Yeah, re-reading it myself , it was a weird example and that may have been where they were going with it.

Whataboutism was is a reference to your suggestion that Superman is also a war criminal. In the universe of the first movie we as the audience are essentially told by the text that Superman is good and Lex is bad. In introducing the idea that “Superman is also” as a reason to excuse teaming up with Lex seems to fit the bill for that.

Hmm, i see what you mean and i hadn’t considered it as a whattaboutism as i wasn’t using it as a foundation of another argument, merely using it to illustrate the weakness of using the term “war criminal” in a context where that term is hugely subjective.

But i concede that it could be considered as such.

As far as no true Scottsman, there’s potentially a fallacy that fits better, and no true Scotsman may not even really fit the bill at all, but essentially this concept that you cannot portray someone as universally good. I just think that’s not really relevant in this context and I disagree with it. I’m not saying that Superman has to be perfect. I just don’t think it’s good to team up with Lex. The idea that some people might not see it as a negative doesn’t change the fact that some people would. And conceptually I understand that where I’d draw the line might differ from where other people draw the line, but the suggestion that where I draw the line is somehow unreasonable to the point of bringing up the idea that nobody could be perfect seems strange.

I’m not sure where i was making the argument that superman has to be perfect, but that was not my intention, i was merely pointing out that the term “War Criminal” is subjective to the point of being useless in my opinion, because it’s a term that comes from the in world corrupt and broken systems.

The term “Criminal” is used to assign a negative status to whomever the current regime deems it to be so.

In this film specifically superman is considered a “War Criminal” by Boravia.

I’m not disagreeing with your subjective moral position, i’m saying the term you are using is weak.

I wasn’t suggesting your subjective opinion was incorrect (or unreasonable), i was just positing that alternative positions are possible.

A difference of opinion.

I’m not suggesting that Superman is held to some high minded unrealistic standard. I think most people would agree that Lex is a bad guy and from a moralistic standpoint would prefer if Superman not have to work with him. I’m not saying it would necessarily make better media, just that we probably don’t need to watch war criminals have a redemption arc at this moment in history.

I think that’s unsubstantiated opinion, but it’s not like i have reams of data to prove otherwise so again, a difference of opinion.

Additionally, I don’t care very much about what was and was not the case in the comics. My understanding is that in the comics his parents never suggested he form a harem. I think that each reboot should be considered as its own incarnation, and I think Lex in this incarnation is an objectively bad person. I do not think that the movie left any real room for interpretation there. He’s not misguided, or misinformed. He’s a bad guy because fundamentally at the core of his being he has these flaws that affect the way he sees the world and treats others.

The comic were used as a point of reference to support my subjective opinion that it’s possible to have a plausible redemption arc with lex, i then used that as a basis to provide a situation in which it could occur.

I fundamentally disagree that objectively bad exists, but i agree he was an across the board arsehole in this one.

Like I said, I will have to reserve ultimate judgment for when we know more about the actual content, but I just don’t think it’s a good premise.

Fair enough.

That a disingenuous reply at best, the choice is clearly “person doesn’t do enough to help your people” vs “person who actively allows great harm to your people”.

The example could probably have done with being gender neutral, but even so.

I’m not sure why you zeroed in on the female part and not the “doesn’t do enough to help your people” part.

As i said, i don’t disagree in principle.

All i was saying in that response was that inaction should also be factored in to any consideration of morality.

There may be fallacies in there that I haven’t spotted and there is certainly subjectivism and relativism to a degree, but there is no whataboutism or true Scotsman.

Lex as a character has gone through this same cycle a few times in both the comics and the animated series, he’s the big had one day and a reluctant team member the next.

Laundering mass murderers is also common. That you don’t approve is clear.

I wasnt trying to say a team up was a good story, only that it was possible to make it narratively feasible with the given personality we’ve seen so far.

I don’t disagree in principle.

Lets take your scenario of not voting for fascist-lite as a means to fight against Full-Fat fascist.

In the current American system ( the greatest and most functional system /s), not voting effectively gives the vote to the eventual victor (that’s reductive but you know what I mean)

Assuming the BigFash win, the choice of inaction would be more impactful than the action of voting for DietFash.

On a relative scale and depending on how you feel about fascism I suppose.

So yes the participation and outcome matter but the effect isn’t always equal.

Inactively participating in the rise of the GrandMasterFash would be the cost of feeling good about not actively voting for the LesserFash.

Ultimately it’s shit choices all around, but that’s the point of the lesser of two evils, right?

Inaction when action is an option is still a choice.

One of the major premises of the trolley problem is the choice.

It’s very specifically a scenario where everything is a choice.

The only way to not choose a scenario option is to not participate at all.

A signal to whom ? Genuine question.

I agree, as a full-throttle textbook narcissist he would think it was be a problem because he couldn’t control him.

