Sith

ZealotX wrote: I probably take more of a hardline against Sith Philosophy.

I would sum it up by saying it is the focus on the individual self even at the detriment of the collective whole.

Now I can't claim to know much about the Sith philosophy however it does sound much like the Anton LaVey path of Satanism. Which is not evil or detrimental.

However, my response is more to do with the making selfishness out to be evil and something that you do not have to have. I believe such a concept is flat out false. To be selfish is according to Merriam-Webster is: 1.concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2.arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
Link

These are not things bad in and of themselves. I will give you two example. I am someone that trains with firearms regularly and carries one daily. If a situation ever arose where I had to stop someone attempting to murder others I have to put my own safety first and those around me second. Why? Because if I am not careful with my own life and putting it over that of those around me I might die. And if I am the only armed defender in the area that means not only are the people around me now at the mercy of someone that I might have otherwise stopped. But that person might now be armed with my weapon. In short not being selfish about my wellbeing could cause more death than being selfish would.

The second situation is about your time and resources. You have to put your own health and even comfort above others. You cannot pour from an empty pot. Your time, energy, and resources are not infinite and if you fail to hold a reserve even at the cost of others you will burn out or be unable to care for yourself or others if hard times come. Basically, selfishness is a self-preservation tool that like any tool can be abused. But just because someone can use a hammer foolishly or even commit evil with a hammer it does not mean we toss out our hammers.

@Arisaig

I understand what you're saying. I addressed this in part.

The Jedi have a strong drive towards inclusion, incorporation, harmony, etc. They had reasons not to accept Anakin and had they not Anakin would not have had the power to then be seen as a viable tool of a darker, more insidious person. It is in our nature to be accepting and tolerant; even to our very detriment. I'm not saying change anything. You can't. By changing we would simply become more like the thing we were trying to get rid of. So no, I'm not trying to shoo people away or exclude them from participating on the site.

But with all due respect, I'm also not going to pretend that Sith "aren't really" Sith especially when they claim to be. If the person is "not really" a Sith then they should stop calling themselves that. Taking on an identity is dangerous. You become more like whatever you identify as. And if you water down the Sith identity people take on Sith values without equating them to anything detrimental. How long did it take before the Jedi recognized Sidious for what he was? They were part of the same system and co-existed for over a decade. It is part of the Sith nature to hide their presence amongst others. The first thing Sidious did with Anakin was to say that the dark side "wasn't really" bad (paraphrasing) to reduce the moral implications of making that choice. By the time Anakin was lured to the Dark Side he thought he was doing it for good. That is the deception of the Sith.

You quoted "A Je'daii" needs darkness and light. To me, this constitutes a Sith teaching because of the word "need". I would say a Jedi accepts that "there is" darkness and light. Without the two there is no balance, that is true. But the identity of the Jedi is NOT simply "good" and the Sith is not simply "bad". That view would be false and very dangerous. Many people think this because they do not yet understand duality. We both have dualistic natures. You cannot break down that duality into Jedi vs Sith. Evil is good for the individual doing it. A bank robber might "need" money to support his family. Robbing the bank is bad for the bank but good for the thief's family. And even if our money is taken the bank is insured and so the damage is spread out to the tax payers. But what would happen if bank robbery became normalized behavior? How much could the tax payers take before all the robbing was unsustainable?

I would say whoever first sparked the idea that the Sith here just have a different philosophy (and no I don't know what that is except what I responded to) is like Qui Gon Jinn. Was he a bad guy? No. Was he foolish? Not at all. He saw the potential of Anakin but not his future. The truth is that people are not labels. We don't know what will happen with people thinking for themselves. However, that doesn't mean that the Sith identity should shift or bend to match what people want to make it. What I accept is that people on or coming to this site want to have their own definitions of what "Sith" means. In my mind however, their definition doesn't affect mine. The fact that they're choosing the same word means they're trying change "it" to fit them instead of "it" changing them. But that.... in my humble opinion... is indicative of the arrogant thinking of a Sith. I accept that Sith in the movies are cool and there are aspects of the "individuals" that are alluring. But master Yoda would say that the dark side is seductive. But it seduces people, not the other way around.

