Do "good" and "bad" people actually exist?

[notimp]

@Coto: I dont know how old you are - or how versed in using unrelated "the more I know, the less I know" quotes as pro forma "arguments" for anything goes. Which is a cheap rhetorical trick, thats easily identified.

But the whole millenial "what I feel, is right" thing doesnt fly. Thats still MAGA level disregard of science, facts, and an entire world of shared knowledge you'd never even dip your toes in, with a "what I feel cant be factually wrong" standpoint.

Neither does "who shares my believes is good - who doesn't is bad" fly.

I also didn't confirm your point, I wholeheartedly opposed it and dispelled it where ever possible.

Your model of thinking is wrong, dangerous, and if you were taught it, please understand - that it is the main operational tool fascists and Nazis used to rise to power, so beware of whoever tries to bind you within that "logic".

"Everyone that doesn't think like me is bad" or "groups that dont think like us are bad" - is EXTREMELY dangerous ideology.

It only works - because you give people "social proof" within the ingroup, and then use this "trust" to remove them farther and farther from everyone else (isolationist tendency, echo chamber, ..) and thats - social manipulation, if you do it intentionally.

Or if you are facebook and do it so people stay on your site longer.

I hope thats clear enough by now - even though most millennials find it hard to extract the intended meaning out of written long texts. I kept the sentences as short as possible this time. I used the most placative images possible ("dont be a Nazi").

The other possibility is, that you are just trolling, which is a possible considering your Einstein quote of "anything goes - and as a millenial, I go with me feelz", which btw - never was Einsteins position to begin with... In which case - stop doing it in this specific case. The ideology you are peddling is dangerous.

 

[dAVID_]

Well tehnically Coto is correct, nothing we do is objectively right or wrong.

 

[notimp]

Thats nihilism, also Coto never helmed that position.

At least not to any extend "more so" than I did, and three others in this thread did before. I've no problem with people bringing that concept into the discussion (sarcasm, irony and the dynoysian principle are related, and dear to my heart ), although when talking between millennials, nihilism rather seems like a necessity for them than a mode of choice, If you catch my meaning.

My opposition strictly and exclusively goes against the ideal, that "believes similar to your own" should be considered good, and "believes different to your own are (descriptor) bad".

Even considering the fact that good and bad don't exist in a definite sense, they are still used to rally entire populations to go into wars, and be it illegitimate ones, breaking international law. So for how illusive "good" and "bad" are as concepts, they are still freaking powerful as tools to bring 99% of people behind a certain verbalized position.

Examples (PR taglines):

- One nation under god
- Axis of evil
- Weapons of peace
- We bring democracy to the world
...

So the stories you are telling to illustrate your use of those black/white concepts, are important. (Just ask your average american, if he'd like to be on the side of the empire, or the rebellion in Star Wars, and then laugh on your entire way home, and for the next two days, because of the irony of what you'll get as an answer - "Honey, I think American Gladiators is on the TV again, honey...!").

(Democracy, btw. has nothing to do anymore with the initial concept invented by the greek (nowadays we are talking about "representative democracy", which is entirely different), and thank god (*pause for effect*) for that, I might add. We have about 100000x more voters these days.

Democracy in its essence today, is a structural system that allows for "changes in power" to commence, without dismantling the entire organizational structure, and thats about it.

How that can be filled with moral righteousness, is a lesson on its own.. From my perspective.)

 

[Deleted User]

Good and bad people do exist. But does it mean that they are pure evil or pure good? No. Everyone has a drive, a motive, a way of thinking. So really, it's not black and white, but more of who has a darker color of grey. But that darker grey can mean many things. I have a dark past, but yet I've managed to remain positive, so does that mean that I'm not a darker grey? I have more on my mind, more demons, yet I handle them. But what about someone who has less of a traumatic past, and less internal demons, but fails to keep the ones he has in control. Does that mean both are the same level of grey?

Actually let me ask a really interesting question, let's say, there is a psychopath, no, actually, more simplistically. Someone who doesn't feel empathy, is it wrong if that person realizes he is lacking it, and so pretends to have it to care about someone, and not out of malice, but they realize and formalize in their head that they should care about a person and they need to be cared about. Should that be considered wrong? Because in a sense, that's not what he is feeling, because well, lack of empathy. So is it wrong to have good intentions with a disingenuous action?

 

[notimp]

Its him acting under social pressures (which are not bad per se, so dont just go with the sound of it... ), so I'd actually consider it a god darn miracle, if he'd not obsess over the thing he can't do in a certain sense. The "fake it until you make it" approach would be personal choice, but also a rather popular one (8/10 people).

