If they can elect a felon to the white house, so could we.
Edit: Better image, thanks to @PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
Disgusting. This is as bad as championing Trump. Rape, murder—what’s the difference?
Who you murder matters.
I have zero problem with all the Nazis the Allies murdered in WW2.
This is a class
waroccupation. The Class war was lost in the 80s, the people were tricked into surrendering without terms. Luigi, an alleged traitor to his class bless him, tried to foment a resistence/revolution to the class occupation most of us suffer under.The idea that change must be nonviolent is something that the oligarchs put in our heads to maintain their control, which includes violence using captured government force against us. Most nations were founded using violence, including this one. Further, the oligarchs have captured both major parties, leaving us to bicker on social issues, and without a vote on the shape and priorities of the sociopathic economy both parties are well paid to defend from us, the people that suffer it. Our nonviolent options have been taken away, as we’re encouraged to be divided and hate our fellow laborers on every conceivable wedge so we never look up. Divide and profit.
Brian was murdering Americans in swaths. His murder weapon was snake oil, a con: “buy our service as your preparation for inevitable illness! Just give us your money every month, and you’ll be prepared when you need life saving care…” “… Oh you’re sick now? You’ll die without care you expect us to pay for? Whatever gave you the idea we’d pay for your care? Thanks for all the premiums, fuck off and die, poorie sucker.”
cough India’s independence, Jim Crow Laws. cough cough
India’s independence
There was plenty of violence there, even in the Quit India Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi.
Violence didn’t result because Gandhi ever advocated for it, it was something that happened as a result of it. Because again non-violence isn’t just standing by and doing nothing, it’s about resisting evil via non-cooperation. Resisting it by not obeying it; not retaliating, but never to submit to evil at the same time.
Why does this argument assume violence is always evil?
There are plenty of situations where non-violence is not effective, where an attacker does not want or need co-operation, making non-cooperation merely non-resistance to evil. Sometimes the only realistic way to disobey violence is with targeted counter-violence or the threat of counter-violence, we don’t always have the luxury of non-violent tactics available to us.
Even groups like antifascist orgs emphasize that non-violent tactics are generally preferred, and I agree completely, but ultimately, there are many real-world situations where non-violent methods just aren’t applicable. This is important to realize if we want to stop evil.
“Where an attacker does not want or need co-operation.” That’s the context in which I’m speaking. That’s the whole point, to not submit to both your inherent need to retaliate and there demand for you of something; to not just sit there and do nothing, but resist—non-violently. To not submit to them taking your land, your children, but to do so non-violently. To resist the aggressor, by never giving them your obedience, which includes allowing them to harm you or your loved ones, but without literally fighting back, but by never backing down at the same time.
My question still stands: rape regarding trump, and murder in this circumstance—what’s the difference?
It wasn’t the oligarchs that suggested nonviolence, sweet lord; hate only ever breeds more hate, evil only ever makes more evil. Love (selflessness, i.e., logic and reason) is the only true remedy, as proved in gaining India’s independence, and in eliminating the Jim Crow Laws here in America as a couple examples; not to mention leading to mankinds first experimenting with Democracy in ancient Geeece: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus
Most of Greece fell to Tyrant rule for the next 400ish years, while Athens stood tall to practice this system of Archons, leading to 9 more positions regarding things like their judiciary system and religion.
Do you think we could have loved the Nazis into standing down and stopping their genocide?
Do you think you can love a sociopath capitalist murdering for profit into no longer doing so?
Do you think plotting to run up and Hug Brian would have saved a single life? Because BlueCross, at least for now, reversed a policy to deny enough anesthesia for surgeries because of what Luigi allegedly did. He brought about positive change to some, for now, however temporary.
I don’t believe in justice in another life there’s no evidence of. Loving hate just gets you mowed down, this isn’t a fairy tale or a movie. If we want to turn an unjust world into a just one, good vibes won’t cut it when the people in charge don’t even view us as people due to no meaningful net worth.
We wouldn’t be appealing to the Nazi’s in this regard, we would’ve been appealing to the people of Germany, and the soldiers—the men that made up the Nazi regime.
Yeah, I can assure you, returning good for evil done is far from a fairy tale or movie, and a slap in the face to all the people that have given their lives for its cause and its potential.
We’ve always retaliated throughout history, and it only ever got us more and more retaliation; it only ever puts a reason to retaliate in someone’s lap. The tickle of love or hate in the world both begins and ends with the individual.
You say that as if this is a retaliation, then peace, then retaliation.
United Healthcare murdered people for profit yesterday. They are today. They will tomorrow. This is an active attack. An active slaughter is upon the people, though the owners just call it business, whether we would fight back or not.
Don’t confuse quiet for peace. We haven’t had peace here in decades.
No amount of murder justifies the murder of even one.
I’m not sure what you mean by the peace retaliation bit, can you explain?
Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
We’ve always retaliated throughout history, and it only ever got us more and more retaliation; it only ever puts a reason to retaliate in someone’s lap.
Who retaliated on the Allies for winning WWII?
Did the world get worse when the war ended?
Did the Nazis stop of their own accord, or did someone have to fight them?
You’re pretending as if you’ve never heard of Popper’s paradox of tolerance or indeed understand that justifies self-defenses can’t exist.
If a 50kg woman was regularly raped and beaten by their 200kg muscly husband and never allowed to leave the house, would it be unreasonable for the woman to kill the man in his sleep? In this hypothetical she can not run or contact anyone for help.
She should be a peaceful individual and accept that it’s her responsibility to be non-violent so the world is a better place and to to keep just taking the beatings and the rapes?
We have yet to see. 9/11 ring any bells?
What does that have to do with the relevance of returning the evil of that war with good?
This still doesn’t prove the irrelevance of it becasue who can say what else would’ve happened if evils to this degree were met with equal parts good?
I thought we were talking about war here? More specifically even murdering a CEO as a matter of fact. Of course that person should be trying to escape, people have a tendency of not looking at this idea reasonably, and especially to ge off topic and use these specific situations where of course we should be using any means necessary to get ourselves out in that situation. I didn’t realize world peace rested on this women trying to change the mind of this one serial killer apparently, I’m assuming.
9/11 has nothing to do with WW2 and everything to do with punishing america for its military adventures in the Middle East where it hurt - the center of the financial system.
You sound young and naive and probably not around for the pre 9/11 world. In summary, bin Laden won.
In what world is a 50kg woman obese??
My question still stands: rape regarding trump, and murder in this circumstance—what’s the difference?
How many examples of public political rapes can you find?
Lt. Commander Data: But if that is so, Captain, why are their methods so often successful? I’ve been reviewing the history of armed rebellion, and it appears that terrorism is an effective way to promote political change.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Yes, it can be. But I have never subscribed to the theory that political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
Lt. Commander Data: Yet there are numerous examples when it was successful: the independence of the Mexican state from Spain, the Irish Unification of 2024, and the Kenzie Rebellion.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Yes, I am aware of them.
Lt. Commander Data: Then would it be accurate to say that terrorism is acceptable, when all options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed?
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Data, these are questions that mankind has been struggling with throughout history. Your confusion is… only Human.
How does this answer my question? I’m not following.
How many public political rapes in history can you mention?
I can list you pages and pages and pages of political murders.
How does naming all of that answer my question?
