Sociopath Community

Empressing stated: source post

In the lives of normal individuals who are not sociopaths... It is found that distance makes it easier for them to kill and torture a human being.

Most perpetrators of genocide are neither insane nor pathologically cruel.

According to On Killing: The Psychological cost of learning to kill in war.

    The maximum rage killing of distance physical.

It is easier for someone to kill with a sniper than kill the person face to face with a gun. 

    The act of other of social distance.

It is easier to be mean to someone who you think is outside of the group making it an "us" vs "them". It starts with dehumanization then moves on to excommunicating. 

 

The Jewish were suffering a social death before they were slaughtered. They wore badges and were excommunicated to represent they are less important than the rest of man.

How do perpetrators define the target of their atrocity in such a way to excommunicate them from their moral community?

1.     Us and Them

2.     Moral disengagement

3.     Blaming the victim.

How did the Robbers cave demonstrate us and them?

            They separate two groups of boys into different camps and had them compete. The boys become so competitive they could even watch television together anymore. The groups form kinships. It makes it easier to exaggerate differences.

Moral Disengagement

The perpetrators rationalizes evil with actions and words and language... The Jewish people were though of vermin and worms.

All these are very good points. This is smth that I notice every time I talk to people with discriminatory or hateful views against groups of people, their targets are often simplified and dehumanized. Also, it's the isolated people, who live a lot inside their minds, don't go out there to meet others and see the world, that fall into the trap of such distortions in judgement. When they don't get close to know and understand the real situation, the real people, they end up lying to themselves and filling in the gaps with what's usually a reflection of their own fears and tribal mentality.

We have a few cases here. For example, you get Etzel, who spent all his life in a library reading Nietzsche, going on about power, weakness, black people being inferior because the whites enslaved them at some point, etc. Or Metaerg, who's never left his country but somehow hates with passion Angela Merkel for what he considers a bad steering of Germany, while having no problem with atrocious dictators of other countries responsible for a lot more violence and suffering.

hdiver stated: source post

de-humanizing in war is probably necessary for normal people to try to keep their sanity
 

Yes. It is more natural for a normal human to not want to kill another human, a stranger, than to kill them. It's why dehumanizing campaigns are necessary around every war.

Empressing stated: source post

My Morality:

I think evil in my view is causing someone pain and suffering on purpose. It is evil to hate on people who have different views of sexuality if they are not causing harm. I think everything else would depend just on the individual of what holds to their own morality. It is not right to hold a standards higher than that on individuals. It is not right to hate on them for sexuality, morals, lifestyle if it does no harm. It is the only rule that I think is important or everyone would kill and hurt each other. I do judge more on the intention. I think someone can be hurt or killed without it being wrong if they do not have an intention to create suffering. 

I do not take "I did it for god" as a good intention. I see this as an excuse to pretend they are justified. I know they think they are removing evil when I just see them committing evil. I mean their view of evil is too personal and subjective. I only believe it is wrong to have the intention to hurt or kill because

I want the human race to survive. I know some people here might think they want to kill or hurt different individuals. I am just saying that if everyone does that then it would be complete chaos. I don't think murderers should be killed because the pursuit to eradicate evil is evil. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I would rather they be rehabilitated. It would seem killing them is just revenge for losses. 

I can talk more about this later... 

I like this and how you think. Problem is, as Meta said, these evil-doers are often convinced that what they want is for the greater good. That the enemy they target would otherwise harm or damage if not attacked first. They are convinced that others sexuality, morals, lifestyle DO harm and threaten their idea of a civilized society.

ThenFuckit stated: source post

Because its exactly the very problem you describe.

People do not need an excuse to kill.

They kill as a result of their morals/believes.

And if you think thats wrong, well so do they, just like you, but on the other side.

The only real side is your own, but when you realize that, you can't judge others condescendingly for doing the same thing.
Now who you think is on your side and etc, that is subjective and not relevant in the general theory.

If you think you do not live by them versus us, you are wrong, unless its a me versus them thing. Because there will always be someone who do not fit with your subjective ideas and that someone is automatically a "them".

There is nothing wrong in any act by itself, its important why its done.

Empressing's original point is that the mind needs to fool/lie to itself to carry out certain things. A person has less problem with killing someone on the other side of the planet by pressing a button, than by killing the same person with his hands after getting to know them as a human being. This is hypocritical, imo. The act itself is the same, person A killing person B, but person A's conscience treats it completely different in the second case. I think we can all agree that in the first case, the information the killer lacked (who the target was, their family, the shitty gruesome details of their death) or better said, the killer's ignorance, was what made him carry out the deed more easily.

Empressing stated: source post

This is actually so deep.

No, it actually isn't.   

I agree with everything you stated. It is why one of my favorite quotes is...

"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it’s impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves".

