WaxedWookie @ WaxedWookie @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,469

Joined

2 yr. ago

Stalin's regime wasn't communist, and it checked all the boxes for fascism. Go look up the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - they only got antagonistic because their expansionism started treading on each-others toes. The ignorance.

I'm well aware of Mussolini's kill count - go ahead and scale things to the population and average it all out... Or skip that, and explain me the difference this makes to the point.

As for Hitler, the numbers you are talking about aren't his takeover of Germany - they're WW2.

...which kicked off because...? Moron.

You are are saying, over and over, that killing people to stop suffering is right. You are absolutely talking about killing people who are SAYING things you don't like. Fuentes is not an active shooter - I can't even find a criminal record for him of any kind.

Why would this argument not absolve Hitler or Goebbels of all fault for the Holocaust? It doesn't matter - we've already established that you can't have a moral issue with their actions because they were legal.

Your arguments amount to straightforward Nazi apologia as you ether lie or paint what I'm saying as my playing judge, jury and executioner. I'm not dishing out death sentences to Fuentes - I'm saying that his death would be good if it prevents more death and suffering. At this point, I think that's likely, but I don't think I can know yet. Go spend 5 minutes familiarising yourself with consequentialism or act utilitarianism.

I spit on the feigned outrage and moralism of someone whose prescriptions excuse the fucking Holocaust, and condemn intervention against it because it was legal - absolutely monstrous and utterly moronic.

There's no doubt they'll keep buying, but they won't do a full replacement unnecessarily.

You seem to think "killing mouthpieces" is going to be some magical event that makes hateful people reconsider (as opposed to spurring them to violence of their own).

Without recruiters and leaders, a movement is smaller, less coordinated, and less radicalised. This is doubly true of authoritatian movements built on lies.

Also, I'd like to add it's ridiculous hyperbole - 3.8 million people are estimated to have died in the 20 years of the Vietnam war. Just over 900k died to violence in all the post 9-11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

When talking about the threat of Western fascism, wouldn't it be more appropriate to look at western fascists? Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin... It's strange you'd point to such unrelated conflicts. Tens of millions dead.

You go ahead and be "guided by morality not legality" while you do try to convince others extrajudicial violence is alright.

If killing a mouthpiece of a genocidal movement prevents the deaths of tens of millions of people, it's morally correct. Similarly, gay marriage wasn't immoral until it was legal.

All because you believe killing people outside the law, and getting people killed in return, is productive if you're sure it's right.

Its right if it's productive. It's not productive because I'm sure it's right. You're tying yourself in knots here - it's very straightforward - minimise suffering and death.

You use the example of cops carrying guns, but they're not under license to kill everyone they disagree with nor is it considered moral (since you don't care about legality).

Cops carry guns because some violence is necessary, and desirable to stop more violence. You kill the school shooter to stop the kids getting murdered, you kill the Nazi leader to stop the minorities getting murdered. Attempting to spin this into a defence of killing anyone you disagree with demonstrates either willful dishonesty or a level of stupidity that would disqualify you from this conversation. Stop.

Violence should be a last resort

I've said as much.

used only within bounds that keep if from being a crime/war crime

Some killing is immoral and legal - e.g. the use of the death penalty, other killing is moral and illegal - e.g. killing Hitler to end World War II and the Holocaust. Why would you defer to legality in the context of fascists running the government, and being able to set the laws? Why was slavery immoral when it was legal? If your moral framework is based in legality (I don't think it is, I don't think you realise that), you're definitionally amoral - a fundamentally broken human being.

not exercised by everyone at will if they're pretty sure it's productive.

Are you going to wait for the fascist government to try the fascist leader, remove them from power, disassemble the means to commit their series of genocides, pack up and go home? This is a material defence of fascism.

The PLO were in power, Israel knew who Hamas were, and funded their rise to power (for what reason other than to manufacture the pretext for this genocide?), they also created and maintained the conditions that would motivate and justify violent resistance, so yes - Israel are responsible for Hamas.

In maintaining the horrible conditions I pointed to, Israel further motivated people to push back by any means necessary while giving them as little as possible to live for.

You don't get to tell us you want peace as you defend a genocide. You don't get to tell us about atrocities as the IDF gleefully document dozens per day, and you don't get to tell the people you're genociding that they're wrong.

With that all clarified, what would justifiable Palestinian self-defence look like, and do those principles apply equally to Israel?

It sounds great until you realise that they'd all just buy new merch, funnelling more money to Trump.

How about Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s.

Oh look - a New York Times reporter saved us the trouble. Turns out that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat (who also corroborated this statement).

...there's that, and the whole military occupation to maintain an apartheid state in an open air concentration camp, the decades-long annexation campaign. You'll be surprised to learn that people find that kind of thing upsetting.

I disagree - I think the majority know they're lying, and support the genocide - they're just cowards too gutless to say so.

You give these monsters any sort of push, and they start using Palestinian and Hamas interchangeably which really gives the game away... keep going, and they start screaming their support for wiping Palestine off the map.

