Comment

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

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

WaxedWookie@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
You’re back?

Way to dodge the question about if you think killing social media people (not even Trump, just podcasters) is going to prevent WW3.

I can’t make this any simpler - I support it if it does.

Stalinism

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?

Nothing I’ve said is an excuse for the Holocaust and I’ve not once apologized for Nazis.

I’ve pointed out why your arguments do precisely this - tell me what I’ve mischaracterised.

killing people (…) is justified if you’re sure it will prevent suffering (at the scale we’re talking about)

Yep - and you’re saying it’s bad because it’s illegal - a standard that excuses Hitler’s actions after the beer hall putsch.

source
- GrymEdm@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  [deleted]
  source
  - WaxedWookie@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    Man, I’m done. You’re strawmanning hard now. At what point did I say fascism is good?
    
    The point is that you’re getting bogged down in semantic nonsense for no reason whatsoever - your nitpicking changes nothing, and if it does, it necessarily means you’re supporting fascism.
    
    You support killing if YOU’RE sure it will prevent suffering. So if you have the opinion that killing Fuentes will prevent suffering, then you’ll go ahead and kill him because as established, you only care about morality not law.
    
    Fuck it - I’ll do this differently, park the nuance for the minute and say sure - what’s your disagreement? If we know someone’s willful efforts and continued existence will lead to mass death and suffering, and their death is the only way to stop that, why would their death be bad?
    
    Fascism
    
    What part of your definition excludes Stalin’s regime?
    
    You’re looking at the fact that both are dictatorships and ignoring that fascism is hard right authoritarianism and communism is hard left authoritarianism.
    
    I’m looking at the definition you provided. It’s irrelevant - let’s assume Stalin’s regime wasn’t fascist. What changes?
    
    Because I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered that means I support the Holocaust. It’s a huge overreach and a ridiculous take.
    
    No Nazi court would sentence Hitler, no Nazi court would sentence the SS, no Nazi court would sentence German civilians shooting Jews in the face in broad daylight. You either support this position - i.e. fascism and the Holocaust were legal and fine or your pushback is based in something other than legality. The argument you’re putting forward would excuse all the above. The school shooter, Hitler, the Nazi recruiter, and the German murderer don’t get a trial because the courts are unwilling or incapable of stopping the problem - that doesn’t make the problem disappear or remove your responsibility to do something about that problem.
    
    Dude, I stopped talking about legality (…) Since then it’s been all about morality
    
    I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered
    
    Pick one.
    
    source
    GrymEdm@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    why would their death be bad?
    
    Because you don’t have a crystal ball. You seem to think you can magically know for sure that premeditated murder of Fuentes would prevent suffering (“I support it if it does”.) Forget legality, morally you shouldn’t get to decide that someone dies because you “know” their death will prevent suffering. Like I said, what if other people made life-and-death decisions about killing other civilians based on that metric. Imagine if the “enemy within” extremist right start making decisions that way - they probably think you and people you love will harm their nation. Determining harm and exacting punishment should not be a matter of personal surety. Especially when it’s a podcaster, which again, is the origin of your argument as per your “silencing the voices” assertion which you argue could reasonably save “tens of millions”.
    
    let’s assume Stalin’s regime wasn’t fascist. What changes?
    
    You using him as an example of Western fascism.
    
    Pick one.
    
    That’s a moral decision, not a legal one. Like you are so fond of saying, policies can be determined by either. I don’t think a person should be denied trial because of morality, not because it’s in a book. Should explain why I don’t support fascism as well. We’re not going to agree. You think murder is right, I don’t. I’d support a war to unseat Hitler and the SS, but at that point it’s not murder, it’s combat. There would be moral boundaries in such an event. I wouldn’t support individuals marching into a German newspaper and opening fire on civilians and hoping that did the job.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments