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.
Radical but not logical. Make a post about a violent criminal who murders someone. And then poll the community if that criminal should get the death penalty. And I'll bet the majority would say no and be against the death penalty for all convicted criminals. But those same people have no problem cheering on the murder of someone that they don't like. If a person can live with this contradiction I'd guess that they just aren't thinking for themselves but following a crowd.
There is actually no contradiction. I'm pretty sure everyone would be on board with those CEOs going to prison for life instead of them being killed.
The difference is that a convicted murderer is being punished. Healthcare CEOs are instead rewarded with a life of luxury for killing people. The law does not punish them for their transgressions. A citizen can not imprison the CEO for life. What they can do is shoot em.
So what many people are saying is that "rather a bad person gets punished than rewarded". And if the only realistic punishment possible is killing them, because it's fast and easy to do, then that's deemed as acceptable even though killing is bad. Being rewarded for being evil is worse.
A CEO doesn't kill anyone.
And they certainly don't ever go on the lolita express.
It's not execution, it's class war.
Using other words to describe murder doesn't make it different.
Is Ukraine murdering Russians? Is Palestine murdering Israelis? Would it be murder if they killed Putin or Netanyahu?
You seem to think war which has been around since the beginning of time is the same thing as an individual violating civil law and murdering another individual. I find it fascinating reading posts and comments about this incident because it's as if those who condemn murder are in some way fans of the guy that got murdered. I don't know anything about him as an individual, but I think it is obscene for the head people of any company to get paid such a huge amount in comparison to the other employees. And in general I think health insurance companies suck. I'm saying that from personal experience. And, I don't know, but the guy who got murdered may have put into effect policies that fucked many people who deserved insurance benefits and were denied. So was he a bad guy? Probably. But it doesn't mean murdering him is justified or should be endorsed.
The problem with supporting breaking a law is that eventually someone that you like or admire, but who is hated by a large portion of the country is murdered like this guy. Then all of a sudden it's a problem. You can't have it both ways
Class war is war.
The US has literally bombed its citizens on 2 occasions because of class resistance. The military has literally taken up arms against the citizens it swore to protect over class differences. We describe violent clashes between workers and the bourgeoisie as "battles."
Just because we've experienced a period of unprecedented peace doesn't mean class conflict is over--it will not be over until class is abolished.
Also, revolutions, civil war, and war in general are most often illegal.
I mean this is just another form of certain people taking advantage of other which is as old as war
It was clearly an execution of an innocent man.
He wasn't killing anyone.
That's a naive statement.
The guy was shot with his own words. Nothing innocent about it.
He was shot with bullets by a murderer.
The state has convicted and executed innocent people. The average criminal subject to capital punishment has killed an order (or several) of magnitudes fewer people than the health insurance industry.
As a country we seem to weigh more heavily acts of individual violence than those of systemic violence or violence borne of policy even when the latter 2 have far more impactful and wide spread negative results. It's completely logical to draw a distinction between the 2 circumstances.
I'm not saying all vigilante justice is good, and I wouldn't necessarily be against the state holding to account executives who have produced systems and policies that result in the harm or death of the state's citizens, but in the current system justice is rare and in this act millions of people received justice.
and I wouldn't necessarily be against the state holding to account executives who have produced systems and policies that result in the harm or death of the state's citizens
Right, except if everything went exactly correctly as per the current justice system, the company would be found at fault, fined an absurd amount of money and closed. The wealthy executives who made the decisions that actually resulted in country-wide deaths would get sizable severance packages, take a short vacation, and 6 months to a year later open up the same business under a new name that imposes the same policies. It'll be right back to throwing poors into a furnace to fuel their lamborgini's until the next slap on the wrist.
We have no system to hold people accountable for their decisions as part of a company. We blame the company and then trust the company to police their staff accordingly. I'd love a widespread rework of the justice system to actually target the people responsibly for a companies actions, but we won't get one, so instead, someone has been shot.
It's not necessarily a contradiction. Lots of people now trust a "fellow man" to make a judgement on who deserves death more than the state.
So they aren't against killing "evil" people, they just don't agree with the state's definition of "evil", and deny its right to decide that.Basically, it's the premise of Batman: When the state has failed to deliver justice, the people turn to vigilante justice.
Vigilante justice is so cool right up to the point that it is used against the people that you admire. And that is the contradiction.
I don't understand why people think in these terms, "If you approve of violence being done by your side, you must also approve of violence done against your side." I'm not taking a principled stand in favor of violence for violence's sake. I support that which hurts the enemy and oppose that which hurts friendlies.
Stealing from the rich? Good. Stealing from the poor? Bad. Killing exploiters? Good. Killing the exploited? Bad. There's no contradiction here because my stance is based on self-interest and the interest of my class, not on any sort of categorical moral claim about some particular form of action.
