Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "The Vile Eye" channel.

  1. As to why he killed Bridget von Hammersmark I think it was out of genuine anger over her betrayal of the fatherland. It takes no stretch of the imagination to imagine an evil narcissist who is willing to betray the fatherland himself indignantly punishing someone else who would do the same thing. Sociopathic narcissists always make exceptions for their own behavior.
    9
  2. Malicious intent isn’t limited to sadism as far as I’m concerned
    7
  3. It still sounds like you’re trying to excuse evil by saying it’s not really evil unless it’s absolute depravity. to be clear, Adolph Eichmann was evil and anyone who has a problem seeing that has a problem telling the difference between good and evil.
    7
  4.  @nonhumanperson9362  I have. I just don’t agree that that means you excuse/normalize those who are evil. Why do people do such things? Because they have no moral compass, and it’s easier allows them to justify their own evil acts more easily. But being realistic about what people can do doesn’t mean that you have to be relativistic in a moral sense and condone evil.
    7
  5. Perhaps but the subtlety of pork fat used in the pastry may be a bit over thinking it. If he had ordered her ham I think it might be real clear. But I am not sure this is evidence of suspicion just to order strudel.
    6
  6. Someone who is selfish, greedy, or misguided to the point that they intentionally take human life, even if they are redeemable are evil in my book. if there are those who are irredeemably evil, and those who are evil, but redeemable the latter are still evil.
    6
  7.  @nonhumanperson9362  “Survival”? As if choosing to kill innocent people is not evil if it’s for survival? do you know people can appreciate that such choices can be made, while the person is still redeemable and are therefore not the most depraved, without relieving them of responsibility for evil. It might mitigate the depth of their evil, but they’re still evil.
    5
  8.  @tokathu  never denied that. i’m just saying it’s all true evil. It doesn’t fall short of outright evil simply because it’s not sadistic.
    4
  9. Or maybe he has suspicions about who she is but is testing to see if his suspicions are correct
    3
  10. If they had cream, they also had butter
    2
  11. With all do respect you have a definition of evil that is so narrow that it’s limited to sadists. Intentionally doing anything avoidable that causes great harm even if you don’t derive pleasure from it makes you evil. Besides, Marsellus does reveal himself to be a sadist.
    2
  12. There can be no doubt that the Vietcong were using the village. There’s no way they would’ve had foreign made machine guns and all that rice otherwise. The question is were the Vietcong forcing them to help or were they actively involved in supporting the Vietcong? That’s often difficult to determine. But the actions that the villagers suggests that they were forced to help the VC. And you don’t say no to the VC anymore than you do to the Americans.
    2
  13. Your analysis can be interesting, but perhaps you should examine yourself to question your motives for defending evil.
    2
  14. Wolves don’t sustain themselves by corrupting others. That’s something only Satan does. I’m definitely in the camp that believes that Malvo is Satan in human form
    1
  15. I disagree with the idea that there’s anything morally redeeming in the actions of Eldon Tyrell. I don’t think that there’s any moral difference between enslaving androids that are capable of of humanity and enslaving actual humans. Either way you’re oppressing and using someone for your own benefit. Slavery is slavery. It’s never justifiable. And it’s dangerous to our humanity to ever say otherwise. If we learn nothing else as a species we must learn that.
    1
  16. Perhaps he’s suspected she might be Shoshana but didn’t know for sure
    1
  17. There are plenty of instances in the years immediately following the ratification of the second amendment where laws were passed restricting where people could possess firearms. So the assertion that the second amendment provides a protection of unlimited carry of firearms anywhere has no historical basis. The banning of firearms in towns was a real and common occurrence in late 19th century America not just in the movies.
    1
  18.  @bigchungus8287  I would’ve liked to have seen what happened when he was handed over to the OSS by the surviving basterds, his white face covered in blood.
    1
  19. Sorry but Roy isn’t an evil character. Not all of his actions were morally pristine. But on balance, he was a hero.
    1
  20. He’s certainly an evil man and very good at manipulating people. I’m not sure he’s quite a master manipulator or planner because in the end he is undone by an idealistic hero who is young, inexperienced and naïve. And I wouldn’t call him fearless either because when put in a situation where he realizes he’s powerless at the end by this hero he’s not just fearful: he’s terrified and unglued. I do think that people walk away from him at the end because they know he’s already dead, Not out of fear. There’s clearly nothing to be afraid of from this impotent sputtering and panicked man at that point.
    1
  21.  @marcmohammed2222  Well he acts like someone eager to please and up to a point willing to do what he’s told even when it’s obviously wrong. But for a rookie he demonstrates remarkable resilience fortitude and tenacity. He also proves to be incorruptible once he realizes that he’s in a battle with evil. I’m gonna go with the theory that he is a true rookie but one destined for greatness: Audie Murphy. In other words Alonzo made the worst possible choice for a rookie patsy.
    1
  22.  @nonhumanperson9362  You sound lazy, relativistic and foolish, not wise and experienced.
    1