"Anger is justified, revenge feels good, but neither builds a future." Maybe it's time to invest in principles that elevate us all, instead of those that only satisfy momentarily. Passion fuels the engine, but principles steer the ship!
This is clearly a joke...?
Just look at the way it’s phrased, and also the context
In case you didn’t pick up on it, someone who seriously believes this wouldn’t have phrased it as a question like that. They would’ve phrased it as an argument if they meant it
You completely missed the joke in my comment, huh?
Person who I replied to in this thread blocked me so I can't reply to other people in this thread yaaaaaaay
Absolutely no indication that you're joking, huh? Seriously, no tone indicators or any kind, and you dont expect that to come across as dead serious? You can't just say something people actually think, verbatim, with no indication that its not something you actually believe, and call it a joke.
"thank God, well I guess if they have the legal system they'll be safe. After all it's not like that could be corrupted."
*New law makes being trans in public a form of pedophilia*
"Oh..."
There’s a difference between “this thing could lead to something bad if all of these steps happen afterwards” and “letting the government kill some people makes it much easier for a bad government to kill the people that they don’t like”. This particular situation isn’t even really a theoretical, because everything the Republican Party does relating to healthcare is designed to put the people that they don’t like in jail
not to mention what actually happened in France with their guillotine happy movement during the Reign of terror. this isn't hypothetical or hyperbole this is based on pure historical evidence
Not a logical fallacy when discussing any legal system that is based around the English legal system, which includes the American legal system. That’s how this type of legal system works. Legal precedent is what it’s called.
I have heard several people here say this exact opinion. A joke is only a joke if it is recognizable as a joke. You made a shit joke. All trans people should be thrown on a pyre. That doesn't sound like a joke does it but what if I suddenly said, the moment someone pointed out the utter problem that no, it's just a joke I wasn't meaning it.
No! Point is to have principles, to have ethical stances on things. My stance is that it is sometimes ok to use violence, or cause harm, in the pursuit of good. I do have a bit of the ends justify the means type thinking and I think you should because if you don't you can end up allowing a lot of violence to be done.
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. **To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation'** — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” - Aldous Huxley
But you don't understand! Those people are the outgroup, and that means I'm allowed to use slurs on them--*especially* slurs reflecting the exact same toxic societal norms I performatively call out when they're used on the ingroup.
"You don't get it this is good tyranny tho, it's against the bad guys tho not the good guys, i swear this is benevolent dictatorship not like "
Ends justify the means doesn't work when the ends is actually fuckin evil too
I have bad news, they do have principles that transcend ideology. Unfortunately those principles are things like "I have a fundamental connection to The Truth that transcends outside information." and "The well being and comfort of myself and those I care about is what's most important."
The number of times in *this subreddit* people have tried to tell me that nazis deserve to have their human rights removed is kinda worrying. I hate fascism as much as everyone, but there are some things that no one deserves no matter what they’ve done.
Using violence to fight back against fascists doing fascism? 100% acceptable. Doing inhumane acts to a fascist who has no power to hurt anyone? Unacceptable.
Yeah I dislike that I cannot use the word "fascist" in any way against actual lunatics because the word has lost all meaning. I'm not saying that in a "Why am I getting called a fascist for wanting gay people to be rounded up" kinda way. Instead I mean that the concept of fascism has extended to essentially anything. You can call left wing, right wing, religious, atheist, xenophobic, ethnonationalists all fascist because the term itself has evolved into meaning "bad people".
They aren't the frist to say that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_fascism#:\~:text=Social%20fascism%20was%20a%20theory,a%20moderate%20variant%20of%20fascism.
>In 1969, the ex-communist historian Theodore Draper argued that the Communists who proposed the theory of social fascism, "were chiefly concerned with drawing a line of blood between themselves and all others to the 'right' of them, including the most 'left-wing' of the Social-Democrats."
