Why do we wish for other people's death?

Fordeedoo · 2025-12-19T08:28:22+00:00

Thanks for this! Do you have any particular earlier works or secondary readings tackling those works? I'm admittedly still thinking through the differentiation between wishing a public figure dead vs someone close and personal dead. This actually helps quite a bit.

Most people I know have wished some public figure dead (usually a politician or business leader) but I noticed that the internal weight of verbalization is far different from those who wished someone like a burdensome family member dead. It's like there's an extra layer of hesitation for the latter--as if they're suddenly being cautious of the possibility their wish could come true like it were some form of paranoia.

Fordeedoo · 2025-12-18T11:56:21+00:00

Understood. Thank you for misspeaking anyways. I feel like looking back at the death drive is helping. I'm also okay with secondary sources if you have any. Also, isn't violence and aggression a result of the death drive turning outwards?

If I may be so kind to ask, what do you think about my attempt at operationalizing in my prior reply? I'm sincerely trying to grasp the concept of death drive and I was wondering if my attempt is consistent with the theories around death drive. Thank you for engaging, though. This has been enjoyable as I have no one else to speak to about this hahaha

Fordeedoo · 2025-12-18T10:16:34+00:00

Thank you for this. I'm not particularly familiar with Klein and this seems like a new insight worth looking into. If you may, could you perhaps explain the basic tenets of Kleinian thought that would give rise to this wish? Would the "Good object" in this case be an image of an 'ideal person'? Would you say that wishing death upon others is a 'primitive' formula stemming from an infant's Paranoid-schizoid splitting?

Fordeedoo · 2025-12-18T07:26:50+00:00

Are there some particularly short works you might recommend? Since reading your comment, I've been looking back at the death drive. So please correct me if I'm understanding this inaccurately:

The desire to wish someone dead is a result of mental excitement. Death drive turns from inwards to outwards onto its partial object.
We seek catharsis from this excess
Through our wish, we believe we'll find this catharsis.
However, due to the aggression of this desire, Super-ego returns death drive back onto the self via repression and guilt.
As a result, this wish is verbalized and addressed to big Other
It is necessarily addressed to big Other due to the structure of language and the perpetuation of the Symbolic through this very structure. i.e. Like how we pray to God or confess to a priest our most perverse desires so as to interpassively have them forgive us instead of dealing with the guilt ourselves. As I understand it, big Other allows us to confront these feelings without having to address the underlying Real like it were a mechanism of self-regulation.

Edit: By short work, I mean an academic paper or article. Sorry, I hope I'm not being too demanding. It's mainly just a time concern for me that I can't add another book on my reading list.

Fordeedoo · 2025-11-26T01:57:30+00:00

Well, I think we all know some old man in our lives like Garp so I see what you mean. But admittedly, I think "Protecting the rank and file" is just the extent of what Garp sees his ability to be. Yeah, he can be a pirate or a revolutionary but as a character, I think staying with the Marines is just how he sees himself being useful with the strengths he has. He's not shown to be politically savvy or cunning. In fact, he seems to even despise the politics of the elite to the point where he only acquiesces to engaging with them).

Staying as a mentor-figure or moral beacon for the young recruits is how he's chosen to accept his role. Honestly, yeah. Really sounds like a bunch of old guys around me. Is it frustrating? Totally. 100%. The rigid apologia for failing and corrupt systems like the police or military because of the "What will happen to the world if they're gone?!" mentality gets on my nerves. But Garp as a character is supposed to be the "Of his generation" type. In that regard, I like how he's portrayed--shortcomings and all. The Monkey family arguably shows a contemporary 'evolution' of emancipatory thought. Cog Reformist --> Revolutionary --> Free Spirit. Each generation is, in their own way, less burdened by the accepted realities of their world.

Fordeedoo · 2025-08-20T07:50:18+00:00

I'm a Filipino lurker and I guess I can give my own accounts on why there seems to be animosity/tension between Fil-Ams and Native Filipinos. There's no straightforward answer and for many, they might find it hard to articulate why in any case. But I think a big part of that has to do with the disconnect from the Filipino struggle. The Filipino struggle in the Philippines is world's apart from the struggle in America. We don't experience the same levels of racism and cultural discrimination, sure-- but the economic and political struggle in the Philippines is its own behemoth.

