Comment on Hey is Sharing Luigi’s Manifesto on Social Media Actually "Glorifying Violence"? Because Reddit Said So 😭

Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• 4lan@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  The difference is no one is cheering on school shooters. Luigi did what he did for a good reason. He is not crazy, or evil like a school shooter

  I’m saddened there haven’t been copycats yet. Hopefully that means people are just taking their time in planning like Luigi did.

  source

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    So it’s okay because you like it?

    source

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Just because you can’t tell the difference between this guy and a school shooter doesn’t mean other people can’t, or that the distinction is arbitrary. This guy killed more Americans than Bin Laden and his death was celebrated.

      source

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Fucking team politics. Just because I’m challenging how you view the world does not mean I’m on the other team.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Is it okay to support Ukraine shooting Russians?

      Violence is inherent in our systems. Violence is inherent in politics. States are literally founded and upheld through violence. Believing anything else is just closing your eyes to the violence that happens every single day.

      source

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I’m not denying that. I’m pointing out that we choose when it’s okay to glorify violence. Denying that this glorifies violence denies that we choose when it’s legitimate. It covers that choice up with a screen that says this is violence and that’s not violence.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • 4lan@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      No because it was warranted and deserved. Take a look around, this is not an edgy opinion. The majority of Americans feel the way I do, why is that?

      I am one of the most non-violent people. I’ve never struck a person in 35 years of life.
      The only time violence is warranted is when it is a response to violence. Social murder warrants actual murder. Tens of thousands dead vs one CEO dead. You are crying about the wrong death

      source

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        You’re confusing 60 percent support for healthcare reform with 60 percent support for murder. Off the internet this is a highly contentious act.

        You cannot be non-violent and pro-murder. That’s incompatible.

        I haven’t once said the murder was a bad thing. You’ve just been assuming that because I’m out here challenging your ideas about yourself. You need a better internal guide than, that felt good unless you’re really lying to yourself and you’re hoping for mob violence. You need a strict guide as to when it’s permissible. The first step to doing that is to admit that you are glorifying a violent act.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I think there’s a difference. School shootings are an atrocity, and, for the most part, we all agree on that. Sharing the manifesto lends a kind of legitimacy to the shooter and their reasons, and, on balance, we’d rather turn our back on them and condemn the violence.

  With this CEO murder, many of us agree there’s such life-destroying abuse in the American healthcare commerce - of which this CEO was directly part, whether or not he’s to blame - that the problem is a serious topic of public conversation. The manifesto, and the events associated with it, are a relevant part of that conversation, whether we support them or not.

  source

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    That’s my point. You see one as an atrocity but not the other. So you don’t have a problem glorifying it. But it’s still doing exactly that.

    source

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Discussing is certainly not the same as glorifying. And yes, I did label one and not the other as an atrocity, but I hope you understand that’s a simplification.

      I do think in this case it’s an important question to be asked: why did the killer commit this murder; and why are so many people supporting it. And in this case, I don’t think it does justice, nor does society good, to wave it away with, “they’re a bad person who did a bad thing”. Perhaps in all murder cases some discussion, by some people, is necessary. But here, on balance, it seems particularly important and public.

      source

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Then discussing Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto, the Unabomber’s, McVeigh’s, or a school shooter’s isn’t glorifying either.

        This isn’t a situation where you can say one is glorifying and the other isn’t. That’s just thought terminating propaganda which is really dangerous around acts of violence.

        I’m not saying that discussing their motive is a bad thing. I’m saying sharing the manifesto either is or is not a glorification of their violence. There’s no gray area where it’s not glorification because you believe it was good or interesting. We accept that some glorification of violence is good, such as a politician talking about going after criminals. So the mere act of glorification isn’t bad in and of itself.

        I think that’s probably the biggest problem people are having here. They think if they’re glorifying violence it’s automatically bad, or radical. But watching cool training videos for the Army is glorifying violence. Celebrating battlefield wins for Ukraine is glorifying violence. But so is saber rattling at Iran and proudly announcing the sweep of homeless encampments.

        If we’re not asking the right questions then we can’t get the right answers. Especially when we all loaded questions that turn it into a team sport. This entire thread has shown that there is a thought terminating line of argument out there, “Glorifying Violence is bad, ergo sharing the manifesto is bad” and people assume they need to argue whether it’s actually glorifying violence. But that’s where conservatives want the argument because they can easily just hand waive it away. He literally shot and killed someone, his manifesto is obviously connected to violence. Instead the argument they need to be making is why discussing that manifesto is as good and proper as the discussion on whether we should invade Iraq in 2002.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Well, advocating for common decency doesn’t work in the US. USians only understand arguments that use bullets.

      source

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Lmao, that’s not true but it did tickle me.

        source

        • -> View More Comments