'Passivity leads to complicity, you say? You have found a way to condemn swathes of innocent people for doing literally nothing with horrible crimes you aren't seeing them address, I suppose. Of the potentially hundreds of problems an individual can take moral issue with, how many do they need to address? Go save a cat, feed the homeless, a different rally for each day of the week, maintain a blog devoted to activism, do charity work instead of a holiday? It's not good enough to just live honestly without bothering anyone? That's the same as being complicit with all you find morally repugnant? Heh, okay.'

I'm not denigrating people who live their lives honestly without bothering others. I'm criticizing those who claim to themselves a moral ideal, and then live in a manner that is unrepresentative of that ideal. If a result of that is a condemnation of everyday individuals for being passive to the evils they desecrate, but fail to address - then yes. I'm not furthering the idea of changing the world to one's own will. I'm furthering the idea of changing how one acts in response to the world, in recognition of their will.

'We should be aiming to tolerate difference instead of turning every moral issue into a battleground. Most people don't have a clue anyway, got people yelling "death to capitalism" without being able to define it. Isn't there a middle ground between hypocrisy and activism, where someone just lives in accordance with their principles?'

'Death to capitalism' isn't a consequence of a moral misgiving; it's a consequence of structural asymmetries in capitalis that result in practical distresses to millions. Pareto inequities are inevitable. Corruption is inevitable. How do you incentivise people to congregate on the matter, when half of them live in affluence, and the other in abject poverty? All I'm stating that living in accordance with one's principles isn't as straightforward as superficial riddances of guilt - you need a lasting mechanism by which to do so - and sustained contentment, when channeled accurately can serve as one.

'If a misanthrope were channelling their contempt for mankind in an uncivil or violent way, towards those doing that which they passionately hate, that would make more sense to me than what you're saying. You know damn well that many of the things in your OP shouldn't be treated with civility, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. For many of the issues in the US polarisation and across the world, it's not an ideological game, people's lives are at stake. Why would you ask for moral zealotry, to the extent where a person should live life orientated around their moral ideals, but then expect no serious consequences, only people politely minding their business, bettering themselves and leading by example?'

I'm not asking anybody to abandon their civility. Qualms against harming others are also moral traits. Why can't both take place simultaneously? You don't have to be unhinged to be behaviorally consistent with what you claim to yourself. This isn't ideological zealotry. This is sustained, value-driven resentment. I'm not resenting another individual. I'm resenting their acts, and what they embody, and then seeking to reverse them in my own life.

Being amoral is rare, nearly everyone has moral ideals, seeing that isn't hard. You are the one who said passivity, not hypocrisy, leads to complicity. There's just a lot of ambiguity as to what you expect of people and no practical basis for your expectations. Your complaint is that instead of me going about my business, seeing something improper and saying "that's not okay with me", I should live in a perpetual state of discontent knowing "there are things which exist which aren't okay with me" is that fair? I need unnatural motivation for that, you say, all that will work is a deep, sustained resentment of the condemned act or acts which go against my values. It's not exactly clear what I have to do, what I need to achieve or how much I need to do.

Debating capitalism would derail your thread, the point I was making is that isn't that one can't condemn capitalism but rather, if it's going to be condemned, hopefully, it's done so with an understanding of what it actually is. We're going to be better off without people who have no idea what they're talking about marching around making demands and being discontent instead of doing some reading.

I'm not asking anybody to abandon their civility — Aryamoy Mitra

I know, okay, I had misgivings about the notion of "hating with civility" but perhaps I've been unreasonable, the idea is probably reasonable. I guess where I'm still confused is that you talk about "behavioural consistency" but then you bring up issues like identity politics, genocide, dictatorships and issues that have, well, nothing to do with my behaviour. Which is it? Are you asking me to i.e "resent discourtesy and thus be courteous" and "be the change you want to see in the world" or are you asking me to work towards reforming the government, protesting animal cruelty and doing charity work?

'You are the one who said passivity, not hypocrisy, leads to complicity.'

Hypocrisy complements passivity. Acting against one's exhortations is another way of circumventing them, because one continues rationalizing those acts to themselves.

'I guess where I'm still confused is that you talk about "behavioural consistency" but then you bring up issues like identity politics, genocide, dictatorships and issues that have, well, nothing to do with my behaviour.'

