Submitted 3 weeks ago by cm0002@literature.cafe to memes@sopuli.xyz
https://crazypeople.online/pictrs/image/75deb25d-2d92-48e8-bece-6adf8b36bdbb.jpeg
This is exactly how I feel every time I suggest the correct way to deal with conservative fascism is with violence. Some commenter will always come along with, “that makes you just as bad as them” and “you’re part of the problem”.
Part of the problem? Bitch, resisting force with force isn’t the fucking problem. It’s the solution.
It’s eliminating the problem. But there’s a little more to the solution, generally speaking.
It’s a sad part of the solution. Kicking them out of power and making impossible for them to ever have their way ever again (in absolutely any context- up to removing their ability to participate in any legal process, up to having any legal rights at all) is really more important, but unfortunately eliminating them is the easiest way to do that.
There are certain figures I would be uncompromisingly happy to see suffer for their actions- up to and including assassination. And others I think only need to be politically neutered.
The real complication (in a lot of the smaller cases) starts issues with false positives and such. If we could get perfect identification and prosecution to happen, then my tolerance for extreme measures goes waaaaay, way up.
Be careful not to use the Nazis as an analogy or some basement dweller will scream “YOU THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE THE SAME AS NAZIS??? GO TOUCH GRASS!!!”
It’s an analogy.
Act like a fascist, you are a fascist. I’m not making conservatives run the fascist playbook. That’s their choice.
Are MAGAts Nazis? No. Were Nazis fascists? Yes. Are MAGAts fascists? Yes. Because words have definitions and MAGAT’s actions match the definition of the word “fascist”.
These aren’t people we’re disagreeing politically with in regards to where tax payer money should go or even how much we should be taxed or whether this regulation or that regulation is good or bad. These are people threatening us and actively degrading the quality of our lives. They are our enemies because that’s what enemies do to you. They are enemies of democracy. They are enemies of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I just don’t give a fuck what every dumb shit thinks. YoUrE jUsT aS bAd As ThEm dumbfuckery.
One of the biggest problems with violent revolution, is that it almost always seems to end up putting violent people in charge of the next regime.
“Almost always violent” is a decent upgrade from “definitely always violent from now on”.
Conservatives are violent fascists by nature. History proves this. They should not be in charge of anything at all. Ever. The moment they hold any kind of authority, they become an infestation of pests.
Morality foundation: You’ve become a murderer just like him, no matter the intentios.
Morality reality: If you believe these people he murdered should not be dead, and that all his killings are unjust, removing him at worst replaces one mass murderer with just murderer. Even more, with a vigilante. Now, this of course is not really good, but the net outcome is good.
I think an outlook on the future is also necessary. A mass murderer that is not repenting will likely murder again. A vigilante without just cause will likely not. You are saving all the future lives.
The problem with “just cause” is that it’s flexible af. What stop vigilante from moving the goalpost into infinity and beyound? When does “just” degrade from some grand perception based on societal needs into subjective, personal reasons?
Best case scenario, surrender yourself to community after the deed. Thus, the new murderer got instantly taken down without creating another. But that requires sacrifice/martyrdom.
So you are saying that the end justifies the means?
(/s)
It begs the question, what is the ‘good’ solution.
Or is ‘good’ even possible?
If you cut out a tumour, you’re also killing live tissue so aren’t you also cancerous hmm?
This is an apt analogy. Conservatism IS cancer. It spreads and brings with it only sickness and death. There is no way to change cancer. Letting it live will kill the patient. The only cure causes pain and suffering for the survivor. Treatment is painful, messy and dangerous, but is absolutely required for survival.
No one wants to talk about the cure for conservatism. Even the topic is uncomfortable.
Ok how do you cure it then? Specifically
Oncologist:
Removes tumor
What have I become?
“If I am killing these cells, who can say that I am better than cancer”
You may have caused millions to suffer. But if I kill you, I’d prevent suffering of more people. I am a murderer of one that might have continued to torture millions. I’d be a murderer for some but a hero for millions.
Great example of our time - Luigi Mangione. Sad to hear him confessing 😭
I dont like being conspiritroal but if I was a government that wanted to get away with murdering people or even just qwell the masses when something disruptive happens Id pay people off to take the fall. Seems like an easy solution for a really complicated problem.
Just saying.
With what is happening in the world for the last 35 years (my age, not related), I’d also would like to wear tin foil hat from time to time. Especially today with the dawn of generative Ai.
