Yeah, I’ve proven to be a real fan of Fuentes in other parts of this thread… Take off with the insults and assumptions. You think someone like Bernie Sanders is going to tell his followers to kill Fuentes? I guess he’s a fascist too huh? Here’s what I actually oppose - blatantly illegal mob justice. Fuentes is a bastard, but that doesn’t justify some angry internet dude committing an act of premeditated murder. Are you going to kill everyone with an ideology you consider dangerous? While convinced it’s to prevent suffering no less. What about when, if Fuentes dies because of things he says, the right makes him a martyr and example of how dangerous “the enemy within” is making America? What if the fellow countrymen who you so hate start killing you and people you support/care about in return? Is that your plan for a safe nation?
It’s taken like 4 days post-election for people to escalate to calling for violence against people they’ve identified as Nazis. All in the name of ethics no less. I can empathize with the anger and feeling of helplessness. It’s still ridiculous and heart-breaking that less than a week after a loss there’s hundreds of upvotes for people pushing extrajudicial cold-blooded murder and violence in the name of righteousness. Unrepentantly so I might add.
P.S. Don’t tell me the folks hinting at this crap aren’t talking about murder. Even if, and that’s a big if, they only meant beatings or the like (still illegal) that would degenerate into lethal violence basically immediately. You personally have already said you don’t want to use words alone.
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.
It’s insane to think killing Fuentes is going to prevent tens of millions of deaths. For starters, even a lot of Republicans want little or nothing to do with him. 2nd, if he is so dangerous, do you think his followers (who you argue are capable of killing many millions) are just going to throw up their hands at his death and go “whelp, that finishes it for us”? They’ll become more hateful, and much more likely to become violent in return.
What you are pushing for is also very illegal. If you ever stop talking big and start doing, the most likely outcomes are you die or ruin your life. I’d say put up or shut up, but please don’t - vigilantism is wrong and I don’t want to see deaths or you and others suffering the outcomes even if I disagree with you. Worse, posts like yours might convince someone impressionable or less mentally stable to attack Fuentes and ruin their life instead because folks like you got angry. Plus the whole cascade of violence or even revenge killings situation.
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.
Nothing? I addressed and rebutted your argument that your “there’s not a lot that wouldn’t be justifiable if necessary” (aka killing Fuentes) would prevent “tens of millions of deaths”. 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). 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. Finally, even if you don’t care about going to prison or dying, hopefully others reading will.
You go ahead and be “guided by morality not legality” while you do try to convince others extrajudicial violence is alright. All because you believe killing people outside the law, and getting people killed in return, is productive if you’re sure it’s right. 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). Can you imagine if your example cops were guided by your principles, ignored law, and killed everyone they suspected might be a dangerous criminal on the chance it would reduce suffering? I’m thankful you’re almost certainly all talk, and let’s hope no one else listens to your posts about “silencing mouthpieces” and “making it dangerous”. That’s a recipe for mass violence, lawlessness, and associated suffering.
Violence should be a last resort, used only within bounds that keep if from being a crime/war crime, and definitely not exercised by everyone at will if they’re pretty sure it’s productive.
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.
Stalin as an example of a Western Fascist is ludicrously off the mark. Look up Fascism vs. Communism, and read about Hitler’s relationship with Stalin - “Though they never met or even spoke, Hitler and Stalin loathed each other on political grounds. Both men hoped to buy time to prepare for the future Nazi-Soviet war they knew was inevitable.” Mussolini’s revolution killing tens of millions? You need to retake history and politics my dude.
As for Hitler, the numbers you are talking about aren’t his takeover of Germany - they’re WW2. Unless your argument is that killing Fuentes/other social media personalities is going to stop WW3 (and I have no idea what group of nations you think are going to full-blown war with the US because of Fuentes/others) you need to stop using “tens of millions” for harm prevention by “silencing” these dudes. It is, indeed, hyperbole.
Cops: 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. I can read what you write. “You kill the Nazi leader to stop the minorities getting murdered” - you want people you have decided are dangerous to die now to prevent possible future harm. Exactly what I wrote.