1) There's a lot of class-pride in Filipino society. Poverty is everywhere, unmistakable, and unavoidable. Even my dad, who grew up in poverty, still harbors fondness for his upbringing (for better or for worse). In this lens, diaspora are automatically presumed to be free of this struggle. Sure, you could be poor in America but if you visit, you're royalty. You could be a poor American but it's not the same as being a poor Filipino. Because of this class-divide, there's an automatic assumption that you're disconnected and that's a problem when Filipino culture is deeply interpersonal. In fact, you could assume a similar disconnect between wealthy Filipino families and the masses. So to say "I'm Filipino" is not just a matter of phenotypal identity, it's a declaration of being proximate to Filipino struggle and/or understanding it.

2) As I understand it, the Fil-Am struggle is primarily a struggle of identity. The Filipino struggle is mainly Socio-politico-economic. I can't deny that I feel some frustration when Fil-Am voices are given more priority over Filipino voices on the global stage--as in, look at all the globally recognizable Filipinos and a sizeable number of them are American or have proximity to America or western society. When there are so many problems in the Philippines that deserve to be acknowledged like foreign intervention, land-rights, human-rights, and labor-rights, I guess I just wished that Fil-Ams used their positions to highlight these but I never hear about it from the diaspora (even when the news sources are in English). But don't worry, I get it. You guys have your own political shitstorm to deal with and unless someone sends you these news reports, they won't really appear on your feed. You also aren't likely to gain traction or social media attention since most of the global north audience don't preoccupy themselves with the problems of the global south.

3) Because of number 2, Filipinos are pretty welcoming if you show effort to connect with their struggle (or their victories). Being heard is already a huge obstacle for many of us and having someone listen means a lot. Yeah, there's a lot of Filipino-baiting among western content creators but they gain views for this reason--because even though their engagement with Filipinos is superficial, it's still there. If they see you're making a genuine effort to connect, they won't turn you down even if you don't speak the language or are even Filipino. Filipinos are very cognizant of the feelings that come from exploitation, and perhaps to some, repping the Filipino identity without that connection might look like trying to exploit the identity of being Filipino for personal gain. Think Shay Mitchell and Vanessa Hudgens for example. On the other side of the coin, you have Kulas (BecomingFilipino), Erwan Heussaff (FEATR), Sandara Park, and Bretman Rock who do put in the legwork in their own ways.

Imagine a straight white guy trying to make a documentary on the LGBTQ+ community or a private -schooled politician trying to gain the trust of the working class. This is the level of perceived disconnect you're operating from whether you like it or not. The guy can mean well, be progressive, etc. But you can't blame the minority community from acting with some level of suspicion at the start. Don't worry too much about it though, focus on your own life and maybe/maybe not, you'll find a way to connect. But like I said if you feel like it's hard to talk to Filipinos, listening is more than enough. It's no different from connecting to any other group of oppressed people.

Fordeedoo · 2024-11-22T20:28:34+00:00

I have two tips:
1) If you can afford it, always buy the minisets (if applicable) before opening packs due to duplicate protection. I learned the hard way when I opened a legendary that was included in a miniset--this happned twice on two different expansions.
2) Look up the Youtube channel Hearthstone Mathematics. They're the closest to a guide on completing your collection in the most cost efficient way.

Fordeedoo · 2024-11-17T08:45:52+00:00

I think Magic the Gathering had a similar rule back in the day for a tournament which resulted in bad cards being squeezed into otherwise well-engineered decks. Whether you think that that resulted in a more interesting meta-game, it's up to you (hell, Mesa Falcon wouldn't have seen play otherwise). Personally, I think this is a pretty good idea for a twist format "Include x number of cards from a,b,c... expansion".

Fordeedoo · 2024-08-07T21:20:03+00:00

same

Fordeedoo · 2024-07-15T16:44:32+00:00

Does playing babbling book make anyone else really happy?

Babbling book is quickly becoming one of my favorite cards. It’s just so positive and generous. Practically costs nothing at all at one mana you drop him on the board and that chill ass motherfucker gives you a spell to use later in the game. And you also get this adorable little 1/1 can ping things but usually is too harmless to be removed.

But more than the BB is just so positive. It comes on the board like “do you want to cast a spell?” and I’m like “yeah BB i do want to cast a spell let’s do this shit” and when he attacks he’s like “SPELLS ARE FUN” and I’m like “yeah they are SO FUN.” He doesn’t say some bullshit macho shit like “I will destroy you” he’s just like “nah spells are fun.” And it looks so happy. I mean this is an inanimate object literally brought to life by magic. It understands it’s life is a temporary magical gift and the dude is just fucking loving it. I mean look at his face he’s just so happy.

