(i lied)
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
401 points (98.3% liked)
196
17027 readers
857 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The risk of your movement going violent is that it deters sympathists, and it makes the targets of your violence sympathetic.
If you don't care because you already have strong enough public support then load the cannons. Send out your suicide bombers.
But then your movement will be regarded as one that uses force. Some people will see it as justified. Some won't. But it also weakens the effect when the police are seen busting the heads of your protestors; some will think state force against your protestors is just that wouldn't if your group was non-violent.
This is why Martin Luther King chose a strict code of nonviolence, footage of police dogs attacking the protestors made sympathists of bystanders and activists of sympathists.
Malcom X on the other hand believed white supremacist sentiment in the US was more pervasive than King felt, and the only choice was to defend their rights by force, because the white power factions would not recognize any less.
And this is true: they do not. It's less of a problem when outright bigotry is not acceptable within the Overton window, but it's definitely a problem when the supremacists have a strong following in the community; though usually they only attack when they outnumber you. Hence FBI under J. Edgar Hoover killed King (likely) and also the leaders of the Black Panthers.
"Murder is only bad because other people think it's icky" --you
Oh, I think it's icky too.
In fact since WWII we've been aware that only a small percentage of us can get past our killing bad instincts to shoot at other infantry in combat. We humans are really against killing each other.
But we're totally fine when the choices we make kill people offstage, or someone is willing to do the killing for us. Based on a 2015 tally, law enforcement kill four people a day -- most of those not resisting and not armed -- and the number has gone up with each year. And those are the ones that NGOs track via news, obits and coroner reports. Then we have precinct coroners who will fudge so that a police bullet was not a cause of death, erasing one. We estimate up to 75% of the incidents are not detected or reported, similar to unreported sexual assault cases.
And then there's elite deviance. It used to be called white collar crime but when Brian Thompson was doing it, it wasn't actually criminal, but perfectly legal according to the state. (He may have committed some crimes, but the ED included far more than that.)
Elite Deviance, when our ownership class engages in revenue-enhancing shenanigans such as private equity finance, kills more people, causes more destruction and costs more than all the petty crimes combined by multiple orders of magnitude.
That is to say, if we actually prosecuted our industrialists and capitalists, and (hypothetically) completely ignored every mugger, every serial killer, every shoplifter, and heck every corrupt police officer, we would still be saving lives by far. We might also reduce crimes of desperation, given precarity or scarcity informs most petty crime anyway.
But the society we live in does not grant personhood to everyone, and in fact most of us are beneath the interests of the owners and their corporate machines. And then there's the more obvious unpersoning, such as women with complex pregnancies, trans kids, non-whites and immigrants, or families of immigrants.
So it's not so much about whether killing is icky, but the narrow scope of specific cases in which killing is icky, because our society already tolerates an awful lot of it when we don't have to watch a specific incident unfold.
"Depending on how you define mruder, there are hundreds of murders happening every day. What's one more? gunshot" --you
You seem eager to jump to conclusions while putting no thought into them. Why don't you share your moral philosophy opinion with the class?
When, in your opinion, is it right and proper for someone to kill someone else?
When given due process of law, convicted by a jury of peers, and when it becomes obvious there really is no other way. That's justice. One guy with a gun is just a murderer.
Curious, so you believe in the cases where the US, or its respective states execute a prisoner that it is warranted because there's no other way?
I could go ahead, as you did to me, and assert you're a monster, but instead I'll give you a chance to elaborate.
Apologies. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. Summary execution, I now realize, is never acceptable. If Hitler hadn't killed himself, he would have deserved life in supermax, not the electric chair. Deliberately ending a life is simply inhumane.
I take by your sarcasm you don't want a real conversation?
But yes, only not ironically. I don't think a state should kill anyone for sake of retribution, no matter how grisly their behavior. In fact, I think retribution shouldn't factor at all into how a state manages those who break law or engage in antisocial behavior.
Is that a conversation you want to have? Or is snark the only thing you know how to do?
ETA: It sounds like you may not know this: Summary execution is killing someone without due process. Generally, that's a crime internationally, and regarded as a war crime.
I assume you would want Hitler to at least have a trial at Nuremberg, if he was captured, but feel free to correct me.
That's funny. Just a couple replies ago you were actively advocating for murder. Is it only bad when the state does it?
I think you misread what I said.
Care to state your case?