Yeah well that’s a better example than the American revolution anyway, but I guess I view revolution against government as being a little different than murder of a citizen exercising their right to free speech. The French revolution also was fighting to establish a democracy, wherein people could freely exchange ideas and contribute to the shape of government. Democracy doesn’t work if people murder each other instead of discussing things and using your vote to shape government. Violence must be prohibited and overwhelmingly condemned or it devolves into a zero sum game. This isn’t a victory for the left, this is a loss for society, further degradation of our republic.
They fought a war against an opposing army, not by assassinating people exercising their right to discuss opinions and ideas. In fact they fought FOR the right to have opinions and ideas and to express them. They thought it was so important to protect that right, that they put it into the bill of rights, which specifically states that the right to free speech transcends government. The government that they wanted could only exist if people could freely exchange ideas without fear of being murdered (or imprisoned) for them. That’s why its a particularly bad example.
They fought a war against an opposing army, not by assassinating people exercising their right to discuss opinions and ideas
Of course it’s morally superior to kill a conscript (the British army was largely comprised of conscripts) than it is to kill a propagandist who advocates for political violence. /s
In fact they fought FOR the right to have opinions and ideas and to express them.
Utter rubbish. The war was instigated over matters of taxation and trade.
They thought it was so important to protect that right, that they put it into the bill of rights
It was so important that it was left out of the Constitution and had to be submitted as a bill to amend the Constitution.
Hardly sounds like the defining cause of the rebellion if they forgot to put it in their foundational document the first time around.
Ideological assassinations are a huge step in the wrong direction. Once you open the door to violence in place of speech and exchange of ideas, it’s a bad place. Everyone should condemn this. Do you honestly believe it’s a good idea to start killing people? Who is next? It’s not always going to be people you disagree with, and ANY murders need to be condemned.
That depends on who is emboldened by the news.
Right-wingers might “good riddance, I got mine”
Left-wingers might “hey, we could get democracy back”
I’m just sick of waiting around while the world slowly gets fucked over
get on with it and get it over with. hopefully the not-nazis win
You can’t murder your way into democracy.
Tell that to France.
Yeah well that’s a better example than the American revolution anyway, but I guess I view revolution against government as being a little different than murder of a citizen exercising their right to free speech. The French revolution also was fighting to establish a democracy, wherein people could freely exchange ideas and contribute to the shape of government. Democracy doesn’t work if people murder each other instead of discussing things and using your vote to shape government. Violence must be prohibited and overwhelmingly condemned or it devolves into a zero sum game. This isn’t a victory for the left, this is a loss for society, further degradation of our republic.
…where do you think most democracies came from?
They must’ve been… Immaculately concieved.
Not from murdering people who speak their opinions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
Facts don’t care about your feelings.
The irony of using the American revolution to justify murdering people for speaking their opinion…
You claimed it is impossible to murder your way into democracy, I gave you an example of people murdering their way into democracy.
Shifting the goalposts to be about ‘muh freeze peaches’ is weak.
No your example is just really really bad
What’s wrong with the example? The revolutionaries killed until they were able to establish a democracy, directly refuting your claim.
They fought a war against an opposing army, not by assassinating people exercising their right to discuss opinions and ideas. In fact they fought FOR the right to have opinions and ideas and to express them. They thought it was so important to protect that right, that they put it into the bill of rights, which specifically states that the right to free speech transcends government. The government that they wanted could only exist if people could freely exchange ideas without fear of being murdered (or imprisoned) for them. That’s why its a particularly bad example.
Of course it’s morally superior to kill a conscript (the British army was largely comprised of conscripts) than it is to kill a propagandist who advocates for political violence. /s
Utter rubbish. The war was instigated over matters of taxation and trade.
It was so important that it was left out of the Constitution and had to be submitted as a bill to amend the Constitution.
Hardly sounds like the defining cause of the rebellion if they forgot to put it in their foundational document the first time around.
The infrastructure for democracy is already there. It’s just been shelved temporarily by the current admin.
Ideological assassinations are a huge step in the wrong direction. Once you open the door to violence in place of speech and exchange of ideas, it’s a bad place. Everyone should condemn this. Do you honestly believe it’s a good idea to start killing people? Who is next? It’s not always going to be people you disagree with, and ANY murders need to be condemned.
This is just the trolley problem. If you can save 5 people by killing 1, is it correct to do so, or take no action?
Well, we’ve got lots of people taking no action, and look where that’s got us.
You don’t get to just kill people that you suspect are evil. This isn’t some complicated ethical dilemma.