3 ms·

It's maybe important to note that the phrase 'He was no angel' is a common (extremely dark and sarcastic) joke in left-leaning circles around these kind of trag

It's maybe important to note that the phrase 'He was no angel' is a common (extremely dark and sarcastic) joke in left-leaning circles around these kind of tragic murders because there is always, without fail, some right-wing effort to paint the victim as some sort of low-life who had it coming one way or the other. Let's be clear: no one, regardless of how much they've fucked up in their lives, deserves to be murdered in cold blood by the police while they pose no threat to anyone. To restate: a non-violent suspect's past offenses are not germane when the discussion is about the police summarily executing that non-violent suspect in the street. Any attempt to confuse this point with ideas about how the victim wasn't perfect, about how they could have done better in the confrontation or not committed a crime in the first place, is an attempt to deflect blame onto the victim. These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse.

precisioncoder 6y ago
"deserve no quarter in civilized discourse." This is a dangerous opinion. I would argue that the entire point of civilized discourse is to provide quarter for even opinions you radically disagree with, after all people hold these opinions and isn't discussing them in a civilized manner rather than dismissing and villainizing the people who hold them the only way to progress? Otherwise you have two sides that aren't discussing anything with each other and resort to violence, legal challenges, and pressure on employers rather than attempting to connect with each other and share another view.
- worik 6y ago
  https://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/l6eC9Pd.png https://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/l6eC9Pd.png
fennecfoxen 6y ago
> These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse. Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is saying that if the enemy decides to surrender to you, and lays down his arms, and hoists the white flag, sticks his hands in the air, then you will shoot and kill him. Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is therefore a violation of the Hague convention. It is "especially forbidden," in the same paragraph as poisoned weapons. You are defending your actions with a metaphor that celebrates war crimes. Hands up don't shoot, sir.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  I also found the "no quarter" phrasing interesting by the parent poster. As countless people have found out across history, those who show no mercy will in turn receive no mercy when they need it. If pushback against the intolerant aspects of progressivism is occurring even on HN (of all places!), they may need that mercy sooner than they think.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    It's interesting that this is the place you decided to make an argument about 'no mercy'. Because as a rhetorical question for you using the same analogy: What do you think will happen to the police when they show no mercy? Perhaps that might explain why people find the arguments attempting to justify the extrajudicial execution of someone to be disgusting.

precisioncoder 6y ago

"deserve no quarter in civilized discourse." This is a dangerous opinion. I would argue that the entire point of civilized discourse is to provide quarter for even opinions you radically disagree with, after all people hold these opinions and isn't discussing them in a civilized manner rather than dismissing and villainizing the people who hold them the only way to progress? Otherwise you have two sides that aren't discussing anything with each other and resort to violence, legal challenges, and pressure on employers rather than attempting to connect with each other and share another view.

worik 6y ago
https://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/l6eC9Pd.png https://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/l6eC9Pd.png

fennecfoxen 6y ago

> These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse. Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is saying that if the enemy decides to surrender to you, and lays down his arms, and hoists the white flag, sticks his hands in the air, then you will shoot and kill him. Declaring "no quarter" in actual war is therefore a violation of the Hague convention. It is "especially forbidden," in the same paragraph as poisoned weapons. You are defending your actions with a metaphor that celebrates war crimes. Hands up don't shoot, sir.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
I also found the "no quarter" phrasing interesting by the parent poster. As countless people have found out across history, those who show no mercy will in turn receive no mercy when they need it. If pushback against the intolerant aspects of progressivism is occurring even on HN (of all places!), they may need that mercy sooner than they think.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  It's interesting that this is the place you decided to make an argument about 'no mercy'. Because as a rhetorical question for you using the same analogy: What do you think will happen to the police when they show no mercy? Perhaps that might explain why people find the arguments attempting to justify the extrajudicial execution of someone to be disgusting.