MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Do all humans have dark sides to them?

Do all humans have dark sides to them?

As in, its not just de-facto maniacs, psychopaths, murderers, you know, or even ignorant people, meanies, bullies, assholes and dickheads (or those inclined towards assholism and dickheadry) etc etc etc, but many just plain ordinary folks? Yes?


IMO, the short answer is yes.


can i say 'of course'? humans are complex.


if you want a view of some nice 'dark side' thinking, check out trevor below...


Star Trek's The Enemy Within answered this question definitively. We all have a dark side. Liberals are almost entirely composed of a dark side. It dominates any good they possess.


The answer is YES we ALL have DARK SIDES to our personalities.

That's also why FREUD broke us down into 3 CATEGORIES:

1. ID (our DARK SIDE)

2. EGO (the mediator)

3. SUPEREGO (the supposedly more ENLIGHTENED SIDE of us)

And CONSERVATIVES (some who are also now considered to be DOMESTIC TERRORIST ever since Jan the 6th) also have MUCH DARKER SIDES to their NATURES than other groups do.



Exactly. If we keep calling conservatives 'domestic terrorists' interminably, eventually it will be considered inviolable fact.

At the same time, if we ignore all the violence by liberals, which is by far more than anyone else, it will be treated something akin to fantasy, like Bigfoot or Al Sharpton. Notice Antifa and BLM and the billions of dollars damage and the many lives lost, all thanks to liberals.

How many people shot in Chicago this year? A thousand? Almost all black, too. Not a peep out of BLM. They are too busy shopping for mansions. Gotta do something with all those donations and can't use it to help poor black neighborhoods. That would be too obvious. And a waste of money. Mansions aren't cheap, either.

Think of all those lives lost compared to the one named George Floyd. We are told Floyd's life mattered much more than all those other lives. More money in it for BLM, too. Would the NBA support BLM if it was revealed almost all those black lives murdered were by the hands of other black people? Course not!

Fortunately, the Ministry of Truth keeps track of that for us so we don't have to think at all. Which is convenient for liberals, since they tend to short out their neural pathways if they try to think for themselves and then end up joining Antifa.


Attempting to CHANGE the TOPIC from the INSURRECTION that took place to another completely different topic is a DIVERSIONARY process that falls under the heading of it being an ILLOGICAL FALLACY.

The FACT is TERRORIST is defined this way:

>>a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

And others who were trying to claim the VIOLENCE that took place that day was nothing more than a bunch of people "SIGHT SEEING" is FANTASY.

And Claiming they were HUGGING and KISSING the COPS that they BRUTALLY ATTACKED is also FANTASY.

And the False claim that LIBERALS are also more VIOLENT is also a FANTASY that has no basis in FACT.

Because you have also INCORRECTLY LUMPED this other movement in with a LIBERAL Category when it may also NOT APPLY.

Because each member of one group may also NOT hold the same VIEWS as another member of that same group.

In other words, you obviously also have no CONCEPTION of what the term LIBERAL stands for either.

liberalism | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica

Liberalism is the culmination of developments in Western society that produced a sense of the importance of human individuality, a liberation of the individual from complete subservience to the group, and a relaxation of the tight hold of custom, law, and authority. In this respect, liberalism stands for the emancipation of the individual.

Conservative vs Liberal - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

The epithet conservative or liberal is used to describe political and economic views and affiliations. The meaning of "conservative" or "liberal" could be different in different contexts - social, economic and political.

To put it another way, NOT all LIBERALS hold the same views, anymore than all CONSERVATIVES have the same views. Barbara BUSH, for instance, was also PRO CHOICE (not ANTI CHOICE the way her husband claimed to be). So it's a HUGE MISTAKE to assume that everyone with a PROGRESSIVE point of view supports all of the other views that you've mentioned.

You view situations way too simplistically, in terms of BLACK vs WHITE, when there are many other SHADES of GRAY that you OVER LOOK by LUMPING people together the way that you've done.


Liberals literally try to destroy the lives of people who think differently.


Sorry but your ongoing "DRUMBEAT of LIES" is falling on DEAF EARS.

On the contrary, LIBERALS were NOT the group that ATTACKED the COPS and shouted "HANG MIKE PENCE" on JAN the 6th.