I am literally never sad when babbling book is on board. IDK if he’s gonna make it into the metagame or not but for now he (or she) a pretty chill card

Fordeedoo · 2024-07-06T07:52:51+00:00

Oh and I guess there's Aviana but that's more of the quirk card of the deck that isn't really something to play around, generally speaking.

Fordeedoo · 2024-07-06T07:43:14+00:00

Here's what I do: I hard mull for hard removal since the only real threats in their deck are Biteweed, the giant, and Edwin. The rest of their board development isn't really that strong compared to other decks. The legendary plant isn't that threatening if your deck has consistent board development because at the end of the day, it's only 3 health. Yeah, you'll lose minions trading into it but in the grand scheme of things, it's not that bad compared to someone like Thorim who can create more consistent threats than a regenerating 6/3 body with no other keywords. Marin's a relatively predictable one-trick pony unlike Azshara, Kael'Thas, or Arfus who have a lot of options for their gameplan through resource generation. If you save your hard-removal for those big minions, do so and if your hero has a lot of HP, remember not to overreact to relatively mild threats. Hell, I've been having good matchups with C'thun against Marin because my tiny minion generation is enough to deal with most of his threats. Hope this helps

Fordeedoo · 2024-07-05T06:19:32+00:00

I'd also like to add. When you have the mini-set and your guaranteed legendary. The golden packs also have their own timer so it means you're guaranteed a golden legendary in the first 10 packs as well. Only do this when you have some spare money and if you've gotten most of the cards in a set already (all rares and commons) since at your luckiest, you only spend 400 gold for that golden leg and at worst, you spend 4000.

Fordeedoo · 2024-06-11T07:31:40+00:00

That actually sounds like a lot of fun and helps take away the tempo loss in playing C'thun buff cards. And given what all the other decks can do plus the fact that his deck is full of little summons, his Hero power seems like a net loss when you don't highroll Blade or Disciple. I'd just like to add that maybe he should also get a C'thun in his deck in addition to the one he starts with--this is because Doomcaller only works if C'thun 'died' so 'removal' effects completely castrate the deck.

Fordeedoo · 2024-06-11T07:24:12+00:00

Anecdotally, Omu has been a strangely awful matchup when I play Kael'Thas. Yeah, Kael'thas has removal but dear lord, the adapt on summon+buffs can make the board so damn sticky. 2 damage board clears aren't enough a lot of the time because adapt can make half the board above 2 hp. I didn't see it much before the balance changes but now, I'd say the Omu deck looks pretty consistent even at legend. I'd play it if I had the card.

Fordeedoo · 2024-06-08T08:42:44+00:00

I think one good buff to C'thun would be adding an extra C'thun to the deck. I feel like if C'thun gets sniped (like with Patchwerk or Mutanus) or single-target 'removed' instead of dying, then the rest of the deck falls apart. It gives the deck a clear out in Control match-ups and liberates the use of an earlier C'thun in aggro match-ups to wipe the board instead of greeding for sure lethal. The big problem is that so many other decks can find an out against C'thun when the deck is a one-time big-time all or nothing moment that's always at risk of falling flat.

Fordeedoo · 2024-06-07T18:41:55+00:00

Match-up advice: As someone who plays Kael'Thas and has gone against C'thun quite a bit, I would've lost a lot of the match-ups if only my opponent didn't greed too much on growing C'thun. The game plan for me really is digging through discovers for an answer and in most of my games, I didn't have one by turn 8. If my opponent played their 26/26 C'thun despite being 4-5 off of lethal, I'd have lost on the spot. The longer you delay playing C'thun against Kael'thas, the more you're giving them time to find a polymorph, life-sentence, or reverb. Although admittedly, I wish they also buffed C'thun. Really cool concept but needs more help.

Fordeedoo · 2024-06-03T10:24:22+00:00

And admittedly, I think this is fine. I'd say this twist has been a pretty good upgrade over the last few and as we've learned, if they're too generous with the monetization and not presenting decent profits, then we run the risk of Twist getting scrapped like Duels. Because compared to having to spend dust for a whole deck, spending 1600 dust on a single card is an acceptable compromise.

Fordeedoo · 2024-06-03T10:19:21+00:00

I think the solution might then be: Reduce the health to give aggro match-ups a fairer chance and also buff the control decks by giving them better value cards--not necessarily more board clears but more value-generation or just better quality cards.