ZealotX wrote: The first thing Sidious did with Anakin was to say that the dark side "wasn't really" bad...

Ignoring for the moment that you are quoting movie plots to describe real life, Many here do not believe "The Dark Side" of the Force is bad. In fact, light or dark, neither are good or bad. The duality that is described here is a false dichotomy. The force does not have "sides" and we are not creatures of "duality". The force is just energy, neither good nor bad. It is in what we do with that energy that matters. In this, emotions are the same way. No emotion can be characterized as good or bad. They are just emotions and anger and hate are just as necessary and capable of being used for positive benefit as benevolence and love. Once again, it is not the emotion that defines its place on some false scale of contrasts, its the way we utilize them. So given these concepts, Sith can be just as positive a force as Jedi.

ZealotX wrote: I probably take more of a hardline against Sith Philosophy.

I would sum it up by saying it is the focus on the individual self even at the detriment of the collective whole.

MadHatter wrote: Now I can't claim to know much about the Sith philosophy however it does sound much like the Anton LaVey path of Satanism. Which is not evil or detrimental.

What is Evil? I say satanism IS evil. I'm familiar with Anton LaVey and the church of Satan. However, there seems to be a... disagreement about what evil is. Evil is often shown in monstrous forms because it is an "exaggeration" of the inner desires or darkness of humanity. It is extreme by nature. So if you think about Hitler who is constantly used as an example of evil, what he did could objectively be called evil and yet, to him and all the people who supported him and all the people who carried out the orders, it... was.... "good". There are parts in the bible where the Israelites acted evil and it isn't depicted as evil because the behavior was "normalized". Everybody had some type of slavery. And whether it was beneficial to the slave or not wasn't as important as the fact that it was "good"/beneficial to the slaver owner. Now in hindsight even the Luciferian can look back and disagree with many of these past actions. But without foresight we're just all doing evil in different ways that future generations will judge. Be careful of anyone saying that their religion isn't detrimental. There's a difference between reality and the propaganda used to justify ourselves. Of all the names that one could use, why use the term Satan? In Hebrew haSatan means "the adversary". Adversaries are, by definition, detrimental.{/quote]

MadHatter wrote: However, my response is more to do with the making selfishness out to be evil and something that you do not have to have. I believe such a concept is flat out false. To be selfish is according to Merriam-Webster is: 1.concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2.arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
Link

These are not things bad in and of themselves. I will give you two example. I am someone that trains with firearms regularly and carries one daily. If a situation ever arose where I had to stop someone attempting to murder others I have to put my own safety first and those around me second. Why? Because if I am not careful with my own life and putting it over that of those around me I might die. And if I am the only armed defender in the area that means not only are the people around me now at the mercy of someone that I might have otherwise stopped. But that person might now be armed with my weapon. In short not being selfish about my wellbeing could cause more death than being selfish would.

Actually, they are bad because there is a false equivalence going on here. What's NOT bad is to be concerned about your self. What's NOT bad is seeking your own advantage, pleasure, or well-being. What's NOT bad is concern for your own welfare. Where it's NOT good is when it is "excessive" or "exclusive"; when you consider your own wants and desires and needs without any consideration of others. In your firearms example you're NOT being selfish at all because you said "BECAUSE [motive] if I am not careful with my own life ... people around me now at the mercy of someone that I might have otherwise stopped". So in the larger context your explanation is the same as a mother on a plane being told to put the mask on herself FIRST. That's not selfishness. That is a prerequisite for saving others. The difference is that someone who is selfish wouldn't care who got hurt and wouldn't be trying to save anyone. They would "shoot first and ask questions later" to preserve their own lives. If other lives were saved it would only be incidental. It is your intent that defines your actions. What you described is what a caring person should do because increasing the odds for yourself increases the odds of survival for those you're trying to protect.

