Comment

Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised

Man, some of the takes here make me sad. Thanks to those who upvoted the idea that ethics don’t change when someone is sure they’re right in changing them “this time”. I want to be clear - I’m not painting all or even most Lemmy users with this brush. However, what I’m seeing lately is such a disconnect to me: “Woke snowflakes aren’t people” “Women are property” “Hamas (aka all Palestinians) aren’t people” = outrage at the dehumanization (very rightfully so). But then: “Trump voters are Nazis and Nazis aren’t people” “The people who didn’t vote or voted 3rd party are just as bad as them” = upvotes, “they don’t deserve rights” and “when they suffer it will be justice” comments.

This election broke people, and I really don’t like how readily some who claim to be ethical are supporting what seems to me to be hate speech by way of dehumanization. If Trump had lost and his followers were saying similar things but pointed it at “woke leftists” or “communists”, you all would be incredibly upset (rightfully so). Even though the Trumpers saying those things would truly think they were saving their country, the way some people here seem to think they are.

source

Sort:hotnew top

EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
The moment you see people who voted for Harris assaulting third-party voters, you let me know. Some of the takes are over the top, but where they’re coming from is completely understandable. Dehumanization is an attempt to rationalize away empathy to prevent guilt and trauma from what people think is the fight to come.

The moral high road is littered with the corpses of people who tried to fight fair. In self-defense, there are 2 rules: a battle not fought is a battle won, and, if you have to hurt a man, hurt him so bad that you need never fear his vengeance.

If doxxing a couple of assholes like this is enough to intimidate the bigots who are now emboldened to attack and rape people and save even a few lives, then it’s worth it - we’ve solved things with rule number one. If it doesn’t stop them, then fyi: the back of the eye socket is thin enough to push through with your thumb and into the brain behind it. There’s no such thing as “fighting dirty” when it comes to survival. There’s no room for mercy when somebody is trying to kill you, and these people have tried before and say that they’re going to try again.

We all hope it doesn’t come to that, but it is better to be prepared and not need it than to wish you had it when the jackboots are stomping on you. And when somebody has told you who they are, you believe them. If it quacks like a Nazi, swims like a Nazi, and goose-steps like a Nazi, then it ain’t a duck.

source
thesporkeffect@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Ok, I believe you are sincere and appreciate the perspective. There’s a difference between doxing Nick Fuentes, and doxing every trump voter. (In my opinion)

Do you believe violence can ever be considered justified? If you are a pure dogmatic pacifist, I believe your position is logically consistent.

If not: what circumstances can justify violence? Can the police or the military act within morality? Is justice defined by law or outcome?

If the state is unable or unwilling to protect a marginalized group of people, at what point does it become moral to defend themselves?

source
- GrymEdm@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Well, thanks for talking to me in good faith. I’m trying to make good faith arguments. It’s really difficult to give a hard line about where violence is just because I’m sure ambiguity exists.
  
  Talking about the military: a declaration of civil war to save the country is a lot different than “his house is flammable” or “it would be a real shame if he was dealt with at night” which are exactly the kinds of things being said about Fuentes right now, on Lemmy. He’s undeniably a piece of shit, but vigilante killing isn’t alright. There are good reasons why soldiers killing others in the context of anti-fascist formal war would be treated differently than mob justice. If soldiers took it upon themselves to kill Fuentes without a declaration of civil war or something similarly legal, that would just be deployment of troops against American citizens. E.g. Lincoln didn’t tell Northerners to head South and start indiscriminately killing to end slavery, it was a war with rules like the chance to surrender, etc.
  
  Things like actual rape and murder should merit at least an attempt at justice within the bounds of law. And as far as I know, Fuentes hasn’t done either - people right now want him dead because of his words. As an example, people didn’t kill the January 6 protesters - they got put through the legal system and were punished. Would you argue that it would have been a proud and just moment in US history if those hundreds of rioters should have been identified and murdered back in 2021, by other civilians, without trial? I know Trump might release them - does that possibility mean they should have been murdered by a counter mob back then? They weren’t just talking like Fuentes either, they straight up attempted a coup.
  
  Israelis regularly kill non-violent Palestinians in the West Bank. They put Palestinians, including children, into prison without charges or trial, and some of them end up raped and tortured. It’s called administrative detention and it’s done because “the threat must be contained”. It’s also an enormous injustice. I feel the same way about extrajudicial killings of civilians, even if I think they’re terrible people. I wouldn’t support Ukrainian forces slaughtering Russian towns that could be proven to support Putin, even though I hate Putin.
  
  It’s the election loss that seems to be fuelling the rapid escalation of rhetoric here on Lemmy. I saw lots of bullying before, but not many people calling for actual killing. Why is it that the election loss, alone because nothing else has happened yet, made vigilantism ethical?
  
  source