                             It shows that if the enemy is not a stranger and someone gets to know the person it is possible to have a deep connection. I know that when I learned more about one of my enemies in high school and I was forced to have my locker beside their locker I was much nicer. I could hear her talking and relate to a lot to. I find we had a lot in common. 

                          In the end it came to a point were we could defend each other in arguments and give each other food. I see looking back that the diminishing distance is why though she was my enemy by label I had no hatred or resentment. I respected that she was honest in her criticism so I can improve.

               It might sound strange. It was not a typical enmity. I sympathized with her and did not want to bash her or talk bad about her. I empathized with her when I heard strangers throwing insults her way. I have to say it probably has to do with the fact I had to move to the locker beside her when I promised someone I would trade lockers with them so they could be beside their best friend. I did this without knowing who would be beside me when I would switch. I think if I never learned about her life through friends or overhearing and I never had to be in close proximity with her it would be different. I mean I can not predict hypothetical futures I may only make assumptions. 

I agree with this, but it totally depends on the personality of the person.

Even if i completely 100% understand someone, i might not feel anything and it will not effect my actions. More often i will not. It depends on the person's characteristics. Understanding is completely separate for me. And i am sure i am not the only one like that.

Of course people have problems just like you. Do you really never think about that? Even if i consider everything, my like/dislike will not change based on the fact that other person has feelings and a personality like me. That is just information.

Quite often i am fascinated by people i would consider an "enemy"(i don't really, but i am supposed to, if looked from the lenses of most people). But that does not make me feel anything, even if i find out their problems/personality/etc. And often i might even respect them. But facts are facts and no feelings change facts.

Perhaps i view people as separate from myself. Thought i definitely do not do that consciously.

It is a blanket quote and it would not apply all the time. I feel it is more an inclination than an absolute fact. I can more easily and willingly accept someone when I know them. It eliminates judgment. I know there are just people that I get to know and I think they are pretty lame so I avoid them. I had an enemy I spent a lot of time with because one of my friends was their friend. I never changed my mind about her even though I got to know her and be in close proximity. It does depend on  the person as well. I would expect this to apply less to sociopaths or in certain contexts. I just know that it is easier to kill at distance than up close. It is easier to mistreat someone who is in social distance with dehumanization.

I would not say it is impossible to hate or kill someone close. I know there are people in the world who do kill their families or friends. I would not say it is always easy to kill someone in distance. It is just a driving force that changes the level of inclination. It is just a tendency that is shown in the psychology of experiments, war and genocides more for those who are considered to be sane.

It relates to the Stanford prison experiment. In the experiment there was a imbalance of power that I will not concentrate on in this discussion. It was show there was moral disengagement when the prisoners were given just numbers for names. It devalues the person to just a prisoner with a number. It is important to mention these were not real prisoners just students who took part of an experiment that went wrong. It did not help that the prison inmates and the cops had uniforms. It took away their individuality and made them just characters. It did have an influence over the cops almost as if wearing a mask to play a role. I mean these fake cops would go to the fake prison and beat their peers up in the morning then go home to their family and eat dinner. In the end of the experiment they looked back and confessed that in every day life they would not act in such a manner.

There was a similar situation... Look up abu ghraib 2003 if you want to know more....

It is a prison where worse happened... There was physical abuse, sexual abuse, torture, rape and murder. I mention this because prison inmates were put on leashes and walked around naked. In the instance of rape they would call the inmates gay (even when they were not gay) or shame them when they raped them. It is to morally shame.  In cases the prisoners were put on bags on their heads as they stand on a poll that will electrocute them if they step down. In this prison most of the prisoners were just regular citizens who the soldiers thought were a bit suspicious. 

It is show as dehumanizing and shaming to feel right about the acts against the inmates. It is obvious when looking at this person who has a bag over their head so they appear less human. Keep in mind the soldiers who took these pics and made the citizens go into these positions. They had them put bags on their heads to feel the person is less than human. 

This is stupid.... I don't get why anyone would threaten to kill someone who wants to be sterilized. 

There are more bloody images an images with feces on the inmates. I am not showing those... I am just showing the dehumanization. I show that it increases a distance by having someone seem as if they are not human. It is physical distance or social distance. I know power does play a role. I mean it could be argued power gap is a form of distance as well. In order to remove a power distance there has to be a diminishing distance. It would be to become an "us" with the one in power. It can be balanced out. 

i dont think selflessness is a good idea, especially if the ppl youre sacrificing yourself for are far from selfless. i personally abhor the idea.

ThenFuckit stated: source post

To achieve unity, people need a "us" versus "universe" mentality.

And its possible, but not for many many many, thousands probably, years from now.

It would be nice if we do an "us" unity versus "universe". I can tell even that unity might not be perfect peace. It would still be peace and it would be close. 

I think being nice and optimistic can rub off on the surrounding individuals. I know laughs and smiling can be contagious. I read even someone being pessimistic and a jerk can be contagious. I would rather spread happiness over suffering. I don't think the world needs more suffering.