As said before - although between the lines, those people can become productive parts of our societies in certain fields, and are actually "looked for" in certain positions. But its always a "to what extent" question on several levels, so its mushy. Also, as a side effect of them learning moral rules from an outside perspective, they become some of the best motivators/manipulators there are.

At the same point, as someone - who very much cant discard empathy at will, without a high effort in disconnecting, I'd always antagonize inherently amoral behavior (ethics rather - but, semantics) where ever it jumps a certain threshhold.

What doesnt work though, is to put psychopathic behavior patterns on a pedestal, or let it become part of the common narrative, without consequence. Because people are very into "imitating behavior". So you'll have a bunch of wannabe psychos (Gordan Gecko, Margret Thatcher, Wannabes ) running around in no time - and that works against "group formed decision making" (not meant in a "millenial be inclusive way" (because that sucks), but in a weighing different informed opinions way). Which in general, never has benefited society - much.

Which is why the whole "financial crisis" debacle aftermath was such a disaster in a moral sense. The only thing we learned from that, as an informed public, is that all facebook movements in todays world can last for three months tops, and end, once the festivals are over (Occupy Wallstreet).

(Give me the concept of a "priest/monk class" over this in any society, at any point in time. Ok, maybe excluding the Mayans.. ) )


There is another more advanced angle to this. And this is arguably the most important teaching of works like "Il principe" - which seems to argue, that you can try your hardest to be a morally just, intelligent, educated, well intended human being - in the end it is much more likely that "history makes you" (you decide based on outer pressures), which is why engineering a system (of interdependencies, checks, balances) is always a better approach, than "designing the virtuous king".

If you want to read about those principles in theory, google suggests: https://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldor...re_of_Democracy_Majority_without_Morality.pdf

Which is actually not a bad read..

TLDR; If you keep it within social norms, you are fine.

edit: Short, light hearted, youtube reality tv/documentary mashup on psychopaths


So everyone can get a primer without feeling bad.

 

[notimp]

Sacha Baron Cohen produced some great illustrations for the following concepts:

1. Use of the words "bad, naughty man, bad guys" in outgroup vilification ("people that dont think like you be bad!"), basically disabling any rational sense the person might have, by replacing it with a metaphor the person hasn't thought about. (Storys folks, they are mighty effective.):

h**ps://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk?t=229

2. Propensity of every human being to become "bad/evil", just feeding them with stereotypes they respond to, and playing with concepts that are "on the edge". This illustrates, that you can basically make ANY person say and essentially do, anything - if you hook them the right way, and then lead them towards "situationally expected behavior". And should you still have doubts about that, let me ensure you - you are just uninformed.

h**ps://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk?t=359

Also if you haven't caught it so far - watch the entire video, to see what is only possible in post MAGA America.


You can even see the usual white hate rage mongering in forums like these. Regularly. People usually dont confront them, they dont want to touch them, or go with what sounds "logical" to them at first glance. And this my fellow forum members is the importance and power of story telling outlined. In an internet, where communities arent self correcting. And moderators arent part of communities, but onyl work off "flag if you want censored" list - because a site is optimized for ad views.

"Good" and "bad" are storytelling tropes. In the eyes of everyone that thinks about interactions on a societal level. (This includes religions, politicians, google employees, your friendly ad man, forum moderators, your popular best friend.. )

So the next time, especially as an american soldier invading IRAQ, a former ally country of yours, that never had weapons of mass destruction, and also never even was remotely responsible for 911, and also hadn't seen even remote cases of ripping babies out of their incubators at a birth clinic, or fired a torpedo, at some US war cruiser or another, think about that -- before you think about a piece of cloth weaving in the wind, when you are about to sign that job contract to kill some people to save the world from terrorists.

I know, just a small favor I ask. Because somewhere else in the world, there sits someone like me, that can instantly recount you up to five undisputed historical lies, that where used to sell wars to democratic populations. And thats not a predominantly american thing. Not even close.. Start reading roman generals, greek philosophers and fallen on bad luck italian noblemen from several centuries ago - you'd be astonished how often they are openly referred to even today.

