3 ms·

I'm shocked by all the comments in this thread. Dude was assassinated. Of course that's not going to lead to introspection. Especially not immediately. Assassi

I'm shocked by all the comments in this thread. Dude was assassinated. Of course that's not going to lead to introspection. Especially not immediately. Assassination is wildly inappropriate! When was the last time you were egregiously, drastically wronged and thought to yourself "maybe they have a point"?

abnry 2y ago
This week I have learned that murder, not justice, is wildly more popular than I thought.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Vigilante justice has always been popular. It's one of the handful of themes at the core of most popular movies and TV shows.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- srj 2y ago
  I think the animosity is some indication people feel justice was not being served.
cruffle_duffle 2y ago
I too find people celebrating some dudes assassination pretty gross. It’s not justice. The dude who did it slunk away never to be seen again. At least man up and turn yourself in.
- always_imposter 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
    You are cheering on murder. That’s pretty gross. And I’m not an idiot, thanks.
    - computerthings 2y ago
      > Everybody knows a poor/normal man cannot fight for justice. What justice are you talking about? Their point stands.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - salawat 2y ago
        Two forms of justice are being referred to but using the same notation which fails to convey meaning. There's justice as she is implemented justice; likely being referenced by follow on poster as being impossible to fight for for a poor/normal man. Then there is Justice as she Ought to be. Referenced by both people, but first poster is only seeing as it applies to the murder of a single man, by a single man but second poster sees as the sum total of injustices perpetrated against many under the guiding hand of the man murdered. First poster can't believe that Justice as she Ought could accommodate the one man killing the other and the killer going free. Second poster sees the killer going free as a necessary precondition as a result of Justice as she Ought needing to find an instrumentality to elicit Justice as she Ought; the doer, in this sense, doesn't matter, as their behavior is the inevitable outcome of a greater force manifesting through them. If it weren't the case that were happening, there wouldn't be as much harmony and catharsis being undergone at the outcome. Basically, poster 2 is arguing on a cosmic scale, poster 1 is primarily operating in a more highly constrained scope encompassing only the murder transaction. Poster 1 may, be understandably upset, particularly if they are of a proclivity to not understand where this is all coming from. Poster 2 cares about Justice. Not justice. Savvy?
deeptrustx 2y ago
[dead]
rich_sasha 2y ago
There's an extra level of indirectness. Dude was assassinated, there is almost no sympathy and it's this they are outraged by. Sure, getting the top man assassinated isn't a reason to change what you do - it was one guy with a gun - but that no one is rushing to their defence is another matter.

abnry 2y ago

This week I have learned that murder, not justice, is wildly more popular than I thought.

SoftTalker 2y ago
Vigilante justice has always been popular. It's one of the handful of themes at the core of most popular movies and TV shows.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
srj 2y ago
I think the animosity is some indication people feel justice was not being served.

cruffle_duffle 2y ago

I too find people celebrating some dudes assassination pretty gross. It’s not justice. The dude who did it slunk away never to be seen again. At least man up and turn yourself in.

always_imposter 2y ago
[flagged]
- cruffle_duffle 2y ago
  You are cheering on murder. That’s pretty gross. And I’m not an idiot, thanks.
  - computerthings 2y ago
    > Everybody knows a poor/normal man cannot fight for justice. What justice are you talking about? Their point stands.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - salawat 2y ago
      Two forms of justice are being referred to but using the same notation which fails to convey meaning. There's justice as she is implemented justice; likely being referenced by follow on poster as being impossible to fight for for a poor/normal man. Then there is Justice as she Ought to be. Referenced by both people, but first poster is only seeing as it applies to the murder of a single man, by a single man but second poster sees as the sum total of injustices perpetrated against many under the guiding hand of the man murdered. First poster can't believe that Justice as she Ought could accommodate the one man killing the other and the killer going free. Second poster sees the killer going free as a necessary precondition as a result of Justice as she Ought needing to find an instrumentality to elicit Justice as she Ought; the doer, in this sense, doesn't matter, as their behavior is the inevitable outcome of a greater force manifesting through them. If it weren't the case that were happening, there wouldn't be as much harmony and catharsis being undergone at the outcome. Basically, poster 2 is arguing on a cosmic scale, poster 1 is primarily operating in a more highly constrained scope encompassing only the murder transaction. Poster 1 may, be understandably upset, particularly if they are of a proclivity to not understand where this is all coming from. Poster 2 cares about Justice. Not justice. Savvy?

deeptrustx 2y ago

[dead]

rich_sasha 2y ago

There's an extra level of indirectness. Dude was assassinated, there is almost no sympathy and it's this they are outraged by. Sure, getting the top man assassinated isn't a reason to change what you do - it was one guy with a gun - but that no one is rushing to their defence is another matter.