Would you slug em' like The Joker?

Hi!

I wonder who else has tried to compare what a Christian would do or what an Athiest would do in the same difficult situation.

Suppose you had turrets or say you were a schizophrenic and hard life - in that position, do you think an atheist or a Christian would be more like to do what the Joker did?

I think an atheist would be more likely to slug 'em but then maybe I’m stereotyping too much - not sure.

The clip from the movie :
Joker / Subway Shooting Scene (Arthur Kills For The First Time) - YouTube

Best regards
Matt

No, you’re not stereo-typing too much, you just have the wrong crowd

More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other cause!!!
Burning at the stake, crucifiction, drowning, holy wars, you name it and religion has found a way to kill over the concept

You know who said it best? George Carlin.
Watch this sober analysis of religious practices.

(warning crude language)

The average person – atheist or Christian, armed or not – would just get beat down. Who knows what a schizophrenic would do in that kind of situation, but it’s safe to say they would not handle it well.

I’ve never considered killings on mass-scales that much before to build up my opinions

I don’t have any stats about the reasons for why people have been killed! Of course some of it will be subjective - for example is a war about gaining more land for money or in the name of god?

I would say that the two last biggest killings were in the 1st and 2nd World Wars - to me that wasn’t about religion - it was more about expanding the German empire on both occasions so I might categorise those wars as a need (or greed) to gain more land. The latest big war is Russia-Ukraine where I don’t see any religion involved, same with Vietnam - is that war about land, defence, wealth - I’m not sure but its not about religion that I can detect.

Sorry gotta go - will be back soon :smiley:

Both.

Some countries in the Middle East still engage in religious slaughter.

The Middle East is home to some of the world’s most chaotic and violent war zones – including in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Iraq – as well as simmering conflicts in states such as Israel and Lebanon. And while these conflicts usually have multiple causes, **religion and religious hostilities certainly are important factors.**Jul 7, 2016

Nowadays, one kills for religious motives everywhere in the world.

In West, we have Islamic terrorism, ultra right Christian terrorism. In Middle east, Christians are persecuted, and ultra orthodox Jews persecute Arabs. Buddhists persecute Muslims in Birmanie. And I am sure i am forgetting some.

No atheist kills people for religious reasons, even if it happened in the past. There may be one exception, Chinese state some time persecute religious people for political reasons

First, the Joker was mentally ill. Secondly, I’d be like the woman and just walk away in disgust. I wouldn’t act like the Joker. Even when I was an Xian, I would have just walked away, so for me, being an atheist or an Xian, has nothing to do with it. You definitely stereotype, but then again, if you want to do that, keep in mind, the Joker is a man and not a woman.

Two wars that spring to mind for me which have lasted the longest are the IRA / Northern Ireland War and also the Israel - Palestine conflicts - both wars were/are religion based. The shorter wars tend to be kind of political generally which is good new for the Ukraine war going by history.

Then you have a spike, the Joker / train thugs scenario - definitely a short war again which definitely not religion based. In one sense, only 4 thugs were killed arguably in self-defence but there is the affect on the families and communities affected which would be behind the scenes of course.

That is an interesting pattern about what is driving factors behind long wars and shorter wars…

If I had to defend my family to the death, I might have to hurt someone and if it had to be a choice of them or me then it would be a no-brainer - there is no religious motive - just self preservation!?

Nobody knows if he was mentally ill or even a schizophrenic or a psychopath.

All we can see if the film is that he was once a mental patient and then turns to violence after feeling unfairly outcast by society.

IMO, long wars are based on true or false attempts at long term “survival” advantage (Israel, Ukraine), whereas short wars are usually “opportunistic” and designed for short term “capital” advantage (Kuwait, personal stick-ups)

1 Like

He was once a mental patient. That should give you a clue that he’s mentally ill.

