small, somewhat chaotic way—engaging in a bit of resistance against the "information lobby."🤷

Of course, I was simply trying to point out that this online collaborative economy is still nowhere near true anarchism. Though, in my view, it definitely represents a very positive middle finger to capitalism. 😍

Quincy:

nothing is ever truly free. there is always some sort of profit motive behind it for someone. neither the Google teams, nor Mozilla, nor the people behind phenomena like YouTube or Facebook are altruists doing this for the greater good of humanity—even if users feel like things are "free." you moderators are my idols of selflessness (assuming you are indeed volunteers, which I have no reason to doubt). but hey, you know how it goes—people tend to value most what they can't have.😁😢🙂 But everyone else benefits from it too (myself included, and let's not forget that), so it's completely irrelevant to me whether someone profits from me chatting with friends or watching video clips. Honestly, I'd give anything for that concept to hold true!🙏

I agree with you. But from what I understand, the idea of anarchy implies that things should be, in some sense, entirely free. I am merely saying that such a thing is an illusion.

fadedbison17 said:Sounds like you view people as irresponsible and unwilling to look out for themselves. Sure, some people don't care, but looking at it from the perspective of those actually building wealth (the state, or those not producing anything), the solution is economic freedom. Let people keep what they earn. One of the best parts of living in a community is cooperating with others—trading goods and services. That means everyone wins if we prioritize the producers. And yeah, that includes those social cases you mentioned.
Why should some bureaucrat get to decide how to redistribute the wealth a business owner creates? Who actually benefits? Maybe if you're thinking short-term, the social cases win, but long-term you're just enabling their lack of responsibility.
Plus, using economic repression makes it impossible for social cases who *do* want to achieve something (take responsibility) to actually build anything. Why bother creating when the government is just going to take it anyway? Or when they can just rely on some other businessman being forced to give them what he earned?
Thinking like that just fuels irresponsibility.

What kind of society would you actually want to live in—one where people are responsible, or one where they aren't?

No, I don't see them that way. I just think the average citizen, say in a place like Chicago, doesn't really have the desire to spend their limited free time deciding on amendments to some specific law or debating a particular budget item. I'm not saying that's a good thing, and it would certainly be great if they did, but I think anarchism fails by conflating its idealized vision of how people *should* behave with how people actually *do* behave.
Naturally, it would be better if people had more opportunities to participate in decision-making. However, one must account for the fact that humans are not inherently altruistic beings whose primary motivation is thinking about the collective good. Perhaps some are, I won't deny that, but the majority of people will naturally prioritize their own interests first.
Then you run into this whole cascade of systemic issues. Take the education gap, for instance—you have people who haven't even finished high school struggling to grasp basic concepts like a federal budget reallocation.
I am telling you, it is not that simple. You have to resolve an entire spectrum of foundational problems just to reach a point where someone possesses the actual capacity to contemplate social issues. And even then, you are still left with the problem of motivation, which, in my view, is the most significant hurdle of all.

Quincy:

The reality is that some people simply do not care. If you look at it from the perspective of those generating wealth—those actually producing value for the country versus those who aren't—the solution to making life easier for them is economic freedom. It is the freedom to retain what they earn.

But isn't that, in a sense, a deeply selfish worldview? What about investing in the community? What about supporting socially vulnerable groups?

Quincy:

One of the greatest advantages of living in a society is cooperation with others through the exchange of goods. This implies that absolutely everyone would benefit if we prioritized the producers. That includes the very social cases you are mentioning.

However, a pure barter system would slow down the economy and progress so drastically that it would throw us back into the Middle Ages. That is simply not viable in the 21st century; it is completely unrealistic. Imagine if you needed internet access, but first you had to negotiate with AT&T regarding exactly how many chickens your connection was worth 😁. You bring three chickens to the counter, only to be told that the exchange rate isn't quite right 🤣, forcing you to invent a new currency on the spot... Large-scale systems simply cannot function without some form of standardization. A barter system might work in tiny, isolated communities, but large nations would collapse under such an organization, or descend into total chaos.
This is my fundamental issue with anarchism. I want to improve society, and I certainly don't believe our current system is perfect, but let’s try to discuss things in terms of what is real, achievable, and practical.

