751
Kanye West sued, dropped by talent agency and retail platform over antisemitic slurs
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
751 points (99.0% liked)
News
24769 readers
4936 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or the mentally ill...
Which is really ironic if you consider sociopathy to be a mental illness.
Nah, because that's just Antisocial Personality Disorder, which basically boils down to trusting your own judgement over society's.
That can be very bad, or very good.
Like, Harriet Tubman put her own values over society's laws, so she broke a shit ton of laws with zero remorse. Hard to say she had a mental illness. But her actions we celebrate today, met a lot of the diagnosing criteria.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928
It's just human variation, but it's likely incredibly undercounted because regardless of if the person is more on the "good" or "bad" side, they all think they have a better line of thinking than society. And fuck man. Take a look around.
Society as a whole isn't doing too hot lately, it's a pretty low bar to say you trust your own morals than society's.
I am not here to attack people with Antisocial Personality Disorder, but it's definitely not just 'trusting your own judgement over society's', it also " is a personality disorder defined by a chronic pattern of behaviour that disregards the rights and well-being of others." The 'societal judgment' they're in conflict with is often the rights and well-being of others. I have an ex with it, and they had an extremely difficult time up until their early 40's, when they did improve a bit. We're still not sure if that's ASPD decreasing over time, or them getting used to dealing with it.
Again though, this isn't to attack people with it (who will suffer far more at the hands of others than themselves) but to hand-wave it as 'trusting your own judgment over society's' is... not accurate. From your own link:
I say all of this as someone who lived with someone else with ASPD. The one that caused our breakup was "Aggression toward people and animals." as they hurt me and attempted to hurt our cat in order to hurt me emotionally. This was a reaction caused by PTSD from their truly traumatic childhood, but I'd appreciate it not boiled down to some sort of Chaotic Good interpretation.
That is one of the diagnosis criteria...
But it's not a checklist where you gotta score 100%.
And to keep the Harriet Tubman example, legally under society's laws she wasn't freeing people. At the time and place she was at she was stealing property from people, relatively expensive property, and in large amounts.
Most people's experience with someone diagnosed with ASPD are because they have the real bad ones in addition to the others, and someone without them would also almost never go see a shrink of their own free will, because they still have the other parts where they think (maybe rightfully) that they know more than everyone else.
This also skews what the medical community sees.
If someone doesn't give a fuck about others, they still may realize the benefit of social nicities and benefits from being part of a community.
This ain't an idea I just had, people have been talking about this undercount since way before we stopped using outdated terms like "sociopath", and that was decades ago.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here; are you saying that my grandmother, a Dutch Communist, had Antisocial Personality Disorder because she broke laws by helping people escape the Nazi's? ASPD isn't 'person breaks laws like theft or whatever' it's that they have no regard for any laws, and:
No evidence of this.
I feel like actively working while poor to help others for her entire life, at the cost of her own meagre savings and own body, and constantly putting herself in danger, precludes this.
I have literally no idea why you're trying to do with this. It's a nonsensical argument where you're taking combing correlation and causation.
If you want to see what it's actually like for people who have it, this is an excellent video of a woman who is both a diagnosed sociopath as well as a Clinical Psychologist explaining how it is to live with it (in this case Sociopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder are used interchangeably.)
There are people who legit do not care about any other person than themselves. This isn't a question of legality, but morality.
The question you have to ask is "who do these actions benefit the most?"
Harriet Tubman absolutely cared about other people, otherwise she wouldn't have done what she did to help free slaves or advocate for women's sufferage.
How much did Robin Hood personally benefit from stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? If he was truely selfish, wouldn't he have kept all the riches to himself? Sure, he got fame and notoriety, but I think we all know that riches = power, and it has always been that way ever since large civilzations began.
Also a counterpoint: Following the law does not make you just if the laws you follow are unjust laws, especially if they hurt other people. The obvious example here would be Nazi Germany. Nazis were just following orders, and anyone who rightfully resisted their regime were severely punished. Were the people who resisted bad people? Were the people who followed the law good people?
Now, take someone like Trump. Has he ever done something in his life to benefit another person over himself? Has he ever made a sacrifice in service to another person? I'm not counting tit-for-tat corrupt dealings here, but genuine actions of kindness. What about Elon or Zuckerberg?
I do t know why you're trying to explain to me how someone with ASPD could be "good" or "bad"...
That's the point I've been trying to make, at least you got there I guess.
Just super weird you're acting like you're explaining it now
You're missing the point entirely. I'm saying the people I'm labeling as "good" don't have ASPD, whereas the "bad" people I listed do.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928
Your definition involving legality does not match up to the medical definition of ASPD, which is defined by morality. I think you're getting confused because people with ASPD are often times also criminals, but the medical definition is not simply "a criminal."
From the link above: "Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly or with cruel indifference. They lack remorse or do not regret their behavior."
Now tell me how Harriet Tubman had ASPD given that definition.
Or if you prefer the DSM-5, it's on page 659: https://archive.org/details/APA-DSM-5/page/659/mode/1up
I think you're getting hung up on that first point (A1), but three or more of those criteria must apply to be able to diagnose ASPD.
Mate...
I've sunk a lot of time trying to help you against your own will.
I know you think talking like that is a "slam" and that you're winning an argument, but no one else is arguing. I'm trying to help you, and you're getting an attitude like that
The only reason I'm replying again, is a hail Mary that you at least realize acting like this doesn't mean you "win" when someone stops replying...
It means someone wrote you off as a lost cause.
And I bet you think you "win" a lot, so it was worth typing that.
Says the person who didn't engage on the substance of my post, but instead is attempting an ad hominem attack while downvoting because you disagree. Sure sounds like you lost the argument here, bud.
Note how I didn't downvote you until you posted this, now that I understand that you are not arguing in good faith.