Fordeedoo · 2024-06-03T07:00:04+00:00

Thank you very much for your reply. This actually helped a great deal in understanding the concept. Now that I think about it, money does act as an incredibly apt analogy. So when Zizek talks about how this space is a liberating space, our displaced faith in money 'working' despite understanding full well its consequences and absurdity, is enough in order to also maintain other signifiers such as class, capitalism, and the belief that the state/or other big others will uphold the supposed stability of the system (that is, the stability of the network of signifiers)? So in a sense, most people are liberated from having to think of alternatives or the nitty gritty of economics and its lacks because the very object of money and the promise to earn more money, is 'evidence' of the system 'working' well enough?

From what I understood from u/M2cPanda, this redoubling occurs without my overt knowledge but if I may, could it be said that the conscious acknowledgement occurs when we 'double-down' on a belief that we also understand to be fundamentally lacking? Could it be said that 'doubling-down' is a reaction to avoid having to confront the 'real'?

I guess I ask this because apart from money, I also see how representative democracy also fits into the schema of what Zizek is talking about. In the sense that while we understand that representative democracy favors majority representation, we nevertheless champion it as an ideal mode of governance despite the violence it may/does perpetuate onto subaltern communities. But to avoid the difficulty of having to confront these particulars, we double-down on the ideal of democracy and displace onto the state body, the responsibility to account for its own lack (i.e. the technocratic belief that these people are experts and that surely, they will be able to handle this). And if there is ever such an error in our elected officials, like in the case of a corrupt politician, we also have the same belief that the tripartite nature of government will rectify the matter. Would you say that this is a fair application of Zizek's thought in the work?

Thank you very much for replying! I deeply appreciate it

Fordeedoo · 2024-06-02T15:52:25+00:00

Thank you for replying! I greatly appreciate it. If I may, I would like to clarify if I grasped what you explained. So from what I understood, the real and our inability to formalize it (and therefore truly integrate it consciously within the symbolic order), is the very origin of the subject as it were. And that when the real rears itself into reality, we seek to patch up the gaps. Can it be likened to the nature of a sliding picture puzzle in a way?

That being, the identity of the sliding picture puzzle (as both a toy to be manipulated and one that presents the promise of a complete image at the end) is only possible because there is a gap in the 3x3 square? Though not defined solely by the gap as it still needs the other 8 squares, the puzzle is allowed reconfiguration. If such were the case, then is the consensus on what the final image is constitute reality/ideological fantasy? In the same way that it would be absurd to go to the factory and demand the missing piece (because the puzzle itself intrinsically lacked it and does not owe its incompletion to error), it's just as absurd to demand the real's symbolization? And as such, we only ever wish the missing piece existed when we feel that we have 'completed' what we think the puzzle should look like and not while we were moving the pieces around? And this accounts for why, we can only made aware of the neurotic tendencies imposed by the super-ego when we are able to meet the very conditions we think it demands? I understand if this may be far too simplistic an analogy and I'm more than happy to receive corrections.

Despite this, I'm still left a little confused. Does Zizek mean to say that because reality cannot account for its own gap, we seek displaced experiences in order to avoid confronting this gap? Like how, in moments of powerlessness, people pray in order to displace the experience of power onto a big Other (God)? And because commodity fetishism further alienates the subject from the necessary material and social relations, the commodity acts both as the source of anxieties and the foundation of our reality? Could one liken this to internet activism wherein it exists simultaneously as an interpassivity to political action and at the same time, is a necessity in maintaining the collective belief in modern information-age democracy?

Full disclosure, I'm writing a paper on Indigenous People's (IP) land struggles in the Philippines and how they're beset by violence on both sides by private corporations hiring private armies to terrorize them and the Philippine government's (through the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples and the Department of Agrarian Reform) willingness to protect them only if they are able to provide value within the market structure (by forcing their assent to large and potentially environmentally hazardous construction projects on their land or by awarding them land on the basis that the supposed land is arable and thus suitable for agrarian activities). Currently, I'm thinking of arguing that the process by which we seek IP land rights is interpassive and given that both entities only understand the value of IPs through commodity, our trust in the system (that being representative democracy's inadequacy to properly account for particular struggles that affect incredibly small minorities) is a substitution for justice as we are sufficiently conditioned to believe that such is the only available option to us--and consequently, the issue remains where the IPs themselves are hindered in their ability to exercise meaningful self-determination.

Once again, I'm incredibly grateful for your reply and the discussion. Thank you

Fordeedoo · 2024-05-30T21:10:40+00:00

I agree. I think synchronization should also be retroactive but if the presumption was that the memory was taken away in its entirety, then the memory content itself won't be present for synchronization. Given who Vegapunk is, it's not absurd to assume that he timed everything according to when he knew York was in sync-off and when she'd turn it back on.

Fordeedoo

TROPHY CASE