Breaking Bad last scene does a nice version of something like this
Especially when you couple it with the fact that if you leave him alive he is very likely to cause more harm even if hebgoes to prison or such
Luigi! <3
Democrats say “Oh yeah you’re right” and walk away
This is my personal take, but this is similar to an old philosophical argument. Can you use the Masters tools to dismantle the Master’s house? The master’s house in this argument represents systems of oppression/sanctioned violence and the tools are, well the tools. Hope I don’t have to explain that part. Anyway, my personal take is yes you can. You can not use the Master’s tools to build your own house.
In so far as the panel, dude was fine to shoot him. He just has to put the gun down and accept the responsibility of whatever his action causes.
This is the way. Many of today’s problems are partly caused by people having been taught they have to take the high road and show they are better than the meanies. If you turn the other cheek, you’ll end up with two black eyes. Crush those evil bastards.
“When they go low, we go high.” - Obama, blissfully leading the country towards Trump
Weeeellll, how much of it was a reaction to Obama’s style of leadership and how much of it was a reaction to a black guy in a tan suit being in office? Even Americans need to admit that the US is a hopelessly, enthusiastically racist country.
There’s a counterexample in the Overwatch backstory. Overwatch goes to arrest this guy after he had a bomb planted that killed a bunch of their staff. The guy brags about how with his connections he’ll be released within days. One of the Overwatch agents says, “He’s right”, and shoots the guy. So that guy’s not going to be planting more bombs. But that leads to Overwatch getting disbanded. They aren’t around to respond immediately when the bad guys start acting up again. When Overwatch does get back into operation, that bad guy’s daughter escalates the violence against Overwatch in her quest for revenge.
Oh! Another counterexample is in the TNG episode, The Most Toys. The bad guy is doing the thing, gloating to Data how Data is too moral to kill him. Data does some calculations, says “I cannot allow this to continue”, and tries to shoot the guy. But he’s stopped at the last moment. So kind of a narrative copout.
I wouldn’t call those “counterexamples” as I understand counterexamples (namely an example that counters a statement or belief). That would mean the examples would have to show that killing the villain did make the protagonist just as bad.
Like, in your Overwatch example, they didn’t become moral bad from killing the bomber. They were disbanded; the worsening situation was as a result of other bad people choosing to disband them. It’d be weird to lay it at their feet for killing a villian with political(?) connections.
I think the Overwatch story does present killing the bad guy as morally wrong. The story implies the push to disband Overwatch came from general public outrage due to Overwatch acting without regard for law, not due to that one guy’s connections specifically. It was also presented as the nail in the coffin: Overwatch had been behaving increasingly ethically dubiously after the threat they originally formed to combat was resolved. It’s part of a larger theme in the story: if a group is well intentioned, but their primary tool is violence, does that group have a legitimate role in pushing for the greater good?
Yeah, no one looking to be taken seriously would argue that you shouldn’t have taken Hitler out if you had the opportunity.
I’d take the opportunity and I’d sleep soundly that night.
I’m ok with that. I can live with it. I won’t try to twist the justification like the people in power. I will be committing sin and I will be a hypocrite if it means getting rid of the filth causing millions to suffer.
This would have ended a lot of cartoon series a lot quicker. The hero has the villain on the ropes and “but I would be just as bad as you if I killed you” and lets the villain go so the villan can do more villain shit, repeat.
What’s happening with his arm in the first panel?
He’s… grabbing his shirt? His skin? With some sort of… glove…?
No idea tbh
I think it’s supposed to represent being cut off or something
In such hypothetical situation, it may be a bit more ethical to do like in the Alias series finale. Don’t kill the vilain, let him to starve in a remote place. If he happens to be immortal for some reason, ensure he’s burried deep.
buttt isn’t knowingly putting them in a position where they’ll starve to death just (just) murder with extra steps?
A much less humane form of it, in fact. If you must kill someone, have the decency to do it quickly.
This comes up with Batman a lot. But in his case, we know he’s a severely traumatized man and it makes sense that he would believe it.
And Daredevil cuz he’s Catholic
It absolutely does. Absolutely disgusting the number of times I have to read in this community that it’s okay to kill because of blah blah blah. Horrible people! You are all horrible people for supporting such an anti-life mindset!
That is assuming everyone plays by the rules.
As it turns out, some particular people have turned playing outside of the rules as much as possible and as cruely as possible into a sport.
They won’t be corrected by the rules. They won’t be persuaded by common human decency. Quite the contrary even, they actively and aggressively lean into the opposite direction.