Whatever, I’m not going to challenge your morality anymore - it’s clear you think you have a right to declare when someone deserves to die. You’ve made it clear you don’t care about laws. I wrote a post hours ago that ignores morality completely (and most of legality) about the likely actual consequences of the vigilante war you and others are proposing. It’s near the top of this thread if you want to read it.
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.
Way to dodge the question about if you think killing social media people (not even Trump, just podcasters) is going to prevent WW3. That was half the comment and the whole point. You aren’t talking about killing Hitler and Goebbels, you’re talking about killing the newspaper writers in 1933 Germany and assuming no one else takes their place so their stance is “silenced”. You talk about good faith arguments…
“Stalinism is the totalitarian means of governing and Marxist–Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Union (USSR) from 1924 to 1953 by dictator Joseph Stalin and in Soviet satellite states between 1944 and 1953. Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology that became the largest faction of the communist movement in the world in the years following the October Revolution. It was developed in Russia by Joseph Stalin and drew on elements of Bolshevism, Leninism, Marxism, and the works of Karl Kautsky.” Stalin dissolved the Comintern, his “long arm of the Soviet state” during WW2. "Invoking the “judgment of the founders of Marxism and Leninism” as a kind of holy writ, the resolution renounces any reliance on “organizational forms that have outlived themselves.” I think you are confusing dictatorship and one-party states (ways of ruling) with fascism (political ideology).
Now you’re strawmanning by putting words in my mouth and telling me what I believe. Nothing I’ve said is an excuse for the Holocaust and I’ve not once apologized for Nazis. If you really are intellectually honest you need to give me that. I’ve been exclusively arguing against your original stance that killing people (and we started by talking about Fuentes, a podcaster) is justified if you’re sure it will prevent suffering, a stance you have reiterated as the greater good multiple times now.
Yeah, I’ve proven to be a real fan of Fuentes in other parts of this thread… Take off with the insults and assumptions. You think someone like Bernie Sanders is going to tell his followers to kill Fuentes? I guess he’s a fascist too huh? Here’s what I actually oppose - blatantly illegal mob justice. Fuentes is a bastard, but that doesn’t justify some angry internet dude committing an act of premeditated murder. Are you going to kill everyone with an ideology you consider dangerous? While convinced it’s to prevent suffering no less. What about when, if Fuentes dies because of things he says, the right makes him a martyr and example of how dangerous “the enemy within” is making America? What if the fellow countrymen who you so hate start killing you and people you support/care about in return? Is that your plan for a safe nation?
It’s taken like 4 days post-election for people to escalate to calling for violence against people they’ve identified as Nazis. All in the name of ethics no less. I can empathize with the anger and feeling of helplessness. It’s still ridiculous and heart-breaking that less than a week after a loss there’s hundreds of upvotes for people pushing extrajudicial cold-blooded murder and violence in the name of righteousness. Unrepentantly so I might add.
P.S. Don’t tell me the folks hinting at this crap aren’t talking about murder. Even if, and that’s a big if, they only meant beatings or the like (still illegal) that would degenerate into lethal violence basically immediately. You personally have already said you don’t want to use words alone.
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.
It’s insane to think killing Fuentes is going to prevent tens of millions of deaths. For starters, even a lot of Republicans want little or nothing to do with him. 2nd, if he is so dangerous, do you think his followers (who you argue are capable of killing many millions) are just going to throw up their hands at his death and go “whelp, that finishes it for us”? They’ll become more hateful, and much more likely to become violent in return.
What you are pushing for is also very illegal. If you ever stop talking big and start doing, the most likely outcomes are you die or ruin your life. I’d say put up or shut up, but please don’t - vigilantism is wrong and I don’t want to see deaths or you and others suffering the outcomes even if I disagree with you. Worse, posts like yours might convince someone impressionable or less mentally stable to attack Fuentes and ruin their life instead because folks like you got angry. Plus the whole cascade of violence or even revenge killings situation.