MadHatter wrote: The second situation is about your time and resources. You have to put your own health and even comfort above others. You cannot pour from an empty pot. Your time, energy, and resources are not infinite and if you fail to hold a reserve even at the cost of others you will burn out or be unable to care for yourself or others if hard times come. Basically, selfishness is a self-preservation tool that like any tool can be abused. But just because someone can use a hammer foolishly or even commit evil with a hammer it does not mean we toss out our hammers.

Same thing here. I'm currently helping someone financially and it is extremely inconvenient and at times very frustrating. At the same time I have to balance my desire to help this person with limitations and restrictions.... with rules... so that I actually have something to give and so that giving doesn't become so unsustainable that the person I'm helping doesn't simply end up in the same situation they were in. It's not being selfish. It's being wise. I accept that different people have their own interpretations of good and evil but what I'm saying is that the Jedi were never some foolish group of people with no concept of self-preservation. So we can't concede a false premise that self-preservation or having your own will and desires is somehow "Sith". It's not. It's normal. What would be "Sith" would be doing this excessively or exclusively without regard for others. The hammer isn't Jedi or Sith. It's just a hammer. Just like a light saber isn't somehow morally conscious of its use. And Jedi don't go around tickling bad guys with feathers. So again, it's the "abuse" or extremity that makes it evil.

The Force is much like a coin. It has two sides, which we can define as "Light" and "Dark". You cannot spend just one side of a coin, so you must embrace both to be effective.

Real life Sith, I find, are just more ambitious. Take a look at their code (below). This is one translation of their code.



Notice, there is nothing evil about it. It thrives off amibition and personal betterment, and doing all this through the Force. The Jedi code is the same, if not more restricitive. We cannot write off the merits of the Sith code, but we can choose not to follow it. This is a choice given to the individual.

ZealotX wrote: What is Evil? I say Satanism IS evil.

There is ignorance, yet there is Knowledge. Perhaps do more research into this before making such a statement. (Only a Sith deals in absolutes, if we wish to continue down the cinematic narrative)

ZealotX to label an entire religion evil is not something I ill ever be ok with. Satanism in and of itself as practiced by LaVey is in no way evil. If you are only concerned with taking care of yourself that does not make you evil. Evil has a definition which is to be profoundly immoral. to arise from bad character or causing harm. Looking out for number one in and of itself does not meet any of those things.

To look out for only yourself does not somehow automatically make you a terrible person. Its not how I might act but that does not mean my judgement is the end all be all. Remember " Only a Sith deals absolutes"

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The first thing Sidious did with Anakin was to say that the dark side "wasn't really" bad...

Ignoring for the moment that you are quoting movie plots to describe real life, Many here do not believe "The Dark Side" of the Force is bad. In fact, light or dark, neither are good or bad. The duality that is described here is a false dichotomy. The force does not have "sides" and we are not creatures of "duality". The force is just energy, neither good nor bad. It is in what we do with that energy that matters. In this, emotions are the same way. No emotion can be characterized as good or bad. They are just emotions and anger and hate are just as necessary and capable of being used for positive benefit as benevolence and love. Once again, it is not the emotion that defines its place on some false scale of contrasts, its the way we utilize them. So given these concepts, Sith can be just as positive a force as Jedi.

Firstly, the mythology of the Star Wars movie plots are based on real life just like most forms of art are an expression.

Secondly, I started talking on the issue by saying "I". So I'm representing my own view of all Sith with deference to the views of others.

I didn't say the "Dark Side" of the Force is bad. The Force is like a battery. Every battery has a positive pole and a negative pole. Duality is polarity. However, we're talking about Sith and Jedi here. There is a distinction between the two that is no equivalent to the duality of the force. If it were not so there would be no such thing as a grey or dark Jedi. You would simply be something else if you were grey and you would be Sith instead of dark.

