Comments on: Will Smith, Hitler, and the perils of benevolence

By: Satyr

Satyr — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:44:54 +0000

What is your DEAL regarding “political correctness,” a right-wing shorthand for left-wing “corrections” of old social prejudices? While I certainly see overreactions coming through things like “civility codes” and hate-crime legislation, I cannot see Stalin-like purges of individuality coming through over-enthusiastic liberalism. The stormtroopers I see waging a “campaign to legislate virtue, to curtail eccentricity, to smother individuality, to barter truth for the current moral or political enthusiasm” come from the political RIGHT, not the social activist left.

Hmmmm…. which activity poses a greater and more violent threat to social and individual liberty: an actor musing about moral relativism, or a president who rewrites or ignores whole sections of the Constitution so that critics of his administration can be branded “traitors” and then assaulted, interrogated or imprisoned without trial? Dude, you’re being played! Quit parroting the right-wing lies and WAKE THE HELL UP!

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:06:10 +0000

Hilarious! Abe Foxman and his AIPAC hitmen make Will Smith grovel! The only way to teach him a lesson before they forgive him thus consolidating their power.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:49:18 +0000

I do know that the liberal outrage over waterboarding and other forms of torture is driven chiefly by the recognition that torture is a deeply immoral action.

Worth noting that waterboarding isn’t torture, of course.

By: Chester White

Chester White — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:48:58 +0000

Perhaps Mr. Smith has now learned a lesson.

Don’t talk to idiot reporters.

By: Running Waters

Running Waters — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:31:33 +0000

I don’t think this is an argument about whether or not some people are “born evil.” What Will Smith was saying was that Hitler, whether he was born evil or he became evil, did not, himself, believe that he was doing evil.

In his twisted mind, he believed that he was righteous. It doesn’t matter if he was born evil or he developed it through his environment, the point was that he believed he was doing “good.” Obviously 99.999% of the world believes that Hitler was not doing good, but when it is not so clear-cut, as perhaps with George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton, for example, this debate goes down a slippery slope.

Many people seem to be unable to dissagree with a person’s positions while at the same time acknowledging that their intentions are positive. Using Bush as an example, many people seem to feel that, in order to fully justify and solidify their opposition to his policies they must also see him as a monster. Few people seem to be able to dissagree with him while at the same time giving him credit for his positive intentions. The same could be said for Bill Clinton and those who disliked him.

By: Laika's Last Woof

Laika's Last Woof — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:29:15 +0000

There is a universally accepted principle in criminal science that criminals tend to think of themselves as good people and society as evil. Acknowledging that fact of criminal psychology reveals neither sympathy nor antipathy toward criminals.
I’m willing to accept Mr. Smith’s explanation that he was rudely misquoted. Story’s over, folks. Time to move on.

By: Jamelle

Jamelle — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:54:55 +0000

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

That isn’t a statement of moral equivalence, it’s a recognition that perception alters reality. And that depending on where you stand, the same action looks vastly different.

About the “Left” condemn evil, I don’t have the time or inclination to search out a quote of some representative of “the left” condemning evil. I do know that the liberal outrage over waterboarding and other forms of torture is driven chiefly by the recognition that torture is a deeply immoral action.

Yes there are those on the left that are quick to moral relativism, but that certainly does not mean that the entire “left” refuses to condemn evil. I would appreciate if you would considering giving the benefit of the doubt to your fellow citizens.

Since, you don’t really see liberals (en mass) calling all conservatives evil because a few conservatives support torture.

By: Robert Craig III

Robert Craig III — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:48:02 +0000

Here is an example of why so many corrections are needed and why the media often gets away with disseminating wrong or misguided information. While the attack on Will Smith and his comment is excused with a logic based on “how does he know what Hitler was thinking”. U is twisted to think the authors of the attack articles are in a better position to understand what Will Smith was actually thinking. Communication is difficult enough without assuming what is written qualifies the author as an expert on the topic. Much the same way any comment by a public figure be they movie star or politician qualifies them as an expert on the topic they comment on.
No one can say for sure that Hitler started out with a full deck considering many of his family members were classified as psychotic or mentally ill by the standards of the time. It is a fact he did surround himself with some ambitious men with different ideas than he had and his out-right assault on the Jewish population of the world was aggravated or magnified shortly after he sent his staffers to the middle east to secure an oil deal for his war machine army. Editorials are different from reporting facts.

By: Briggs

Briggs — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:35:33 +0000

To those who would suppose that, "Ought not wrongs to be righted?" is a rhetorical question, Stove also writes (from the same essay):

It does not follow, from something's being morally wrong, that it ought to be removed. It does not follow that it would be morally preferable if that thing did not exist. It does not even follow that we have any moral obligations to try to remove it. X might be wrong, yet every alternative to X be as wrong as X is, or more wrong. It might be that even any attempt to remove X is as wrong as X is, or more so. It might be that every alternative to X, and any attempt to remove X, though not itself wrong, inevitably has effects which are as wrong as X, or worse. The inference fails yet again if (as most philosophers believe) "ought" implies "can." For in that case there are at least some evils, namely the necessary evils, which no one can have any obligation to remove.

These are purely logical truths. But they are also truths which, at most periods of history, common experience of life has brought home to everyone of even moderate intelligence. That almost every decision is a choice among evils; that the best is the inveterate enemy of the good; that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; such proverbial dicta are among the most certain, as well as the most widely known, lessons of experience. But somehow or other, complete immunity to them is at once conferred upon anyone who attends a modern university.

By: RE

RE — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:25:06 +0000

Why do people pay attention to what celebrities say? After all these are people who have ‘made’ their name reciting the scripted words of others, so who is the bigger fool? Will Smith? Or the people who give a damn about what such an empty head says?