And thats storytelling. Or the actual power of "good" and "bad".

edit: And if you are open to one more "teaching" -

I'm actually only learning to comprehend, what this means in a world, where 60% of the under 16 year old have difficulty differentiating between "news" and "paid advertising" (think testimonials some youtuber sells out for). Thats a real statistic. A world, where an entire generation of young people learned in school, that they dont have to do any research, they could just flock onto the internet, and ask "someone" to answer their questions, and help them. A world, where american senators react to a phrase like "fake news" on a "guttural, emotional level" (great idea, Bob!), and where news outlets get replaced by facebook and google - because they sell more information about their "users" to companies looking to advertise, than any newspaper ever could.

Then I think about, that facebook and google don't want to be legally categorized as media - because they see having any responsibility about what they show to people as "too restricting". And about the inkling, that VR is supposed to be the missing link between people that have a hard time following a youtube tutorial and the thing that enables them to translate something they see in a recorded video, into their "reality".

"Look, move your hand like this, then turn right in 300 yards..."

Questions? Maybe someone could ask their Alexa for me...

 

[Sliter]

I think hat being good or bad is just about having or not the intention of prejudice the others or get advantage making the others suffer in small or big scale

 

[notimp]

I think hat being good or bad is just about having or not the intention of prejudice the others or get advantage making the others suffer in small or big scale

I'm unfair, because I'm wrapping you into my narrative, but - humor me with thinking about the following.

Then how do you think about an entire generation of the best and brightest minds, that come out of universities in the fields of psychology, philosophy and social studies, flocking to facebook (the big 5, really) -- putting all they've learned to good use in finding more and cleverer ways so you spend more time on facebook, and offer up more free information about you to them, that they can then sell in return.

Or how about them finding ways to categorize you better, and faster, and more precisely - so the price they are selling you for can get higher in return?

Thats where those people are working right now - and they - as a group - are making more money than they'd (inflation rate adjusted) would have made in the past.

Same thing, with math and physics students shortly pre financial crisis. (Quants)

Are those things, that just happen, because "the world turns", or are they designed?

Prejudice, for example, is the entire core principal of "big data" which is driving the current AI revolution. (Its the stuff AIs "learn" on.)

And still - AI and the advances it will provide are arguably a positive thing.

So the word "prejudice" you have used... might fall into a similar category as "good" or "bad".

"I think prejudices are bad." sounds great.
But actually - in todays world - would be countered with:
"Acting on prejudices is necessary for AI development, and allows the NSA to catch the bad guys with algorithms."

And thats kind of the point. Everything is context.

"Emotional" Words "feel like they mean something", but they only do - because they make us think about stories. Some of them are publically shared (common narratives), some of them we might learn at school (moral tales), some of them we might learn in films (Loosers like Shia LaBeouf get the Hot Girl, and fast cars, if only they help/join the military - to save the world - while never getting hurt), some of them we learn by our own experience, and then try to pass on.

What an emotional word or phrase means - ultimately, is up to you. (Yet we are not entitled to our own facts. )

edit: Whats even more fun is, that we cant counteract an AIs prejudices, because we (by design, even before the general intelligence level) will never understand its decision process. So we'll have to look at the outcomes, and then try to counteract, if something like racism inadvertently has became part of a decision process. And we can (by design) only do it "after the fact", so after the process has been implemented. Which sounds like much fun, because at that point, you are up against people arguing economic, political, power motives against ethical rights. Which is a recipe for... ehem, pure bliss. Can't imagine what could go wrong there.. But don't you worry - China, currently just field tests a "universal social score" based society in a few large cities - so you'll see the results in approximately 10 years. 5 if there is a revolt. Also, come to speak of it, good or bad thing.. Their facebook (/wechat) accounts will be the best. Because if you optimize your profile, you'll also get better, higher paying jobs. Just think about that.

And if you don't you wont be able to ever leave the province you were born in. Also, fact.

(Some of you used the "I don't have anything to hide" excuse, when, the NSA scandal broke, didn't you? Good or bad?)

edit: This just broke as news:
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-affects-childs-university-enrolment-2018-7

The social profile, AI driven world also means, that society never forgets. You were ok with this as well, werent you... Nothing to hide. Always trying to split the world into good and bad folks. Because it was easier for you to think along those lines. You were part of the good ones, of course. Always.