Sith teach full commitment to the Dark Side. But there really is no "dark side of the force" only a dark side of the force USER. There are tons of arguments about this. It is what it is.

Any true Sith will not walk the line between the dark and the light because it limits their power. They realize greater power through full commitment. Darth Bane is an excellent book to understand Sith philosophy.

Emotions are also like the force. They are points along a scale/range of feeling. Your reaction to someone dying... or your reaction to someone being enslaved... could be very negative and understandably so. However, the Jedi discipline is to control emotion so that thinking can be done with a clear mind; allowing clear actions that serve the greater good instead of the tendency of emotionalism to "feel better". Can an action be taken that makes you feel better AND accomplishes the greater good? Yes. But that is incidental.

A Sith might want to rule the world because they BELIEVE/FEEL that by doing so it would bring peace and therefore be ultimately beneficial to the greatest number of people.

But what happens when good people don't want to be forced into your agenda? What happens when there are rebels? How many millions of people need to die on your quest for peace? And is that conflict peaceful or is it simply more of the same? Sith teaching ALWAYS sounds good (to someone). Sith philosophy is never overtly evil or evil by design. It is simply evil in "practice". Jedi is a "way of life" or a "way of using these concepts". Sith is also a "way of life(although it leads to death)" or a "way of using these concepts".

If you call hate or any other emotion a "sith" thing IMHO you lose the identity of what really is Jedi and what really is Sith. Jedi have a different way of DEALING with hate. The way that Sith deal with hate is to use it for their own cause and in this way the RESULT is often destructive; either to the person, to others, or both.

ZealotX wrote: A Sith might want to rule the world because they BELIEVE/FEEL that by doing so it would bring peace and therefore be ultimately beneficial to the greatest number of people.

And that is for them to accomplish. If they do so, congrats upon them. There is nothing wrong with striving towards your dreams.

ZealotX wrote: Any true Sith will not walk the line between the dark and the light because it limits their power.

So anyone who doesn't strive for "unlimited power" is just a false Sith, a person claming the title for their own? We have quite a few here that have earned rank within the real life Sith community, and they didn't have to (I hope) kill to get there, or use force lightning.

In short, your definition of Sith is stuck in the mire of the SW mythos. Look around. There are many Sith here, some of which have commented on this very thread. Learn about them, maybe even from them.

MadHatter wrote: ZealotX to label an entire religion evil is not something I ill ever be ok with.

Well, he IS a Zealot, after all. And a HolySwordsman requires an Unholy enemy to fight.

@MadHatter

Go with me for a second.

Let's pretend (because that's what it would be) that there is a person on earth who considers themselves evil. Okay? Now, if this person created a religion for evil people like themselves would you then be okay with labeling it evil?

Again, what is evil? What makes someone a terrible person? Is it what they are? Or is it what they DO??

The COS is a cult that worships freedom. Is it evil? Freedom itself, as a concept is GOOD, not evil. However, freedom can be used to abuse others. Some people felt "free" to enslave others. If a person simply loves freedom would that make them special? or would that make them normal? Do you hate freedom? I love freedom too. Should I join the church of Satan? What is profoundly immoral about freedom?

In the bible (which I use only because of its relationship to Satan), Eden was the home of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. What did the serpent do that was evil? The serpent merely asked the woman what did God say about the fruit and then he said that if she ate the fruit her eyes would be opened and she would be like a god. So she ate the fruit and her eyes were opened and God said said they have become like us. So what it all a lie? Who was lying? Adam and Eve were "free" to eat from all the other trees. But they were not "free" to eat from this certain "set apart" one.

