I said something along the lines of:
“Wow, I haven’t had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while.”
Along with
“Nah, the more dead corpos dragons, the better.”
In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.
…
Good ole’ civility clause.
Whats the paradox of tolerance?
.world mods have never heard of it I guess.
The problem with this approach is that the “corpos,” as you say, are way better at killing people than the problem-solvers are. They have a ton of experience and they have all the weapons and money.
Everyone who hasn’t been through a civil war says, “Let’s just do one! We can kill the bad people and solve all the problems. It’s the only way.” The people who’ve been through one tend to say, “Violence is all fun and simple until it starts happening to you and everyone you care about. It’s like a nightmare you can’t escape, and there’s no way to stop it once it starts, just ride it out to the shattered conclusion. And there’s no guarantee that the post-conclusion world will be any better. Sometimes it is dramatically worse. Let’s try some other things first.”
There’s a difference between a civil war and a number of high profile assasinations.
They’re better at those, too.
I’m saying that if your system for making things better is to just assassinate anyone who’s making a problem, it won’t turn out the way you think it will.
There are a lot of ways violence can be applied to accomplish a good goal. The civil war was one, the American revolution was one. The 2014 revolution in Ukraine. The labor movement in the late 1800s in America. Those are just some that spring immediately to mind. There are also nonviolent ways of making progress, some effective and some not.
I’m not ever aware of randomly assassinating the people who are making a problem, all on your own, ever leading to a big improvement. There are some obvious big examples of it making things exponentially worse. For obvious reasons.
Let me just say I’d love to continue this conversation, but even talking further about real world examples of things that have already happened, which I have no intention of doing pr emulating myself, would risk … lets say a kind of moderation from a higher authority.
You’re talking nonsense. We are on db0. You can talk about violence to make a political or historical argument. I know, because I just did exactly that.
Even on lemmy.world, I think you can usually do it also as long as you’re not calling for or celebrating violence, although the moderation is sometimes weird and inconsistent there. But in this particular community I don’t see any kind of issue if you want to say what you mean.
I am posting from a phone.
In the USA.
Without a VPN.
I have no worries about the db0 mod team rofl.
More importantly, on unencrypted communications channels. In cleartext on a public facing website. In a country where it’s well known that the entire fucking internet gets saved to NSA’s Utah data center.
In a country where, during the War on Terror, they wanted to slap non-violent Quaker protestors with terrorism charges and people who viewed linuxjournal.com were chosen for extra surveillance because linuxjournal was defined as an “extremist forum.”
Yeah, people just kind of forgot about how that NSA facility in Utah basically is the Aquinas router in Area 51 from Deus Ex, at least in terms of scale and ability to just know nearly literally everything that happens on the internet.
Man, it’s been so long since I played Deus Ex, I forgot all about Aquinas. Fucking accurate reference.
While you can certainly trust us, you should still practice proper OpSec for any stuff that can land you in trouble (not talking about a shitpost obviously) even on our instance. If worst comes to worst, we won’t be able to stop nation states going against us.
Has it ever been tried historically, though? Prior to the advent of modern handguns, it wasn’t really practical to attempt, and without the internet, there was no possibility of a widespread movement supporting the action. In a way, you could view it as the evolution of the 2nd amendment. Be a responsible pillar of society or get shot if you piss somebody off too badly.
Archduke Ferdinand, JFK, Lincoln, the French Revolution, all come immediately to mind. The Weathermen didn’t kill anybody but they did try the strategy of big violence to address societal problems. Guns have been around for a while.
Who decides that, though? Anyone with a gun can just decide on their own who’s the problem? I’m saying that has a big track record of causing the problems to get even worse. There’s a reason why the American revolutionaries wrote down exactly their reasons, made sure to make the good argument that they were on the right side of history and collaborated in a big group to make sure everyone was on the same page and it wasn’t just a pot shots at the bad guys free-for-all.
The whole world got extremely lucky when that guy who tried to shoot Trump missed.
Jury’s still out on that one. In a few years we may wish the guy had been a better shot.
Anyone with a gun who’s willing to give up their own life in exchange. In that sense, no different from how it already is today.
All the incidents you point to were single, one-off events. If however there was actually a habit of people willing to give up their lives and freedom to take down a billionaire who’s severely wronged them, who’s to say that billionaires as a whole wouldn’t actually think twice about their actions before being an asshole? The catch is that it cannot rely on any one person or small group of actors, but has to become a grassroots movement to have any chance of success.
I immediately wished he was a better shot. no need to wait for those people. we exist. hell tenacious D demonstrated this fact basically immediately.