4 ms·

Either you think the CEO was an undeserving victim, or you think that only billionaires and their enforces deserve a monopoly on lethal force. Neither choice i

Either you think the CEO was an undeserving victim, or you think that only billionaires and their enforces deserve a monopoly on lethal force. Neither choice is valid, and this statement is just pure mindfuck. It is completely irrelevant what the CEO "deserved". I'm not going to condone lynching or vigilante killings in any civil context. There's no analogy with Ukraine/Russia, or any actual military conflict. You whole take here smells like "We're at civil war already, so why not just start lynching people? At least we'll have justice, finally."

jiggawatts 2y ago
> Neither choice is valid Why not? They are the very real choices people are making. Some would argue that lethal force is always wrong, even when you're being killed for money. Sorry, sorry... allowed to die without care ... for slightly enriching people that are already very, very, very rich. Others, like the rebels in Syria, or the defenders in Ukraine, would argue otherwise. > this statement is just pure mindfuck. If you've never seen things in this way, you should start. The billionaires see it that way. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." These laws, these norms you cling to... these are not designed to protect you. > I'm not going to condone lynching or vigilante killings in any civil context. Things stop "being civil" when death at an industrial scale becomes wildly profitable, legal, protected, and enforced by violent police. The same police that will stand outside a school for an hour and tackle parents who do try to protect the lives of their own children. > We're at civil war already, You are, you just haven't noticed. In case you do notice, you'll realise you're on the side that's losing because while you wring your hands in fear of things turning violent, the other side has been feeding your side into a meat grinder for profit at an industrial scale. The Sacklers killed 200,000 of you people and you want to protect their right to lord over you in absolute safety!? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49718388 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49718388 > At least we'll have justice, finally." There's no "we" here. I live in one of the rest-of-the-world places where healthcare is universal, and you have no justice. Not yet.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  If you've never seen things in this way, you should start. I entertained that way of seeing things at one point, actually. But I got over it in my teenage years.
  - knowitnone 2y ago
    I'm glad you like paying into health insurance and getting no medical care
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      I'm glad you "know" what kind of medical care I've been receiving, and how much I've been paying for it.
immibis 2y ago
Of course there's an analogy. A guy kills a whole lot of other guys and is still killing more - is it okay to kill him so he stops killing more? For example is it okay to kill Hitler halfway through the Holocaust, or are we normally obliged to wait to tbe end and then put him to a fair trial?

jiggawatts 2y ago

> Neither choice is valid Why not? They are the very real choices people are making. Some would argue that lethal force is always wrong, even when you're being killed for money. Sorry, sorry... allowed to die without care ... for slightly enriching people that are already very, very, very rich. Others, like the rebels in Syria, or the defenders in Ukraine, would argue otherwise. > this statement is just pure mindfuck. If you've never seen things in this way, you should start. The billionaires see it that way. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." These laws, these norms you cling to... these are not designed to protect you. > I'm not going to condone lynching or vigilante killings in any civil context. Things stop "being civil" when death at an industrial scale becomes wildly profitable, legal, protected, and enforced by violent police. The same police that will stand outside a school for an hour and tackle parents who do try to protect the lives of their own children. > We're at civil war already, You are, you just haven't noticed. In case you do notice, you'll realise you're on the side that's losing because while you wring your hands in fear of things turning violent, the other side has been feeding your side into a meat grinder for profit at an industrial scale. The Sacklers killed 200,000 of you people and you want to protect their right to lord over you in absolute safety!? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49718388 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49718388 > At least we'll have justice, finally." There's no "we" here. I live in one of the rest-of-the-world places where healthcare is universal, and you have no justice. Not yet.

aguaviva 2y ago
If you've never seen things in this way, you should start. I entertained that way of seeing things at one point, actually. But I got over it in my teenage years.
- knowitnone 2y ago
  I'm glad you like paying into health insurance and getting no medical care
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    I'm glad you "know" what kind of medical care I've been receiving, and how much I've been paying for it.

immibis 2y ago

Of course there's an analogy. A guy kills a whole lot of other guys and is still killing more - is it okay to kill him so he stops killing more? For example is it okay to kill Hitler halfway through the Holocaust, or are we normally obliged to wait to tbe end and then put him to a fair trial?