Poor guy - the bus scene is one the most memorable - I would have loved him to entertain me if I was the child for sure

(1) The Bus Scene | Joker [UltraHD, HDR] - YouTube

Hello Matio

The Joker represents the most vulnerable and disturbed in need of help sector of society and since there is no solidarity and way of dealing with the brutal wealth disparity, he reacts violently and brutally. The film explains that the roots of these social ills are economic and based in greed. The film explains that Murray, like the rich laughing at the laborer, is a liberal who also laughs at the disenfranchised and profits from their misery. I think that it shows what happens and what is happening as we speak, not what could be.

3 Likes

I think that was a very good explanation too, J. I’m not sure why someone flagged it.

and a very crazy man at that.

Not sure that’s totally accurate and though both are rooted in religious differences, the hatred and passion come from the fact that one religion has become the ruling class, vicious disrespectful rulers that hold the ‘others’ in contempt and forced subservient position.

Like so much, religion is an excuse more than the driving issue in and of itself.

But, that’s no surprise since religion is created within our own minds to begin with, and is in essence all about people transforming our EGOs into GODs (including our desires and hatred).

Ironically, says Jones, “the different views on self-governance between unionists and nationalists in Northern and Southern Ireland in this period stemmed from the same roots—the rise of nationalism across Europe in the late-19th century and the spread of populist beliefs in nationalist ideals and demands for nation-states.”

BY TANISIA MORRIS ON FEBRUARY 20, 2017LECTURES AND EVENTS

Photo by Bruce Gilbert

A leading expert on Judeo-Islamic studies said that while religious nationalism might have been present on the outskirts of Middle Eastern society before 1968, it was not visible or nearly as significant as it is today.

Speaking at Fordham on Feb. 14, Ross Brann, the Milton R. Konvitz professor of Judeo-Islamic studies and Stephen H. Weiss Presidential Fellow at Cornell University, shared how key events in the Middle East served to accelerate religious nationalism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Up until 1948 and 1967 [the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]was entirely a conflict about land and sovereignty,” he said.

It is clear that hardline religiosity greatly shapes the contemporary politics of both Israel and Palestine. This can suggest that the conflict between the two is inherently religious in nature. But is this correct, or an oversimplification? Anne Irfan traces the recent history of the conflict, noting a simultaneous shift on both sides from a largely secular to a leftist and finally a religion-inspired politics.

Here’s where the Joker comes in:

The Joker represents the most vulnerable and disturbed in need of help sector of society and since there is no solidarity and way of dealing with the brutal wealth disparity, he reacts violently and brutally. The film explains that the roots of these social ills are economic and based in greed. The film explains that Murray, like the rich laughing at the laborer, is a liberal who also laughs at the disenfranchised and profits from their misery. I think that it shows what happens and what is happening as we speak, not what could be.

that claim needs addressing. It will always been about this . I note the author has avoided the use of the word occupation

As it should be.

QUESTION:
The Palestinians were in Israel first, then it was flooded with European Jews from the Holocaust. I have sympathy for someone fleeing the Holocaust, but they shouldn’t be able to just take over someone else’s land, should they?

ANSWER:
The statement and question posed above may be something you hear from those who believe the Jews creation of the State of Israel constituted an act of colonialism – an act of taking political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, displacing its indigenous people, and exploiting it economically.

Consider the historic inaccuracies in the statement and question above:

  • It is inaccurate to say Arab Palestinians lived there first.
  • Jews have lived on the land of Israel continuously for almost 4,000 years.
  • The land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people. Approximately 4,000 years ago, Abraham moved to the land of Israel where he lived with his family, raised his children and purchased land to bury his wife and himself.
  • After Abraham came Isaac and Jacob. Jacob, who was named Israel by God, had twelve sons whose families became the 12 Tribes of Israel.
  • Approximately 3,000 years ago, the Jews established a monarchy in the land that includes Israel, Gaza, the West Bank (Judaea and Samaria), the Golan Heights, parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. (See the map below)

what world if people could claim land going back 4,000 years. There was no jewish exile , no religious affiliation with the land pre zionism and many of the local jews converted to Islam in the 7th Century making these converts the ancestors of the contemporary Palestinians…

And no white America