Evil has a reputation kind of like a boogeyman. It is intensely "bad" and "wrong". But if you lie, that's wrong. If you cheat on your taxes, that's wrong. The reputation evil has is an exaggeration of what evil actually is. And what it actually is never seems so bad because we look at it in small amounts. Do you know what creates cancer in the body? I believe it is what they call "free-radicals"... they are naturally occurring... not "bad" in and of themselves. But when there are too many what happens to your body? Death.

The same is true of the Sith whether we like it or not. In small doses they'll always seem fine. In fact, if I were to zealously debate this subject "excessively" people would turn against me and think I was the one who is bad. So therefore, how we define things has a lot to do with "excess" and imbalance. The reputation of evil is in reality an extreme state of imbalance. Which takes us back to the heart of your disagreement (at least my perception of it). To look out ONLY for yourself does make you a terrible person. But what you think of as "ONLY" isn't that. Do you drive?

Imagine driving a car and ONLY thinking about yourself. How long would it take before you crashed into someone? Imagine you're driving and you want to make a turn. There's a stop sign. Do you make the turn without consideration of traffic? No. It would threaten your own life to do so. It is a THREAT to your own life not to consider others. That's normal. It's not Sith philosophy to act normal. Sith philosophy would be to buy a semi truck so that if they want to turn everyone else will be forced to stop or crash into them. They seek power so that they don't have to stop. Stopping is playing by the rules. That's what normal people do. The rules are made to protect everyone. The sith is only looking out for himself so he doesn't care about someone else's rules. Those rules are chains and he wants the power so he can have the freedom to ignore them.

ZealotX wrote: Imagine driving a car and ONLY thinking about yourself. How long would it take before you crashed into someone? Imagine you're driving and you want to make a turn. There's a stop sign. Do you make the turn without consideration of traffic? No. It would threaten your own life to do so. It is a THREAT to your own life not to consider others. That's normal. It's not Sith philosophy to act normal. Sith philosophy would be to buy a semi truck so that if they want to turn everyone else will be forced to stop or crash into them. They seek power so that they don't have to stop. Stopping is playing by the rules. That's what normal people do. The rules are made to protect everyone. The sith is only looking out for himself so he doesn't care about someone else's rules. Those rules are chains and he wants the power so he can have the freedom to ignore them.

But that is the mentality of the cinematic Sith again. They can do things consequence free because, well, its a movie. In real life, if a person was to play against the rules without heeding the wellbeing of others, they are sociopaths or even straight deranged and will end up safely locked away in a padded room.

Sith, and even Satanism, is about personal power. Be that through working out, political influence, or even good old fashion knowledge, these paths both go after becoming the best version of themselves they can be, not just going after what you want all willy nilly worry free of consequences.

ZealotX I failed to type the world likely before the never be ok with. So I misspoke but in that rare cause you mentioned then yes.

However, everything you said shows that A) Sith and Satanists are not de facto evil. B.) we need an agreed upon definition of evil. C) that anything taken to extremes can be bad but its not guaranteed.

Because as Arisaig said no one can get away with ignoring the rules or abusing people forever. In the case of your driver with a semi truck, either the police or a mob would come looking for justice eventually. So no Satanist or Sith in their right mind would take such foolish actions. Its not rational.

you know i like this one:

e·vil
adjective
1. profoundly immoral and malevolent.

maybe it could be improved but i think that covers it fairly well

ZealotX wrote: I say satanism IS evil. ... Evil is often shown in monstrous forms because it is an "exaggeration" of the inner desires or darkness of humanity. It is extreme by nature.

The Satanic Bible wrote: People often mistake compulsion for indulgence, but there is a world of difference between the two. A compulsion is never created by indulging, but by not being able to indulge. By making something taboo, it only serves to intensify the desire. Everyone likes to do the things they have been told not to. "Forbidden fruits are sweetest."