Now it’s against the rules to derail a train. But how much more tragic would it be not to do so if that train is about to run into a hospital?
That of course being a lazy metaphor but I think my point stands.
Death penalties, war crimes, … all things that are suposed to be accepted as par for the course. But for the elite…oh no, that’s a finger waggin.
Killing is wrong, but it is most definitely not a monochrome issue.
It does not. Criminals by definition do not play by the rules and we as a society have found many ways to deal with them without killing them.
I’m not arguing against justice.
I’m just saying, that, on a fundamental level, it is never okay to kill another person or make up stupidly simplified metaphors to justify killing.
It’s dehumanizing brain rot and if you guys can’t see that you’re really not much better than the made up devils you wish to kill.
you are joking, right?
I’m not. Do you even have an argument?
You consider someone anti-life because they refuse to stand by idly while someone kills others?
No. I consider someone anti-life that argues killing is basically okay if you think it’s okay. It’s a made up comic and not one of us really knows what the bad guy did.
But the tone in this comment section feels more like: yeah sure killing others is totally fine if we just find a reason to feel good about it. Wtf? What low level trigger would be okay for you to kill another person without feeling bad?
I’m not the police on a specific mission and I’m not in a country where we have mass shooting. But even in this case I would argue that we badly need to find ways to prevent mass shooting instead of being okay with killing the shooter.
As for crime in general… The more civilized society is the one without the death penalty.
Dehumanizing imaginary people and ease of mind with it, that’s what’s happening here.
Just so I understand your argument:
Killing is morally wrong.
Therefore, anyone who kills is morally equivalent to anyone else who kills, regardless of motive, scale, necessity, or circumstance.
So killing a mass murderer makes you just as bad as the mass murderer.
Is that your position?
Yes.
No. Reality is more complex.
Trying to convince yourself that killing another human being is something to feel good about is always stupid and primitive. That is what my comments are about, and as I understand it, what this discussion is about. We built complex societies so we wouldn’t have to live by the rule of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” and I am not going to turn back on that path just because of Trump, Putin, or Netanjahu. The truth is, the vast majority of people living all over the world are ordinary people who deserve love, justice, and a future.
And yes, you shoot at the mass shooter. But where I live, police officers are trained so that the perpetrator survives—in order to subject him to his just! punishment. Which is not death.
Bang!
I’ve never understood this logic. Can someone please explain it to me like I’m five?
The logic is about a battle of ideologies. When the villain, or the hero sometimes, says they’d be just as bad as what they’re fighting, what they mean is that they’re succumbing to their baser instincts, allowing “might makes right” to win out against the spirit of democracy. “Democracy” in their view, the author’s I mean, is mostly about letting people coexist, and using only official channels to punish the most obscene offenders. The hero is rejecting “an eye for an eye,” essentially, in favor of the perceived fairness of the law.
This framing kind of doesn’t work because we all know who the villains are. We all know the world would be better off without The Joker in it. And worse, letting him go through the prison system to get the outcome we all want for him anyway isn’t really different from just shooting him yourself. It’s marginally different, maybe; probably better than enabling a bunch of vigilantes. But even so, it is an action that merely defers the pulling of the trigger to the state. Someone will be pulling it regardless, because as we all know, the world would be better off without The Joker.
Sorry, but I really like your explanation and am hoping that we can perhaps discuss a little bit more. Would this therefore be setting up the contrast between the “vigilante justice” dispensed by Batman and the Punisher?
Plot armor
The fucking new season of Daredevil. Fisk literally breaks kids in half, but Matt sends him to jail again so he can break out again in 2 seasons. And fuck those kids.
Truuuuue
I love it when situations are simplified instead of complicatified
GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
“You’re right, killing you would mean In just as much of a monster as you! Too bad I didn’t realize that before indiscriminately slaughtering dozens of your disposable henchmen on my way here.”
AmyAye@nord.pub 3 weeks ago
I HATED this when watching Arrow.
Like dude, you narrowed that dude in the hallway. Your two main sidekicks BOTH use regular guns.
Just fucking kill Raz Al Gul/Damien Dahrk, That Gang dude/EtcEtc
You spent the first two seasons murdering rich people, intentionally, killing this dude trying to BLOW UP A CITY is not a moral gray area. All your friends are like, “Bro, just kill him.” And you are all “We must be better, we must be heroes.”
Lemmynated@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
The Batman way.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I liked in Black Adam that they called out heroes just protecting the elite. Too bad that one line was enough for them to all change their minds.