But CONSERVATIVES also tried to FALSELY claim those who BRUTALLY BEAT UP the COPS that day were LIBERALS dressed up in MEGA HATS who were PRETENDING to be CONSERVATIVES.

And that was a LIE, just like the other LIES about the TERRORIST taking a SIGHT SEEING TOUR and HUGGING and KISSING the COPS. when that is NOT what happened at all.

LIBERALS are also NOT the group PACKING the COURTS or breaking the RULES to do it, and they are also NOT the ones passing VOTER RESTRICTION LAWS as a way to STOP others from being able to ELECT those who are not CONSERVATIVES.

In FACT there really is NO CONSERVATIVE PARTY anymore due to the way that it's MORPHED to become a CULT or the party of just ONE PERSONALITY now. NOTE the way they also didn't even have a PLATFORM at all, which also means they have NO VIEWS anymore. Because it's all about WINNING for them now, and other than being ANTI DEMOCRATIC (and AUTOCRATIC in NATURE) they also stand for NOTHING at all anymore other than the WORSHIP of their DEAR LEADER.


Liberals did attack the White House last year and injured more than 60 Secret Service agents and then set fire to a church nearby.

I guess that's not insurrection. LOL



INSURRECTION | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

>>insurrection definition: 1. an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control

Who was trying to take CONTROL of the WHITE HOUSE???

Who were they planning to replace the POTUS with once they removed him from POWER???

Because that's what the PLAN was on JAN 6th -- to replace BIDEN -- or PREVENT the person that MOST PEOPLE ELECTED from being able to take over CONTROL of the WHITE HOUSE from the UNELECTED POTUS.

See how "TELLING LIES" only ends up with you being "TIED UP in ILLOGICAL KNOTS" like this so that you end up looking like a TWISTED UP PRETZEL???


Liberals were trying to take over the White House. They also burned a police station to the ground and have tried to burn other federal buildings. And they have assaulted police all over the country. And killed them, too.
Does insurrection only count if the Dems can use it politically?


You still didn't ANSWER the QUESTIONS put forth:

Again, Who was trying to take CONTROL of the WHITE HOUSE???

Who were they planning to replace the POTUS with once they removed him from POWER???

Also NOTE πŸ“Œ the way I'm a member of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, but I didn't try to TAKE over or burn down anything.

So once again you continue to keep trying to INCORRECTLY LUMP me in with another GROUP that I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whatsoever to do with.

PLUS that other DOMESTIC TERRORIST (TIMMOTHY) also BOMBED and destroyed the FEDERAL BUILDING in OKLAHOMA (which killed several babies and other little innocent kids who were there in DAY CARE at the time).

So much for "the RIGHT to LIFE" claim that CONSERVATIVES also use to use for one of their SLOGANS (before they switched to yelling "HANG MIKE PENCE" back in JAN).

Anyhow, this conversation has also pretty much PROVEN that we definitely DO have a DARK SIDE to our NATURES.



I did answer it. LIBERALS attacked the White House and if not for the security they would have infiltrated it.

My question is how did you miss that? LOL



AGAIN for the 3RD TIME:

Who were "they" (whoever THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO BE) planning to replace the POTUS with once "they" removed him from POWER???

Because I also don't know ANY LIBERAL that was planning to REPLACE anyone at the WHITE HOUSE.



Liberals. If not for the security and the fencing, they would have tried to remove Trump. He is the executive branch. Heard of that?

Since you seem to be having so much trouble, here is the bottom line. Republicans were heavily critical of Antifa and BLM and 1/6 and all rioting. All of it is wrong to them.

Dems ignored all the rioting except for 1/6.

And how is a group of people, without any weapons, going to take over the government? LOL

This is why liberals are not serious.


AGAIN, WHO were they planning to REPLACE the previous POTUS with???

In order to be an INSURRECTION you need to TAKE CONTROL and then REPLACE someone with someone else.

BIDEN has REPLACED him, but BIDEN also did it LEGALLY by WINNING the ELECTION. And he's also NOT really a LIBERAL either (NOTE how he's also a CATHOLIC who answers to the POPE in ROME).

But then come still MORE LIES saying that the ELECTION was STOLEN when it WAS NOT.

And now we've got still MORE CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS counting the votes again in AZ, where they say they're looking for BAMBOO in the paper.

And you think this Q INFESTED group of LUNATICS are SERIOUS enough to pay attention to???