Satanism is against compulsion, which is brought upon by too much restraint. There's nothing extreme about Satanism. What I quoted above exemplifies this point; that restraining brings intense desire upon the individual, thereby making them more likely to be compulsive, or to over-indulge. Satanism is a self-centered approach, but is not evil in the way that you described it. The reason it is seen as evil from an Abrahamic traditionalist's perspective is that the Abrahamic traditionalist goes through life abstaining from very much, while Satanists believe in indulgence over abstinence.

Arisaig wrote: The Force is much like a coin. It has two sides, which we can define as "Light" and "Dark". You cannot spend just one side of a coin, so you must embrace both to be effective.

Real life Sith, I find, are just more ambitious. Take a look at their code (below). This is one translation of their code.

Sith Code

Peace is a Lie, there is only passion.
Through Passion I gain strength.
Through Strength I gain power.
Through Power I gain victory.
Through victory my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

Notice, there is nothing evil about it. It thrives off amibition and personal betterment, and doing all this through the Force. The Jedi code is the same, if not more restricitive. We cannot write off the merits of the Sith code, but we can choose not to follow it. This is a choice given to the individual.

ZealotX wrote: What is Evil? I say Satanism IS evil.

There is ignorance, yet there is Knowledge. Perhaps do more research into this before making such a statement. (Only a Sith deals in absolutes, if we wish to continue down the cinematic narrative)

The irony is that you are quoting the mythos (Darth Bane) and saying that my perspective is stuck in the SW mythos. Embracing "what is" is different from the two philosophies of Jedi and Sith. The Sith do not embrace "what is". They seek to control. Let me give you a real world example of a true Sith.

Something unfortunate that happens to many people who are sexually abused is that they sometimes turn into abusers. Why does this happen? This happens because, during the abuse, the victim faces a lack of power. They were victimized and had their sense of power and control taken away. They want to get their sense of power back so they victimize someone else. This is cancerous behavior. You can demonize the actions of the person but to understand why they did it... they themselves aren't evil. They are reacting to evil that was done to them. But they're getting their own power back at the expense of someone else. That's not so different from the same actions of their abuser.

The Jedi code: Emotion, yet peace. Ignorance, yet knowledge. Passion, yet serenity. Chaos, yet harmony.

accepts emotion. The Sith code saying peace is a lie "I, I, I, I". It's saying there is imbalance and I'm going to be an agent of imbalance to imbalance things in my own favor. The "power" one needs to do this doesn't come from out of nothing. It comes from others. If it were not so Sith would be like monks on some mountain somewhere, content in their own abilities. But they never are. They're not interested in breaking your chains. They're only interested in breaking their own so that they have victory and they have power. This mindset is so unsustainable by a group that Sith cannot even exist as a large group without destroying themselves. So while I understand the Sith code I do not see it as meritorious. It is destructive. And I'm not talking about in SW mythos. I'm talking about in real life which the mythos is an expression of. If you haven't read Darth Bane, you really should. Because the series actually delves into and deals with the principles of the Sith code and although it does "sound good" to an individual, like Bane, who felt powerless or had their power taken away, it creates all the personalities that we see in the SW universe known as Sith. None them "do evil" purely for the sake of evil. All of them are living the principles of the Sith code because of their own self interest. And while you can say there are ranking members of the Sith here, the Sith NEVER seem to understand the result of their philosophy on themselves and the universe. In the mythology their eyes don't change color for no reason. That doesn't mean that they don't think their reasons are good. Of course they do. They wouldn't be Sith if they didn't. Calling them Sith, for me, is not a recognition of what they intend to be, but rather a recognition of the ideology that produces the same results we see in the mythos. Those who aren't producing those results is only because they lack the POWER needed to do so.

What do you see yourself as?

ZealotX wrote:

Arisaig wrote: The Force is much like a coin. It has two sides, which we can define as "Light" and "Dark". You cannot spend just one side of a coin, so you must embrace both to be effective.

Real life Sith, I find, are just more ambitious. Take a look at their code (below). This is one translation of their code.

