One side is gonna lose in the end. That is all that matters. The world is ruled with violence. Non-violence only is beneficial to those currently in power.
Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence. How are you going to preserve yourself when you let people run around who want to opress or kill you?
As a last resort is too late. If you can use violence successfully, it justifies itself. Waiting for when it’s time for the last resort is too late. You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power. The same applies to any political movement.
Wishing him dead is fine in my book (since I don’t believe in magic anyhow) however encouraging assassination of political figures (as this may turn out to be) is not wise because in future it will be your guy who gets assassinated.
It is in everyone’s interest to have peaceful elections to sort out our differences.
“our guys” are being assasinated every day, dying from tough working conditions, starving away on the streets, getting killed by police, dying in another pointless war to see which group of rich people get to exploit a certain corner of the earth, being led to suicide by homophobic and transphobic retoric spread by these people…
You might want to read this blog post on this subject. What I’m quoting here is the central message, but do yourself a favor and actually read the rest and don’t just respond based on this quote
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted; the purpose of your group’s acceptance is to let people feel that they have a home, and someone who actively tries to thwart this is incompatible with the broader purpose of that acceptance. Prejudice against Nazis is not the same as prejudice against Blacks, because one is based on people’s stated opposition to their neighbors’ lives and safety, the other on a characteristic that has nothing to do with whether they’ll live in peace with you or not. Freedom of religion means that people have the right to have their own beliefs, but you have that same right; you are under no duty to tolerate an attempt to impose someone else’s religious laws on you.
[…]
If we interpreted tolerance as a moral absolute, or if our rules of conduct were entirely blind to the situation and to previous actions, then we would regard any measures taken against an aggressor as just as bad as the original aggression. But through the lens of a peace treaty, these measures have a different moral standing: they are tools which can restore the peace.
Sorry to hear he’s in a stable condition.
Jesus dude. I know right wingers can be absolute cunts but wishing death on them? Really?
Yeah.
I don’t tolerate the intolerant.
If you tolerate the intolerant, the tolerant society shifts to intolerant.
Violence is supposed to be the last resort to deal with them, I don’t see how this is in any way helpful, good or justified.
The last resort according to whom? It’s no law of nature or physics.
The last resort according to basic self preservation.
The other side have guns too. What do you think they’re gonna do when you start killing their people?
One side is gonna lose in the end. That is all that matters. The world is ruled with violence. Non-violence only is beneficial to those currently in power.
Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence. How are you going to preserve yourself when you let people run around who want to opress or kill you?
And there are plenty of times where this is done non violently.
Yes. As a last resort. That doesn’t mean never using violence. It means using it for self preservation, not just because you disagree with them.
As a last resort is too late. If you can use violence successfully, it justifies itself. Waiting for when it’s time for the last resort is too late. You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power. The same applies to any political movement.
Wishing him dead is fine in my book (since I don’t believe in magic anyhow) however encouraging assassination of political figures (as this may turn out to be) is not wise because in future it will be your guy who gets assassinated.
It is in everyone’s interest to have peaceful elections to sort out our differences.
“our guys” are being assasinated every day, dying from tough working conditions, starving away on the streets, getting killed by police, dying in another pointless war to see which group of rich people get to exploit a certain corner of the earth, being led to suicide by homophobic and transphobic retoric spread by these people…
So you do not tolerate yourself?
You might want to read this blog post on this subject. What I’m quoting here is the central message, but do yourself a favor and actually read the rest and don’t just respond based on this quote
There is a difference between not tolerating their shit and wishing people’s death.
Edit: spelling
Nah. fuck em
The only good fascist is a dead fascist.