Punching someone because they think taxes should be 10% lower = probably bad
Punching someone because they think human beings are property = probably good
A functioning society cannot endure everyone making snap moral judgements, which is why there are laws against violence, but I’ll never mourn a neoconfederate with a black eye or a Nazi with a broken nose.
But you have no way of knowing what the confederate flag means to them without actually having a conversation.
My guy, it’s a meme. See the sidebar - “joking in tone and detail, serious in sentiment.” It’s a criticism of the ‘heritage’ argument by blasely referring to Sherman’s March to the Sea, a campaign of property destruction which brought the traitorous, slaving South to its knees, as Yankee ‘heritage’. No one here is actually advocating for burning down people’s houses for the sin of flying a Confederate flag
Punching someone over a flag seems like one of those snap moral judgements you said a society cannot endure.
Yes, society cannot endure it. There’s a reason we don’t allow it.
That there is a reason that we don’t allow an action, that I support that reason, and that that reason is valid, is different than saying that the action is immoral.
Like…burning someone’s toddler alive. The blindingly obvious problem is they don’t have to live alone to fly a flag. Tell me it was an unacceptably racist labrador and you had no choice.
I think not recognizing that the advocacy for the use of the state to enforce property rights over human beings IS advocacy for violence, and what’s more, advocacy for violence in an incredibly unjust cause, is a sign of moral myopia.
I agree with you on all of this. But advocacy of violence is not violence in itself, and retaliating against advocacy with actual violence is not self-defense.
I think advocating for violence is morally corrupt, whether you do it by raising the Confederate flag or talking about how much you enjoy assaulting the people who do so.
I agree to a point. Retaliating against advocacy of violence is not self-defense, which is why it’s not allowed. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the monopoly on force; and a democratic state must, by its nature, allow dissent even of the most vile and vulgar kind, if it is to maintain its legitimacy with regards to the suppression of views that might in different circumstances be dangerous - in other words, by convincing those opposed to it that a meaningless participation in the electoral process is preferable to armed insurgency.
But that doesn’t mean that punching Nazis is bad. It just means that there’s a pragmatic reason why it’s not allowed.
I’d argue that it’s both bad and pragmatically unsound. Victimizing someone doesn’t become acceptable just because they’re a bad person. If it’s not direct self-defense, it’s wrong.
Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can’t be this dense.
Advocacy for enslavement of other humans beings IS VIOLENCE. Period. Advocacy for the termination of an entire group of other people IS VIOLENCE.
You DO NOT get to debate another person’s right to exist. Period. End of fucking story. And the good people of the world WILL violently prevent you from enacting any of the things that you’re advocating for.
Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can’t be this dense.
Violence? The thing I’ve explicitly said multiple times in this thread?
I feel like most of you aren’t really responding to what I’m saying and are instead just repeating your points and insulting me because we disagree. Not everyone in here, though, thankfully
Retaliating with violence because of ideological disagreements is worse than flying a thousand Confederate flags.
We shouldn’t try to punch away the people we disagree with.
Punching someone because they think taxes should be 10% lower = probably bad
Punching someone because they think human beings are property = probably good
A functioning society cannot endure everyone making snap moral judgements, which is why there are laws against violence, but I’ll never mourn a neoconfederate with a black eye or a Nazi with a broken nose.
deleted by creator
My guy, it’s a meme. See the sidebar - “joking in tone and detail, serious in sentiment.” It’s a criticism of the ‘heritage’ argument by blasely referring to Sherman’s March to the Sea, a campaign of property destruction which brought the traitorous, slaving South to its knees, as Yankee ‘heritage’. No one here is actually advocating for burning down people’s houses for the sin of flying a Confederate flag
Yes, society cannot endure it. There’s a reason we don’t allow it.
That there is a reason that we don’t allow an action, that I support that reason, and that that reason is valid, is different than saying that the action is immoral.
Like…burning someone’s toddler alive. The blindingly obvious problem is they don’t have to live alone to fly a flag. Tell me it was an unacceptably racist labrador and you had no choice.
I saw you change the details, is it because deep in your heart you realize all Pomeranians are unacceptably racist? :p
Well, the smaller they are, the bitier they get, yeah.
It was an unacceptably racist Pomeranian
Why is that good?
If you need that to be explained, I think you’re in the wrong community.
Do you believe that not wanting them to be inflicted with indiscriminate violence means I agree with them?
I think not recognizing that the advocacy for the use of the state to enforce property rights over human beings IS advocacy for violence, and what’s more, advocacy for violence in an incredibly unjust cause, is a sign of moral myopia.
Man, you are such a poet, you have put it perfectly.
I agree with you on all of this. But advocacy of violence is not violence in itself, and retaliating against advocacy with actual violence is not self-defense.
I think advocating for violence is morally corrupt, whether you do it by raising the Confederate flag or talking about how much you enjoy assaulting the people who do so.
I agree to a point. Retaliating against advocacy of violence is not self-defense, which is why it’s not allowed. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the monopoly on force; and a democratic state must, by its nature, allow dissent even of the most vile and vulgar kind, if it is to maintain its legitimacy with regards to the suppression of views that might in different circumstances be dangerous - in other words, by convincing those opposed to it that a meaningless participation in the electoral process is preferable to armed insurgency.
But that doesn’t mean that punching Nazis is bad. It just means that there’s a pragmatic reason why it’s not allowed.
I’d argue that it’s both bad and pragmatically unsound. Victimizing someone doesn’t become acceptable just because they’re a bad person. If it’s not direct self-defense, it’s wrong.
I think you will find the violence quite discriminate against the category, “Those who advocate the enslavement of other humans.”
Why is it okay to respond to advocacy, which is not violent in itself, with actual violence?
“It would be great if PugJesus was riddled with bullets in the near future. I hope someone does it. In fact, I encourage you to do it!”
This is just advocacy of violence. Harmless. I should defeat it with the power of my own words.
Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can’t be this dense.
Advocacy for enslavement of other humans beings IS VIOLENCE. Period. Advocacy for the termination of an entire group of other people IS VIOLENCE.
You DO NOT get to debate another person’s right to exist. Period. End of fucking story. And the good people of the world WILL violently prevent you from enacting any of the things that you’re advocating for.
Violence? The thing I’ve explicitly said multiple times in this thread?
I feel like most of you aren’t really responding to what I’m saying and are instead just repeating your points and insulting me because we disagree. Not everyone in here, though, thankfully
How is the advocacy of slavery not violent?
It’s an ideology which inherently requires violence.
Slavery is, yes. The advocacy of slavery is not. It’s wrong and corrupt and only bad people do it, but it’s not violent.
Begging the question the property damage is violence, aren’t we?
Also that advocating for enslavement of other humans isn’t violence, which it is.
I could understand not considering property damage to be violence, but how is advocacy violence in itself?
You should read about the paradox of tolerance. Tolerating hate is in no society’s best interest.
I don’t think that idea holds much water. Too many people use it as a “get out of responsibility free” card.
I think you’re trying to wave it away as a way to get out of responsibility for what such conversation would inevitably lead to.