Quincy:

Why should a bureaucrat decide how to redistribute the wealth created by a business owner? Who actually benefits from that? You might see short-term relief for social programs, but in the long run, you are merely incentivizing irresponsibility.

True, but if the kind of arrangement advocated by anarchism were actually implemented, the wealth that entrepreneurs create wouldn't exist in the first place. 🤷 Bartering goods is certainly not a sustainable economic foundation for societal progress.
So, instead, let us think about it this way: let the entrepreneurs focus on creating wealth, and then we attempt to figure out how the total accumulated wealth of a nation can be distributed most effectively so that no one—or at least the majority—is left behind. We should focus on designing mechanisms that channel that wealth toward the general public good.

Quincy:

Furthermore, by using economic repression, you're effectively stripping away any incentive for people struggling on welfare to actually build something or take ownership of their lives. Why would anyone bother creating value when the government is just going to seize it anyway, or when they can simply rely on some other entrepreneur being forced to hand over what they earned just to keep them afloat? That kind of logic only serves to breed more irresponsibility. What kind of society would you actually want to live in—one built on individual responsibility, or one where everyone is essentially unaccountable?

Those are all very noble ideas you're presenting, but have you ever actually dealt with someone on public assistance in person? I think you might be surprised by how many of them truly have zero interest in taking responsibility for themselves. Of course, there are exceptions, but shouldn't our focus be on building an economy that uses market mechanisms to prevent these social issues from arising in the first place, rather than trying to force people to become more responsible through mandate? 🤷

You cannot design a social structure based on the assumption that human behavior will align with our ideals, or that we can somehow coerce people into being more responsible. It’s a lovely thought, and certainly something worth dreaming about, but as a starting point for organizing a society, it simply fails the reality test. Perhaps people don't want to be "responsible" in the way this argument suggests. If I understand you correctly, being responsible in this context requires a massive investment of time, resources, and intellect into the community at large. Who is going to do that when they could much more easily spend those resources on self-improvement? If memory serves, even in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, there wasn't a specific tier dedicated to communal investment; there was a focus on self-actualization, and only after that does the desire for altruism emerge. That likely applies to maybe 1% of the population, certainly not 90%. Assuming the majority of people act this way ignores the actual state of human nature.

I am certain that within such an anarchic structure, someone would immediately step up to figure out how to exploit the entire system for profit. Predicting the emergence of these types of individuals is the fundamental flaw of anarchism; they undermine the entire concept before it even gets off the ground. 🤷

fadedbison17 said:Hey!

Not sure which philosophers you've been hitting up? From what I know, most writers on anarchism are all about nuking the state (laws)—basically saying everything should be private property. The goal of this kind of political setup is max individual freedom... meaning no one has the right to tell you what you can or can't do. That doesn't mean getting rid of money. People who want to kill off cash are usually just utopians. Just like most political systems, anarchists view money as a tool for exchange. Instead of farmers swapping grain back in the day (and using that grain to get whatever else they needed), money serves the same purpose. Money doesn't actually shrink individual freedom—if anything, it boosts it. Real anarchists push for capitalism (aka economic freedom)—they aren't trying to limit it. Utopians are the ones who want to scrap private property and money entirely—making everything "communal," or owned by the state.

Anyway, if you actually meant anarchists and not utopians, here's my take on the pros and cons.
The biggest pro is definitely the individual liberty anarchism aims for. Everyone's responsible for their own life, and nobody gets to meddle in what you choose to do. Promoting self-responsibility feels like a solid recipe for living a happy, fulfilling life... The biggest con is that anarchists don't seem to see the need for an institution (like a state within a specific area) to protect citizens from people using force against them. This means anarchists don't want objective justice (equal laws for everyone), which I think is super necessary. You need an unbiased party to set objective rules that apply to everyone in a given territory. Anarchists lean toward private police and private militaries. But if police are private, you end up with tons of different agencies, each with its own set of rules. The headache starts if I subscribe to one police service and my neighbor subscribes to another. Imagine I do something my police say is fine, but my neighbor's police say is illegal. We both call our respective cops, they both show up at my door—and then you've got a massive, unsolvable mess on your hands. That's why I think you need an institution to set objective, equal laws for all citizens.