And all that you could think about was, that maybe someone should teach your children how to use the facebook privacy settings "correctly". (Those that where designed to not be used correctly in the first place.) You never wanted to know the entire extend of issues in your life. You wanted to work and live in a society, where things were managed, without you having to worry about them, in addition to what challenged your life. You never learned critical thinking, you never learned to research. You never paid for independent media. You only voted, because of "highly emotionally charged" issues, or to lower your taxes and all of it was supposed to work, because of an "invisible hand" corrective. You decided not to believe in science anymore, and that intelligence is overrated as a leadership principal (see, moderators, really should just come in to censor opinion, once you flaged a posting... its even in the name - moderator...), but then you turned around and opened a forum thread on if -

"Good and bad, actually exist as concepts". Because then you would stick to the good, and distance yourself from the bad. Everyone was allowed an opinion, like its now the norm - everywhere on the internet. And most people even had fun one sentence phrases about whats "good or bad" in their opinion.

It was magic. Everyone felt ensured in no time. The world was back on track. Everyone stopped worrying again.

(Thats the nihilism principle (see Kubrik: "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb") the reason it can be uphold is, because there are indefinite potential outcomes, so there cant be despair, because of a lack of being able to form a congruent image about the future..

Politics recognized this 30 years ago, and stopped telling "big narratives" since then. Everything is just managed on the spot, elections are won on personalities and "ad hoc promises" never being intended to be fulfilled.

Collective insanity is conjured up ("Build a wall", "lock her up", ... (all one syllable words, what a coincidence...), then simply ignored at your convenience..

Thats the callback to the "everyone creates their own realities, after the fact so there is no cognitive dissonance with their self images" motive.

And thats the logic trail that leads to cynicism and escapism, so dont take it. Take something else, do something better. ))

 

[CosmoCortney]

only bad people exist

 

[notimp]

only bad people exist

Can't be.







Even this one, if you are not into conversational therapy..



One of the issues currently is rather, that people are very into portraying fake conservative picturebook identities (or worse), and forming opinions in echo chambers (on the internet everybody can find other people that think just like them). (Oh - and there is no Late Night talkshow host on air currently that actually can hold a conversation. That'll pass.

Hopefully mass media will still be a thing when it does.. (For the sake of a common narrative.))

 

[notimp]

Sacha Baron Cohen in Episode 2 of "Who is America".

"A message from the Georgia General Assembly"
https://streamable.com/qsoww

"Instagram because you care - about child soldiers"
https://streamable.com/k2qhb

Talking about the guy really driving home the point...

The person in the first video was hooked by authority, the instagram personality by being offered a lucrative advertising contract.

Smile.

#trollingisbadmkay

Also, here is your typical media reaction on the outrage of using real people to explain psychological principals to millenials.


How dare he.

edit: Maybe I should explain the current facebook/instagram information economy from a corporate perspective as well. Corporations advertising efforts before the personified "stroke of genius" that is Mark Zuckerberg, where limited by a gatekeeper principal, mainly - the media deciding if you could matter, and to what extent. There was a code of conduct in those operations, even a feeling of "grandiosity", because they decided what mattered ("fourth pillar of society").

So as long as you werent rich enough and inclined to found or buy an entire media outlet (which ideally would still have to be profitable for you to rectify the investment), influence - from corporate sponsors into the public sphere was limited.

This all changed with facebook, where most companies who could, in essence trippled their media budgets, and started to talk to people directly via conduits who werent schooled in any way to retain any integrity at all - so influencers simply became sellouts. And at the same time "brand awareness" skyrocketed. (Thats the 60% of millennials cant differentiate news from advertorials , and the "lets cake a selfie with our foods!" concepts.)

At that time "conventional media" saw this as well - while in a downward spiral (advertisment market for them was swept away by google and facebook ("we can micro target"), ad prices "ruined") - and identified it as "the thing that currently works", and started to become more trendy, more "recent news" focused and go with mostly blogs as sources (which ought to be excused, because newspapers are dying). (Most news outlets always went with "reputable sources", instead of doing investigative research and "what a reputable source was" changed in favor of "still mattering at all".)

As someone who wants to influence the news, nowadays, you just buy/set up two or three blogs, and get someone who knows how to gets stories trending, which is much easier, and much less costly than to "finance the equivalent of a NYT".

This is "fake news media".

(see: https://slate.com/technology/2018/0...ke-news-industry-report.html?via=gdpr-consent and youtube search for Ryan Holiday )

 

[The Catboy]

I'm a very bad girl

 

[FAST6191]

I'm a very bad girl

Everybody likes to think they have a have a bad side, however it is only when you need to be bad that it counts.

 

[The Catboy]

Everybody likes to think they have a have a bad side, however it is only when you need to be bad that it counts.

