Reversedragon: Bolshevism is obviously Evil

2026-09-06T04:15:25Z

Bolshevism is obviously Evil

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:15, 6 September 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="22,92" value="2292" data-dimension="S2">How can we identify moral wrong? / How can we know if things are wrong? / How do we truly know whether things are right or wrong? -> everyone assumes this question is a hundred thousand times easier than it is. "intuition" has to be ruled out, because it can be terribly intuitive to some people that suffering people must be evil and it's not necessary to help them. "lived experience" has to be ruled out, because it's terribly easy to say based on Lived Experience that Gramscians are being mean and Tories have the moral high ground because they were never mean to people — or simply that the existence of evil greedy George Soros means the Democrats and Gramscians and Menshevik types and anarchists are all evil conspirators. how do you know that the absence of anything happening is immoral? most things that people actually act to stop are each the presence of a bad thing happening. Peter Singer's framing that not doing good things is bad ignores the concept that people have finite ability to choose from a limited number of good things to do, thus doing several "bad" things every time they do a good thing. but, the presence of another person doing another good thing can cancel out the bad things by two people doing one good thing that results in one bad thing. person A didn't have any control over person B turning their bad thing into a good thing, so does that mean person A still did something bad by having finite money or finite attention?		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="22,92" value="2292" data-dimension="S2">How can we identify moral wrong? / How can we know if things are wrong? / How do we truly know whether things are right or wrong? -> everyone assumes this question is a hundred thousand times easier than it is. "intuition" has to be ruled out, because it can be terribly intuitive to some people that suffering people must be evil and it's not necessary to help them. "lived experience" has to be ruled out, because it's terribly easy to say based on Lived Experience that Gramscians are being mean and Tories have the moral high ground because they were never mean to people — or simply that the existence of evil greedy George Soros means the Democrats and Gramscians and Menshevik types and anarchists are all evil conspirators. how do you know that the absence of anything happening is immoral? most things that people actually act to stop are each the presence of a bad thing happening. Peter Singer's framing that not doing good things is bad ignores the concept that people have finite ability to choose from a limited number of good things to do, thus doing several "bad" things every time they do a good thing. but, the presence of another person doing another good thing can cancel out the bad things by two people doing one good thing that results in one bad thing. person A didn't have any control over person B turning their bad thing into a good thing, so does that mean person A still did something bad by having finite money or finite attention?

			</li></ol>

			== Claims to be examined ==
			<ol class="hue clean">

			<li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="22,91" value="2291" data-dimension="F2">Bolshevism is obviously Evil (Communism; Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Deng Xiaoping Thought; wicked; cruel; Bad; morally Wrong; ethical hypothesis) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q22,91\|9k]]) -> truth value: not obvious to Soviet peasants.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q22,91

2026-02-10T23:48:51Z

copy markup from 9k/Q22,91

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=How can we identify moral wrong?|User=RD|E=Q22,92|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="22,92" value="2292" data-dimension="S2">How can we identify moral wrong? / How can we know if things are wrong? / How do we truly know whether things are right or wrong? -> everyone assumes this question is a hundred thousand times easier than it is. "intuition" has to be ruled out, because it can be terribly intuitive to some people that suffering people must be evil and it's not necessary to help them. "lived experience" has to be ruled out, because it's terribly easy to say based on Lived Experience that Gramscians are being mean and Tories have the moral high ground because they were never mean to people — or simply that the existence of evil greedy George Soros means the Democrats and Gramscians and Menshevik types and anarchists are all evil conspirators. how do you know that the absence of anything happening is immoral? most things that people actually act to stop are each the presence of a bad thing happening. Peter Singer's framing that not doing good things is bad ignores the concept that people have finite ability to choose from a limited number of good things to do, thus doing several "bad" things every time they do a good thing. but, the presence of another person doing another good thing can cancel out the bad things by two people doing one good thing that results in one bad thing. person A didn't have any control over person B turning their bad thing into a good thing, so does that mean person A still did something bad by having finite money or finite attention?

</li></ol>

== Rationalizations ==

== Ideology codes ==

<ol class="hue clean compound">

</ol>

* (none)

[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

User:RD/9k/Q22,92 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Bolshevism is obviously Evil

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q22,91