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

• 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.

  source

  • 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.

    Finally, what you are pushing for is very illegal.

    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.

    source

    • GrymEdm@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Nothing? I addressed and destroyed your argument that your “there’s not a lot that wouldn’t be justifiable if necessary” (aka killing Fuentes) would prevent “tens of millions of deaths”. It’s ridiculous hyperbole - 3.8 million people are estimated to have died in the 20 years of the Vietnam war, just over 900k died to violence in all the post 9-11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. As well, even if you don’t care about going to prison or dying, hopefully others reading will.

      You go ahead and be “guided by morality not legality” while you do try to convince others extrajudicial violence is alright. All because you believe killing people outside the law, and getting people killed in return, is productive if you’re sure it’s right. You use the example of cops carrying guns, but they’re not under license to kill everyone they disagree with nor is it considered moral (since you don’t care about legality). Can you imagine if your example cops were guided by your principles and killed everyone they suspected might be a dangerous criminal on the chance it would reduce suffering? I’m thankful you’re almost certainly all talk, and let’s hope no one else listens to your posts about “silencing mouthpieces” and “making it dangerous”. Telling civilians to engage in murder is wrong even if you don’t care about legality, and it’s definitely not the path to the least suffering.

      Violence should be a last resort, exercised only within bounds that keep if from being a crime/war crime, and definitely not exercised by everyone at will if they’re pretty sure it’s productive.

      source

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        You seem to think “killing mouthpieces” is going to be some magical event that makes hateful people reconsider (as opposed to spurring them to violence of their own).

        Without recruiters and leaders, a movement is smaller, less coordinated, and less radicalised. This is doubly true of authoritatian movements built on lies.

        Also, I’d like to add it’s ridiculous hyperbole - 3.8 million people are estimated to have died in the 20 years of the Vietnam war. Just over 900k died to violence in all the post 9-11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

        When talking about the threat of Western fascism, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to look at western fascists? Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin… It’s strange you’d point to such unrelated conflicts.

        You go ahead and be “guided by morality not legality” while you do try to convince others extrajudicial violence is alright.

        If killing a mouthpiece of a genocidal movement prevents the deaths of tens of millions of people, it’s morally correct. Similarly, gay marriage wasn’t immoral until it was legal.

        All because you believe killing people outside the law, and getting people killed in return, is productive if you’re sure it’s right.

        Its right if it’s productive. It’s not productive if I’m sure it’s right. You’re tying yourself in knots here - it’s very straightforward - minimise suffering and death.

        You use the example of cops carrying guns, but they’re not under license to kill everyone they disagree with nor is it considered moral (since you don’t care about legality).

        Cops carry guns because some violence is necessary, and desirable to stop more violence. You kill the school shooter to stop the kids getting murdered, you kill the Nazi leader to stop the minorities getting murdered. Attempting to spin this into a defence of killing anyone you disagree with demonstrates either willful dishonesty or a level of stupidity that would disqualify you from this conversation. Stop.

        Violence should be a last resort

        I’ve said as much.

        used only within bounds that keep if from being a crime/war crime

        Some killing is immoral and legal - e.g. the use of the death penalty, other killing is moral and illegal - e.g. killing Hitler to end World War II and the Holocaust. Why would you defer to legality in the context of fascists running the government, and being able to set the laws? Why was slavery immoral when it was legal? If your moral framework is based in legality (I don’t think it is, I don’t think you realise that), you’re definitionally amoral - a fundamentally broken human being.

        not exercised by everyone at will if they’re pretty sure it’s productive.

        Are you going to wait for the fascist government to try the fascist leader, remove them from power, disassemble the means to commit their series of genocides, pack up and go home? This is a material defence of fascism.

        source

        • -> View More Comments