I'm invoking these issues not in the context of their existence, but in the context of how individuals regard them. I'm criticizing proponents of their own sovereignty and free speech, who simultaneously adhere to and act passively in light of political correctness. I'm criticizing proponents of religiously motivated sentience and benevolence, who repeatedly bring ethno-nationalists into hegemony. None of those conflicts are independent of one's behavior in the slightest.

'Which is it? Are you asking me to i.e "resent discourtesy and thus be courteous" and "be the change you want to see in the world" or are you asking me to work towards reforming the government, protesting animal cruelty and doing charity work?'

I'm not asking you to elect either. Resenting discourtesy, and thus being courteous is the principle that I'm laying forth. Reform the government, feed stray animals, or engage in literally any other exercise, but act consistently with your ideals and use resentment against a defiance of your values as a means to do so.

'I need unnatural motivation for that, you say, all that will work is a deep, sustained resentment of the condemned act or acts which go against my values. It's not exactly clear what I have to do, what I need to achieve or how much I need to do.'

I'm stating that sustained resentment is a precondition. Without it, people are neither deplored by themselves, or their acquaintances, to the extent that they will undertake substantive changes to their behavior. I'm not dictating the categories, expanse or consequence of those behaviors - but only that those behaviors can be engendered by hatred.

Do you want to share credit for that quote? — Aryamoy Mitra

Ha! Sure. The difference between me and Nietzsche is that I really don't think the human condition, as it is, is necessary at all.

That's a very insightful assertion. I've never thought about it before. If human beings are animals mimicking sentience, they're effectively intelligent animals - and not solely in the biological sense. — Aryamoy Mitra

Hmmm, yes. I guess I would say that "intelligent animal" is as far as we have gotten by mimicking being human (i.e. knowing what it means to be human (honour, integrity, love, dignity, etc) and playacting the part). We are far more. We just have to realize it. Well, I guess more exactly, we need to become fully aware of the animal nonsense we have endured for millennia which causes us to only mimic a sentient perspective.

I'm invoking these issues not in the context of their existence, but in the context of how individuals regard them. — Aryamoy Mitra

I'm a practically minded person and the spectrum of practicality on either extreme of what is required to perform behaviorally consistently is too much. To defy a dictatorship is dangerous, may not actually achieve anything but being courteous is just good sense and usually in your best interests. Some of your examples are about self-improvement and about being the change you want to see in the world and others require activism, charity work, getting political and so on. Are you indifferent to what's required of a person and what consequences their actions may have?

Again, why do you care whether people are driven by morality above all else? You don't even care what their morals are either...

I'm stating that sustained resentment is a precondition. Without it, people are neither deplored by themselves, or their acquaintances, to the extent that they will undertake substantive changes to their behavior. — Aryamoy Mitra

There's a whole range of human emotion and plenty motivate people morally. Your claim is probably impossible to prove but I think it'd be possible to disprove if I made the effort. Honestly, to me, it just seems so obviously incorrect and lopsided, I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion. The result of your position is that to be a truly moral person without hatred or self-hatred is impossible. Such a person would just lack the resolve or motivation necessary, correct? Given that you have already made your proclivity towards misanthropy clear, you insist that hatred is the only compelling motivation, I start to ask, what this means for you? You and people similar to you are the only ones who can be truly moral, yes? Now personally, I don't care about such things but since you do, I feel like that is worth something to you. Nothing personal but that kind of behaviour is ubiquitous across people, even I am guilty of it.

If you want to tell me that rather than hatred being a necessary ingredient for the moral person, it is just a door one can take to get there, I could agree. Personally, I think relying on people to be moral is a bad strategy because it's unreliable. Instead of relying on whatever flimsy moral motivations people say they have, better to target more reliable motivations. All morality needs to do is guide people in the right direction, to get them to agree to something. After enough agree that idk "racism is bad" then legislatively, economically, educationally, culturally, socially, people are practically forced to more or less act in accordance with "racism is bad". We don't need people to motivate themselves with hatred or whatever. If there's a problem then look to the larger social infrastructure, lamenting the lack of moral character of people is pointless.

Hence I think rather than misanthropy, better to be deeply dissatisfied with the system, that's something you can actually change. Whereas humans will always be humans and generally far too lazy to actually follow your scheme even if they wanted to.