- cross-posted to:
- flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or register to comment.
“You’re right, killing you would mean I’m just as much of a monster as you! Too bad I didn’t realize that before indiscriminately slaughtering dozens of your disposable henchmen on my way here.”
I HATED this when watching Arrow.
Like dude, you narrowed that dude in the hallway. Your two main sidekicks BOTH use regular guns.
Just fucking kill Raz Al Gul/Damien Dahrk, That Gang dude/EtcEtc
You spent the first two seasons murdering rich people, intentionally, killing this dude trying to BLOW UP A CITY is not a moral gray area. All your friends are like, “Bro, just kill him.” And you are all “We must be better, we must be heroes.”
The most infuriating trope in fiction
I like to turn it around in some games where you let the bad guy off then kill them anyway
The Batman way.
“I don’t use guns, I just throw people out of high rise windows”
I liked in Black Adam that they called out heroes just protecting the elite. Too bad that one line was enough for them to all change their minds.
Democrats say “Oh yeah you’re right” and walk away
This is exactly how I feel every time I suggest the correct way to deal with conservative fascism is with violence. Some commenter will always come along with, “that makes you just as bad as them” and “you’re part of the problem”.
Part of the problem? Bitch, resisting force with force isn’t the fucking problem. It’s the solution.
I just don’t give a fuck what every dumb shit thinks. YoUrE jUsT aS bAd As ThEm dumbfuckery.
It’s eliminating the problem. But there’s a little more to the solution, generally speaking.
It’s a sad part of the solution. Kicking them out of power and making impossible for them to ever have their way ever again (in absolutely any context- up to removing their ability to participate in any legal process, up to having any legal rights at all) is really more important, but unfortunately eliminating them is the easiest way to do that.
There are certain figures I would be uncompromisingly happy to see suffer for their actions- up to and including assassination. And others I think only need to be politically neutered.
The real complication (in a lot of the smaller cases) starts issues with false positives and such. If we could get perfect identification and prosecution to happen, then my tolerance for extreme measures goes waaaaay, way up.
Be careful not to use the Nazis as an analogy or some basement dweller will scream “YOU THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE THE SAME AS NAZIS??? GO TOUCH GRASS!!!”
-
It’s an analogy.
-
Act like a fascist, you are a fascist. I’m not making conservatives run the fascist playbook. That’s their choice.
Are MAGAts Nazis? No. Were Nazis fascists? Yes. Are MAGAts fascists? Yes. Because words have definitions and MAGAt’s actions match the definition of the word “fascist”.
These aren’t people we’re disagreeing politically with in regards to where tax payer money should go or even how much we should be taxed or whether this regulation or that regulation is good or bad. These are people threatening us and actively degrading the quality of our lives. They are our enemies because that’s what enemies do to you. They are enemies of democracy. They are enemies of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
-
One of the biggest problems with violent revolution, is that it almost always seems to end up putting violent people in charge of the next regime.
“Almost always violent” is a decent upgrade from “definitely always violent from now on”.
Conservatives are violent fascists by nature. History proves this. They should not be in charge of anything at all. Ever. The moment they hold any kind of authority, they become an infestation of pests.
Morality foundation: You’ve become a murderer just like him, no matter the intentios.
Morality reality: If you believe these people he murdered should not be dead, and that all his killings are unjust, removing him at worst replaces one mass murderer with just murderer. Even more, with a vigilante. Now, this of course is not really good, but the net outcome is good.
I think an outlook on the future is also necessary. A mass murderer that is not repenting will likely murder again. A vigilante without just cause will likely not. You are saving all the future lives.
The problem with “just cause” is that it’s flexible af. What stop vigilante from moving the goalpost into infinity and beyound? When does “just” degrade from some grand perception based on societal needs into subjective, personal reasons?
Best case scenario, surrender yourself to community after the deed. Thus, the new murderer got instantly taken down without creating another. But that requires sacrifice/martyrdom.
Fate/Zero, anyone?
Yep, life and morals are ambiguous sometimes
'If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world stays the same"
“What if I kill two killers?”
So you are saying that the end justifies the means?
(/s)
You may have caused millions to suffer. But if I kill you, I’d prevent suffering of more people. I am a murderer of one that might have continued to torture millions. I’d be a murderer for some but a hero for millions.
Great example of our time - Luigi Mangione. Sad to hear him confess 😭
I dont like being conspiritroal but if I was a evil government that wanted to get away with murdering people or even just qwell the masses when something disruptive happens Id pay people off to take the fall. Seems like an easy solution for a really complicated problem.