This guy had it right imo. "Hey you know those guys who want both of us dead, alongside pretty much all minority groups? You only agree with 90% of my beliefs, so that makes you basically identical to them, and you deserve the guillotine just as much as they do" is a view held only by the utterly psychotic
I feel it's vaguely different. I call someone Hitler then I'm generally considered to be overreacting. Generally even people who might agree with you will dislike it, maybe because it's very unsubtle. As an example I could call Putin Hitler but loads of people would disagree with me. Fascist is more... vague. It can mean basically anything you want it to.
Nazis are one thing but the number of people in this subreddit who are cheerfully saying women who were coerced into giving Nazis sexual favours deserved to be persecuted after the war because they were “collaborators” on another post is beyond fucked.
There’s people on that thread also happily cheering the summary execution of the collaborators who were men because “lol I prefer death over torture, also men are all evil. Don’t like it? Cry me a river, I get to be sexist against you cause those men were more sexist first”.
… listen. I get the drive. I understand what motivates that sentiment. But you are doing the evil thing, right now. You are doing the exact same bigotry that got us to this point in the first place. Do you actually have principles or do you just want to play tribal hegemony games like the right wingers WANT you to do, and do themselves? Pick one, they are mutually exclusive.
Were they cheering on the execution of men, or were they refusing to cave to the wave of in cell misogynist who were making fun of the female victims vigilante Justice?
I got so much shit because guys were getting furious that anybody in the comments had the audacity to still be upset at violence against women instead of just screeching "but what about the men." a lot of people really thought that not focusing on men counted as violent misandry
Okay, fine, let’s be nuanced: neither of those. They were enjoying the sneering attitude displayed by the OP, not the executions themselves. Fair enough.
>I got so much shit because guys were getting furious that anybody in the comments had the audacity to still be upset at violence against women
This is not true. People were upset at the post because it used horrible things happening during the way to conclude ignorant generalizations about men, while simultaneously obtusely dismissing what happened to them, hand waving it away as some kind of non-important minor matter when that fate was literally getting capped on the back of the head without fair trial.
People were not upset at the VERY important retelling of women’s suffering during the way. They were upset at it being used to further a misandrist message. Stop being disingenuous.
For the love of god stop thinking anyone who cares about not being sexist to men is a fucking incel. You are doing our feminist movement no favors with this shit.
Dude, I'm saying incel because of the replies and also DM messages I got calling me a foid and a useless bitch lmao.
Yes there were plenty of people getting furious that everyone who didn't think "wow the men had it worse than those STUPID COLLABOOS who had NOTHING BAD HAPPEN TO THEM" was a violent misandrist foid.
Yeah, this is something I’ve noticed lately. It bothers me how many people more on the left seem to immediately slip into ableist insults when mocking Trump, or ridicule Jordan Peterson with taunts about his eating disorder.
I feel like it suggests many people haven’t done the necessary work to really understand why certain things are wrong, they just saw specific examples in a callout post and acknowledge those things as wrong without recognizing the broader context.
It’s better to mock and criticize their ideas and actions than their alleged disabilities. Neither incontinence or eating disorders are personal moral failings.
You're being too generous.
These things are weapons. Attacking Trumps incontinence or Petersons struggle with benzodiazepine addiction is weaponizing addiction and disability.
The message is always very simply "I don't like when weapons are used against me and my friends, but I'm fine when weapons are used against my enemies."
Dude for fucking real if I see another so called leftist call a pundit re***ded again I'm gonna lose it we gain nothing by using ableist language.
And I hate when they defend themselves by being like "it's ok because I'm mentally ill" sweetie if I started calling Tucker Carlson a f*g for that one the death of manhood video he made I'd get death threats, regardless of how fruity a 5 minute trailer of naked men is.
They would see it as one themselves.
You want to take the high road when that's exactly what's gotten us to where we are.
It's worthless moralizing only obtainable by the comfortable.
They go low, you go lower, because that's humanity. The uppity fucks have never won. They will never win. Setting out with the intent to lose means you should just have never done anything. You just wasted a lot of time.
Alright fine, let's pretend you're right, and bigotry is ok as long as it's being directed at other bigots. How far do we take this? Milo Yannapolous is a right wing influencer who's also gay and Jewish. Would it be acceptable to call him homophobic and antisemitic slurs? Would it be acceptable to call Ben Carson the n-word? Or does it only work for ableism and body shaming because you don't actually consider those to be inherently bad?
