Go somewhere private and explain to yourself out loud your objection to this girl having this doll. Don't think about it, just talk and listen to yourself. Be honest.

Since you're speaking English, I assume you're familiar with racism. When you're raised in a racist culture you end up with racist ideas whether you would like to or not. It sounds like your reaction here made you uncomfortable. Reflecting on it rather than burying it is the right thing to do. If you identify as someone who is ok with any girl playing with any kind of doll, whatever latent belief you have causing you to feel differently can be dismantled once you know what it is.

I wish. You're giving right-wingers way too much credit. Most of those craven idiots do it for free for the opportunity to lose themselves in a gaggle of other morons. They are vulnerable in a way that is easy to exploit for people who know how to do it.

Keep pulling until you get hierarchy out.

The word "lazy" exists for exploiters to shame their thralls if they aren't profiting them enough. Think about anyone who might call you lazy and their relationship to you. They are not your friends; you don't have to serve them.

If you're not satisfied with how you're living your life, that's meaningful. The protection from loss you have gained through your job doesn't balance against the stress of what you're doing. There are no easy answers but something needs to change. I would suggest working on those changes before you get burned all the way out, because at that point you'll be making changes whether you want to or not.

The assumption would be that unless they can explain it in a way that indicates their support of the rights of either affected group, they're bigoted and not worth anything to anyone other than to the thought leaders they let think on their behalf and are using them to profit themselves. I'll pity them as they are extremely pathetic and loathsome, but that's as much as I'm willing to give them. There's less than a percent chance that they're simply misled and willing to have a good faith conversation about what they were taught, but short of that they're easy to dismiss altogether in every way. This may sound harsh but I'm well past any patience I had for bigotry.

Opposing DEI is like opposing Gay Pride. There are many nefarious corporate influences weaponizing gay pride to the detriment of many lgbtq+ people and it makes sense for many of the parades to be boycotted on this basis. Many DEI programs can whitewash and excuse a lot of rascism induced issues people could face while providing a legal defense for the company to continue their racist practices. At the same time, I'm for gay pride and diversity, equity, and inclusion and would assume anyone who couldn't explain their opposition to these concepts to be a bigot.

I made the mistake of reading a few bestsellers in a row a few years ago and I'm now convinced the book industry depends on people buying books on bestseller lists and not reading them.

I've heard of one big protest song by a pretty mainstream artist which didn't autofill on youtube when I just searched for it and was apparently buried. I wonder how many other songs were buried.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing, because in that case it usually ends up being nothing. If you have the desire to limit what you described in any way you can as much as you can, it'll be something. If everyone does as much as they can, it'll be a huge something.

He did in a way, as many did. Not that the old pre-pandemic Russel Brand was better, because he was always out there being a sex pest, but his old public personality is dead and gone while his new performance is born-again evangelical because they're the most supportive of this kind of behavior.

Swarm. It's a great show but unpopular for a reason since it's pretty niche and I imagine would make most people too uncomfortable. That's my endorsement.

Also, a point of note for my Hitler example. I do not think that Hitler was a monster or particularly unique. I think Hitler was a man similar to millions of people who exist on Earth today. Some of these individuals capable of what Hitler did have chosen instead to behave differently, while many who desire to emulate Hitler are unable to do so because of the state of their societies. I don't think Hitler was a special being who single-handedly enthralled an entire nation and forced them to do things they didn't want to do. I think there were many elements in their society which contributed to Hitler's rise and continued support despite his absurd statements and atrocities. While we can never live in a world totally free of people like Hitler or people who want a leader like Hitler, I think a world where people like Hitler can't access the power to do great evil is possible.

Sure, I'll consider psychopathy as a disability rather than an illness. Regardless, it's pathological.

I think your point about proper support and monitoring is key. Why do we have the problem of psychopaths masking their lack of empathy creating success for themselves in a way that doesn't involve human connection? What if they didn't have to mask their personalities or tendencies at all? If I met someone and understood they were a psychopath incapable of empathy but trying to live a peaceful stable life for their own self-interest, which includes not risking that stability by causing grave harm, I would engage with that person until such a point that they expressed a contemptible opinion or did something unsavory. This is the same metric I would use with anyone. Of course I would understand that because the psychopath lacks empathy there are bad things they might be more likely to do, but in a society which is equipped for psychopaths hopefully they would also understand the greater risks for themselves due to their pathology.

I don't think there are natural born killers even if I do understand that some pathologies, whether inborn or trauma-induced, would make the act of killing unburdonsome to that person. Personally, I can come up with a very long list of why I shouldn't kill a person other than that I would feel bad about it. I don't think all people who wouldn't feel bad about it are unaware of the myriad other consequences which come with causing such grave harm of this or other kinds. If someone truly doesn't understand in any way why they shouldn't kill someone and then go on to kill someone, I think that is much more of a problem of the society. That would indicate a severe lack of education and support in addition to their pathology.

