Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 5 weeks agoYou 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.
GrymEdm@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Stalin as an example of a Western Fascist is ludicrously off the mark. Like the exact opposite of reality. Mussolini’s revolution killing tens of millions? You need to retake history and politics my dude. As for Hitler, the numbers you are talking about aren’t his takeover of Germany - they’re WW2. Unless your argument is that killing Fuentes/other social media personalities is going to stop WW3 (and I have no idea what group of nations you think are going to full-blown war with you because of Fuentes/others) you need to stop using “tens of millions” for harm prevention by killing these dudes as if it was ANYWHERE near the reality of fascism in America.
Cops: You are are saying that killing people to stop suffering is right. You are absolutely talking about killing people who are SAYING things you don’t like. Fuentes is not an active shooter. Stop trying to lawyer your way out of things, I can read what you write. “You kill the Nazi leader to stop the minorities getting murdered” - you want people you have decided are dangerous to die now to prevent possible future harm. Exactly what I wrote.
Whatever, I’m not going to challenge your morality anymore, it’s clear you think you have a right to declare when someone deserves to die. You don’t care about law. I wrote a post hours ago that ignores morality completely about the likely actual consequences of the vigilante war you and others are proposing. It’s near the top of this thread if you want to read it.
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Stalin’s regime wasn’t communist, and it checked all the boxes for fascism. Go look up the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - they only got antagonistic because their expansionism started treading on each-others toes. The ignorance.
I’m well aware of Mussolini’s kill count - go ahead and scale things to the population and average it all out… Or skip that, and explain me the difference this makes to the point.
…which kicked off because…? Moron.
Why would this argument not absolve Hitler or Goebbels of all fault for the Holocaust? It doesn’t matter - we’ve already established that you can’t have a moral issue with their actions because they were legal.
Your arguments amount to straightforward Nazi apologia as you ether lie or paint what I’m saying as my playing judge, jury and executioner. I’m not dishing out death sentences to Fuentes - I’m saying that his death would be good if it prevents more death and suffering. At this point, I think that’s likely, but I don’t think I can know yet. Go spend 5 minutes familiarising yourself with consequentialism or act utilitarianism.
I spit on the feigned outrage and moralism of someone whose prescriptions excuse the fucking Holocaust, and condemn intervention against it because it was legal - absolutely monstrous and utterly moronic.
GrymEdm@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Way to dodge the question about if you think killing social media people is going to prevent WW3. That was half the comment and the whole point. You talk about good faith arguments…
Stalinism is the totalitarian means of governing and Marxist–Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Union (USSR) from 1924 to 1953 by dictator Joseph Stalin and in Soviet satellite states between 1944 and 1953. Marxism–Leninism Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology that became the largest faction of the communist movement in the world in the years following the October Revolution. It was developed in Russia by Joseph Stalin and drew on elements of Bolshevism, Leninism, Marxism, and the works of Karl Kautsky."
Now you’re strawmanning but putting words in my mouth and telling me what I believe. Nothing I’ve said is an excuse for the Holocaust and I’ve not once apologized for Nazis. If you really are intellectually honest you need to give me that. I’ve been arguing against your original stance that killing people is justified if you’re sure it will prevent suffering, a stance you have reiterated as the greater good multiple times now.
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
You’re back?
I can’t make this any simpler - I support it if it does.
Get a dictionary. Look up fascism and communism. Look up Umberto Eco’s 14 signs. You’re lost - do you think fascism is good because Stalin wasn’t fascist?
I’ve pointed out why your arguments do precisely this - tell me what I’ve mischaracterised.
Yep - and you’re saying it’s bad because it’s illegal - a standard that excuses Hitler’s actions after the beer hall putsch.