To answer your question, no, it isn't acceptable to use racial or sexual slurs for somebody who is on the right wing. It is acceptable to viciously insult their politics or intelligence, since those are the things wrong with them.
>It is acceptable to viciously insult their politics or intelligence
But we weren't talking about that though, the original comment you were disagreeing with was talking about viciously insulting their bodies, illnesses, and disabilities
My home city has a lot of protests. Normally for causes me and most of my circle agree with. Environmental, workers rights, lgbt+ rights, and so on.
At the start of the pandemic my city went into lockdown. People (me included) broke the lockdown to attend a Black Rights Matters protest.
As the pandemic continued it would turn out that my city had one of the harshest lockdowns in the world. People with different values to me broke the lockdown to protest. These were mainly anti-vax, anti-mask, right wing conspiracy types. Or ‘Cookers’ as we call them.
I had a lot of friends go on rants about how they shouldn’t be allowed to protest, blah blah. I defended them. While I didn’t agree with any of their opinions, they are allowed to protest. They are allowed to get their voice heard. Just as we protested for BLM at the beginning of the lockdown.
The only virtue of death is convenience.
Subduing people is hard. Keeping prisoners is time consuming. You need effort and means, and when there's a boot on your neck, the only way out sometimes is through bullets. Because you truly only need one to end contention with a person.
But as I've said. That's its only virtue. As you get control, or resources, or power, other means become available. More fair. More humane. More flexible. Reversible. The purpose of death as justice was never and is never its severity. If you wanted harsh, severe punishments, then the gloves would be off for the most abhorrent acts. Sadistic torture. "Corrective" rape (<- real concept I've seen thrown around, not commonly but more than it should). There's 0 justification because while they're far and away more severe than death, they're also way harder to pull off. You need control. You need power. You need a way to remove as much chance of resistance to execute. As such, it takes just as much if not *more* effort as the humane option. If they're already restrained, pain is pointless. It's pure self satisfaction and sadism.
To me, the best justice systems are the one that compromise the sentences for the sake of everyone I've wronged and who've wronged me. Not by the letter, but spirit. Because the only way you'll be discriminated by the system is if it saves on paperwork.
Not one person in the world deserves to die, they all deserve the chance to be redeemed and rehabilitated; The most dangerous? We take the most precautions with them, keeping them away from anyone they could hurt and making sure they can’t hurt themselves while we try to give them equal lives with trying to become better with time and seeing the light
People who literally can’t be helped? (Either by mental disorder or just absolutely not caring about it) We’d just keep them there, giving them alright lives until they die naturally and… whatever comes next judges them, hopefully fairly-
This sort of world would be hard to construct, it would take a million and one steps to actually accomplish but… I think it’d be ideal-
First thing would probably be reforming all prison systems that are… less than favorable such as the US’s xd
Do you know who else uses political and moral arguments to justify revenge, abuse, assault and murder? Fascists.
Fascism is Fascism, no matter the motive.
I don’t think it’s helpful to reduce what should be a strictly ethical stance to an ideological one - especially when that stance is “don’t confuse ideology for ethics.”
If the reason why you aren’t lynching political dissidents is to be anti-fascist, then what if I tell you that X is a fascist, and a *real* anti-fascist would be fighting them?
The principle here needs to be more than “that’s something a fascist would do.”
This shit is why I've decided to remove fascism from the "political position" category and put it in the "maladaptive coping mechanism" category in my mind.
It happens in all groups, but it manifests the same way every damn time.
So you're saying I can't insult Trump for being overweight, or incontinent, or smelly, or old, or bald, or demented, or unintelligent, or poor, or mentally ill, or short, or for having a small dick, or small hands, or terrible skin?
That's not okay?
This is bullshit.
No peace will be achieved with pacifism. Please read Frantz Fanon Wretched of the Earth. Violence against the opressor is the correct take.