Sith Code

Peace is a Lie, there is only passion.
Through Passion I gain strength.
Through Strength I gain power.
Through Power I gain victory.
Through victory my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

Notice, there is nothing evil about it. It thrives off amibition and personal betterment, and doing all this through the Force. The Jedi code is the same, if not more restricitive. We cannot write off the merits of the Sith code, but we can choose not to follow it. This is a choice given to the individual.

ZealotX wrote: What is Evil? I say Satanism IS evil.

There is ignorance, yet there is Knowledge. Perhaps do more research into this before making such a statement. (Only a Sith deals in absolutes, if we wish to continue down the cinematic narrative)

The irony is that you are quoting the mythos (Darth Bane) and saying that my perspective is stuck in the SW mythos.

Yes, I quote mythos. Lots of our saying are stuck in mythos, but this is also the Code of the real life Jedi.

Other mythos we rely upon is statements such as "May the Force be with you" or even the term Jedi. The difference between the SW mythos and our mythos is we are part of the real world, not the fiction.

Yellow eyes, acting without heed of others, and world domination are the stuff of the SW mythos.The real Sith are just like us, albeit with perhaps a different viewpoint.

MadHatter wrote: ZealotX I failed to type the world likely before the never be ok with. So I misspoke but in that rare cause you mentioned then yes.

However, everything you said shows that A) Sith and Satanists are not de facto evil. B.) we need an agreed upon definition of evil. C) that anything taken to extremes can be bad but its not guaranteed.

Because as Arisaig said no one can get away with ignoring the rules or abusing people forever. In the case of your driver with a semi truck, either the police or a mob would come looking for justice eventually. So no Satanist or Sith in their right mind would take such foolish actions. Its not rational.

I like your thinking.

A) - is the reason why I tried to (somewhere in what I wrote) differentiate between the PERSON and the ideology.
There is also a distinction between the INTENT of one's actions and the RESULT of one's actions.
C) If you do not have a regard for others in your actions your results will likely be more beneficial to yourself and much more potentially bad for someone else.

Do you agree that every action has an equal and opposite reaction? (or something to similar effect)

The police/mob response would be about as strong/powerful as the strength/power of the attack. If terrorists were running over people in cars it wouldn't have the power or response as running over people in a truck, no?

What I'm saying is someone with a true Sith mentality would be like a terrorist leader. They may want others to get hurt because it furthers their own agenda. Terrorists do not mind having the world's most powerful military after them. Are they in their right minds? They are. But they believe (feel) their power is greater than all the allied forces against them. Because they "feel" like they are in chains they seek the power to free themselves by any means necessary. True Sith will always do this because they don't care what the results are because if they gain enough power they will be insulated from the effects. Terrorists are seen as the ones on the front lines committing acts of terror, but these are zealots willing to die for their beliefs. Their beliefs are manipulated by people who want to be a part of a new world in which their beliefs/they/their people rule. They don't want to die. They want to be the ones to survive. They don't have to be afraid of the mob because they are insulated by the cannon fodder; by the pawns. A Sith fights through such people. They amass power to massive effect. If there are many they'll act like an army and conform to a hierarchy. When there is only one or two they'll hide their true intention and use whatever you think or believe in order to reach their own objectives. Being cautious of retribution and justice is fear. A true Sith obtains power so that they don't have to be afraid. Darth Sidious was probably the best example of this but don't underestimate the ability of humans to do the same exact thing in real life. It is indeed possible to hide one's intention, seek money, use money to buy power, use power to get more money, lie to people with a populist message and become president of the United States and have all the "good guys" working for you.

Other people cheat so many people and make so many millions of dollars in the process that, to them, it is worth the risk and they simply buy the best defense. Bernie Madoff wasn't in his right mind? Of course he was. His scam raked in around $65 BILLION dollars. THAT... to me... is a Sith (in practice). Was the risk not worth the reward?

