Once again, no computer. So this whole post will be just one big paragraph. Plus, I don’t know if this line of thinking will be coherent or correct at all. Nevertheless, this has been something that’s bugging….Nay…TORTURING me. It must be discussed. But there’s something that I’m missing. Something that other people know that I don’t. Perhaps the lesson we’ll learn here is that I AM the problem and not that other people are simply illogical. But where do we, as an electorate, currently stand on the old maxim “two wrongs don’t make a right.”? And have I been wrong in basing my liberal ideals on it? For example, this is why I oppose the death penalty. Or at least that’s one of the reasons. Murder is considered “wrong” and murdering the murderer (Murder+murder=two murders) equals two wrongs…one at the hands of a deranged person, and another in the hands of mob mentality masquerading as criminal justice. We don’t rape rapists, although there are some that do favor that form of punishment. Is there some form of logic that somehow makes murdering a murderer a “right” because “murder” and “murdering” cancel each other out? What am I missing? Isn’t this why we don’t rape rapists? Because rape is such a traumatic event that no one should endure…which is what makes it WRONG? Before I go any further, I should mention that I don’t necessarily think that there’s such a thing as an objective “right” and “wrong”. I suppose that we could sum up my views in a neo-kantian, post-modern method by stating that we possess a priori CONCEPTIONS of morals and ethics, but the CONTENTS of those conceptions change according to time, place, and other factors. And usually the formation of social mores and morals (because they’re contingent upon a human mind to form them, and are not “things in-themselves) are used to suppress others. THEREFORE, I take a fairly post-modern view regarding such matters. Which leads me to my current predicament…is the aforementioned maxim “two wrongs don’t make a right” JUST a CONTENT and not a CONCEPTION (which humans may or may not have access to “a priori”, I won’t go down that rabbit hole, but such a judgement can be objectively ascertained). If so, then does that mean the maxim is subject to go in and out of vogue as mass will dictates? “How is this a problem?”, you ask. Maybe it isn’t a problem. Maybe I’m just seeing shit where none exists. But in “For Your Eyes Only”, James Bond quotes a different form of this adage (paraphrasing): “when seeking vengeance, you must first dig TWO graves.” I believe he said it was a Chinese Proverb…don’t know if it’s true proverb, and I don’t care (I should also mention that Bond doesn’t follow his own advice) but there does seem to be ancient advice warning us of becoming what we HATE. And it’s strange. We hate those who hate us making us, in effect…haters. It’s a gift that keeps on giving…a merry go-round we can’t get off of. And seemingly, this hatred is justified by an intellectual-political elite class…the media, politicians, academics, etc. I don’t know if their views are shared by those that this class is trying to appeal towards, i.e. The electorate. In my observations, the nonsense they say often fails to reflect the reality on the ground. Nevertheless, the various parties…the media, the electorate, and the political parties…tend to tolerate each other on all sides, even though they likely dislike one another. The relationship between voters, the media they read, and the politicians they vote for are similar to the (former) relationship to the UCLA men’s basketball team and the Ball family. Steve Alford didn’t have to put up Levar Ball, probably didn’t like him, but did anyway because he wanted to WIN. And that’s similar to the current state of political discourse. Levar Ball is a good example of how we view our ideological opponents…all we see is the loudmouth spouting nonsense. What we DON’T see are those putting in the work, like Lonzo Ball who just wants to play basketball. His father’s theatrics greatly overshadows his triumphs and struggles, and his image falters because of it. Perhaps to a similar degree, dare I say, the (average) Trump voter suffers from a similar view. What we don’t see, or discuss, are the lowering wages and shrinking middle class (and how those issues were used to drive a wedge between voters). What we DO see are the loudmouths that spew nonsense. Therefore, we feel justified in our hatred of Trump voters or in our rooting AGAINST Lonzo Ball. So again, the adage might still ring true for many, it’s just the nature of political discourse provides the image that “hating is okay, as long as it’s against those that hate you FIRST!”….which is simply juvinile logic. But I read something recently that attacked Hitler’s eugenics and white supremacy by essentially saying that Neanderthals mixed in with European populations and not African populations (which explained why black people are seemingly more athletic than whites), therefore those of European descent are not fully “homo sapien”, therefore Hitler himself was not “pure”. I don’t know if that was the point the author was trying to make, don’t know if there was a point, but the author was clearly, like me, of the Leftist persuasion. It doesn’t matter if the facts were true, but the argument that contained the “facts” was asinine. Was Hitler wrong because eugenics and “racial purity” is morally and ethically deficient? Or was he wrong because he didn’t know that he HIMSELF was impure. That argument simply came across as saying “Hey Hitler! Your eugenics is stupid because mine’s better!”. Additionally, Arguing from facts ALONE might sound nice, but can be…and often is…misleading (I believe this is called, or a version of, “the inductive illusion”, correct me if I’m wrong though). Would have Hitler’s actions been permissible if he was of a different nationality or color and/or persecuted a group that wasn’t the Jews? In what condition would genocide or feelings of “racial purity” have been justified? If “two wrongs don’t make a right” is true, then can’t we say that Hitler’s actions would have been wrong under ANY condition? If you answered “Correct. Genocide and racism is wrong no matter who Hitler was”, then congratulations! You’re a sane person! But racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia in general, ageism, etc. as things IN-THEMSELVES have to be condemned. They can’t be condemned for one but permissible for another. Ever been called a racial slur? It’s DEF not okay to call them one. That’s not “correcting racism.” That’s just two people being RACIST. Having moral superiority hinges on, well…being morally superior! “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”…or else everybody’s wrong. It’s just a matter of which side you’re on….and on the cycle goes. Hope that made sense.