Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 month agoSure - he might be actively pushing for a series of genocides, and he might be a significant recruitment tool to advance those genocides, but pushing back against the death of millions of people with anything more than colourful language would be immoral.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
GrymEdm@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yeah, I’ve proven to be a real fan of Fuentes in other parts of this thread… Take off with the insults and assumptions. You think someone like Bernie Sanders wants Fuentes killed by a random civilian? I guess he’s a fascist too huh? Here’s what I actually oppose - blatantly illegal mob justice. Fuentes is a bastard, but that doesn’t justify some angry internet dude committing an act of premeditated murder. Are you going to kill everyone with an ideology you consider dangerous? While convinced it’s to prevent suffering no less. What about when, if Fuentes is killed for the things he says, the right makes him a martyr and example of how dangerous “the enemy within” is making America? What if your fellow countrymen who you so hate start killing you and people you support/care about in return? Is that your plan for a safe nation?
On January 6 2021, would it have been a proud and just moment in US history to have a mob of counter protesters rush in and slaughter the hundreds of Trump supporters without trial? They actually attempted a coup - Fuentes is just talk at this point but some would like to leap straight to his premeditated death.
It’s taken like 4 days post-election for people to escalate to calling for violence against everyone they consider Nazis. All in the name of ethics no less. I can empathize with the anger and feeling of helplessness. It’s still ridiculous and heart-breaking that less than a week after a loss there’s hundreds of upvotes for people advocating extrajudicial cold-blooded murder and violence in the name of righteousness.
P.S. Don’t tell me the folks hinting at this crap aren’t talking about murder. Even if, and that’s a big if, they only meant beatings or the like that would degenerate into lethal violence basically immediately. You personally have already said you don’t want to use words alone.
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
No… Stop… Please? Niiiick? I said pleeeease…
I use morality rather than legality to tell right from wrong. This is why I supported gay marriage a few years ago. My moral first principle is the minimisation of suffering and death. If someone is making headway toward killing tens of millions of people, I believe it’s immoral not to stop them, and while the suffering inflicted should be minimised, there’s not a lot that wouldn’t be justifiable if necessary to stop those tens of millions of deaths and all the suffering.
To stand by and watch something like that play out because forceful intervention is uncivil is to be complicit with those atrocities.
GrymEdm@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You’re crazy if you think killing Fuentes is going to prevent tens of millions of deaths. For starters, even a lot of Republicans want little or nothing to do with him. 2nd, do you think his followers (who you argue are capable of killing many millions) are just going to throw up their hands at his death and go “whelp, that finishes it for us”?
Finally, what you are pushing for is very illegal. If you ever stop talking and start doing, the most likely outcomes are you die or ruin your life. Worse, posts like yours might convince someone else to kill Fuentes or try, and ruin their life because you got angry. Plus the whole cascade of death via revenge killings situation.
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You’ve said a lot while adding nothing.
Again, the priority is minimising suffering and death - if Fuentes’ death amounts to a net increase in death and suffering, I don’t support it. If there is a solution to that leads to less net suffering and death, I don’t support his death. If it’s effective at stopping the deaths of tens of millions of people, I’d support it. My preferred solution would be to escalate charges, censure and imprisonment for his work to advance those genocides.
What I will say is that:
Silencing the mouthpieces of genocide and the recruiters for genocide helps minimises the chances of the genocides,
Making contributing to genocide a dangerous affair helps minimise the chances of genocides.
Asking nicely doesn’t do a damn thing to minimise the chances of the genocides.
Political violence is an inevitability - I’d rather it be minimised - sometimes a little violence stops a lot - this is why cops carry guns.
I’ve already said I’m guided by morality not legality, and I’m not pushing for anything specific beyond stopping about the most heinous act possible. I appreciate your concern, but the rest is noise.