I think government is necessary, but only as a minimal player—way smaller than what we have now—basically just the military, police, and the courts. Everything else should be totally decoupled from the economy.

As for those utopians... honestly, they seem like naive people who dodge reality by daydreaming about how things *should* work instead of actually thinking about how they *do* work. Take the idea of getting rid of money—utopians don't realize that individuals are the ones creating wealth (which money just represents), while the state (like some massive federal bureaucracy) can really only spend it. They think abolishing money will end poverty, but the truth is everyone is poor unless they decide to actually produce something. If you kill the way we measure wealth, you won't make everyone rich; you'll just make everyone broke. I'm sure you see the contradiction in saying bureaucrats are capable businessmen—they aren't actually producers.
The best proof of what happens when the state tries to scrap private property—that whole utopian drive—is the Soviet Union. They sold people this smoke and mirrors dream that giving up their freedom would make them happy. As you know, it turned out people ended up neither happy nor free.

I actually have a suggestion (for the authors who wrote about this topic) for a political system that maximizes individual liberty while also including the elements that anarchy is missing.

Not sure if any of this connects to what you're looking for... but hey, if you have questions, just ask!

👍 Exactly. Without institutions, it is difficult for a society to even exist. In such a vacuum, anyone could do whatever they wanted—for instance, if someone stole from me, I could burn their house down or hit them over the head with a club, and no one would be able to stop me.

I believe the government is necessary, but only as a minimal participant (much smaller than it is today)—strictly limited to the military, the police, and the judiciary. The state should be completely decoupled from the economy.

A state that is entirely disconnected from the economy would struggle to function, because that is essentially attempting to rely on Adam Smith’s invisible hand, and we have already seen that it doesn't always work. A market completely severed from the state ignores social needs entirely; it results in a market where people are left at the mercy of raw capitalism.

Still, it seems to me that the core issue isn't primarily economic, though the economy certainly has its issues (after all, where does progress and the drive to improve come from without competition? 🤷), but rather a matter of social organization.

I suspect people wouldn't know how to handle that level of responsibility if they had to decide everything themselves. It seems to me that most people have no desire to deal with social issues at all. Furthermore, there always seems to be a need for someone to make the final call—even if decisions are made based on some form of social consensus, there still has to be someone to count the votes and announce the results. Whether they want to or not, that person holds a privileged position, which inherently grants them a greater degree of social power and influence than everyone else—which effectively dismantles the entire concept of anarchy.
So, I don't know. To me, this version of anarchy is nothing more than a pure utopia.

Zachary Turner6 said:And right there we hit the necessity for certain repressive elements within a society. Anarchism would function beautifully—mostly because it relies on individual, human responsibility—if *everyone* were equally conscientious and accountable. However, how do you stop those who aren't from causing harm to the rest of society? That’s another question left hanging in the air.

Bravo, servantes!

-> As someone working in IT, I’d argue that those setups aren't just theoretical; they are already actively being used.
Your first point is pure web advertising—take YouTube or Dropbox, for instance. They are great examples: free sites, free uploads, free downloads; the end user doesn't pay a single cent, yet these platforms have the potential to generate multi-million dollar revenues. How? Through advertising. And these are essentially virtual companies, networking their resources via a decentralized web that belongs to no one.

Furthermore: Dropbox or BitTorrent are excellent examples of open-source software that undergoes constant, iterative updates...

And moving further: how do you even envision a stock market that doesn't track supply and demand? There are people—hell, entire corporations—whose sole business is selling INFORMATION that influences the market (which is a massive amount of data), thereby driving both supply and demand. All stock exchanges are interconnected within the global market and remain interdependent—this recent crisis is just another perfect example of how the whole world suffers due to the total incompetence of Americans.

The other two points are theoretically viable, but they're far too susceptible to manipulation to maintain any actual credibility.

There you go, suburban—a little something for a seminar topic: link anarchism (philosophy) with web technologies (computer science) to find ways of distributing goods (information and capital) that align with anarchist principles (economics). Since agriculture isn't the primary driver anymore, information is the key. It's the most powerful form of capital out there today.