You've said a lot while adding nothing.

Again, the priority is minimising suffering and death - if Fuentes' death amounts to a net increase in death and suffering, I don't support it. If there is a solution to that leads to less net suffering and death, I don't support his death. If it's effective at stopping the deaths of tens of millions of people, I'd support it. My preferred solution would be to escalate charges, censure and imprisonment for his work to advance those genocides.

What I will say is that:

• Silencing the mouthpieces of genocide and the recruiters for genocide helps minimises the chances of the genocides,
• Making contributing to genocide a dangerous affair helps minimise the chances of genocides.
• Asking nicely doesn't do a damn thing to minimise the chances of the genocides.

Political violence is an inevitability - I'd rather it be minimised - sometimes a little violence stops a lot - this is why cops carry guns.

Finally, what you are pushing for is very illegal.

I've already said I'm guided by morality not legality, and I'm not pushing for anything specific beyond stopping about the most heinous act possible. I appreciate your concern, but the rest is noise.

No... Stop... Please? Niiiick? I said pleeeease...

I use morality rather than legality to tell right from wrong. This is why I supported gay marriage a few years ago. My moral first principle is the minimisation of suffering and death. If someone is making headway toward killing tens of millions of people, I believe it's immoral not to stop them, and while the suffering inflicted should be minimised, there's not a lot that wouldn't be justifiable if necessary to stop those tens of millions of deaths and all the suffering.

To stand by and watch something like that play out because forceful intervention is uncivil is to be complicit with those atrocities.

Sure - he might be actively pushing for a series of genocides, and he might be a significant recruitment tool to advance those genocides, but pushing back against the death of millions of people with anything more than colourful language would be immoral.

Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

If you fail to tip them, you've failed them too. It's not complex.

You argument absolves the restaurateurs if consistently applied because the legislators failed them upstream (that's not to speak of absolving the legislators because of the voters) - I'm saying the legislators failed them, then the restaurateurs failed them, then the people that refused to tip them failed them. There's not a single point of failure, but that doesn't mean it's OK for you to decide to be the ultimate point of failure.

If you don't want to tip people that can't otherwise make minimum wage, use restaurants that pay minimum wage. You don't get to steal those workers' labour because the restaurateurs and legislators have failed them.

Others industries have to pay minimum wage - your contribution isn't factored into their base requirements for survival. This is a silly comparison. Do I support an increase in minimum wages? Abso-fucking-lutely - but electricians aren't routinely being paid less than $3/hr.

Me too - though I've lived in both.

Choosing to frequent a business that you know underpays their workers, where you know those workers rely on tips to survive, then choosing to take their labour and not pay for that labour isn't an arsehole tax - it's an arsehole subsidy, and it's the workers footing the bill.

I think workers should be paid enough to live comfortably without relying on tips, and that they should be a nice, but entirely unnecessary option - but you don't get to steal workers' labour just because you disagree with tipping.

Do you imagine that the people refusing to pay tips aren't fucking over the workers, or do you believe that because customers are fucking over workers, the restaurant owners can't be fucking over the workers too?

It doesn't matter - either take is transparently stupid.

Doesn't get paid properly to deliver a service you're relying on.

Tipping culture is stupid, but that doesn't mean you get to fuck over workers by refusing the tips they rely on. If you want to fight that fight, take it up with the business or your legislator, ya cheap asshole.

If you can avoid the dark ages, you should probably consider that a win right now...

So we should deport Israelis because Israel backed Hamas' displacement of the secular moderates with predictable results?

Don't pretend your hatred is principled.

I think it's pretty straightforwardly reasonable to say that we should above all else, remove their ability to continue to do harm. There's going to be a range of views on exactly what that should look like - mostly based on your view of how punitive we should be. Options would include confinement, exile, medication, lobotomy, and execution.

Personally, I think ending someone through death, lobotomy, and the like is unnecessarily barbaric. Confinement in one form or another seems like the most reasonable option, and I think consentual alternatives are debatable.

As a supportive outsider, I'll also throw in my 2c...

• I'm not big on the need to carry, but I think it's more important for the queer community now than ever.
• Please exercise judgement as to whether it's safe for you to carry - times are tough, and having easy access to means to end a life certainly isn't a great idea for everyone.
• If you do choose to carry, please spend some time at the range to ensure that you know what you're doing. It'll help keep both you and those around you safe if the need arises.
• Get to know your neighbours, and get friendly if you can - you won't know when you'll need to rely on one another, and a little proactive kindness goes a long way - even if it does nothing more than shift their view of you to being "one of the good ones".

Stay safe out there, folks ❤️

It's almost as though if someone wants the right, they'll vote for the right rather than the pale imitation that's buying into the Wright's framing where they can't compete rather than campaigning for something worthwhile.

There's a reason for this though - As long as our ruling class' material interests are aligned with the capital class (and with it, protection of policies like negative gearing), this is the choice we'll get.