Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "Outrage after John Wayne's old interview resurfaces (2019)" video.

Not yet, but eventually they'll try it when they think they can get away with it. The concept of viewing people from the lense of the times they lived in is not known to "woke" people. And whatever negative trait people had, always vastly overshadows anything positive. It's just tiring. Perhaps one day they'll understand that praising someone for positive things they did doesn't equal agreeing with or supporting literally every single aspect of their lives.
10
@optimchs Morality is relative, I'm sorry to share it with you. Morality rises not from some higher understanding of "good", but from pure practical needs. If history went differently, our morality would be different too. That doesn't mean our morality is meaningless, however. It is important to see that our morality has great value in preventing past suffering from happening again. Moral rules like all humans having equal intrinsic value were borne of the suffering of protestants and catholics killing one another en masse hundreds of years ago. It's a random rule we made up out of nowhere, as a practical solution to end the suffering. Recognising that our morality is relative and merely the product of our history is not the same as saying it is meaningless or we shouldn't expand upon it. The truth is that morality is relative, the basis of morality is not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion. No authoritative "higher morality" exists. It's all a fluke. A fluke that has proven to be very important to us.
2
@optimchs I believe that too, but as I said before we believe that for one reason only: hundreds of years ago we made up this concept of an equal intrinsic value in humans that today is at the centre of our morality. I love this idea, but we all have to face the fact that it's a fluke and not a "fact". We made it up. By the same token we could have made up that all life on earth has intrinsic value (something I'm a proponent of by the way), but we didn't so we've created a society that destroys nature and kills animals at a huge scale just for economic gain. We think this is "good" anyway because of our human-centric morality. We could have made up that those who contribute more to the wellbeing of society are also more worth as humans. You name it. And you can't argue against any of these forms of morality. Slavery was normal and even morally correct for many years until the concept of equal human worth was created. There is no central uniform "correct" morality. It all depends on what you base your morality; keeping human suffering to a minimum? If so, is it okay to make some humans suffer for the greater good of society or not? Or perhaps morality based on a broader sense of ecological balance in nature, which includes not only the wellbeing of humans but also those of animals? What is "good"? It's subjective, this is the harsh truth of reality. I think we in the West have one of the best moral systems on the planet today, but it's not the only "correct" one. It's just the one we've developed more or less by chance throughout our history. Every time an event of great suffering occurred, we invented or expanded upon a moral rule to prevent it from happening again. I already explained where the idea of equal human worth came from. Another example of our morality changing is WW2, after which we drastically cranked up the value of human rights as a part of our morality, as well as the idea that diplomacy should always precede war. Before that, especially before WW1, war was considered normal and honourable to participate in and human rights barely existed.
2