The FACT is this:

THE INSURRECTION that took place on JAN 6th still continues --- which is also why one of the CONSERVATIVE LEADERS (CHENEY) has been REPLACED now by a BOOT LICKER type -- who chose to WORSHIP the previous DEAR LEADER -- who is NO LONGER in POWER and CONTROL anymore.

Thus also resulting in whoever wanted CONTROL of the WHITE HOUSE achieving THEIR GOAL, whereas the PROUD BOYS and the other TERROIST did NOT achieve or accomplish their GOAL to "HANG MIKE PENCE" -- who was also a member of their OWN PARTY.

And that rope that they HUNG UP to HANG PENCE with was also a WEAPON. So were those TAZERS, FLAG POLES, TIES, and the BEAR SPRAY. Plus they also came DRESSED UP in RIOT GEAR as well (FACTS which will also be LAID OUT for you during the 911 type of INVESTIGATION that's coming up soon in CONGRESS).



Liberals. Did you sleepwalk through all the riots last year? Or all except one? LOL


Attempting to CHANGE the TOPIC from the INSURRECTION that took place to another completely different topic is a DIVERSIONARY process that falls under the heading of it being an ILLOGICAL FALLACY.

The FACT is TERRORIST is defined this way:

>>a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

And others who were trying to claim the VIOLENCE that took place that day was nothing more than a bunch of people "SIGHT SEEING" is FANTASY.

And Claiming they were HUGGING and KISSING the COPS that they BRUTALLY ATTACKED is also FANTASY.

Like was pointed out before ...

TRYING to CHANGE the TOPIC from the INSURRECTION to another completely different TOPIC ...

(one that also has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what took place on JAN the 6TH) ...

is a DIVERSIONARY process that results in the use of an ILLOGICAL FALLACY.

In other words, you also don't have the ABILITY to discuss the situation in a RATIONAL way.

And that's because YOU CHOSE to SLEEPWALK your way through the INSURRECTION that took place, by FALSELY CLAIMING that "NO WEAPONS" were used. which is still another BIG FAT LIE.

Which also means this entire CIRCULAR conversation with you has been a completely POINTLESS and USELESS waste of one's very precious TIME.



Here is it since you seem to have so much trouble understanding.

Liberals rioted and did billions in damage and you didn't care. Conservatives resoundingly condemned it. As we all should.

On ONE day, 1/6/21, there was rioting in Washington. Conservatives resoundingly condemned it. Finally liberals condemned rioting. ONE TIME. And only because they wanted to use it politically.

Those are the facts, simply stated.


AGAIN, you portray matters in terms of BLACK vs WHITE and continue to keep IGNORING how there are OTHER SHADES of GRAY involved (such as how that INSURRECTION that took place on JAN 6th still continues now in AZ where Q CONSPIRACY theorist who ATTACKED the CAPITAL that day are still counting the VOTES from back in NOVEMBER of LAST YEAR and with CHENEY being BOOTED OUT of her JOB this past week).

And BARBARA BUSH being PRO CHOICE when her hubby was ANTI CHOICE also illustrates how your too SIMPLISTIC CONSERVATIVE/LIBERAL claims have NO MERIT.

You LUMP people into CATEGORIES they don't belong, and FALSELY claim that you've STATED a FACT when you HAVE NOT.

A COLLEGE PROFESSOR was also having sex with HALF the members of his class.

Does that make him IMMORAL???

NO, because there were only 2 people in that CLASS, and one of him was HIS WIFE.

So that's also a FACT that can be SIMPLY STATED --- but it still also has NO VALIDITY -- other than to MISLEAD someone with MISINFORMATION --- the way that CONSERVATIVES are so fond of doing -- by CONSTANTLY SPEWING FORTH their PACK of LIES all of the time -- (the same way as you did during this conversation here with you).



Liberals rioted and looted throughout most of the past year. They attacked The White House. They burned a police station to the ground. They took over part of Seattle, which also included taking over a police station. Is that NOT insurrection? LOL Literally trying to start their own country with its own rules?
You will notice the Dems had NO PROBLEMS with any of these.
They put HUNDREDS of cops in the hospital during all this.
They called to defund the police and as a result murders and violent crimes have gone up and up. All predictable.
These are the ideas and actions of LIBERALS. No one else is that stupid. Only liberals are dumb enough to think getting rid of the police would make crime go down. LOL


Your LACK of LOGIC continues to be a MAJOR PROBLEM for you.


