"we can see that it conflates the rational concept of self defense (which can include protecting oneself from grave bodily harm) with the emotional concept of revenge"
Yeah, maybe my revenge instincts are stronger than yours, but I honestly can't bring myself to object to this. Yes, the law says it's wrong, and I fully understand *why* th…
"we can see that it conflates the rational concept of self defense (which can include protecting oneself from grave bodily harm) with the emotional concept of revenge"
Yeah, maybe my revenge instincts are stronger than yours, but I honestly can't bring myself to object to this. Yes, the law says it's wrong, and I fully understand *why* the law says it's wrong, but I couldn't begin to condemn those women for going back and taking revenge.
I fully recognise that it's not self defence. I think Wilma would probably recognise that too. But in my heart of hearts, I'd be cheering for them to get their revenge on somebody who hurt them so badly if that's what they wanted. The issue is, who are they taking revenge *on*?
Slaves who killled their "masters," even if they did so after they were freed, it's very hard for me to find fault there. But if they Kellie their master's children? That's a whole other matter. Never mind their masters' great-great grandchildren. It's this irrational leap that I have a problem with. Which is also why the reparations conversation is such a mess.
Don't get me wrong, black people absolutely deserved reparations when they walked off the plantations. The fact that they didn't get them is a hideous injustice. And if I could see a sensible way to correct that injustice, I'd advocate for it fiercely. I just don't see any sensible way 158 years after the fact.
Let's note that we are not disagreeing about 158 years later, OK? Take that point as a given.
We are perhaps trying to nuance around concepts of revenge and self-defense, thoughts inspired by but not contradicting your main point above.
I am human, and I recognize the tug of revenge justification in the scenario in myself as well. However, I can feel the tug of a lot of emotions or conditionings which I decide not to follow as a path (not just speaking about actions, but also where I choose to direct my mind).
I have read contemporary accounts of lynchings, and typically the emotions involved are very similar to the ones in the three women scenario, amplified by crowd dynamics - regardless of the race of the person being lynched. (Keep that in mind - I'm talking about lynch dynamics in general, not just racial ones!!)
Often the perceived offense as indeed horrible (not just a minor slight, the extreme case that activist like to imagine typical in order to inspire outrage and overriding of critical thinking), and people's revenge reflexes over-rode their rationality and humanity. Not rarely, they may well have hung an actually guilty party, even somebody who could have been convicted and executed, but of course the revenge seeking emotional state often doesn't want to pause and assess facts or alternatives - so they too easily may harm somebody who is innocent, or exact disproportionate revenge.
In that light, I'm wary of the human propensity to imagine atrocities in order to indulge revenge fantasies. I have mentioned the movie genre. But this hypothetical is similar - three women who had escaped to safety, but rather than going to police to have society deal with it, decide to exact personal revenge by "slicing up" their captor. I can *understand* that (just as I can understand the lynch mob's passions, or a road rage), but I don't *endorse* it.
But going one step further, I don't seek to imagine scenarios which are extreme enough to allow me to set aside all civilized restraint and exact personal revenge. Like combining "prolonged" "kidnapping" "rape" "torture" to create the most extreme case imaginable to feed to one's revenge instincts. For me that's like the extreme gun nut who imagines using their weapons to kill Arab terrorists who were in the process of abusing his daughter.
And this is just me describing my own reflections, please don't think I'm imputing any similarities or dissimilarities to other people.
"We are perhaps trying to nuance around concepts of revenge and self-defense, thoughts inspired by but not contradicting your main point above."
No, as I said, I fully recognise that this hypothetical isn't self defence. I just honestly don't care all that much. I'm speaking as an individual, not the legal system.
We're not talking about perceived offences or imagined slights. Or at least I'm not. Those are separate issues that we'd probably agree on. But Wilma's example was specifically about slaves killing their masters or women who have been raped and tortured killing their tormentor. She asked how I felt about those specific examples. But I then pointed out that her examples were poor analogies for black people hating white people 158 years after slavery.
"we can see that it conflates the rational concept of self defense (which can include protecting oneself from grave bodily harm) with the emotional concept of revenge"
Yeah, maybe my revenge instincts are stronger than yours, but I honestly can't bring myself to object to this. Yes, the law says it's wrong, and I fully understand *why* the law says it's wrong, but I couldn't begin to condemn those women for going back and taking revenge.
I fully recognise that it's not self defence. I think Wilma would probably recognise that too. But in my heart of hearts, I'd be cheering for them to get their revenge on somebody who hurt them so badly if that's what they wanted. The issue is, who are they taking revenge *on*?
Slaves who killled their "masters," even if they did so after they were freed, it's very hard for me to find fault there. But if they Kellie their master's children? That's a whole other matter. Never mind their masters' great-great grandchildren. It's this irrational leap that I have a problem with. Which is also why the reparations conversation is such a mess.
Don't get me wrong, black people absolutely deserved reparations when they walked off the plantations. The fact that they didn't get them is a hideous injustice. And if I could see a sensible way to correct that injustice, I'd advocate for it fiercely. I just don't see any sensible way 158 years after the fact.
Let's note that we are not disagreeing about 158 years later, OK? Take that point as a given.
We are perhaps trying to nuance around concepts of revenge and self-defense, thoughts inspired by but not contradicting your main point above.
I am human, and I recognize the tug of revenge justification in the scenario in myself as well. However, I can feel the tug of a lot of emotions or conditionings which I decide not to follow as a path (not just speaking about actions, but also where I choose to direct my mind).
I have read contemporary accounts of lynchings, and typically the emotions involved are very similar to the ones in the three women scenario, amplified by crowd dynamics - regardless of the race of the person being lynched. (Keep that in mind - I'm talking about lynch dynamics in general, not just racial ones!!)
Often the perceived offense as indeed horrible (not just a minor slight, the extreme case that activist like to imagine typical in order to inspire outrage and overriding of critical thinking), and people's revenge reflexes over-rode their rationality and humanity. Not rarely, they may well have hung an actually guilty party, even somebody who could have been convicted and executed, but of course the revenge seeking emotional state often doesn't want to pause and assess facts or alternatives - so they too easily may harm somebody who is innocent, or exact disproportionate revenge.
In that light, I'm wary of the human propensity to imagine atrocities in order to indulge revenge fantasies. I have mentioned the movie genre. But this hypothetical is similar - three women who had escaped to safety, but rather than going to police to have society deal with it, decide to exact personal revenge by "slicing up" their captor. I can *understand* that (just as I can understand the lynch mob's passions, or a road rage), but I don't *endorse* it.
But going one step further, I don't seek to imagine scenarios which are extreme enough to allow me to set aside all civilized restraint and exact personal revenge. Like combining "prolonged" "kidnapping" "rape" "torture" to create the most extreme case imaginable to feed to one's revenge instincts. For me that's like the extreme gun nut who imagines using their weapons to kill Arab terrorists who were in the process of abusing his daughter.
And this is just me describing my own reflections, please don't think I'm imputing any similarities or dissimilarities to other people.
"We are perhaps trying to nuance around concepts of revenge and self-defense, thoughts inspired by but not contradicting your main point above."
No, as I said, I fully recognise that this hypothetical isn't self defence. I just honestly don't care all that much. I'm speaking as an individual, not the legal system.
We're not talking about perceived offences or imagined slights. Or at least I'm not. Those are separate issues that we'd probably agree on. But Wilma's example was specifically about slaves killing their masters or women who have been raped and tortured killing their tormentor. She asked how I felt about those specific examples. But I then pointed out that her examples were poor analogies for black people hating white people 158 years after slavery.