An opportunity to gain partial influence might be a reasonable stepping stone until he can get full control (or remove him entirely).

I’m not sure it’s that far fetched an approach for someone so intelligent.

It might not be the story they go with, but it’s not implausible to fit his current personality in with a team up.

I’m sick of the good guys having to compromise and give in to literal war criminals.

I agree that with that kind of power, working within the bounds of corrupt/compromised systems is stupid so I’m interested to see what you think is a viable alternative.

I’m pretty sure a few of them have been done as actual comic runs.

Media does not need to portray war criminals as allies of good. They are not.

Firstly , this is a fictional space, so they can pretty much do what they want, whether or not that’s something you enjoy is a different matter.

Secondly , as a premise it’s really *really hard to portray absolute goodness to the satisfaction of everyone because good and evil are subjective constructs, unless you’re a religious fundamentalist i suppose, then reason doesn’t generally apply in any meaningful way.

A “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” or a “trolley problem” kind of subjective.

Also i’d suspect that to at least a few of the countries in this fictional setting, superman is a war criminal of the highest order, it might not be the fictional US but other fictional countries exist, with their own laws.

If you are using “War Criminal” as a benchmark you are using the definitions of the same systems of which “Boravia” is a part.

Evil is easier in general because there are common things that people will mostly agree on, but even then it’s hard to get something objectively evil (outside of supernatural entities i suppose).

A fictional space is a perfect place to try though precisely because it isn’t bound by as much realism.

Because he was envious and afraid humans would be irrelevant/replaced.

If a bigger threat shows up that makes superman just as much a chump as the rest of humanity, I’d imagine this lex would absolutely step in to help out, even if only to prove his continued relevance and give a big fuck you.

This superman, giving zero fucks about lex’s inferiority complex, would accept the help to get the job done.

There is also the concept of “positive” grooming, for instance a child given specific education and resources to provide an advantage in something like politics could be said to be being “groomed” for politics or leadership.

I’d say the idea of grooming is more intentional than just regular child-raising, but that might be subjective.

As i said though, the current common usage is almost always negative and sexual in nature, it’s just not a requirement.

Not a statement for or against your argument.

But grooming doesn’t have to be sexual.

It is, frequently, but it’s not a requirement.

For example, any of the trope recruiters that target children for military service in any of the bullshit nationalist wars (in anime of course, IRL military recruiters would never be so unethical)

It’s doesnt have to work, it just has to be convincing enough to get the bean counters and/or incompetent/sociopathic upper management to buy in to the idea that they can save money.

Same as always, if the shitstorm created by a decision isn’t immediately devastating or can be incontrovertibly tied to said decision then that’s just BAU.

but the time the shitshow starts playing the preroll trailers the golden parachutes and bonuses have been claimed.

For them, this isn’t broken, this is how the game works.

I like to think of it as a large list of granular, contextual rpg stats.

“You get an average 6 for concentration while in a quiet room between 15-20 deg c. Assuming you’ve not taken more than 10 points of psychic damage in the last 3 hours and are well rested.”

They are, in theory, comparing your scores in a set of somewhat defined contexts to see if , overall, it’s causing you problems that might be helped in someway by a treatment that has worked for other people who have similar scores in the same set of criteria.

That sentence being so full of caveats is why I think diagnosis is hard for this sort of thing.

The typical troll never gives up on the last word either.

Oh noes, proven to be a hypocrite for doing the thing i said was childish…wait…that never happened.

I must be thinking of someone else :

Anyway , my apologies i hadn’t realised i was competing with an olympic level mental gymnast (you should really put that in a flair or something so people know upfront).

I defer to your gymnastic prowess.

And as posted in the link, the definition of alien has nothing to do with % population.

If something doesn’t align with the facts, its factually incorrect.

I’m not sure how I’m politically motivated by pointing that out.

“strange and not familiar” as well as “coming from a different country, race, or group”, which you conveniently ignored.

I didn’t ignore them, strange and unfamiliar also don’t have anything to do with % population.

It seems you want to ignore logic and facts to complain about people ignoring logic and facts.

That seems exhausting to me, but you seem to enjoy it, so have at it i suppose.

also: something …downvotes…childish…something

The first one is factually incorrect.

The second one is factually incorrect because it relies on the correctness of the first one.

You could perhaps argue common usage/colloquialism, then you’d be subjectively incorrect, but that would be my opinion not a fact.

A bunch of 10-inch rack minilab stuff.

edit: pic

You mean like a software developer who has to deal with PR’s from sources that may or may not include LLM generated code ?

If that’s the case, i might know someone…

Wait… unless your original assertion was very specifically about only linux kernel development and not about the principles that apply to software PR review and LLM’s as a whole ?

In that case, i don’t have anyone to hand and you should probably mark it “Active Linux Kernel Contributors Only”.

It’s clearer that way.