"What the media get wrong is..."

[Athanasius]

Why would I appease the Nazis? Like what is it about my refusal to characterize WW2 as a good battle between good and evil just because the Nazis were were truly horrific actors and the allies fought against them that would lead you to think that that possibly means that I would therefore appease the Nazis. Just because I refuse to characterize the death penalty as good or the US prison system or justice system as good, it doesn't mean that I think we should free all the serial child murderers from prison. Or maybe you are making some point that I missed, if so, sorry it's getting pretty hard to parse what it is that people think that I believe.

I'm wondering what you would do when Hamas build command centres, or tunnels, or whatever under - or in - hospitals then whine after having just massacred 1,200 people? Are you chanting, 'ceasefire, ceasefire' to save the hospital, knowing another massacre will happen? Or, do you understand the nature of an enemy that actually is evil, no propagandizing required?

Those people demonstrating for ceasefire? They either want Jews dead, or they don't understand. I'm not saying you're calling for a ceasefire. I'm saying those that do are repeating mistakes -- when they aren't being malicious.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Why would I appease the Nazis? Like what is it about my refusal to characterize WW2 as a good battle between good and evil just because the Nazis were were truly horrific actors and the allies fought against them that would lead you to think that that possibly means that I would therefore appease the Nazis. Just because I refuse to characterize the death penalty as good or the US prison system or justice system as good, it doesn't mean that I think we should free all the serial child murderers from prison. Or maybe you are making some point that I missed, if so, sorry it's getting pretty hard to parse what it is that people think that I believe.

I'm wondering what you would do when Hamas build command centres, or tunnels, or whatever under - or in - hospitals then whine after having just massacred 1,200 people? Are you chanting, 'ceasefire, ceasefire' to save the hospital, knowing another massacre will happen? Or, do you understand the nature of an enemy that actually is evil, no propagandizing required?

Those people demonstrating for ceasefire? They either want Jews dead, or they don't understand. I'm not saying you're calling for a ceasefire. I'm saying those that do are repeating mistakes -- when they aren't being malicious.

I do not require that I think of myself as good and the other guy as evil in order to kill him, even if it risks the lives of bystanders. The guy doesn't have to be pure evil for me to act, he may rescue dogs and take care of his sick grandmother, all he has to be is a threat to my interests (this includes, life, way of life, family, country and so on). Additionally, the choice I made isn't necessarily best characterized as good just because it was the one I made in opposition of a very dangerous guy who kicks dogs and killed his sick grandmother. IOW Put me in a room with one button that blows up hospitals and one button that detects bad guys and it is likely that I would end up blowing up some hospitals. When I leave that room and am asked why I blew up so many hospitals, my answer will not be "Because I was in a battle between good and evil, and if you don't think of it in exactly those terms then you are probably an appeasing coward that would let a terrorist beat your family to death while you fetch him lemonade because he looks parched from all that killing". Not saying you said that, but that is the vibe of the room from my POV.


It's unclear to me if you are suggesting that there are some consequences of my way of thinking that I should concern myself with, are there?

[Athanasius]

Why would I appease the Nazis? Like what is it about my refusal to characterize WW2 as a good battle between good and evil just because the Nazis were were truly horrific actors and the allies fought against them that would lead you to think that that possibly means that I would therefore appease the Nazis. Just because I refuse to characterize the death penalty as good or the US prison system or justice system as good, it doesn't mean that I think we should free all the serial child murderers from prison. Or maybe you are making some point that I missed, if so, sorry it's getting pretty hard to parse what it is that people think that I believe.

I'm wondering what you would do when Hamas build command centres, or tunnels, or whatever under - or in - hospitals then whine after having just massacred 1,200 people? Are you chanting, 'ceasefire, ceasefire' to save the hospital, knowing another massacre will happen? Or, do you understand the nature of an enemy that actually is evil, no propagandizing required?

Those people demonstrating for ceasefire? They either want Jews dead, or they don't understand. I'm not saying you're calling for a ceasefire. I'm saying those that do are repeating mistakes -- when they aren't being malicious.