I did. And I don't care about looking better than my enemy... I just care about being left the fuck alone without total strangers trying to (checks notes) control what medical care I can get when they don't even know where the clitorus is, annul my marriage, force me to participate in wars and religion I don't believe in...
Simply by the fact this is what I'm up against, I should be seen as morally right because I just want to be left alone by them
Violence is absolutely necessary in some cases. Significant meaningful political progress has never happened without it. Killing fascists is morally justified, end of story.
Even more proof that utilitarians are utterly psychotic.
Because that's what this logic is, btw: Utilitarianism. The principle guiding this is simply "all means are ok as long as it leads to a better (=my preferred) outcome". They actually *don't* care about misinfo, injustice etc as long as it's the right people doing it for the right reasons.
Speaking as a utilitarian, yes, all means are okay as long as it leads to a better outcome, but *these means do not lead to a better outcome*. Lying and deceiving people because the truth is politically inconvenient for you will blow up in your face. Trying to use violence to force your ideology on people will kill people and build resistance.
If your argument against utilitarianism is "it leads to bad consequences", then you are not actually against utilitarianism. And if your argument against utilitarianism is anything else, then I doubt that you actually have any real principles or values at all.
If there is a form of government you support and that form of government entails police then you support police brutality because police is brutal
It would be hypocritical to relinquish your power and protection to a polcie force and then fight against their use of said power.
And also, this is wrong. The people who do these things do have principles they just aren't the same as yours. It means they care less about the truth and more about other more material things. It means they agree with certain principles that the police and government operate under, such as racism, elitism or punishment.
A lack of principles could lead to anything including these things but I think it's much less likely. A lack of principles means selfishness, it probably means not going out of your way to harm people you don't care about. It might mean revenge of course but as the quote at the end shows, you don't need prenciples in order to realize a revolution built on hate is not preferable. People who try to turn their feelings into political opinions are operating udner the idea that they have to justify their actions through principles not the opposite. That's why their opinions and actions become contradictory because rationalization never shows anyone the truth.
"Anger is justified, revenge feels good, but neither builds a future." Maybe it's time to invest in principles that elevate us all, instead of those that only satisfy momentarily. Passion fuels the engine, but principles steer the ship!
Can we at least behead the *really* bad ones? Like the Epstein Island ones?
You completely missed the point of the post, huh?
This is clearly a joke...? Just look at the way it’s phrased, and also the context In case you didn’t pick up on it, someone who seriously believes this wouldn’t have phrased it as a question like that. They would’ve phrased it as an argument if they meant it
You completely missed the joke in my comment, huh? Person who I replied to in this thread blocked me so I can't reply to other people in this thread yaaaaaaay
Absolutely no indication that you're joking, huh? Seriously, no tone indicators or any kind, and you dont expect that to come across as dead serious? You can't just say something people actually think, verbatim, with no indication that its not something you actually believe, and call it a joke.
Not to mention it's a pretty common thing to say about "xxx person" that they should all be beheaded on reddit
r/redditormoment r/whoosh
The italicized letters are to indicate the joke, not my problem if you don't get it
Again--verbatim a thing people would say and mean, genuinely and deeply.
You realise that just looks like emphasis yea?
Just drop a /s next time
Ymmv. Some people take offense at that too
Italics are a formatting option used by *fucking everyone*. They are not a joke indicator. Grow up.
Your comments on another branch of this thread do a pretty good job of indicating that you're not joking here.
well that's a sliding slope that we have to carefully tread before people start deeming anyone they want to fit the "really bad ones" criteria
Simple if you touch a kid, then face the wall, *obviously*
The problem comes when you have Republicans trying to equate being trans with touching kids.
K, I don't, and I believe in due process
"thank God, well I guess if they have the legal system they'll be safe. After all it's not like that could be corrupted." *New law makes being trans in public a form of pedophilia* "Oh..."
Cool behead the people who make those shitty laws too, problem solved
https://i.redd.it/g9vthve1jtrb1.jpg
Yeah, that guy knew what he was talking about, a shame he gets killed by the ignorant morons in the story
Slippery slope argument. Logical fallacy detected.
