Is this community just slop?

Funny in which direction your examples go.

I don't know, it is starting to seem a bit like it, but maga or not I know to not trust this user...

I had this user tagged as a person defending rapists, now I'll have to add that they're a nazi too I guess.

Yeah they really don't understand anything related to biology.

Good thing that DNA, genitals and gender are always 100% correlated right.

Good thing that the guillotines have forward compatibility with trillionaires and above.

The same kind of person that steals a trillion from society in the first place

History is written by the winners. Which are rarely the dead migrants.

However, history also remembers when the winners get their heads chopped off, so maybe there's something to learn there.

Je pense que tu découvres. Les medias mainstream sont super facho et insultant en général, j'ai été choqué en tombant au pif sur un extrait de la france a un incroyable talent (pas une référence, je sais, mais ça reste du media qui ratisse large), et un juge dit au calme à un participant japonais qui ne parle pas français (sans intro préalable hein, c'est son commentaire initial juste après la performance) "du coup j'ai juste une question : Hiroshima ou Nagasaki ?" Et bien évidemment, personne critique, on rigole en mode "oh la la il a osé le con, n'importe quoi mais c'est drôle quand même".

T'as les pubs pour la chasse, qui sont assez horrible aussi et qui passent sans problème.

Enfin je sais même pas pourquoi je m'embête avec des petits exemples comme ça, quand on a un gouvernement et des medias qui supportent ouvertement des neonazis, israel, etc, mais qui décrivent LFI et antifa comme les grandes menaces actuelles (rappelons que même la police, la POLICE, a admis dans un rapport que la violence de gauche n'était pas une menace, alors que la violence de droite si).

Les medias sont nazis, et j'utilise le terme nazi à la louche mais là c'est même pas vraiment une exaggération.

Well, you are right.

The thing is, the definition of "good by my standard" that I'm applying here is quite a basic one: what impacts people positively, without impacting other people negatively. It doesn't work for the most grey or ambiguous areas, but as a default baseline it works fine I would say.

So Hitler wasn't having "good" intentions because his intentions were to impact people negatively.

Obviously, if you start digging deeper, this core standard requires additional rules and such. Fighting against rich people would be bad according to this core, but I don't believe that it is bad; the reason for that is that rich people decide to be rich, and have a negative impact that is too important to neglect. Taxing them would then be good, because it helps people who are living poorer than they should be, by taking from people who are richer than they should be -> this adds a rule/exception of equity and of treating "bad" people under different rules (if you initiate something bad, then you stop counting as much in the balance of things, which varies depending on what you did).

And yeah, this all ends up pretty subjectively, but I don't think that there is such a thing as an objective definition of good and evil, it depends on the scope. The scope that I'm trying to have is one that leads (or so I believe) to a fair and harmonious society, where people don't suffer (or as little as possible). Then you can even nitpick that wanting a fair society is also a subjective opinion (typically, capitalism wants the opposite, since the concept is to advantage some people by disadvantaging others), but there will never be a 100% consensus. Sometimes subjectivity is unavoidable, but I think that generally, decent people will at least have the idea of "feeling happy is good, suffering is bad" and the rest can be built on top of that.

So with this whole thing, in the case of Dukat:

he was a gigantic nazi rapist (which is bad according to my definition, and for anyone that I deem worthy of respect), that ended up killing someone that he didn't really see as evil (or didn't care) purely for personal gain. None of those fall in the scope of having intentions of "good" (trying to impact others positively), so the action itself isn't good from Dukat's scope, even if it has a good result.

If you analyse, let's say, Sisko committing crimes of war, he also falls a bit in the evil side for example: he decides to basically destroy a whole planet's worth of people, just to satisfy a personal vendetta. You could try to argue that the population can be moved, and that the guy would have caused issues down the road if he didn't get arrested, etc, but when it comes down to it, Sisko didn't care about that, he was just ready to sacrifice anything and anyone for his personal satisfaction. Therefore his intentions were bad, and the action is bad.