The one that confuses me is the top roght;: that’s Johan liebert from Monster. He’s an irredeemable psychopath who kills his parents as a child, and when his sister shoots him in the head to stop him from killing her, he nearly dies. Then a surgeon saves his life, only to later realize that the life he saved is that of the aforementioned irredeemable psychopath. Many years later, Johan returns and thanks the surgeon for saving his life, crediting his noble act with all of the murders he has been committing and plans to commit. The surgeon has to track him down to terminate the horrid life he granted so many years before (largely to clear his own name, because the psychopath kills someone and the cops think the surgeon did it).

Johan liebert isn’t even really making a philosophical point. He just needs to kill people. The surgeon’s situation (is he culpable for the deaths allowed because he saved a life? Is it morally right to end a life, if by doing so you can preserve many others? Essentially variations on the trolley problem) is the philosophical question, so saying that there is a group of people idolizing Johan Liebert because they misunderstand the meaning is like saying that there are people idolizing the trolley. That’s not really missing the point. Those people would just be dangerously mentally unwell.

Yep, that’s Johan Liebert.

Do you believe I made it personal when I called you an NPC? Or do you think that happened when I called you a rod, or a dick? Or, perhaps, did I make it personal when I assumed that you didn’t do shit for a living? Oh, wait… right… all of those were you, weren’t they? What, precisely, have I said about your family, ever?

At every turn, you insult me, while I point out more and more strenuously that you appear to be making statements which are more likely to reflect your own self image and fears. You are either confusing me with someone else in these comments, or you are having a very difficult time with self-reflection. The only thing I have ever said about you, personally, is that you have clearly not considered your own positions, and that it is clear that you realize the weaknesses in your positions and attempt to bolster them by accusing me of being the things you fear yourself to be. If that is making it personal, then I fear you have been talking to the mirror I’m waving in your face, not me. So I will end as I said before:

Please consider your positions more deeply. Taking a day off work that you already told your boss you would be taking off, and for which you have the PTO to take, is not the same as trying to turn the sky green. If your system of thought can’t handle that, then it is a bad system, and should be remade.

Again, nothing but weak polemics. You know nothing of my background. Even a glance at my comment history would have told you what sector I work in, and the last time I covered for a colleague was two days ago. Something tells me that the accusation of “you don’t do shit for a living” was just more projection on your part.

Furthermore, it’s quite telling that your first thought when fishing for a name that evokes psychological opinions was Phil McGraw. I don’t need to have any expertise in the workings of the human mind to identify that red flag.

What a sad projection of your own hollowness of self, to say that the very idea of changing corrupt systems of exploitation is synonymous with being incapable of critical thought. I hope you find something to fill that gaping hole in your selfhood.

We may all be nothing but drops in an ocean, but what is any ocean but a multitude of drops? To dare liken the idea of taking a day off of work to turning the sky green is so pitiful, so utterly incomprehensible a strawman, that it can only have come from someone who is, themself, forcibly repressing their own higher thoughts.

Please consider your positions (for it is clear that no consideration has occurred thus far).

“There is an order to the world” is a phrase uttered only by those enjoying the current order as applicable to them, to someone whom they clearly see is not enjoying the same. It is the taunt of tyrants, slavers, bigots, strike-breakers, fascists, and genocidal maniacs the world over.

Order alone is not an axiomatic good, and anyone who treats it like it is inherently worth protecting, or like an orderly system is an invalid target for criticism solely for being orderly, is either naïve or is experiencing an unbalanced “order” in their favour. I’ll let other readers decide which they think you are.

You do realize that “a surveillance state where the government knows how much money and holdings everyone has” describes the entire basis of the tax system, right? The government already knows that information. So, you’re saying that you are so concerned that the government would suddenly know how much money everyone makes, and that the better solution is institutionalized governmental corporal punishment leading to permanent disability and death?