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.
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.
Nothing? I addressed and rebutted your argument that your “there’s not a lot that wouldn’t be justifiable if necessary” (aka killing Fuentes) would prevent “tens of millions of deaths”. 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). 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. Finally, even if you don’t care about going to prison or dying, hopefully others reading will.
You go ahead and be “guided by morality not legality” while you do try to convince others extrajudicial violence is alright. All because you believe killing people outside the law, and getting people killed in return, is productive if you’re sure it’s right. 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). Can you imagine if your example cops were guided by your principles, ignored law, and killed everyone they suspected might be a dangerous criminal on the chance it would reduce suffering? I’m thankful you’re almost certainly all talk, and let’s hope no one else listens to your posts about “silencing mouthpieces” and “making it dangerous”. That’s a recipe for mass violence, lawlessness, and associated suffering.
Violence should be a last resort, used only within bounds that keep if from being a crime/war crime, and definitely not exercised by everyone at will if they’re pretty sure it’s productive.
Without recruiters and leaders, a movement is smaller, less coordinated, and less radicalised. This is doubly true of authoritatian movements built on lies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ve said as much.
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.
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.
Stalin as an example of a Western Fascist is ludicrously off the mark. Look up Fascism vs. Communism, and read about Hitler’s relationship with Stalin - “Though they never met or even spoke, Hitler and Stalin loathed each other on political grounds. Both men hoped to buy time to prepare for the future Nazi-Soviet war they knew was inevitable.” Mussolini’s revolution killing tens of millions? You need to retake history and politics my dude.
As for Hitler, the numbers you are talking about aren’t his takeover of Germany - they’re WW2. Unless your argument is that killing Fuentes/other social media personalities is going to stop WW3 (and I have no idea what group of nations you think are going to full-blown war with the US because of Fuentes/others) you need to stop using “tens of millions” for harm prevention by “silencing” these dudes. It is, indeed, hyperbole.
Cops: 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. I can read what you write. “You kill the Nazi leader to stop the minorities getting murdered” - you want people you have decided are dangerous to die now to prevent possible future harm. Exactly what I wrote.
Whatever, I’m not going to challenge your morality anymore - it’s clear you think you have a right to declare when someone deserves to die. You’ve made it clear you don’t care about laws. I wrote a post hours ago that ignores morality completely (and most of legality) about the likely actual consequences of the vigilante war you and others are proposing. It’s near the top of this thread if you want to read it.
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.
…which kicked off because…? Moron.
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.
Way to dodge the question about if you think killing social media people (not even Trump, just podcasters) is going to prevent WW3. That was half the comment and the whole point. You aren’t talking about killing Hitler and Goebbels, you’re talking about killing the newspaper writers in 1933 Germany and assuming no one else takes their place so their stance is “silenced”. You talk about good faith arguments…
“Stalinism is the totalitarian means of governing and Marxist–Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Union (USSR) from 1924 to 1953 by dictator Joseph Stalin and in Soviet satellite states between 1944 and 1953. Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology that became the largest faction of the communist movement in the world in the years following the October Revolution. It was developed in Russia by Joseph Stalin and drew on elements of Bolshevism, Leninism, Marxism, and the works of Karl Kautsky.” Stalin dissolved the Comintern, his “long arm of the Soviet state” during WW2. "Invoking the “judgment of the founders of Marxism and Leninism” as a kind of holy writ, the resolution renounces any reliance on “organizational forms that have outlived themselves.” I think you are confusing dictatorship and one-party states (ways of ruling) with fascism (political ideology).
Now you’re strawmanning by putting words in my mouth and telling me what I believe. Nothing I’ve said is an excuse for the Holocaust and I’ve not once apologized for Nazis. If you really are intellectually honest you need to give me that. I’ve been exclusively arguing against your original stance that killing people (and we started by talking about Fuentes, a podcaster) is justified if you’re sure it will prevent suffering, a stance you have reiterated as the greater good multiple times now.