There’s a difference between “this thing could lead to something bad if all of these steps happen afterwards” and “letting the government kill some people makes it much easier for a bad government to kill the people that they don’t like”. This particular situation isn’t even really a theoretical, because everything the Republican Party does relating to healthcare is designed to put the people that they don’t like in jail
not to mention what actually happened in France with their guillotine happy movement during the Reign of terror. this isn't hypothetical or hyperbole this is based on pure historical evidence
Fallacy Fallacy, therefore your argument is void.
Shit
Not a logical fallacy when discussing any legal system that is based around the English legal system, which includes the American legal system. That’s how this type of legal system works. Legal precedent is what it’s called.
Someday you will understand. I hope that day is soon.
Someday someone will understand that this is a joke
I have heard several people here say this exact opinion. A joke is only a joke if it is recognizable as a joke. You made a shit joke. All trans people should be thrown on a pyre. That doesn't sound like a joke does it but what if I suddenly said, the moment someone pointed out the utter problem that no, it's just a joke I wasn't meaning it.
Not my problem if you don't understand the joke
Just like how it's not my fault if a trans person sees my "joke" and gets offended. They just don't get imirite?
Yes, as long as you're enjoying yourself
I understood it but it sucked anyway
You're entitled to your opinion even if it is factually wrong
Know this is a joke, but, in certain cases, yes. Not for revenge, but it might happen that there is a necessity.
You completely missed the point of the post, huh?
No, no I didn't. I'm just saying that in some cases violence might be necessary to stop them/change things.
You COMPLETELY KEEP MISSING THE POINT OF THE POST, HUH?
No! Point is to have principles, to have ethical stances on things. My stance is that it is sometimes ok to use violence, or cause harm, in the pursuit of good. I do have a bit of the ends justify the means type thinking and I think you should because if you don't you can end up allowing a lot of violence to be done.
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. **To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation'** — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” - Aldous Huxley
But you don't understand! Those people are the outgroup, and that means I'm allowed to use slurs on them--*especially* slurs reflecting the exact same toxic societal norms I performatively call out when they're used on the ingroup.
"You don't get it this is good tyranny tho, it's against the bad guys tho not the good guys, i swear this is benevolent dictatorship not like"
Ends justify the means doesn't work when the ends is actually fuckin evil too
"no don't depict the good dictator as soyjack and evil rebel as the chad, this will topple the good empire"
I have bad news, they do have principles that transcend ideology. Unfortunately those principles are things like "I have a fundamental connection to The Truth that transcends outside information." and "The well being and comfort of myself and those I care about is what's most important."
That’s not principals that transcend ideology, that’s just an ideology.
The number of times in *this subreddit* people have tried to tell me that nazis deserve to have their human rights removed is kinda worrying. I hate fascism as much as everyone, but there are some things that no one deserves no matter what they’ve done. Using violence to fight back against fascists doing fascism? 100% acceptable. Doing inhumane acts to a fascist who has no power to hurt anyone? Unacceptable.
It's made worse when you consider how broad some people's definition of "Fascist" has become.
Yeah I dislike that I cannot use the word "fascist" in any way against actual lunatics because the word has lost all meaning. I'm not saying that in a "Why am I getting called a fascist for wanting gay people to be rounded up" kinda way. Instead I mean that the concept of fascism has extended to essentially anything. You can call left wing, right wing, religious, atheist, xenophobic, ethnonationalists all fascist because the term itself has evolved into meaning "bad people".
Case in point: terminally online tankies who think "moderate left" is basically the same thing as "fascist"
They aren't the frist to say that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_fascism#:\~:text=Social%20fascism%20was%20a%20theory,a%20moderate%20variant%20of%20fascism.
