That_Mad_Scientist
Oh no that kind of thing I agree with. As long as it is necessary, then sure. However, a lot of these discussions are plainly theoretical - no one here is gonna do shit, in short. But people get galvanized by the idea of committing these acts and get from these fantasies a certain kind of satisfaction I’m not sure I understand properly. I mean - I do understand. People are fed up and angry with the state of the world. But since this is purely ideological and not practical, it derails all productive discussion.
What I’m saying is: as long as you can’t come up with an actual plan that has better odds of working than any other proposed alternatives, I don’t know why you’d be so obsessed with the idea of violence that it ends up being unhealthy; this maladaptive coping mechanism, in turn, might bleed into other aspects of your life and/or activism. Even if the maths check out, a lot of this is inflammatory tribalistic discourse with no point other than to rile up ideological support through emotive means. I think that actually matters quite a lot.
Apologies if my expression is somewhat unclear at times.
I don’t think you should, but should we derive what is just from how much sympathy capital a given person has? Assuming your objective is to end poverty, etc, and to minimize suffering, then if you are ready to advocate for something like murder even in the hypothetical that you absolutely don’t need to, then you’re probably just letting your feeling dictate your actions. You can of course dispute that hypothetical, and there is definitely an argument to be made there, but a lot of people don’t and still go all in on it. Hence the problem with “wanting” these people to die, as opposed to “doing what is necessary”.
Then isn’t it revenge, and not justice? Not that I would feel bad for them, and I understand where the feeling is coming from, but in actuality, I wouldn’t ever dream of condoning something like that if there was any viable alternative. I thought we agreed the death penalty was bad, right?
I wish more people would understand this. If you remove the capitalists, capitalism will just make more. You need to remove capitalism, though obviously the capitalists will fight you on that and you may want to remove them from the system anyway. In either case, a lot of eat the rich discourse sounds like it’s out of spite and not in search of actual solutions.
Hmm. I see it as a failure of his own responsibilities. To each their own, I guess. The power imbalance is certainly going his way. Otherwise, it could be argued that his being shat on in the ama was problematic? It’s a short message that encompasses discontentment pretty broadly. I think leaders need to be held accountable. To me, this is the equivalent of saying “fuck macron” or something, which is something me and a lot of other people do on a semi-regular basis. But behind it is solid criticism, and it’s a shorthand for protesting being ignored, silenced, or denied democracy.
Someone is mad.