I do not require that I think of myself as good and the other guy as evil in order to kill him, even if it risks the lives of bystanders. The guy doesn't have to be pure evil for me to act, he may rescue dogs and take care of his sick grandmother, all he has to be is a threat to my interests (this includes, life, way of life, family, country and so on). Additionally, the choice I made isn't necessarily best characterized as good just because it was the one I made in opposition of a very dangerous guy who kicks dogs and killed his sick grandmother. IOW Put me in a room with one button that blows up hospitals and one button that detects bad guys and it is likely that I would end up blowing up some hospitals. When I leave that room and am asked why I blew up so many hospitals, my answer will not be "Because I was in a battle between good and evil, and if you don't think of it in exactly those terms then you are probably an appeasing coward that would let a terrorist beat your family to death while you fetch him lemonade because he looks parched from all that killing". Not saying you said that, but that is the vibe of the room from my POV.


It's unclear to me if you are suggesting that there are some consequences of my way of thinking that I should concern myself with, are there?

I'm just wondering what you're coming from

[Fenris]

I know you didn't, From the context I thought it was understood that I was using synecdoche, "The Japanese" meaning  the Japanese leadership, military and relevant parties to draw a comparison to the current situation. Specifically that the Japanese committed atrocities that could be called evil by your standard, many in Manchuria & the Pacific theater might have understandably called the Japanese irredeemably evil, The Japanese had beliefs & behaviors that could be rightly called religious zealotry and genocidal. Not every Japanese service member, military or civilian leader was eliminated during the war or even faced judicial action, and some of those people changed their views after the war. The Japanese as a culture had a redemption arc like in the movies. It really does seem to me that you do not draw a distinction between something being good and something being justifiable due to badness of the other guy.

You're so busy arguing philosophy that you're completely ignoring history. The war against Japan was not "optional". Japan attacked the United States. They caused the war. And when you're fighting a war, you fight to win. Thats it.

Hamas attacked Israel in a most brutal and barbaric way on 10/7. They started the war. Israel has to finish it. That's it.

Well, I don't know what moral evaluation even means if what you know or don't know doesn't factor into it, just like I don't know what it means to regret something if your regret does not weigh at all into your evaluation of the moral character of the situation. So, Abraham asked and God answered > therefore you can destroy an entire population whether or not you've even checked to see if there were any innocent people

The laws of war don't make distinction for "innocent people". There are soldiers and there are civilians. It is completely permissible to attack enemy soldiers. It is even permissible to attack enemy soldiers with civilians being present, provided it is proportional to the military gains.

We live in an actual world, not a place of philosophy. While you're busy pontificating, people are dying.

I just refuse to act like what I'm doing is some righteous wholly good & pure crusade against evil.

Whatever.

I have to say that my point was initially in the context of the media, that is  that our tendency to characterize things as good vs evil is one of the reasons that the media tends toward hyperbole.

I didn't need the media to know that rape kidnapping and murder was evil.

Probably more or less the same thing if I were poofed into the situation just as I finished reading your sentence.  While I was doing it I'd likely even publicly characterize it as a battle between good and pure evil for rhetorical purposes, but not because I believe it, but because it would be useful and having the kind of back and forth that you and I are having  as the prime minister would be a sure fire way to muddy my messaging and potentially hinder my ability to consolidate support and effectively lead.

So you can be pragmatic.

[Athanasius]

Gotta wonder what sort of people rape and kidnap women to sexually abuse them further, kill women and their children, and go door to door with a plan to exterminate and cause the most damage possible in the least amount of time possible.

Are those evil people, or do we play the part of the sycophant suggesting, "I don't need my enemy to be evil to act"? That enemy is so evil it offers up its own population to die in the name of so-called "revolution" and "resistance". And who does it look to for justification? The most evil governments in history.

What other word than 'evil' would we use? When's the last time someone was accused of being evil for fighting back against an enemy that's killed your babies?

[RabbiKnife]

Part of the societal fiction that is played when a great many people believe that I have to justify any of my actions to anyone else other than God

[Fenris]

Are those evil people, or do we play the part of the sycophant suggesting, "I don't need my enemy to be evil to act"? That enemy is so evil it offers up its own population to die in the name of so-called "revolution" and "resistance". And who does it look to for justification? The most evil governments in history.

It's a strange discussion to be having. If slaughtering people in the most vile ways possible isn't evil, then the word no longer has any meaning.

