Violence is inherent in our systems. Violence is inherent in politics. States are literally founded and upheld through violence (the military and the police). Believing anything else is just closing your eyes to the violence that happens every single day, and making you powerless against injustice.
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.
Yes, it’s not an incompatible theory. The Harm principle for example is all about balancing one person’s rights with another. Or put another way, choosing when violence is legitimate.
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.
I understand what you’re saying. The answer is yes, we choose when violence is justified.
Lemmy doesn’t do well with nuanced discussion. The communication dilemma present is the lack of the bridge between where one party in the discussion wants to continue narrowing the parameters of discussion until we are left with a binary choice (the quantum side of discussion) and the other party wants to keep the discussion broad and cognizant of all the variables (the general relativity side of discussion).
Both sides have valid reasons for existing. Usually you do have to narrow parameters in order to actually come up with a solution or action to implement. Similarly to how in a valid experiment you attempt to control all variables except what you’re testing. But you also have to be aware of all the variables in the first place to adequately control them.
Yeah, that may be true. Some people have their minds made up and they somehow think any further discussion is somehow a weakening of their position or something like that.
I like to think that any fear of discussion simply means you’re afraid your reasons aren’t sound and you don’t want to question the reality that you may be acting on emotions rather than reason. I think you can definitely have this discussion rationally and still end up supporting what happened.
That was a serious question. If things are okay just because we like them and not okay just because we don’t then what kind of morals are acting on? Yeah it came because I was frustrated that people can’t seem to get off trying to evade the idea of glorification. But it’s still serious, if your knee jerk reaction is to say it’s not a glorification because it’s justified then you run a real risk that vigilantism is only part of. Authoritarian states work the same way.
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
From just above. Literally the person who made me ask that question. And sure enough it’s a call to mob violence while maintaining they are non violent. This is how this shit gets out of hand.
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
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.
I wish Luigi had another tactic to use, but we know the legal system will not serve the individual over the half-trillion dollar company.
The system has made violence the only option. I don’t glorify the violence itself, I glorify ending the life of a man who led a company whose denials kill 40 people per day. If anything Luigi acted in self defense, and in defense of the American people.
So it’s okay because you like it?
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 (the military and the police). Believing anything else is just closing your eyes to the violence that happens every single day, and making you powerless against injustice.
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.
I might be inferring the wrong thing here, but do you believe that human rights exist?
Yes, it’s not an incompatible theory. The Harm principle for example is all about balancing one person’s rights with another. Or put another way, choosing when violence is legitimate.
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.
Fucking team politics. Just because I’m challenging how you view the world does not mean I’m on the other team.
I understand what you’re saying. The answer is yes, we choose when violence is justified.
Lemmy doesn’t do well with nuanced discussion. The communication dilemma present is the lack of the bridge between where one party in the discussion wants to continue narrowing the parameters of discussion until we are left with a binary choice (the quantum side of discussion) and the other party wants to keep the discussion broad and cognizant of all the variables (the general relativity side of discussion).
Both sides have valid reasons for existing. Usually you do have to narrow parameters in order to actually come up with a solution or action to implement. Similarly to how in a valid experiment you attempt to control all variables except what you’re testing. But you also have to be aware of all the variables in the first place to adequately control them.
And from what I’ve seen, narrowing it to glorifying violence is nothing more than an attempt to terminate the discussion altogether.
Yeah, that may be true. Some people have their minds made up and they somehow think any further discussion is somehow a weakening of their position or something like that.
I like to think that any fear of discussion simply means you’re afraid your reasons aren’t sound and you don’t want to question the reality that you may be acting on emotions rather than reason. I think you can definitely have this discussion rationally and still end up supporting what happened.
Oh I know you can have this conversation rationally and come out supporting the shooter.
Dfc
That was a serious question. If things are okay just because we like them and not okay just because we don’t then what kind of morals are acting on? Yeah it came because I was frustrated that people can’t seem to get off trying to evade the idea of glorification. But it’s still serious, if your knee jerk reaction is to say it’s not a glorification because it’s justified then you run a real risk that vigilantism is only part of. Authoritarian states work the same way.
That’s not the situation, nor what anyone is asserting. Who are you talking to?
I see that all over this thread and this issue.
See better.
From just above. Literally the person who made me ask that question. And sure enough it’s a call to mob violence while maintaining they are non violent. This is how this shit gets out of hand.
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
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.
Lethal injections are non-violent murder…
I wish Luigi had another tactic to use, but we know the legal system will not serve the individual over the half-trillion dollar company.
The system has made violence the only option. I don’t glorify the violence itself, I glorify ending the life of a man who led a company whose denials kill 40 people per day. If anything Luigi acted in self defense, and in defense of the American people.
HERO