"“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."
I have considered this a kind of hyperbolic demand for keeping thoughts pure for the sake of holiness, or for preventing the breakdown of relationships, etc.
But perhaps it's also a comment on our psychology and the ease at which we could slip from thought to deed.
Optimistically, the verdict and punishment of the killer will be deterrence. Pessimistically, normal people just hadn't really thought about how easy this would be, and we'll see more extreme actions.
Perhaps a slightly different hypothetical should be considered as well, suppose a Jewish person killed Candace Owens. What would be assumed about the attacker if no other facts were clear? Would everyone behave with proper online dignity?
Additional question; were many people happy when King Joffrey was assassinated in Game of Thrones? What does this say about the moral positioning of the reader/viewer?
Before you respond "well that's fiction and fantasy", keep in mind any prior public thoughts you might have expressed about pornography.
It is fiction and fantasy, and fantasy is dangerous to the point that it "leaks" into the real world. Being happy about Joffrey dying should not translate into people giving Jack Gleeson crap. (Reports seem mixed on whether that happened.)
If pornography had no affect on the real world, then I would have fewer problems with it, but evidence is mounting that the fantasy of pornography is "leaking" into the "real world".
If someone has a fantasy about Charlie Kirk being murdered, or if they write a story about it, then that would be different than someone actually doing it.
But the only person who actually did it was the shooter.
Yet let's engage the question about fiction. Why is it ok to enjoy the fantasy of Joffrey dying horribly (not the actor but the character)? Because he is just some lights and sounds on a flat screen and otherwise lives in most people's imagination? That is how most people view the news. Just like we understand Joffrey is played by an actor and it's fiction, we suspend disbelief. But if we suspend disbelief, then we also suspend our ability to play the "well it's just fiction, that's why I'm cheering as he gags to death while his mother holds him" card.
Because Joffrey did horrible things? But if you had a 'freaky Friday' moment would you drop the poison into the wine? Because the world is better off without Joffrey? It probably is but it's not quite clear the GoT world got better with him removed, in some ways his mother was worse.
My take on this would be that fictional and non-fictional characters (and I guess semi-fictional as well since these days it's clear many public figures are playing characters and esp. on the right the Professional Wrestling kayfabe concept is quite popular) are killed unjustly it is a moral failing to take pleasure in it. It's a common failing, however, and in itself more something to be aware of and make proper choices upon seeing it as an emotion. Higher quality fiction confronts the viewer with that.
To be clear, I didn't enjoy the death of Joffrey. I didn't cheer. Nearly everything about Game of Thrones horrified me (to be clear I think I watched one season of the show, but I have read all the books.) And I kind of think everything should be horrified. And maybe that's the real lesson, that people imagine that it's all a big fictional game, because the consequences of most of what people see online are so remote.
When Joan Crawford died, her rival Bette Davis infamously said “You should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good . . . Joan Crawford is dead. Good.”
Noting that I don't think anyone ever made a big deal over this other than to laugh a bit at the wit. If Crawford had died from violence, however, I think that would be a totally different tone and Davis wouldn't have used the quip.
I'm sure she was. So how would people have felt if she was assassinated? And would that assassination have followed different rules than Kirk's assassination?
The IRA almost did kill her. If that had happened, I doubt if any public figures would've been praising her death, and if they had, most people would've disapproved, even many who didn't like her.
"“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."
I have considered this a kind of hyperbolic demand for keeping thoughts pure for the sake of holiness, or for preventing the breakdown of relationships, etc.
But perhaps it's also a comment on our psychology and the ease at which we could slip from thought to deed.
Optimistically, the verdict and punishment of the killer will be deterrence. Pessimistically, normal people just hadn't really thought about how easy this would be, and we'll see more extreme actions.
Perhaps a slightly different hypothetical should be considered as well, suppose a Jewish person killed Candace Owens. What would be assumed about the attacker if no other facts were clear? Would everyone behave with proper online dignity?
Additional question; were many people happy when King Joffrey was assassinated in Game of Thrones? What does this say about the moral positioning of the reader/viewer?
Before you respond "well that's fiction and fantasy", keep in mind any prior public thoughts you might have expressed about pornography.
It is fiction and fantasy, and fantasy is dangerous to the point that it "leaks" into the real world. Being happy about Joffrey dying should not translate into people giving Jack Gleeson crap. (Reports seem mixed on whether that happened.)
If pornography had no affect on the real world, then I would have fewer problems with it, but evidence is mounting that the fantasy of pornography is "leaking" into the "real world".
If someone has a fantasy about Charlie Kirk being murdered, or if they write a story about it, then that would be different than someone actually doing it.
But the only person who actually did it was the shooter.
Yet let's engage the question about fiction. Why is it ok to enjoy the fantasy of Joffrey dying horribly (not the actor but the character)? Because he is just some lights and sounds on a flat screen and otherwise lives in most people's imagination? That is how most people view the news. Just like we understand Joffrey is played by an actor and it's fiction, we suspend disbelief. But if we suspend disbelief, then we also suspend our ability to play the "well it's just fiction, that's why I'm cheering as he gags to death while his mother holds him" card.
Because Joffrey did horrible things? But if you had a 'freaky Friday' moment would you drop the poison into the wine? Because the world is better off without Joffrey? It probably is but it's not quite clear the GoT world got better with him removed, in some ways his mother was worse.
My take on this would be that fictional and non-fictional characters (and I guess semi-fictional as well since these days it's clear many public figures are playing characters and esp. on the right the Professional Wrestling kayfabe concept is quite popular) are killed unjustly it is a moral failing to take pleasure in it. It's a common failing, however, and in itself more something to be aware of and make proper choices upon seeing it as an emotion. Higher quality fiction confronts the viewer with that.
To be clear, I didn't enjoy the death of Joffrey. I didn't cheer. Nearly everything about Game of Thrones horrified me (to be clear I think I watched one season of the show, but I have read all the books.) And I kind of think everything should be horrified. And maybe that's the real lesson, that people imagine that it's all a big fictional game, because the consequences of most of what people see online are so remote.
I believe you'll find that I touched on this in https://www.wearenotsaved.com/p/godzilla-trudges-back-and-forth back in 2017
> when Margaret Thatcher died
Which reminds me, when that happened someone wrote a graffito on a path near where I lived: "Ding dong the witch is dead".
I think it's fair to say Thatcher was a controversial character, particularly in Scotland.
When Joan Crawford died, her rival Bette Davis infamously said “You should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good . . . Joan Crawford is dead. Good.”
Noting that I don't think anyone ever made a big deal over this other than to laugh a bit at the wit. If Crawford had died from violence, however, I think that would be a totally different tone and Davis wouldn't have used the quip.
I'm sure she was. So how would people have felt if she was assassinated? And would that assassination have followed different rules than Kirk's assassination?
The IRA almost did kill her. If that had happened, I doubt if any public figures would've been praising her death, and if they had, most people would've disapproved, even many who didn't like her.