Comments for scattershot

Comment on Are we morally obligated to become activists? by Joe

Joe — Wed, 22 May 2013 14:07:59 +0000

You’re a master of selective comprehension, aren’t you? I said, “I don’t see how it has much bearing on what he said above,” not “it has no bearing on anything.” I’m not Jack Crow’s psychologist so I have no idea if he’s pretending at moral superiority to cover up feelings of moral vacuity. But again, so what if he is? What bearing does that have on the question of whether the average American has an obligation to protest the government?

But feel free to interpret that as me saying “nothing matters, unless I say it does.”

Comment on Are we morally obligated to become activists? by Jacques Krogh

Jacques Krogh — Wed, 22 May 2013 13:25:31 +0000

Of course it has no bearing on anything. Nothing “Jack Crow” says has any bearing on reality. That’s the point. The entire “Jack Crow” schtick is to pretend at moral superiority due to immense moral vacuity, arising from embarrassment and self-hatred because he is the very thing he accuses others of being.

Context is everything. Unless you’re dead.

Anyway, equivocation suits you. Nothing matters, unless you say it does, and what you say is irrelevant, so again, nothing matters.

Comment on Are we morally obligated to become activists? by Joe

Joe — Sun, 19 May 2013 21:50:19 +0000

I don’t know whether Jack’s a rapist or not, but I don’t see how it has much bearing on what he said above.

Comment on Are we morally obligated to become activists? by Joe

Joe — Sun, 19 May 2013 21:40:50 +0000

We’re technically complicit, I guess, but I don’t put much weight on it because it’s coerced.

As for your second paragraph, I’d say that’s exactly right. I was even thinking the same thing (“taking their ball and going home”) when discussing this with Arka over at your blog.

Comment on Are we morally obligated to become activists? by Joe

Joe — Sun, 19 May 2013 17:07:45 +0000

I’m still not convinced that cowardice is a fair charge in most cases. Leaving aside the people who don’t have a problem with US policy at all, I’d still say there are plenty of legitimate considerations besides fear of jail/persecution that might lead someone to decide active resistance isn’t worth it. Pied Cow mentions some below.

I agree completely with the second part of your response.

Comment on Are we morally obligated to become activists? by Crackie Blowbar

Crackie Blowbar — Sun, 19 May 2013 15:25:04 +0000

As a rapist himself, Jack would know about rape, and about moral cowardice in practice.

Only a rapist accuses all who disagree of being rapists themselves. Project, deflect, Rove-it-out. Joey Gerbils = Jack Crow. Moral coward manipulating with words.

Comment on Are we morally obligated to become activists? by Pied Cow

Pied Cow — Sat, 18 May 2013 15:02:35 +0000

I think it’s all part of a continuum.

Everybody has to define what they think is right and act according to that definition.

Does paying taxes, voting, etc., make one complicit? Of course it does. But the analysis doesn’t end there because there’s a lot of other considerations to take into account: family responsibilities, a legitimate desire to have a generally happy and meaningful life, and so on.

I think it’s entirely compatible to disagree completely with the present status quo but still to lead a respectable life here. In fact, I could say that those who choose alternatives are the real sellouts, because instead of trying to do something to help, they just take their ball and go home, bragging about it all the way.

Comment on Are we morally obligated to become activists? by Jack

Jack — Fri, 17 May 2013 21:16:10 +0000

“Are Americans who don’t actively resist the US government…moral cowards…”

Yes. Cowardice is nonetheless justifiable, given the punishment and ostracism regime in place.

“…who are complicit in its crimes?”

No. No more than a child raised by a rapist is complicit in the rapist’s crimes. That is, until he becomes one himself, or actively assists in the commission of a rape.

Comment on Thinking Inside the Box by Paul Behrer

Paul Behrer — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:04:00 +0000

Holy fuck! Next thing you know, someone’s gonna equate creativity and intelligence, and really muddy the waters!

Creating new ways to label something as exceptionally creative and therefore quite possibly supremely intelligent, that’s sure to keep a fool or two busy while others actually are trying to create something other than a new split of a hair’s already split end.

Comment on Thinking Inside the Box by Joe

Joe — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:48:51 +0000

Well, I’m not above taking the occasional potshot at NPR, or Fox News. Good or bad, it’s our media, and it’s where most people get their information/are told what to think about things. Regardless, I don’t really consider this a criticism of NPR so much as a criticism of the educational system and the many many people who seem to believe it has something to do with the betterment of children, as opposed to a farm system for the Fortune 500.

Besides, my radio choices on my commute boil down to commercial music stations, sports talk, “conservative” “talk” radio, and NPR. I’m damn near a captive audience.