[RabbiKnife]

For people that spend all day staring either at their navel or at a selfie stick, life has no meaning…

[Oscar_Kipling]

I know you didn't, From the context I thought it was understood that I was using synecdoche, "The Japanese" meaning  the Japanese leadership, military and relevant parties to draw a comparison to the current situation. Specifically that the Japanese committed atrocities that could be called evil by your standard, many in Manchuria & the Pacific theater might have understandably called the Japanese irredeemably evil, The Japanese had beliefs & behaviors that could be rightly called religious zealotry and genocidal. Not every Japanese service member, military or civilian leader was eliminated during the war or even faced judicial action, and some of those people changed their views after the war. The Japanese as a culture had a redemption arc like in the movies. It really does seem to me that you do not draw a distinction between something being good and something being justifiable due to badness of the other guy.

You're so busy arguing philosophy that you're completely ignoring history. The war against Japan was not "optional". Japan attacked the United States. They caused the war. And when you're fighting a war, you fight to win. Thats it.

Hamas attacked Israel in a most brutal and barbaric way on 10/7. They started the war. Israel has to finish it. That's it.

I didn't forget, it's just that it is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make about the irredeemability of evil and how that is applied in times of conflict. The conflict between the US and Japan was a long time in the making. Pearl harbor was the last straw, but the U.S. extorted Japan into "opening up" in 1853 under threat of military force. Back then Japan would have suffered a brutal defeat and perhaps become a U.S. coloni...er umm territory and/or been divvied up by various western world powers. Japan had seen other "weak" countries being devoured by western colonial appetites, the pickle that Japan was in was obvious and existential. I am speculating that in your view Japan could have declared war on the U.S. for that military backed extortion and they would have been the good guys and the US or The West would have been the irredeemably evil force. They didn't declare war though it would have been "legitimate", Instead Japan spent the better part of the next century building themselves into a modern and formidable force on the world stage, and then they attacked the U.S. when they thought they could actually come out of that conflict with advantages. That's a gross simplification, but to my point, nothing about the history of that conflict leads me to conclude that there was some pure good side and an irredeemably evil side even though at various points there were bad actors, cooler heads, atrocities and genuine peace efforts. Either side defending their interests through violence was completely legitimate at some point or another. All that to say that the U.S. could have just capitulated to the Japanese after pearl harbor, and Los Angeles could be New Kyoto now. That didn't happen because that was an outcome that America was willing to kill and die to prevent. The retaliation happened pretty much immediately because we still had naval and other military resources, but most importantly we had truly mind-boggling industrial capacity for the time...it wasn't going to take us a century to get ready. There was the option to not fight, but we had both the ability and the impetus to fight in order to maintain our interests unlike 1850's Japan. I really don't want to make this longer but I feel like you are going to assume that I'm saying that the black fleet strong arming Japan is exactly the same as Pearl Harbor when it is not, but the underlying motive is the same, that is to bully someone where they are vulnerable into getting what you want.   

I know that you think i'm full of it, but in my view the imperative in all these cases could reasonably be boiled down to  "fight to win" regardless of any speculation about the future irredeemability of the current or future threat or any notions of who caused the war...but rarely is it ever "and That's it.".

Well, I don't know what moral evaluation even means if what you know or don't know doesn't factor into it, just like I don't know what it means to regret something if your regret does not weigh at all into your evaluation of the moral character of the situation. So, Abraham asked and God answered > therefore you can destroy an entire population whether or not you've even checked to see if there were any innocent people

The laws of war don't make distinction for "innocent people". There are soldiers and there are civilians. It is completely permissible to attack enemy soldiers. It is even permissible to attack enemy soldiers with civilians being present, provided it is proportional to the military gains.

We live in an actual world, not a place of philosophy. While you're busy pontificating, people are dying.

What effect do you think my pontificating is having on who lives and who dies? What do you think i'm trying to stop you from actually doing? I completely understand the disagreement, I don't quite get why you want to strongly correlate it with some negative effect i'm having or could potentially have in the world. Or, you know, that is just how it feels to me.

I just refuse to act like what I'm doing is some righteous wholly good & pure crusade against evil.

Whatever.

