OccamsRazer
@OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
- Comment on Current state of affairs 5 days ago:
Hey at least she didn’t get murdered for saying things people don’t like.
- Comment on Too soon? 6 days ago:
Do you or do you not think it’s ok to kill people who express opinions that you strongly disagree with? Because i don’t. And if you do, then you have to allow for the possibility that they will also kill you for your opinion. It’s a zero sum game, and any society like that will inevitably fail.
- Comment on Too soon? 6 days ago:
Lucky for you I’m not like you then, with how you feel about murdering other people for their opinions.
- Comment on A warning 6 days ago:
Did he advocate for violence? Do you really think it’s MAGA? Come on… but if it is then i will formally apologize to you. Also I’d be curious of the count for left wing versus right wing violence. I’d also be curious which events you consider applicable to that count.
- Comment on Too soon? 6 days ago:
I can’t believe I’m discussing whether or not it is wrong to kill someone for the crimes they may or may not ever commit…
- Comment on Too soon? 6 days ago:
Should his (possibly) millions of his supporters also die? Should they preemptively start killing people they view as threats to them? You know, since some people are saying that they should die for their opinions… you see how this goes? It’s not hard to see how a zero sum game ends without any winners. That’s why you have to compromise by at least not killing each other.
- Comment on Too soon? 6 days ago:
If you don’t acknowledge the difference between war and murdering someone in cold blood without warning, then there isn’t any point continuing this conversation. Also I hope for your sake that you don’t cross paths with anyone who thinks like you do, but has different opinions.
- Comment on Too soon? 6 days ago:
Those aren’t about murdering fellow citizens because of what they say.
- Comment on A warning 6 days ago:
I expect people to be able to say things without being murdered. Killing is not an appropriate response.
- Comment on Too soon? 6 days ago:
Dude you are sick
- Comment on Too soon? 6 days ago:
Nuremberg was after the holocaust. You can’t just skip over the fact that Charlie Kirk has not instigated a holocaust, nor can you assume that he would have. That’s not even a logical fallacy, it’s simply not even true. Accusing me of a logical fallacy is rich in irony. Seriously, it’s so dumb I don’t even know what to say.
- Comment on Too soon? 6 days ago:
Oof. I’d say it’s too soon, but that’s clearly not the case on lemmy… But also yes that’s a fair question.
- Comment on Too soon? 6 days ago:
Accountability? You mean murdering people you disagree with? Explain again to me how free speech is the seed of… authoritarianism? That’s some crazy mental gymnastics. And what laws did Charlie Kirk break?
- Comment on A warning 1 week ago:
It’s more about the celebratory atmosphere after the fact, and less about the evidence in individual cases that is either not available yet or is conflicting as to what ideology (if any), the violence was motivated by. I’d say the real present danger is that a noted and high profile political figure (but not a politician), was murdered (presumably) for his views. That’s real, and not a what if.
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
Yeah well that’s a better example than the American revolution anyway, but I guess I view revolution against government as being a little different than murder of a citizen exercising their right to free speech. The French revolution also was fighting to establish a democracy, wherein people could freely exchange ideas and contribute to the shape of government. Democracy doesn’t work if people murder each other instead of discussing things and using your vote to shape government. Violence must be prohibited and overwhelmingly condemned or it devolves into a zero sum game. This isn’t a victory for the left, this is a loss for society, further degradation of our republic.
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
They fought a war against an opposing army, not by assassinating people exercising their right to discuss opinions and ideas. In fact they fought FOR the right to have opinions and ideas and to express them. They thought it was so important to protect that right, that they put it into the bill of rights, which specifically states that the right to free speech transcends government. The government that they wanted could only exist if people could freely exchange ideas without fear of being murdered (or imprisoned) for them. That’s why its a particularly bad example.
- Comment on A warning 1 week ago:
Yeah i wouldn’t call him a moderate, but the political cleansing vibe to it is still pretty disturbing.
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
No your example is just really really bad
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
You don’t get to just kill people that you suspect are evil. This isn’t some complicated ethical dilemma.
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
Since you brought it up, do you have any numbers to support that?
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
The irony of using the American revolution to justify murdering people for speaking their opinion…
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
The law protects free speech, which is the cornerstone of democracy. Answering free speech with violence is the opposite of democracy. Any society based on our allowing murdering people that you disagree with is doomed to fail.
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
Ideological assassinations are a huge step in the wrong direction. Once you open the door to violence in place of speech and exchange of ideas, it’s a bad place. Everyone should condemn this. Do you honestly believe it’s a good idea to start killing people? Who is next? It’s not always going to be people you disagree with, and ANY murders need to be condemned.
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
Not from murdering people who speak their opinions.
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
You don’t have to like him, but jeez people in here are messed up. I’m a little surprised that so many people are celebrating an ideological assassination. Democracy literally cannot survive if opinions are punishable by death, and that alone should be soundly condemned.
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
You can’t murder your way into democracy.
- Comment on Why is Lemmy much better with telling a user why they were banned? 1 week ago:
Pretty sure they are already among us
- Comment on found an anti-vax book at my library 1 week ago:
If you ban books that you disagree with, you are a book banner.
- Comment on The USA prided itself on a nation of immigrant, heck even the Statue of Liberty says it. When did immigrants (US citizens from the old world) become anti immigrant and why? 1 week ago:
Once we stopped needing cheap labor to build the railroads and mine ore and occupy native lands and farm crops and roof houses and paint walls and run the cash register at the gas station. Actually we still need immigrants for some of that in order to sustain the level of growth required to fund our retirement plans and do the jobs that we would rather not do for wages that we would rather not work for. It looks like Republicans are hoping to fuel that growth internally through reproduction among existing citizens (under the theory that kids will work for lower wages), while the democrats want to rely on immigrants. That’s my theory anyway.
- Comment on Is anyone else not feeling that patriotic for July 4? 2 months ago:
Well in that case there probably isn’t a single nation ever that should be proud.