Honestly I am not a bad person, but I've had to do "bad" things to get by. I've had to smoke pot due to the nerve damage in my arms and back. I've had to resort to piracy because choosing between food, bills, and entertainment only left me with so few options. But these don't make me a bad person, I had/have to do what I had/have to get by. I am not saying these options were right nor did the circumstances make them right, but I was left with so few choices that they had to happen.

 

[FAST6191]

Why would smoking weed make you a bad person?

 

[sarkwalvein]

If I were to adhere to one definition of "bad person", that would be the one given by osaka35.
That is, "I figure a good person is one who recognizes when they mess up and try to not do it again. Effort, intent, results. These make for a good person. Opposite for a bad person(no awareness, no desire to change or grow, no effort put in to not do bad things, etc)."

That definition depends a lot on feeling empathy. So I guess if one was born with a very abnormal sense of empathy, then he doesn't really decide to be a "bad person".
But for other people, it really is a choice, no matter your upbringing. It is you choosing making whatever makes you happy and comfortable aside, putting effort on thinking what are you making that hurts your environment and how to help it and yourself, and putting the effort to grow and change.
I want to state that under this definition bad people are usually lazy and really love to stay in their comfort zone, they are usually doing bad to others but mostly to themselves, but taking a moment to think how they do bad to themselves and how to change it is "too much of a hassle".

I think most people are bad people, but there are some good people too out there, a few.

PS: smoking pot definitively doesn't make you a bad person, unless e.g. you know your roommate needs to go to an interview in the morning and you again go smoking in the room, making all his clothes smell like weed and also not letting him have a good sleep and making him go stoned to the interview... that would be what a bad person does, i.e. no awareness, no consideration, no desire to change, too much effort.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

Definitely yes.
You're a bad person if you know what you're doing is wrong but you keep doing it.

 

[FAST6191]

If I were to adhere to one definition of "bad person", that would be the one given by osaka35.
That is, "I figure a good person is one who recognizes when they mess up and try to not do it again. Effort, intent, results. These make for a good person. Opposite for a bad person(no awareness, no desire to change or grow, no effort put in to not do bad things, etc)."

That definition depends a lot on feeling empathy. So I guess if one was born with a very abnormal sense of empathy, then he doesn't really decide to be a "bad person".
But for other people, it really is a choice, no matter your upbringing. It is you choosing making whatever makes you happy and comfortable aside, putting effort on thinking what are you making that hurts your environment and how to help it and yourself, and putting the effort to grow and change.
I want to state that under this definition bad people are usually lazy and really love to stay in their comfort zone, they are usually doing bad to others but mostly to themselves, but taking a moment to think how they do bad to themselves and how to change it is "too much of a hassle".

I think most people are bad people, but there are some good people too out there, a few.

PS: smoking pot definitively doesn't make you a bad person, unless e.g. you know your roommate needs to go to an interview in the morning and you again go smoking in the room, making all his clothes smell like weed and also not letting him have a good sleep and making him go stoned to the interview... that would be what a bad person does, i.e. no awareness, no consideration, no desire to change, too much effort.

What is messing up though? If my moral character was rated against some hardcore fundamentalist literalist Islamic interpretation of the world I am sure I would be a complete and utter cunt. As far as general western values go (such as they are at all consistent and/or homogeneous) I am actually probably still a complete cunt but for very different reasons.

As far as the weed example then giving them a contact high might be said to be removing their agency and thus not cool but roll it back a step and assume that did not happen but the rest did. That still speaks to a societal judgement of some form.

 

[Song of storms]

Are "good people" "good" by personal choice?

The very moment that a bad person is being told how bad they are with facts and proof, any bad behavior past that is a choice.

 

[FAST6191]

The very moment that a bad person is being told how bad they are with facts and proof, any bad behavior past that is a choice.

We could go again on relative things but that is getting boring. What I will say is that also ignores the possibility that the stressors that might have caused the "bad" behaviour are still in play. It also presumes no understanding of anything can be had beforehand which... most of human civilisation is an argument against.

 

[Deleted User]

I'm still trying to make sense of everything in this discussion but I've come to the following definition of a "bad" person.

A bad person is somebody who intentionally harms others for unnecessary personal gain and has the mental capacity to control their behaviour.

Somebody who steals to eat is not a bad person. Somebody who steals to be able to afford luxuries is a bad person.

Somebody who's mental condition makes them incapable of controlling their behaviours is not a bad person. Somebody who can control their behaviour but chooses to do the "wrong" thing is a bad person.

I also think there's a big difference between an indifferent person and a "good" person but that's a discussion for another day.