Sorry to hear he’s in a stable condition.
Classy
Jesus dude. I know right wingers can be absolute cunts but wishing death on them? Really?
Yeah.
I don’t tolerate the intolerant.
There is a difference between not tolerating their shit and wishing people’s death.
Edit: spelling
Nah. fuck em
Violence is supposed to be the last resort to deal with them, I don’t see how this is in any way helpful, good or justified.
The last resort according to whom? It’s no law of nature or physics.
The last resort according to basic self preservation.
The other side have guns too. What do you think they’re gonna do when you start killing their people?
they’re already shooting. that’s why we’re mad in the first place.
And sure, shoot at the fucker that’s a threat to you. That’s no justification to shoot at persons 2 and 3 that had similar belief systems but wasn’t shooting at you.
One side is gonna lose in the end. That is all that matters. The world is ruled with violence. Non-violence only is beneficial to those currently in power.
Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence. How are you going to preserve yourself when you let people run around who want to opress or kill you?
One side is gonna lose in the end.
And there are plenty of times where this is done non violently.
Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence.
Yes. As a last resort. That doesn’t mean never using violence. It means using it for self preservation, not just because you disagree with them.
The guy people keep partly citing when they bring up the “paradox of tolerance”, for example.
If he’s still alive it’s definitely not helpful, I agree
If you tolerate the intolerant, the tolerant society shifts to intolerant.
Wishing him dead is fine in my book (since I don’t believe in magic anyhow) however encouraging assassination of political figures (as this may turn out to be) is not wise because in future it will be your guy who gets assassinated.
It is in everyone’s interest to have peaceful elections to sort out our differences.
“our guys” are being assasinated every day, dying from tough working conditions, starving away on the streets, getting killed by police, dying in another pointless war to see which group of rich people get to exploit a certain corner of the earth, being led to suicide by homophobic and transphobic retoric spread by these people…
So you do not tolerate yourself?
You might want to read this blog post on this subject. What I’m quoting here is the central message, but do yourself a favor and actually read the rest and don’t just respond based on this quote
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted; the purpose of your group’s acceptance is to let people feel that they have a home, and someone who actively tries to thwart this is incompatible with the broader purpose of that acceptance. Prejudice against Nazis is not the same as prejudice against Blacks, because one is based on people’s stated opposition to their neighbors’ lives and safety, the other on a characteristic that has nothing to do with whether they’ll live in peace with you or not. Freedom of religion means that people have the right to have their own beliefs, but you have that same right; you are under no duty to tolerate an attempt to impose someone else’s religious laws on you.
[…]
If we interpreted tolerance as a moral absolute, or if our rules of conduct were entirely blind to the situation and to previous actions, then we would regard any measures taken against an aggressor as just as bad as the original aggression. But through the lens of a peace treaty, these measures have a different moral standing: they are tools which can restore the peace.
Do you?
“It hurt itself in its confusion”
The only good fascist is a dead fascist.
Right-wing politics isn’t inherently fascist. It’s a broad spectrum, ranging from moderate conservatism to extreme ideologies like fascism. Fascism involves dictatorial power and forcible suppression, which are not characteristic of all right-wing beliefs.
The last time they seized power in Spain, the people had to explode them out of office.
no not wishing death just disappointed to see him alive
They are a little ahead of schedule if our goal is to revive last century’s events exactly 100 years afterwards, the civil was was from '36 to '39.
Better start now though, before Germany can bomb the shit out of your cities to help the fascists.
Germany is trying hard to keep the schedule of having a 3rd Reich revival party for the 100 year anniversary, unfortunately.
At the pace we’re going in the US, Germany may be landing in North America to stop a US-cuba-israel-russia invasion of Canada
any% speedrun.
any% speedrun spanish civil war franco ending
the events that led up to the civil war started in '32 though
Count the years from the beginning of the revo to the civil war. Count the years from then to 24 and reflect in America’s devolution.
I don’t want to condone violence, but I feel like Spain knows a little too well what happens when we let fascists get comfy…
Accepting violence as a valid political tool for anything other than an absolute last resort is the exact thing that leads to complete and utter chaos. You have to keep in mind that your side is probably not the only side with guns, and those on the other side are also telling themselves that there are plenty of examples of what happens when you let communists get comfy.
Now, I would obviously say that one of these sides is much more in the wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that, unless you want a politics of everyone shooting at each other, political violence should essentially always be condemned, even if it’s against your political foes.
That pacifistic stance is based on ideals, but ignores the reality of history and politics. Not everyone shares those ideals, nor are they objectively right. Violence is the only good tool against fascism. Where it fails to stop it, non-violent means would also fail.
I agree, which is why I said violence is a last resort, not something that should be completely sworn off. I don’t think Spain is in imminent risk of a Francoist revival, though I can’t pretend to be an expert of Spanish politics. But if I’m thinking of European nations at grave risk of backsliding into actual fascism, I’m more inclined to think of Hungary rather than Spain.
How exactly do you define fascism though? Seems like that term gets used quite a bit.
Not this awful argument please. Why do liberals always come with the “everything I don’t like is fascism” argument when someone argues against fascism.
Sounds like you don’t have a definition either. The problem with a loose definition of fascism is it gets used to justify lots of atrocities. Putin used it as a justification for invading Ukraine, for example.
There are literally entire books written about fascism, by fascists too. Try the doctrine of fascism for starters.