And You also keep REPEATING and FLINGNG FORTH FALLICIES as if doing so PROVES the INSURRECTION that took place on JAN the 6th did NOT.

IT DID take place, no matter how hard or how many times RIGHT WING NUTS try to claim that it did not, by saying: the "TERRORIST were on a TOUR" and were "HUGGING and KISSING" the COPS that they attacked, when they POKED OUT their EYES, and left them BLOODY after BEATING the CRAP out of them with FLAG POLES claiming to SUPPORT THEM.

That's the HEIGHT of HYPOCRACY. To carry a BLUE LIVES MATTER FLAG and then nearly BEAT the people that you claim to SUPPORT to DEATH with it.

And all of your RIDICULOUS use of "LOL's," where you keep "LAUGHING," as if this is all some kind of a BIG JOKE to you that we're discussing, is also PATHETIC as well.



Seattle is still part of the United States. Right? LOL

Your hypocrisy is tiresome. It's ok for liberals to riot and loot for months on end but not anyone else. At least conservatives are consistent in being critical of ALL violence.



The INSURRECTION that took place on JAN 6th was to OVER THROW the COUNTRY and our DEMOCRATIC way of life here in the US.

On the other hand, Taking over control of a block or two inside of a city is NOT TAKING OVER a city (much less an ENTIRE COUNTRY and way of life in it).

Because the COPS and the other POLITICIANS were also still in CONTROL and were NEVER in any DANGER of having that CONTROL taken away from them there in Seattle.

Thus the reason why YOUR ability to THINK in a RATIONAL enough manner is also EXTREMELY DEFECTIVE and is also almost NON EXISTENT.

And that assessment also pretty much SUMS UP the rest of what's left of the "so called" CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT as well, who also LACKS the ABILITY to ACCEPT the FACT that the ELECTION wasn't STOLEN from them.



With no weapons? Lol


i predict someday ryan seacrest will get in trouble for verbally abusing his girlfriend.



But not all humans let their dark sides control their decision-making.


Well according to Freud we all have an Id, Ego and Superego.

But I say only The Shadow knows.


So does that also mean that you're a follower of Carl Jung mike???

The former student of FREUD???

Didn't Carl also break it down to having an ANIMA and an ANIMUS???

Check out this entertaining explanation:

The Archetypes of the Anima and Animus - Appliedjung

Androgyny and The Contra SexualityThe Inner Life Or SoulArchetypesThe AnimusThe AnimaThe Journey to IndividuationCreating A Model Or Imago to Better Understand The Anima/AnimusConclusion'

One of the differentiating qualities which Jung identified between the animus and anima is that the animus has a multiplicity to it whereas the anima appears more in the singular. A good example of this is the fairytale of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs– who are all animus manifestations, psychologically speaking. Archetypal examples of the animus in various stages of development:

1. Tarzan , the unconscious primitive but physically vital masculine.

2. James Dean , Rebel without a Cause, undirected masculine energy, unconscious masculine but not unattractive.

James Bond , suave man of the world.

Steve Jobs or Richard Branson , integrated masculine, strong, creative, attractive but more androgynous.

Barak Obama ,integrated evolved masculine epitomising secular values in their most evolved form.

Mahatma Ghandior Nelson Mandela , the masculine which now brings the spiritual component into the world, transcending the mundane and secular but without denying it.

Christ , Mohammed , Buddha , the conscious spiritual incarnation of the masculine, completely transcending the earthiness of the unconscious masculine.


only when someone cuts me off in traffic.




Let me see now, humans evolved to survive on a planet that is basically a giant slaughterhouse. So I'm going to say yes. Kill or be killed.


Kill or be killed.

The SHRINKS would refer to that kind of a condition as having "TOO MUCH MASCULINE ENERGY."

The OLD TESTY GOD was the same way with his GOOFY "EYE for an EYE" stuff ...

and his SON also tried to over come that problem with his much more COMPASSIONATE "TURN the OTHER CHEEK and give them your CLOAK" kind of stuff ...

(which in essence is having more FEMININE ENERGY than the WAR-LIKE MASCULINE ENERGY -- which, imo, is also related to the ID SIDE of one's PERSONALITY).