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

• GrymEdm@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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 ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        you don’t have a crystal ball.

        Now we’re getting somewhere! Why do you shoot the school shooter - you don’t have a crystal ball - they could drop the gun and surrender at any moment. How about Hitler?

        You using (Stalin) as an example of Western fascism.

        Cool - distinction without a difference - I’m glad we wasted our time on that when your dictionary agrees with me.

        That’s a moral decision, not a legal one.

        Great - let’s stop talking about legal stuff then.

        You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.

        So you don’t agree with killing the school shooter? What if they have their gun pointed at you? Exception after exception.

        it’s not murder, it’s combat

        What’s the moral difference other than scale? State approval?

        The difference between you and I is that I understand moral ambiguity and how to navigate it - you pretend things are absolute, set rigid rules then fall apart the moment you encounter anything that doesn’t neatly fit with your framework.

        I would not support telling random people to (…) open fire on civilians

        …aaaaand we’re back off what I’ve been saying - but this gets a lot more straightforward once we address the crystal ball piece.

        source