I get that that is how you view it, I don't understand why you think it's important that I do too, especially since i've repeatedly illustrated that it doesn't put us on opposite sides of this war. Like, do you just feel disrespected by it personally? What is the material difference between saying "wipe em all out because they are dangerous" and "wipe em all out because they are evil and we are good". I do think there is a difference, but I don't think it's where you think it is...that is that i'd fail to react to this danger or fail to do what it takes to eliminate the danger ...like where is the problem for you exactly?

I have to say that my point was initially in the context of the media, that is  that our tendency to characterize things as good vs evil is one of the reasons that the media tends toward hyperbole.

I didn't need the media to know that rape kidnapping and murder was evil.

Who said you did? I'm saying that we complain about the media doing the same stuff that we do, we practically demand that the media present these extreme binaries and then get pissed off when Tom Cotton or AOC or whoever is called irredeemably evil because they did or didn't support some amendment to a bill or whatever. Lionize, demonize, escalate, repeat.

Probably more or less the same thing if I were poofed into the situation just as I finished reading your sentence.  While I was doing it I'd likely even publicly characterize it as a battle between good and pure evil for rhetorical purposes, but not because I believe it, but because it would be useful and having the kind of back and forth that you and I are having  as the prime minister would be a sure fire way to muddy my messaging and potentially hinder my ability to consolidate support and effectively lead.

So you can be pragmatic.

Yeah, I mean i'd say so. I just like to recognize that that is what i'm actually doing and try not to wrap it up in too much of the kind language and beliefs that personally get me in trouble. I happen to also think that this stuff can cause trouble for other people too and explains some of the stuff we don't like about our society....it certainly explained some stuff I don't like about myself ...for whatever that is worth.

[Fenris]

I didn't forget, it's just that it is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make about the irredeemability of evil and how that is applied in times of conflict. The conflict between the US and Japan was a long time in the making. Pearl harbor was the last straw, but the U.S. extorted Japan into "opening up" in 1853 under threat of military force.

And this justifies an attack 90 years later?!! This is not serious thinking.

They didn't declare war though it would have been "legitimate", Instead Japan spent the better part of the next century building themselves into a modern and formidable force on the world stage, and then they attacked the U.S. when they thought they could actually come out of that conflict with advantages. That's a gross simplification,

It's not a gross simplification. It's flat out wrong. Japan attacked the US navy at Pearl Harbor not to punish or conquer America. They wanted to destroy the US fleet so that they would be unopposed in conquering southeast Asia. They were bent on conquest and loot, not revenge.

Read a little history.

but to my point, nothing about the history of that conflict leads me to conclude that there was some pure good side and an irredeemably evil side

Yes, but then you seem unable to draw moral distinctions generally, so why should World War 2 be any different?

it wasn't going to take us a century to get ready. There was the option to not fight

There was no option not to fight. Someone attacks you, you fight back to protect yourself. This isn't rocket science.

I know that you think i'm full of it

No, I think you are unable to draw moral distinction.

What effect do you think my pontificating is having on who lives and who dies?

Nothing, because you are powerless to effect the outcome. Unfortunately, there are people in power who also seem unable to draw moral distinction.

I get that that is how you view it, I don't understand why you think it's important that I do too,

I don't expect to convince you of anything. I'm calling out immorality for the sake of calling it out.

demand that the media present these extreme binaries

Calling rape, kidnaping and murder evil is not an "extreme binary." I consider it such basic morality that even a news reporter should know that it's wrong. And yet.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I didn't forget, it's just that it is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make about the irredeemability of evil and how that is applied in times of conflict. The conflict between the US and Japan was a long time in the making. Pearl harbor was the last straw, but the U.S. extorted Japan into "opening up" in 1853 under threat of military force.

And this justifies an attack 90 years later?!! This is not serious thinking.

They didn't declare war though it would have been "legitimate", Instead Japan spent the better part of the next century building themselves into a modern and formidable force on the world stage, and then they attacked the U.S. when they thought they could actually come out of that conflict with advantages. That's a gross simplification,

It's not a gross simplification. It's flat out wrong. Japan attacked the US navy at Pearl Harbor not to punish or conquer America. They wanted to destroy the US fleet so that they would be unopposed in conquering southeast Asia. They were bent on conquest and loot, not revenge.

Read a little history.

My point wasn't that pearl harbor was the Japanese revenge tour, but it WAS the culmination of events that were set in motion almost 90 years prior. You said the US had no option, and i'm saying that they did have an option they could have capitulated like the Japanese did years earlier. Do you think that for some reason the Japanese wouldn't have accepted immediate surrender and took the US for all they could? You can't assert something and when I lay out an example to refute it act like I was talking about something else, why would I be saying that it was revenge when we were talking about what options a country has when they are faced with an existential threat? Its like you just want whatever I say to be the most obtuse interpretation possible because i'm immoral so I must also be ignorant of history and cowardly.

but to my point, nothing about the history of that conflict leads me to conclude that there was some pure good side and an irredeemably evil side

Yes, but then you seem unable to draw moral distinctions generally, so why should World War 2 be any different?

This again. It seems like i'm drawing too many distinction and gradations for you as opposed to not being able to distinguish one from the other. From my POV it seems like you are saying that if I don't categorize a thing as either good or evil but something in between then that is akin to drawing no distinctions at all. 

it wasn't going to take us a century to get ready. There was the option to not fight

There was no option not to fight. Someone attacks you, you fight back to protect yourself. This isn't rocket science.

Okay, so this doesn't even make sense because you literally don't have to...you have to or else, or because but you literally could choose to not fight. If someone breaks into my house, waves a gun in my face and threatens to kill me, I have the option not to do anything to fight back even if I have options to kill that person with no risk to myself. You are saying that that option isn't just fatalistic or foolish, but that it doesn't even exist. Its like you cannot see that you are obviously exaggerating because you really don't like what I think.

I know that you think i'm full of it

No, I think you are unable to draw moral distinction.

and you are wrong, unless of course the only differences between two things can be either good or irredeemably evil, but then we just disagree about the fact that there is a spectrum...and probably that pure good and pure evil are more ideals than realities. either way, you are wrong.

What effect do you think my pontificating is having on who lives and who dies?

Nothing, because you are powerless to effect the outcome. Unfortunately, there are people in power who also seem unable to draw moral distinction.

well, don't take that out on me, I already told you i'd be blowing up hospitals like it was going out of fashion. That was me being hyperbolic, but still I feel like i've been clear about what i'd be willing to do if I were in a position to do, so.

I get that that is how you view it, I don't understand why you think it's important that I do too,

I don't expect to convince you of anything. I'm calling out immorality for the sake of calling it out.

So, am I simply immoral or am i irredeemably evil  or am I good...or is it a spectrum and i'm somewhere on it and not at the very extremes?

demand that the media present these extreme binaries

Calling rape, kidnaping and murder evil is not an "extreme binary." I consider it such basic morality that even a news reporter should know that it's wrong. And yet.

Sure, those are extreme acts, and speaking about them in extreme terms  is understandable. But I do not think that is what is actually happening, I think the application of irredeemably evil and good (if you recall this started with me objecting to the idea of calling war good) is generalized or at least runs the risk of being generalized out to something that is the stuff of the war on terror. 

[Athanasius]

Honestly, the US should have initiated a cease-fire after Pearl Harbour for its terrible treatment and occupation of Japan. Then, they should have let Japan continue to brutalise China and Korea as it had done historically.

Capitulation wasn't an option; get serious.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Honestly, the US should have initiated a cease-fire after Pearl Harbour for its terrible treatment and occupation of Japan. Then, they should have let Japan continue to brutalise China and Korea as it had done historically.

Capitulation wasn't an option; get serious.

yeah, okay. obviously that is what I meant.

[Fenris]

My point wasn't that pearl harbor was the Japanese revenge tour, but it WAS the culmination of events that were set in motion almost 90 years prior.

And the Japanese government had no agency? They made no choices? An event happening a century earlier could only end in war?

Get out of here.

You said the US had no option, and i'm saying that they did have an option they could have capitulated like the Japanese did years earlier.

The Japanese "capitulated" in that they allowed traders to come to Japan. You're not a serious person.

Its like you just want whatever I say to be the most obtuse interpretation possible because i'm immoral so I must also be ignorant of history and cowardly.

No, I think that you're immoral and ignorant of history. 

This again. It seems like i'm drawing too many distinction

You're not drawing too many distinctions. You're drawing none.

Okay, so this doesn't even make sense. If someone breaks into my house, waves a gun in my face and threatens to kill me, I have the option not to do anything to fight back even if I have options to kill that person with no risk to myself.