To clarify, I am not anti-judgement. I think people's behaviors should be judged good or bad regardless of whether anyone would judge that individual or their group to be good or bad. Also, I can pass character judgment on the dead because there are no longer unknown variables. I can condemn Hitler as an evil person because as he exists right now as an idea, he is pure evil. The historical human Hitler I can condemn worse because even though he was fully capable of good and fully capable of not doing what he did, he chose to do evil consistently. I condemn historical human Hitler not because I believe he was an evil being incapable of doing good, but that he was capable of both good and evil and chose to do evil. In my mind this is a harsher judgement than excusing bad behavior because of their corrupt soul or any such nonsense.

I’m saying we should take sociopathic tendencies a bit more seriously and address them directly with trained professionals rather than waiting for them to cause damage. That would require judging people’s character.

This is where we agree. If every narcissist, sociopath, psychopath, pedophile, etc could be open about their tendencies and receive specialized assistance and accommodation before they commit a crime due to mismanaged illness it would be ideal. The only thing I disagree about is that these are not representations of internal character but are illnesses. For example, the pedophile who gets accommodation and doesn't go near children is doing less evil and probably has a better character than a preacher who uses his position to abuse young boys because he likes the feeling of power but isn't a pedophile (this happens).

I have indeed been the innocent victim of narcissistic abuse. It would indeed have been much better if my parents worked through their trauma before me or during my childhood rather than never. Narcissistic tendencies weren't considered dangerous when they were young though, as evidenced by almost the entire boomer generation. If we were living in stronger communities cooperating with one another instead of competing, I think those narcissistic tendencies either never would have existed to begin with or would have been recognized and counterbalanced by other community members. I do not think I would have been better off if they were punished, but it's likely it would have made my situation worse. At this point I'm more concerned with my own well-being than getting retribution.

I think evil behavior should be denounced and everyone should be encouraged in every way on every level to do good rather than evil to one another. I want to be clear that I am expressing that no one has the excuse of their poor internal nature to do evil things. Everyone is capable of both good and evil and everyone regardless of their condition is fully responsible for their behavior. There's no obfuscating evil in my arguments. I am arguing that the social structure supporting instead of preventing and/or condemning these evil behaviors is the problem rather than some people being good and others being evil.

Yes, our system is cutrently built for that. An optimal system wouldn't allow for it. We have obviously not discovered the optimal system yet but we can identify the fundamental issues of our present systems. Prison is another fundamentally flawed system which causes a lot of its own problems. I would prefer a victim focused restorative model to imprisoning groups of people based on diagnostic critera written by people who think you need to imprison groups of people based on diagnostic critera.

Fortunately in your example, the general can still serve the general as anti-social personality disorders will always be in the minority especially if that society functions properly for the general welfare of its people. As for doing it naturally, we naturally live in hunter-gatherer bands. Society is fully socially constructed and requires all of us to resist many aspects of our natures for it to function in a way that benefits us.

What I am arguing for is that these individuals are honestly acknowledged for their tendencies and deficits so that they can get the help they need while serving in a capacity which limits their ability to harm others due to their negligence and benefits others by utilizing their strengths. A psychopath can understand that it is in their self-interest to live in a stable friendly society. Honestly I don't personally know to integrate a full-blown narcissist, but I expect it's possible. I don't think it's possible or advisable to make any effort to remove all psychopaths and narcissists from society since eugenic thinking is responsible for many of the worst atrocities in human history.

Honestly, I've been hearing about Tesla fires for a long time. The batteries are extremely delicate and once they catch fire there's not a lot you can do about it because of the sheer intensity of the heat. These fires happen all the time and they often effect the property around them. In this instance there doesn't appear to be any evidence it's not the Teslas lighting themselves on fire as usual. It is however a great scapegoat that malicious actors could be lighting the vehicles on fire rather than it just being that the vehicles have always been very unsafe.

Being a narcissistic psychopath is a circumstance, not an expression of internal evil. Narcissistic psychopaths are also capable of doing the right things for the right reasons as well as for the wrong reasons. The reason I advocate against guessing people's internal morality is mainly practical for my own relationships, but also is to encourage people to fix systemic problems instead of pretending some malicious force of evil is omnipresently working against the interests of mankind as many religious people believe. In a better system, narcissistic psychopaths could get what they want without harming others for their ends.

In what way?

I think it's dangerous to consider anyone to be a fundamentally good person or a fundamentally bad person. It's impossible to know what someone is internally and I am not a believer in determinism. Every person is complex and capable of good and evil acts depending on their circumstances.

Especially when you live in a cutthroat competitive culture in which what little to win is jealously guarded by narcissistic psychopaths, many people understand at least on some level that public behavior is a performance intended to reap rewards rather than an honest presentation of oneself. Good and evil is inapplicable here. Our system is amoral, and we human animals are just going to do what we consider to be a good idea at a time and only a few of us really consider the ethics of what we're going to do before we do it, and the few of us capable of that only do it some of the time.

Someone can do the right thing for the right reasons, the right thing for the wrong reasons, the wrong thing for the right reasons, or the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I can never know their internal part, just base my expectations on how their behavior effects me and others. I wouldn't trust anyone until I consider them to be trustworthy, though I can't expect to always be right about that either.