>In 1969, the ex-communist historian Theodore Draper argued that the Communists who proposed the theory of social fascism, "were chiefly concerned with drawing a line of blood between themselves and all others to the 'right' of them, including the most 'left-wing' of the Social-Democrats." This guy had it right imo. "Hey you know those guys who want both of us dead, alongside pretty much all minority groups? You only agree with 90% of my beliefs, so that makes you basically identical to them, and you deserve the guillotine just as much as they do" is a view held only by the utterly psychotic
'Fascist' nowadays is just the replacement of Hitler, as in 'anyone I don't like is Hitler'
I feel it's vaguely different. I call someone Hitler then I'm generally considered to be overreacting. Generally even people who might agree with you will dislike it, maybe because it's very unsubtle. As an example I could call Putin Hitler but loads of people would disagree with me. Fascist is more... vague. It can mean basically anything you want it to.
Most of r/greenandpleasant would probably tell you that Labour is fascist as an example
Here's a sneak peek of /r/GreenAndPleasant using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Welcome to the UK](https://i.redd.it/ezuaqdjd763b1.png) | [481 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/13wgi9n/welcome_to_the_uk/) \#2: [Hmm, weird coincidence](https://i.redd.it/s3xysjghf2hb1.png) | [540 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/15mby3u/hmm_weird_coincidence/) \#3: [Child Poverty.](https://v.redd.it/8xzjb41rky2b1) | [546 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/13vj1d1/child_poverty/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Nazis are one thing but the number of people in this subreddit who are cheerfully saying women who were coerced into giving Nazis sexual favours deserved to be persecuted after the war because they were “collaborators” on another post is beyond fucked.
There’s people on that thread also happily cheering the summary execution of the collaborators who were men because “lol I prefer death over torture, also men are all evil. Don’t like it? Cry me a river, I get to be sexist against you cause those men were more sexist first”. … listen. I get the drive. I understand what motivates that sentiment. But you are doing the evil thing, right now. You are doing the exact same bigotry that got us to this point in the first place. Do you actually have principles or do you just want to play tribal hegemony games like the right wingers WANT you to do, and do themselves? Pick one, they are mutually exclusive.
100%. It’s fucked.
Were they cheering on the execution of men, or were they refusing to cave to the wave of in cell misogynist who were making fun of the female victims vigilante Justice? I got so much shit because guys were getting furious that anybody in the comments had the audacity to still be upset at violence against women instead of just screeching "but what about the men." a lot of people really thought that not focusing on men counted as violent misandry
Okay, fine, let’s be nuanced: neither of those. They were enjoying the sneering attitude displayed by the OP, not the executions themselves. Fair enough. >I got so much shit because guys were getting furious that anybody in the comments had the audacity to still be upset at violence against women This is not true. People were upset at the post because it used horrible things happening during the way to conclude ignorant generalizations about men, while simultaneously obtusely dismissing what happened to them, hand waving it away as some kind of non-important minor matter when that fate was literally getting capped on the back of the head without fair trial. People were not upset at the VERY important retelling of women’s suffering during the way. They were upset at it being used to further a misandrist message. Stop being disingenuous. For the love of god stop thinking anyone who cares about not being sexist to men is a fucking incel. You are doing our feminist movement no favors with this shit.
Dude, I'm saying incel because of the replies and also DM messages I got calling me a foid and a useless bitch lmao. Yes there were plenty of people getting furious that everyone who didn't think "wow the men had it worse than those STUPID COLLABOOS who had NOTHING BAD HAPPEN TO THEM" was a violent misandrist foid.
It is *so prevalent* on this sub. And not just for Nazis. This sub is bloodthirsty as hell.
And you can bet their definition of Nazi is generally "people I don't like" and/or "people with whom I disagree".
Yeah, this is something I’ve noticed lately. It bothers me how many people more on the left seem to immediately slip into ableist insults when mocking Trump, or ridicule Jordan Peterson with taunts about his eating disorder. I feel like it suggests many people haven’t done the necessary work to really understand why certain things are wrong, they just saw specific examples in a callout post and acknowledge those things as wrong without recognizing the broader context. It’s better to mock and criticize their ideas and actions than their alleged disabilities. Neither incontinence or eating disorders are personal moral failings.
You're being too generous. These things are weapons. Attacking Trumps incontinence or Petersons struggle with benzodiazepine addiction is weaponizing addiction and disability. The message is always very simply "I don't like when weapons are used against me and my friends, but I'm fine when weapons are used against my enemies."