The problem with your argument is that it’s giving carte blanche to political zealots to resort to shooting their opposition in the face because it’s “ok to shoot fascists”, and also apparently ok to label your opposition as fascist without having to define that label or justify your labeling. Why does nobody ever answer that question? Seems like every time I ask this question I get some variation of “found the fascist”, or deflecting like you’ve done. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have a practical definition of what it means, and that you use the term to justify violence done by your team?
Why don’t liberals understand that there already are definitions for things such as fascism?
And why can I not do both? Both be violently opposed to fascism and also be fine with violence against my political enemies in general? There are plenty of justifications against other political enemies besides calling them fascists.
You legally and morally can’t resort to violence over politics, and if you think you can, then you shouldn’t be protected by the social contract regarding free speech. Basically, you are not compatible with modern society and should be locked up or banished. Also I’m not a liberal.
I said it eleswhere but this assasination attempt is almost certainly not related to spanish politics. The guy is retired and hasn’t been in office since 2014. He still is active as a lobbyist for the ‘National Council of Resistance of Iran’ and ‘European Friends of Israel’. He is also considered a terrorist by the Iranian government. So if this is politically motivated, it’s way more likely related to the current events in Israel.
So to get this straight: An advocate for the democratic movement against the religious fascist regime in Iran, who was officially declared a terrorist by the iranian regime, was (almost successfully) assassinated and the people in this thread do not condemn or even celebrate it, because he was an elected far right politician almost ten years ago.
@Drama_durch_Lama @gigachad yep pretty much. Just because you dont agree with someone’s politics doesnt mean its oke to cheer them being shot in the face. The only time thats oke is during a war.
I’m not to familiar with spanish politics so I will refrain from commenting on it. In my home country far right politicians from 10 years ago would be normal rightwing today, policy wise that is. We had a far-right politician here who got shot and murdered 20 years ago. Today he’d be far left.
I refuse to feel the same way about bad things happening to bigots as I would if they happened to better people.
The insistence that anyone should is misguided at best and abusive at worst. It’s okay to have different opinions based on people’s words and actions. That’s not prejudice. It’s just regular judice.
How do you shoot someone in the face and he survives ?
You got a lot of face that’s not load-bearing.
Shooting someone in the face and them surviving would depend on a bunch of super unpredictable factors. Like, the type of gun and ammo used, the distance of the shot, the angle, and how quick they get medical help.
If it’s just a graze or if the bullet somehow misses the major stuff in the face like the brain, that could up the chances of survival. Plus, having top-notch trauma docs on hand could make a huge difference. But for real, it’s a roll of the dice situation and totally not something to try to vibe with.It’s not like 100% of the face is some sort of instakill zone
Moment of silence for all who died after popping a pimple 😔
A 22 is like an angry BB gun
Real life is not a video game, headshots don’t automatically kill you. People can survive all kinds of weird incidents and likewise die to things that don’t seem all that dangerous, like slipping in the shower
Phineas Gage had a iron bar blown through his skull by an unexpected dynamite detonation leaving a hole that a person could reach through from each side and touch their fingers on the inside, and he lived for years afterwards and held jobs and everything.
Then again, John Ritter died when his aorta just spontaneously unzipped inside of his chest. The human body is wild.
The most-used caliber in the world is .22LR, which probably won’t kill you unless it hits the brain stem or a major blood vessel to the brain.
I feel like the obvious answer here is that getting shot in the face doesn’t necessarily mean getting shot in the brain, even though that is rarely survivable as well.
Remember LA Confidential? Same thing.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A Spanish rightwing politician and former vice-president of the European parliament is reported to be in a stable condition in hospital after being shot in the face by a masked gunman in a wealthy Madrid neighbourhood.
El País reported that Vidal-Quadras was in a stable condition in Gregorio Marañon hospital and was being treated for a wound to the face.
Spain’s acting prime minister, the socialist leader Pedro Sánchez, conveyed his shock and sadness at the attack.
Sánchez moved a step closer to another term in office on Thursday after his socialist party, the PSOE, won the support of Catalan separatists by offering a deeply controversial amnesty for those who took part in the illegal and failed bid for regional independence six years ago.
The proposed amnesty law has been fiercely condemned by the PP and Vox, who see it as a cynical move to allow Sánchez to remain in power.
“The infamous pact … that will crush the rule of law and end the separation of powers has been agreed,” he wrote on X, formerly know as Twitter, on Thursday morning.
The original article contains 489 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Jesus Christ political violence is not a good road to go down on. Hopefully things won’t escalate
Removed by mod
Huh? Can you rephrase please?
The politicians in the US are generally too terrified to appear in public.
Violence against elected officials is not compatible with democracy. To those cheering at this act of violence: you are as violent and authoritarian as the people you loathe. Shame on you.
Hitler was elected.
He is not a currently elected official. He hasn’t been in office since 2014. He isn’t even running for any office. He is retired and “active” as a lobbyist for the ‘National Council of Resistance of Iran’ and ‘European Friends of Israel’.
While no motive has been established, I doubt it’s related to spanish politics since he is basically irrelevant there. If the attempt was politically motivated, it’s way more likely to be related to the current events in Israel and Gaza. Or his general stance on the current Iranian government. He is considered a terrorist by the Iranian government.
So there is no threat to democacy and people cheering at this are just happy that a shitty person got hurt. Which still isn’t the best mentality.
yeah if they don’t die it’s not democratic
Wow, that’s too bad. Anyway, who wants some pizza?
