Mod Note: I’m bending the "no politics’ rule to highlight a disgusting trend I’ve been seeing on Lemmy lately. Due to the sheer volume of comments fitting that trend and the huge number downvotes given to anyone who speaks out against it, I’m convinced this opinion is truly unpopular in the Lemmy-verse. This is also topical and important enough to merit discussion or at least to provide a point of reflection. So while it touches on politics, that’s merely the framing device of current events being used to highlight a larger problem.
As you’re inevitably downvoting this, at least take a good, long look in the mirror while you do so.
The sheer number of people here praising the shooter, advocating for, glorifying, or just flat out calling for violence has been a real eye opener and litmus test for the kind of people I’ve surrounded myself with on this platform. Suffice it to say, a lot of you have failed that test spectacularly.
A rational, independent thinker should be able to condemn this kind of violence even when it’s targeted towards their “enemies.” Political violence has absolutely NO PLACE in a healthy society, and no one should be praising or advocating for it. No one. Ever. This is one thing that, regardless of the paradox of tolerance, should be universally condemned.
There are, apparently, a ton of extremists here that don’t see themselves as such because they believe their extremism is justified and that they’re on the right side of history. Ironically, which is what all extremists think.
This goes back further than just yesterdays’s events. For example, it’s been a common refrain since the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision that, paraphrased, “The current non-dictator president should do dictator things to stop the other dictator”. Which is just another flavor of “Extremism is bad except when it’s my flavor of extremism”.
Don’t give me that “it’s just gallows humor”, “I’m oppressed, and he deserved it”, “if you had a time machine, wouldn’t you go back to 1934…”, “we haven’t been a healthy society for X years…”, or other excuses. This is a BFD with major implications and ramifications, and y’all Lemmings are treating like we just missed the exit ramp to Utopia and are trying to find a wide spot to make a U-turn.
It’s certainly fine to have no sympathy for the guy (I sure as hell don’t), but it’s another thing entirely to be cheering on, promoting, and/or advocating for extremist stances like those being thrown out lately.
You say you want a better society? Then act like it!
Moments like this are the true test of one’s character and intellectual honesty, and I’m beyond disappointed in so many of you.
The founding fathers did not attack the British. They declared their independence, and then were invaded. Defense and attack are different things.
It’s true that the Confederacy was itself invaded after declaring its own independence, no question. But then what values were being defended? The right to own other humans as chattel? Not quite the same.
The Americans did shoot first. Militiamen marched on powder and arms warehouses in Lexington and Concord and after being ordered to disperse by a British colonial, shot at the regulars assembled there.
Yes, and the Confederates shot first in the US Civil War. However, who fired the first bullet has nothing to do with who is invading who, or who is starting a war. These are all three different things. That would be like saying the first shot of WW1 was the one that killed the Archduke, and not the actual countries that declared war on each other and marshalled their armies.
There are many ways to respond to a single atrocity or even battle. The British could have, if they wished, withdrawn. Similarly, Fort Sumpter could have, if they wished, surrendered.