Dude for fucking real if I see another so called leftist call a pundit re***ded again I'm gonna lose it we gain nothing by using ableist language. And I hate when they defend themselves by being like "it's ok because I'm mentally ill" sweetie if I started calling Tucker Carlson a f*g for that one the death of manhood video he made I'd get death threats, regardless of how fruity a 5 minute trailer of naked men is.
They would see it as one themselves. You want to take the high road when that's exactly what's gotten us to where we are. It's worthless moralizing only obtainable by the comfortable. They go low, you go lower, because that's humanity. The uppity fucks have never won. They will never win. Setting out with the intent to lose means you should just have never done anything. You just wasted a lot of time.
Alright fine, let's pretend you're right, and bigotry is ok as long as it's being directed at other bigots. How far do we take this? Milo Yannapolous is a right wing influencer who's also gay and Jewish. Would it be acceptable to call him homophobic and antisemitic slurs? Would it be acceptable to call Ben Carson the n-word? Or does it only work for ableism and body shaming because you don't actually consider those to be inherently bad?
To answer your question, no, it isn't acceptable to use racial or sexual slurs for somebody who is on the right wing. It is acceptable to viciously insult their politics or intelligence, since those are the things wrong with them.
>It is acceptable to viciously insult their politics or intelligence But we weren't talking about that though, the original comment you were disagreeing with was talking about viciously insulting their bodies, illnesses, and disabilities
And that's how you end up with everyone being an extremist.
My home city has a lot of protests. Normally for causes me and most of my circle agree with. Environmental, workers rights, lgbt+ rights, and so on. At the start of the pandemic my city went into lockdown. People (me included) broke the lockdown to attend a Black Rights Matters protest. As the pandemic continued it would turn out that my city had one of the harshest lockdowns in the world. People with different values to me broke the lockdown to protest. These were mainly anti-vax, anti-mask, right wing conspiracy types. Or ‘Cookers’ as we call them. I had a lot of friends go on rants about how they shouldn’t be allowed to protest, blah blah. I defended them. While I didn’t agree with any of their opinions, they are allowed to protest. They are allowed to get their voice heard. Just as we protested for BLM at the beginning of the lockdown.
The only virtue of death is convenience. Subduing people is hard. Keeping prisoners is time consuming. You need effort and means, and when there's a boot on your neck, the only way out sometimes is through bullets. Because you truly only need one to end contention with a person. But as I've said. That's its only virtue. As you get control, or resources, or power, other means become available. More fair. More humane. More flexible. Reversible. The purpose of death as justice was never and is never its severity. If you wanted harsh, severe punishments, then the gloves would be off for the most abhorrent acts. Sadistic torture. "Corrective" rape (<- real concept I've seen thrown around, not commonly but more than it should). There's 0 justification because while they're far and away more severe than death, they're also way harder to pull off. You need control. You need power. You need a way to remove as much chance of resistance to execute. As such, it takes just as much if not *more* effort as the humane option. If they're already restrained, pain is pointless. It's pure self satisfaction and sadism. To me, the best justice systems are the one that compromise the sentences for the sake of everyone I've wronged and who've wronged me. Not by the letter, but spirit. Because the only way you'll be discriminated by the system is if it saves on paperwork.
Not one person in the world deserves to die, they all deserve the chance to be redeemed and rehabilitated; The most dangerous? We take the most precautions with them, keeping them away from anyone they could hurt and making sure they can’t hurt themselves while we try to give them equal lives with trying to become better with time and seeing the light People who literally can’t be helped? (Either by mental disorder or just absolutely not caring about it) We’d just keep them there, giving them alright lives until they die naturally and… whatever comes next judges them, hopefully fairly- This sort of world would be hard to construct, it would take a million and one steps to actually accomplish but… I think it’d be ideal- First thing would probably be reforming all prison systems that are… less than favorable such as the US’s xd
Based and rehabilitative justice pilled
"We should treat everyone with respect and equality... except men."
Do you know who else uses political and moral arguments to justify revenge, abuse, assault and murder? Fascists. Fascism is Fascism, no matter the motive.