Just saying.
Oh, and being super evil and super manipulative it’d probably be very cheap. Like ROI’s through the roof.
With what is happening in the world for the last 35 years (my age, not related), I’d also would like to wear tin foil hat from time to time. Especially today with the dawn of generative Ai.
Oncologist:
Removes tumor
What have I become?
“If I am killing these cells, who can say that I am better than cancer”
If you cut out a tumour, you’re also killing live tissue so aren’t you also cancerous hmm?
This is an apt analogy. Conservatism IS cancer. It spreads and brings with it only sickness and death. There is no way to change cancer. Letting it live will kill the patient. The only cure causes pain and suffering for the survivor. Treatment is painful, messy and dangerous, but is absolutely required for survival.
No one wants to talk about the cure for conservatism. Even the topic is uncomfortable.
Ok how do you cure it then? Specifically
Luigi! <3
Especially when you couple it with the fact that if you leave him alive he is very likely to cause more harm even if hebgoes to prison or such
This is my personal take, but this is similar to an old philosophical argument. Can you use the Masters tools to dismantle the Master’s house? The master’s house in this argument represents systems of oppression/sanctioned violence and the tools are, well the tools. Hope I don’t have to explain that part. Anyway, my personal take is yes you can. You can not use the Master’s tools to build your own house.
In so far as the panel, dude was fine to shoot him. He just has to put the gun down and accept the responsibility of whatever his action causes.
“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
— Vladimir Lenin
Yeah I’ve been thinking this way for years. Pissed people off by choosing the lives of Iranian children over us soldiers
I think if you kill a murderer that has killed one person, then it’s not morally justified.
But how about someone who killed 2? How about 5? How about 20? 1000?
Idk where to draw the line but I strongly believe there has to be a line and the number can’t be infinite.
Do we have free will? Did the monster choose to become what he did?
If he still has the power to murder more people, then yes, killing him will be a way to stop it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman is an interesting real world case about free will. His suicide note mentioned that he wants his brain to be autopsied, and it turns out that he had a brain tumor.
deleted by creator
Killing anyone is never justifiable! There are millions of ways for a society to deal or even to prevent dangerous people other than killing them.
Of course there are a million alternatives but the issue is when society doesn’t punish the guilty or even promotes and rewards them. My own experience is of working in the past in a maximum security prison with people who did monstrous things. Today when I see Trump in all his luxury surroundings I often think that not one of those people in prison killed 170 schoolgirls. Or when I see Putin smirk I think not one of those people in prison caused the death of a million or more people… I could hold my nose and work alongside those prisoners as a professional but if I was invited to dinner with Trump or Putin I would be totally remis not to put my knife through their eye…
This comes up with Batman a lot, but we know he’s a severely traumatized man and it makes sense that he would believe it.
And Daredevil cuz he’s Catholic
deleted by creator
There’s a counterexample in the Overwatch backstory. Overwatch goes to arrest this guy after he had a bomb planted that killed a bunch of their staff. The guy brags about how with his connections he’ll be released within days. One of the Overwatch agents says, “He’s right”, and shoots the guy. So that guy’s not going to be planting more bombs. But that leads to Overwatch getting disbanded. They aren’t around to respond immediately when the bad guys start acting up again. When Overwatch does get back into operation, that bad guy’s daughter escalates the violence against Overwatch in her quest for revenge.
Oh! Another counterexample is in the TNG episode, The Most Toys. The bad guy is doing the thing, gloating to Data how Data is too moral to kill him. Data does some calculations, says “I cannot allow this to continue”, and tries to shoot the guy. But he’s stopped at the last moment. So kind of a narrative copout.
I wouldn’t call those “counterexamples” as I understand counterexamples (namely an example that counters a statement or belief). That would mean the examples would have to show that killing the villain did make the protagonist just as bad.
Like, in your Overwatch example, they didn’t become morally bad from killing the bomber. They were disbanded; the worsening situation was as a result of other bad people choosing to disband them. It’d be weird to lay it at their feet for killing a villian with political(?) connections.
I think the Overwatch story does present killing the bad guy as morally wrong. The story implies the push to disband Overwatch came from general public outrage due to Overwatch acting without regard for law, not due to that one guy’s connections specifically. It was also presented as the nail in the coffin: Overwatch had been behaving increasingly ethically dubiously after the threat they originally formed to combat was resolved. It’s part of a larger theme in the story: if a group is well intentioned, but their primary tool is violence, does that group have a legitimate role in pushing for the greater good?