Just because an option exists doesn't make it moral or wise. Yes, you're free to make bad choices.

and you are wrong, unless of course the only differences between two things can be either good or irredeemably evil,

Not every situation has a good side and a bad side. But some certainly do. Genocidal lunatics trying to murder Jews are on the bad side.

So, am I simply immoral or am i irredeemably evil  or am I good...or is it a spectrum and i'm somewhere on it and not at the very extremes?

I rather like this quote from Dante Alighieri,  "The darkest places of hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis".

Sure, those are extreme acts, and speaking about them in extreme terms  is understandable. But I do not think that is what is actually happening

Hamas says they want to kill all the Jews in the world, and made a go of it. But sure, you know what's actually happening and it isn't that.

[Oscar_Kipling]

My point wasn't that pearl harbor was the Japanese revenge tour, but it WAS the culmination of events that were set in motion almost 90 years prior.

And the Japanese government had no agency? They made no choices? An event happening a century earlier could only end in war?

Get out of here.

So you do understand that because it did culminate in war that it doesn't mean that war was inevitable outcome. Nothing about what I said even implied that the Japanese had to make the choices they made, in fact i've been trying to get you to acknowledge that neither the Japanese nor the Americans had to make the choices they made. You are literally the only person in this conversation that is trying to argue that there was literally no choice.

You said the US had no option, and i'm saying that they did have an option they could have capitulated like the Japanese did years earlier.

The Japanese "capitulated" in that they allowed traders to come to Japan. You're not a serious person.

So, what? it is my understanding that many of the japanese leadership viewed that as the first step to colonization attempts by the west, and I think they were not wrong. They took it so seriously and believed it such an existential threat that they modernized at light speed, started playing the colony game themselves and went and started several wars. if you don't think it was significant to the Japanese and can be poo pooed away then I would say read some history, but it seems you have and still come away with this dismissive attitude toward the impact of that event.

This again. It seems like i'm drawing too many distinction

You're not drawing too many distinctions. You're drawing none.

Are you trying at all at this point? are are you just so offended by my thoughts that you can't help but try and get the last word?

Okay, so this doesn't even make sense. If someone breaks into my house, waves a gun in my face and threatens to kill me, I have the option not to do anything to fight back even if I have options to kill that person with no risk to myself.

Just because an option exists doesn't make it moral or wise. Yes, you're free to make bad choices.

Thank you, that is exactly what i've been saying this entire time! Just because an option exist, or is even the one you feel forced into it doesn't make it moral or good or evil, there are other factors that should weigh into that calculus.

and you are wrong, unless of course the only differences between two things can be either good or irredeemably evil,

Not every situation has a good side and a bad side. But some certainly do. Genocidal lunatics trying to murder Jews are on the bad side.

Good side and bad side is not what 've been arguing against it is the Good versus irredeemable evil. I've called Hamas bad in a million ways, but I've been unwilling to act as if I believe that down to a man they are all irredeemably evil that is completely without any value and having no chance of future change or redemption. Just as I am unwilling to treat this war that Israel was forced into by bad actors as good.

So, am I simply immoral or am i irredeemably evil  or am I good...or is it a spectrum and i'm somewhere on it and not at the very extremes?

I rather like this quote from Dante Alighieri,  "The darkest places of hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis".

I AM NOT NEUTRAL! How many ways can I say that Hamas is a dangerous existential threat to israel and arguably others and that I would take them out too. Again it seems like you've fallen back to this idea that if I don't view them as irredeemably evil or the war good then I'm neutral. Why do I have to be something other than what i've repeatedly told you I am? Like it seems really important to you that i'm not only for you, but I need to be for you with the same exact mindset or i'm against you or a bystander.

Sure, those are extreme acts, and speaking about them in extreme terms  is understandable. But I do not think that is what is actually happening

Hamas says they want to kill all the Jews in the world, and made a go of it. But sure, you know what's actually happening and it isn't that.

Edit: I just reread what I actually wrote, and you've legit quote mined me...I actually thought that I didn't write out my entire idea in my haste, but you just clipped out the part that put me in the worst light and just responded to that...come on. Like maybe you should take some time to cool off, I think you are angry just looking to be provoked.