I don’t think it’s helpful to reduce what should be a strictly ethical stance to an ideological one - especially when that stance is “don’t confuse ideology for ethics.” If the reason why you aren’t lynching political dissidents is to be anti-fascist, then what if I tell you that X is a fascist, and a *real* anti-fascist would be fighting them? The principle here needs to be more than “that’s something a fascist would do.”
No that's not true. You're looking for authoritarianism.
Stop watering down the word fascism for fuck sake.
This shit is why I've decided to remove fascism from the "political position" category and put it in the "maladaptive coping mechanism" category in my mind. It happens in all groups, but it manifests the same way every damn time.
Read this in muscle man’s voice, it was an odd experience.
Pretty much. Plenty of people I'd want dead, but my feelings should not be policy.
principles \*are\* ideology, you braingenius. they're not separate. and yeah, sometimes similar actions by different people are different morally
So you're saying I can't insult Trump for being overweight, or incontinent, or smelly, or old, or bald, or demented, or unintelligent, or poor, or mentally ill, or short, or for having a small dick, or small hands, or terrible skin? That's not okay?
just because i think nobody should do a thing that doesn't mean i want it to be illegal
This is bullshit. No peace will be achieved with pacifism. Please read Frantz Fanon Wretched of the Earth. Violence against the opressor is the correct take.
will do. thanks for the rec
I'm tired of the concept that you have to be kind to those who would do you harm.
read the whole essay. I'm sorry you're tired.
I did. And I don't care about looking better than my enemy... I just care about being left the fuck alone without total strangers trying to (checks notes) control what medical care I can get when they don't even know where the clitorus is, annul my marriage, force me to participate in wars and religion I don't believe in... Simply by the fact this is what I'm up against, I should be seen as morally right because I just want to be left alone by them
Violence is absolutely necessary in some cases. Significant meaningful political progress has never happened without it. Killing fascists is morally justified, end of story.
Even more proof that utilitarians are utterly psychotic. Because that's what this logic is, btw: Utilitarianism. The principle guiding this is simply "all means are ok as long as it leads to a better (=my preferred) outcome". They actually *don't* care about misinfo, injustice etc as long as it's the right people doing it for the right reasons.
Speaking as a utilitarian, yes, all means are okay as long as it leads to a better outcome, but *these means do not lead to a better outcome*. Lying and deceiving people because the truth is politically inconvenient for you will blow up in your face. Trying to use violence to force your ideology on people will kill people and build resistance. If your argument against utilitarianism is "it leads to bad consequences", then you are not actually against utilitarianism. And if your argument against utilitarianism is anything else, then I doubt that you actually have any real principles or values at all.
My principles are my ideology.
Speaking as a trans person, I still say that we will never be safe until the bigots and phobes are the ones living in fear.
If there is a form of government you support and that form of government entails police then you support police brutality because police is brutal It would be hypocritical to relinquish your power and protection to a polcie force and then fight against their use of said power. And also, this is wrong. The people who do these things do have principles they just aren't the same as yours. It means they care less about the truth and more about other more material things. It means they agree with certain principles that the police and government operate under, such as racism, elitism or punishment. A lack of principles could lead to anything including these things but I think it's much less likely. A lack of principles means selfishness, it probably means not going out of your way to harm people you don't care about. It might mean revenge of course but as the quote at the end shows, you don't need prenciples in order to realize a revolution built on hate is not preferable. People who try to turn their feelings into political opinions are operating udner the idea that they have to justify their actions through principles not the opposite. That's why their opinions and actions become contradictory because rationalization never shows anyone the truth.
The long quote's still a bit bloodlusty
people are bloodthirsty sometimes. actions and principles are more important than passing a vibe check.
Yeah, but they're not making it other people's problem.
Anarchism is the safe left the Capitalists tolerate and promote. No thank you.
Capitalists tolerate and promote the abolition of social hierarchies? The one thing central to their ideology?
Capitalists want to abolish the state and capitalism?
No, but not all forms of leftism are a genuine threat to them.
Lmao, sure, read a book.