Is Lemmy getting more radical lately?
Is Lemmy getting more radical lately?
Have seen a few posts popping up recently just straight up calling fo violence barely disguised as memes
Had thought Lemmy had chilled out a bit on that kinda thing for a while but seems to be coming back now
Anyone else noticing the same or just me?
You're viewing a single thread.
Just yesterday I read a post about a woman being stalked by a supposed Nazi. At least 5 comments were quite literally 'buy a gun and shoot him', those had by far the most upvotes. When I said I hope theyre joking, I got downvoted and told you dont joke around when it comes to Nazis.
So yeah, maybe Lemmy is becoming kind of radical.
The alternative would be to call the cops, who would say "we can't do anything as long as nothing has happened".
Personally I'd call the nearest Antifa group.Tbf, "self defense," while technically being "violence," is the only time violence is actually acceptable. She should buy a gun if she's being stalked by anyone, but of course just buying one isn't enough. Also needed is practice to learn how to shoot (preferably with an instructor if you can afford it, but you can learn most of that stuff from the right sources online actually like Jerry Miculek's videos on it, if that's your only option), carry permit if your state needs it, and learning the laws regarding use of force in your area. Also buy/carry OC spray if it's legal (for instance it isn't legal in NYC) in case he ends up being a threat, but not a deadly threat.
Practicing nonviolence is a worthy pursuit and I'm also a proponent of it, but to go so far as to forego self defense in the name of pacifism is just foolish in my personal opinion. The advice isn't just "shoot him next time you see him," (that's called murder lol), it's "just in case he tries to kill you, be prepared with an Uno reverse card."
The only difference is the immediacy. If exploitative strategies by healthcare companies directly caused harm to you or a loved one, it could very much be interpreted as self-defence to kill their CEO.
Unfortunately not, it would be interpreted as retribution (at least by the courts). Immediacy means something like "guy with knife threatening to stab you right now," BUT if you pull your gun to do so and he starts walking away that's it, it's over, if you shoot him at that point you'll be argued to be the aggressor and will lose your case. As such, having a claim denied and then traveling to wherever this guy is and likely planning for months is called "premeditation," not "self defense."
You may disagree, but that's the court's opinion.
I didn't think we were talking about the law. I thought we were talking about personal moral considerations, which don't have much to do with the law or courts.
carry permit if your state needs it, and learning the laws regarding use of force in your area. Also buy/carry OC spray if it's legal (for instance it isn't legal in NYC) in case he ends up being a threat, but not a deadly threat.
Those are all laws.
Wasn't the opinion in George Zimmerman case.
True, sometimes juries fail, personally I wouldn't bet on it and would err on the side of caution but that's your own choice to make I suppose.
(It also helps if you're the "right" color shooting the "right" color in the "right" state/county... but... otherwise it helps to have your ducks in a row.)
I genuinely laughed. Politician style or hospitality industry style? I've so many questions!
It was not about self defense, they were saying 'go and shoot that fucker in the face'
Yeah ya can't do that lol, that's murder.
Thats what I said, seemed like an unpopular opinion...
I'd believe it, some people on here advocate for killing people all the time, so long as they're a "CEO, accused-nazi, liberal, landlord, government employee they don't like, etc."
If saying to kill nazis is radical then call me a fucking Ninja Turtle.
Yeah sure, 'murder is okay if its the bad guys'. I think Ive heard that somewhere before...
Was it perhaps a story told by a war ravaged world war II veteran?
There's not exactly nuance when you're dealing with a world that is growing far right, and has only hatred to show.
Maybe the radical is the Nazi, not the need to stamp out Nazism?
The creed everyone should have is: the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. Humanity has fought against fascism 85 years ago, and some people are thinking the same things as fascists now.
Comrade. Do not deny, defend, or depose the past.
The same is happening now as in the quote, just add queers and Muslims to it. I see your perspective, but what you are saying effectively comes over as, "oh no! a poor Nazi getting threatened!", when the better action would be to stop and think:
Is it better that tolerance is intolerant against intolerance? Or should tolerance mean allowing hatred to destroy that very tolerance?