(i lied)

50 points
*

Honestly, I think it’s OK to hold a bit of both beliefs and have that dissonance generate a sort of shame-tinged discomfort.

Violence should, by any rational and reasonable measure, be avoided. But that doesn’t mean that violence isn’t necessary at very specific points. To be more specific, the threat of violence can be a powerful equaliser when faced with aggressive, unrelenting abuse wrapped in denial.

We still shouldn’t glorify it, though. Snitches get stitches in this not related to current events context, because a show of force is sometimes* necessary to establish the veracity of said threat. But we shouldn’t forget that murder is murder, even when the murdered was a murderer.

permalink
report
reply
29 points
*

Get out of here with your “nuance” and “reasonable, balanced” takes. We clown in this mf

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Ok :-<

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Please don’t actually get out of here though we appreciate you

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

But we should also recognise when violence

a. Is bad

b. Is completely legal

And that this is, in fact, a bad thing. And we should question why such violence is legal.

… Even if you come out at the other end deciding that yes, this is how it should be. The only “wrong” thing is not thinking about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Exactly! Violence is literally just a thing that exists (I’d argue a sun swallowing a whole planet is pretty violent, for instance), the essence is in the how, when, and why!

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

When you say something like, violence should be avoided, I have no idea what you mean. Avoided by who? Avoided when? Certainly law enforcement has done a lot of horrible things, but if you think they ought to exist, then you are explicitly endorsing the use of violence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Avoided by any living thing when it would be directed at or would affect any other living thing. I don’t care if you punch your fridge, for instance. I do care if said busted fridge would negatively affect someone else (i.e. someone else having to waste money buying a new one) or you punch something with a pulse. That punch better have a damned good reason, like being aimed at a Nazi. Or a cop. Or a Nazi cop. Oh, who am I kidding, that’s pleonastic.

Edit: to further clarify, while I do not agree with the police as an institution, I do think a system of accountability needs to exist, just like in any other game.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Violence should be avoided, which is why our healthcare system needs to be replaced by a single payer universal system like the rest of the developed world. The current system is violence. social murder is violence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

100% agreed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

permalink
report
reply
36 points

Oh I think many of the jokes are about him. Of course they’re about him. He got rich by killing people, he did it intentionally, all of his family and friends knew exactly what he was doing, and almost nobody respects him for it.

It’s kind of comical if you think how pathetically small the reward for information was. $10,000 and then now it’s up to $60,000. That’s how little his family wanted to track down his killer? That’s how little the government cares about who killed him? Jesus.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

And UHC has already removed his profile from the website and is talking about a replacement. Part of me was like “I bet one of his colleagues arranged this so that they could take his job.” The jokes are all rooted in a shared (rightful) hatred towards the US healthcare system.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

His wife seemed perfectly happy with the fact he was making millions. His family doesn’t get a pass on this. They all know what they’re doing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Your wishes don’t come true from shooting stars, they come true from shooting tsars

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Violence isn’t the answer, at first. But if they won’t respect our peace,they should respect our piece.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

No, you see, the state uses ‘force’ not violence! They’re totally different things because someone higher up in the hierarchy we made up said so!

permalink
report
reply
6 points

it’s not violence if the weapon is money or restriction from life saving medicine or nutrition 😤

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Because it’s"lawful" even if it’s not ethical.

Just remembering all the other things that were legal once

Child labor. Unlimited work hours per week.

Slave ownership

Asbestos and coal mining without protection

Serfdom and paying taxes to the king

Etc etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply

In 2003, extrajudicial detention and torture of detainees was legal.

Curiously, the English language uses the words sin and crime to talk about wrongdoing, even though sin is wrongdoing against God (as according to whatever ministry whose services you attend) and crime is wrongdoing against the state. We don’t have words for wrongdoing against the self, the neighbor, the community, the natural environment or (hypothetically) the universe, and often make up phrases, e.g. sin against nature, or crime against humanity.

(Granted some acts of wrongdoing against these other objects might be regarded as a sin or a crime, but then the focus is on the transgression against church and state; our entire justice system and our entire religious moral system cares very little about the victims, but retribution against the offender. If someone shoots up a school and kills themselves, the state and its justice system cares very little.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

All state violence is political violence.

permalink
report
reply