If people want to play "Sith" then whatever. But if we're intellectually discussing what it means to be Sith, I'm free to have the perspective that makes the most sense to me, not whatever watered down ideology that lets people identify with something "cool". If they want to flex online but not really become senators and lobbyists, great! But to me, the tree is known by its fruit.

Arisaig wrote:
Yellow eyes, acting without heed of others, and world domination are the stuff of the SW mythos.The real Sith are just like us, albeit with perhaps a different viewpoint.

Awww come on...

You know these cosmetic changes are symbolic of internal character changes.

If you follow a Sith teaching that regards others, then you are simply modifying (or attempting to) Sith philosophy. I cannot agree with that any more than I could saying Darth Maul was a Jedi. It's like a man wanting to be a woman and so he puts on women's clothes. In reality he's still a man, but a man trying to change the definition of a woman in order to accommodate what he believes he is or wants to be.

Changing the definition of Sith, IMO, is like changing the definition of 'hot' so that its more lukewarm. Why? If that is the case what's hot? By taking the word Sith and stripping out whatever you don't like or want to be true about the Sith Code and what its results are, you're basically turning the Sith into Dark or Gray Jedi. It doesn't really change what Sith means. It only changes how YOU see the Sith. As an African American I know all about manipulating the English language. We do it on the level of an artform. But having a new definition of "hot" or "bad" doesn't change what's in the dictionary. And in some cases (like "do you overstand what I'm telling you?") its cute but it loses the value of the original definition. And that's my main issue with changing definition of the Sith and why I personally will not do it. The real Sith are NOT just like us. You just want them to be and thus agreeing to go along with a change in definition. And I'm not knocking you. I cannot impose my definition upon you. I'm simply stating my definition and responding to posts aimed at "correcting me". Everyone is free to have their own opinion. We don't have to agree. And let's be real... sometimes it's fun not to.

ps.

and as far as world domination... not all sith in SW mythology ever had the same ambitions. And there was a time when they were an army. Same philosophy. Different execution. Just because every sith isn't going to seek world domination doesn't make them as harmless as bunny rabbits. They don't train to fight just to defend themselves.

ZealotX your line of thinking is one that is dangerous. I ought to know as its one of my greatest weaknesses as a Jedi. You see your line of thinking draws hard lines in the sand and says my side good, their side bad. It then sets up a moral line that allows you to not only think higher of yourself than you should but to dismiss other thought processes as evil and those that follow them as such as well. Its risky and can lead to monstrous actions as bad or worse than the ones you set out to combat. Look at the crusades. Those that got involved did horrid things in the name of good. Look at Darth Tyrannus. AKA Count Dooku. He wanted to order the world and help those around him. Yet in the end, he became evil due to it. Neither side wanted to be selfish. But some of the worst acts of human history are committed for the good of the many.

You cannot no true Scotsman those that are Sith if they do not fit what you think a Sith ought to be. The fact is there are Sith groups out there and they do not fit what you claim a "true sith" to be and they still are Sith no matter how much you might try to disagree.

You know these cosmetic changes are symbolic of internal character changes.

I am aware of that. But my quoting of the Sith Code is not stating SW mythos as you said in a previous post.

I cannot agree with that any more than I could saying Darth Maul was a Jedi. It's like a man wanting to be a woman and so he puts on women's clothes. In reality he's still a man, but a man trying to change the definition of a woman in order to accommodate what he believes he is or wants to be.

A slippery slope, that is. We have many Jedi (and Sith) whom identify on different levels of the LGBTQ+ community and the gender spectrum.

Changing the definition of Sith, IMO, is like changing the definition of 'hot' so that its more lukewarm.

Yes, sometimes words have to be changed to fit the meaning of the day. The Sith of the movies are an extreme that can not and would not be tolerated in today's world. That's the long and the short of it. I am a Jedi of this world, but in the SW world, I'd be a nobody, because I cannot "use" the Force. So the definition changes to fit.