On so many different news items, threads, etc. People are the first to claim pretty much anyone who has made a mistake, or does something they disagree with deserves to die.

Like, do some people not have the capability to empathise and realise they might have been in a similar place if they were born in a different environment…

I genuinely understand, you think a politician who has lead to countless deaths, a war criminal, or a mass rapists deserves to die.

But here people say it for stuff that falls way below the bar.

A contracted logger of a rainforest (who knows if they have the money / opportunity to support their family another way). Deserves to die.

A civilian of Nazi germany of whom we know nothing about their collaboration/agreement with the regime. Deserves to die.

Some person who was a drug dealer and then served their time. Deserves to die.

Like I don’t get it? Are people not able to imagine the kind of situations that create these people, and that it’s not impossible to imagine the large majority of people in these positions if born in a different environment?

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    We have an extreme aversion to people who use manipulation tactics and want to be rid of them in the world.

  • Spazz@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Screw this bullshit, stop trying to normalize the deadly atrocious behavior from these right wing zealots

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Oh no, won’t someone think of the people speed running the destruction of our planet and causing suffering to so many innocent people.

        • mecfs@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Yeah I’m all for killing the few politicians and billionaires doing that, if they don’t stop with warning. Because they are the root of the problem.

          But killing the many working class people who may have little choice and not have the education necessary to know they are contributing to bad is counterproductive and difficult to justify.

          • Deceptichum@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            The people who get them into power, who vote and support them, who harass those speaking out against them, are not innocent victims.

            There is no little choice, they have all the choice they can get, they choose to be pieces of shit.

            Imagine acting as if millions and millions of grown adults are completely hapless little things forced into a life of right wing bullshit because they never bothered to look outside their bubble.

  • saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Because it’s a bit of an echo chamber and people get too involved in stuff with anonymity. You will find this sort of social behaviour all over the internet and from any “camp”. It’s just bad people.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago
    1. It’s a lot easier to feel like you’re not involved when you’re behind a screen hundreds of miles away.

    2. A lot of perceived suffering in this world can make a person feel as though a lot of people do on fact deserve to die.

  • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago
    1. People say whatever on the internet and anonymous areas. Often for shock or the extremist idealism as if something was dead things would be different

    2. Your examples. Both of these are extreme differences in people’s views and principles. The logger is killing and ruining someone’s country for profit. Yes the individual guy needs money but he put the principal of doing something wrong aside to make money. The logger could do something else or he doesn’t care. He has no empathy towards future generations or the health of species of animals. Why should someone have empathy for them.

    Nazi example is easy while I am sure some people were ignorant or born into being a child of a nazi one should be resisting the horridness if you reap the benefits of your nation’s success at the downfall of others of course they are going to wish you dead. To put you into a perspective of nazi haters why should they get to live a peaceful life or be forgiven or left alone even if they saw the error of their ways or to desperate to fight back when people lost their future and families because of their group.

    As for the drug dealer people see the worst that comes out in people as a druggie and blame the person who keeps enabling. If the druggie could be cut off then someone’s life wouldn’t be ruined.

    In every example you gave someone was ruining someone else’s life or future. Of course people personally affect by similar circumstances aren’t going to have as much empathy for these people it takes a lot of compassion, self reflection, love, and forgiveness to be able to be kind to someone who hurt you and your family. Not everyone is in that place.

    1. Every day or year we have unbalanced people entering huge amounts of hormones causing their feelings to be imbalanced and every a new person is getting hurt leading to a life where kindness is locked off for awhile maybe forever.

    2. Our culture is about retribution many people don’t see proper steps to make things right or see people continue to do bad things. The easy solution is having things not exist anymore so you don’t get hurt again. If you trust bad people they may hurt you. Every decision has a consequence and rarely is it fully made whole even in forgiveness. You can’t give someone back their family, you can’t give someone back an extinct species, you can’t give back the world a stable climate. Of course people will hold hatred

  • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I’ve once read somewhere that the human brain is only REALLY able to include about 100 people at any time in the list of “people one truly cares about”, that we are neurologically unprepared for the level of exposure to other people and their problems that we get nowadays.

    But I never bothered checking the veracity of that statement. It might be complete bullshit. A lot of stuff online is. Either way it’s irrelevant because if it IS indeed a problem, then “overexposure to someone else’s problems” is a concept at least as old as the printing press. What the internet adds to the mix is… Well…

    … It’s far easier to act like a psychotic jerk to someone that exists as a few paragraphs of glowy text on a slab of silicon and glass. You aren’t forced to look another human being in the eye while you talk about all the horrid shit you wish upon them.

    • I'm back on my BS 🤪@lemmy.autism.place
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Remembering from my social psychology classes in undergrad, I believe number is 150. But yes, that’s a good point. It’s one of the reasons people in major urban areas like NYC are capable of moving on with their lives when terrible things happen to those around them. We biologically can’t care about people once we reach our 150 limit. Btw, I think the authors of that theory argued that that number is one of the major differences between us and other social species.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    In my local city subreddit yesterday, something like this happened.

    Up until last year, high speed police chases were illegal in my state because of the increased chances of deadly accidents with uninvolved innocent citizens.

    A few days ago, the first deadly accident from a police high speed chase happened.

    After the cops laid down spike strips and ruined her tires, she kept driving, and eventually plowed into someone, killing them.

    To me, seeing that it all started because she’s a drug addict looking for fentanyl, I don’t see it as her doing this on purpose, but it being split between her and the cops. She could have stopped, but the cops could have also chosen to not exacerbate the situation with hot pursuit and shredding her tires.

    The people in the thread were comparing her to mass shooters and demanding she be in jail until she’s dead. They even pulled the FOX News and dug up her entire criminal history to show how evil she was. I get it, she fucked up and killed someone, but I would personally still call it manslaughter, not murder, since she clearly wasn’t trying to kill people, she was just trying to escape cops.

    This is in a so-called progressive city deep in the US northwest.

  • infinitevalence@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Its a product of global connectivity but lack of in person connection. If I interact with someone regularly and personally I am unlikely to wish harm on them because they are “part of my tribe.” Via the internet and social media I dont really have a connection with this person, so its easy to think of them as an outsider or them. Once they are outside of my tribe I can remove their humanity and then their death has no moral or emotional cost to me.

  • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    It’s a psychological consequence of polarization, which occurs when you have too many people in a social group agreeing with each other.

    Groupthink elevates extreme opinions.

    • Random123@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      It goes both ways when youre too stuck in your bubble reinforcing your opinions or in a group thats equally stuck in their own bubble

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Anonymity and group think are serious fucking drugs here - a lot of people struggle with empathy normally but even more fail to empathize across the internet. We’re all fucking people at the end of the day but some folks struggle to see other usernames as anything but “the other”.

    Additionally this thread + comment system rewards extremism and controversy over reason and nuance - its much faster to absorb a comment of someone dunking on someone else than reading a well thought out of comment… the highest votes tend to go to shorter simpler statements.

    Violence is inherently simple and easy to comprehend - it’s extreme and edgy - and it’s something a lot of us constantly see on these devices when playing video games. A lot of people who espouse it on the internet don’t mentally equate advocacy for violence with actual physical violence or can’t really comprehend what actual physical violence looks and feels like.

    Oh, also, memes.

  • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    As someone older than the public internet, these people and positions always existed. The difference in my opinion is that the 24-hour news cycle and online echo chambers combined with less in-person meeting, particularly with others in the community different to oneself has just further isolated and polarized people. There’s also an argument that heavily-biased cable “news” (which is oftentimes more “opinions” and sometimes “outright lies”) going unchecked has further polarized and divided people.