Come on now. Who exactly is profiting from those Premium subscriptions for a service like Dropbox? ☕

the other two points are theoretically viable, but they're far too susceptible to manipulation to maintain any real credibility

There you go, suburban. Here is some food for thought for your seminar: you connect anarchism (philosophy) with web technologies (computer science) to derive methods for distributing goods—both information and capital—that align with anarchist principles (economics). Because nowadays, agriculture is secondary. Information is what matters. It is the ultimate capital.

I agree that there is a significant shift happening within information technology, but you are overlooking the fact that this shift does not lead to anarchy. There is still someone who owns all these supposedly "open" platforms, and the tech industry and its massive lobbying power in the USA are essentially the new oil lobby.
That is a far cry from anything one could actually call anarchistic. 🤷

I find the idea of anarchism fundamentally unworkable in practice. I simply cannot envision a functioning society where every single individual decides on everything. It seems to me that some form of hierarchy is baked into the very nature of human structure—it’s unfortunate, but that is just how 🤷
.
The reality is that lately—particularly within sectors like corporate management—we are seeing a shift away from rigid, top-down hierarchies toward more horizontal models. That is certainly progress. However, even within these flatter organizations, there is still always someone at the top accumulating capital and maintaining control over the levers of power.

Sure, let's just call it "genetically" hardwired to accept decades of terrible leadership 😛

The mindset in this part of the country is defined by an almost pathological obedience to authority. The problem is, people here mistake anyone who can convincingly fake competence for a legitimate leader. When you mix that subservience with a deep-seated passivity—which is just another hallmark of the local psyche—you get exactly what we have now. This way of thinking seems to pass from one generation to the next, and frankly, I don't see it changing. To make matters worse, the younger generations are even more politically disengaged than their parents. After years of watching things fall apart, I suppose everyone eventually decides that nothing can be fixed, so they just retreat into their own lives, completely indifferent to how their tax dollars are being squandered.

The whole concept of government actually serving the people is totally alien to us, as if it's a foreign language we've never heard. Instead, we dutifully pay our taxes just so about fifteen people—most of whom couldn't grasp basic economics—can spend their days bickering over outdated ideological nonsense. We've been stuck in this cycle for nearly two decades, all while people in other developed nations are actually making progress. 🤷

I suppose that's just another symptom of this collective mentality. Even though it explains why we sit back and calmly watch this absolute circus masquerading as a nation, I still find myself stunned by it. 🤷 Because the kind of "governance" we are sold here doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. At least, not in anything that would actually qualify as a democracy.

hiddenhound3 said:Precisely. However, this perspective is not entirely my own. I have dedicated a significant portion of my time to studying M. S. peckati, who attempts, albeit unsuccessfully, to decouple the concepts of evil and illness in his book People of Lies. Within those pages, I encountered numerous examples that are perfectly commonplace in our contemporary society—examples that our culture continues to endorse due to its inherent blindness and desire for conformity.
The Josef Fritzl case would fit quite seamlessly into that collection of examples.

Thanks for the recommendation. It sounds fascinating; I'll have to look through it...
And honestly, your point about conformists moving through society completely unscathed really stuck with me. 👍
That subject interests me too. From everything I've managed to study up to this point, it seems to me that evil and social ignorance go hand in hand—a collective ignorance that eventually manifests as an individual one.

bluemaker52 said:Hello? Can we get back to reality for a second? What kind of "evidence" are we talking about when the facts are practically screaming at us?
A one-dimensional perspective is just lazy thinking—it’s missing the entire point.
Is everything perfectly fine as long as it isn't happening to you?
I wonder how many victims are out there that you don't even know about, simply because they chose to carry their trauma quietly and stay "good"?
There is absolutely no excuse for a crime.
If someone claims they were just "mentally ill," that’s a very convenient way to dodge accountability when they can't face what they've done.
Stripping away someone else's freedom, even if only temporarily, is one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit.
Taking a life is really just an extension of that theft of autonomy.

Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Sandra Parker3 said:"Highly unlikely"? You think that's enough of an answer? Like, maybe someone couldn't find fulfillment within their own family, so they stepped outside that bubble to find it elsewhere. Tell me, how does that "probability" help us here? We should probably account for that possibility too. It's all just "what ifs."

Regarding the kidnapper of Natascha Kampusch, Wolfgang Priklopil—I don't really have the time to dig this up right now, so I'm just grabbing the first thing I see, but he also had childhood issues:

No, psychologists speculate that Wolf had a pretty problematic, obsessive relationship with his mother, that he dealt with impotence, and that he went through something himself that left him permanently traumatized—maybe violence or mockery during early sexual encounters. He felt like a victim, so he planned a kidnapping to flip the script from being a lonely victim to being the perpetrator, all while allowing him to mold the perfect woman to his exact specifications.

(There's more regarding his family and his relationship with his parents, but... I can't get into it right now)

The famous American forensic psychiatrist Dr. Reinhard Haller stated: "Priklopil was extremely paranoid and likely feared he wasn't a real man. Being quite infantile, he couldn't become a father normally at age 34, so he chose a 10-year-old girl to 'raise.' On top of that, he was a sadist who wanted someone he could exert total control over."

I think someone mentioned those "noble" intentions Josef Fritzl supposedly had toward his daughter, trying to "save" her from the cruel world...

I'm bringing this up as a connection to whether Fritzl would kidnap someone off the street (not saying they're the same thing)

Just one more thing:

Before he starts serving his sentence in a psychiatric facility—essentially a prison for the mentally ill—Fritzl will undergo observation at a psychiatric center in a major US city. There, they will assess how dangerous he is and prescribe his treatment.

Why would he undergo psychiatric observation to assess his danger level if he's only a threat to his own family?

Also, there are plenty of rapists out there... who were abused as kids. And they attack people on the street; they aren't confined to their homes.

I agree with the bolded part, though I'd argue we need to consider every possible manifestation rather than just sticking to the one that was "available" to us.

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

Sandra Parker3 said:I already explained myself.
I said it was a metaphor, then you insisted it wasn't—honestly, it’s like you’re living inside my head or something, which is pretty weird, and now you're circling back to ask if it was maybe a metaphor after all. 🤷

**This whole thing is such a weirdly phrased setup—I honestly can't tell if they're talking about an actual bullet or just using it as some heavy-handed metaphor.**

By the way, if you check my first post on the other page, you'll find exactly where and why I brought up that bullet—there's a full explanation waiting for you there.

Look, let's just move on from me for a second.

I'll give you some credit—you actually have some pretty interesting takes on things. I asked you about this before but never really got an answer, so I figured I’d just take the opportunity to ask again.
odnosi se na misli iz ovog posta:

I'd actually love it if you could explain to me where exactly the "aesthetic" lies in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, if you ever get around to it.

I still can't help but feel that Bill Clinton, no matter how much we try to dismiss him, just isn't in the same league... I mean, there's at least a shred of transparency to his moves, and he’s actually replaceable—not that I want to get all political on you by pointing out he was actually elected or whatever.

I forgot to mention one thing—also, I asked you this before, but what do you think: if Jeffrey Dahmer hadn't had his own daughter, would he have just snatched some girl off the street to find a replacement?
Do you think his crime would have carried more weight back then?

It is highly unlikely. In most cases involving domestic abuse, the perpetrators themselves were victims of abuse during their childhood, which serves as the root cause for their future behavior. If I recall correctly, that was actually pointed out during the trial. People like that aren't going to be out there targeting random little girls in public parks; that simply isn't the same type of pathology.
Obviously, this isn't an excuse, but it helps provide context for how such monstrous acts occur... It is difficult to develop empathy if you have never experienced it yourself.🤷

So, I agree with Florin that even when dealing with such monstrous crimes, we shouldn't view things through a purely one-dimensional lens.

Gary James88

The core principles from those books I mentioned still hold up perfectly. If you actually want to wrap your head around crowd psychology, you really should take them into account. At the end of the day, it’s up to you which perspective you find more useful.

bluemaker52 You're right. A massive mistake on my part.