Libs did love telling queer people to „go to gaza“ and presumably get killed. They take great pleasure in the whole „leopards ate my face“.
The difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans fantasize about killing leftists (which is basically any deviation form their norms) by their own hand, while dems fantasize about others killing leftists for them with a crocodile tear in their left eye and the satisfaction of the validation of their moral supremacy in the right.
If I were on a boat with Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, and a gun with two bullets, I’d shoot Hitler seven times and highfive Mao & Stalin as we sail together into luxury gay space Communism, the end.
You really need to interrogate your ethical beliefs a bit further.
Like you’ve been indoctrinated into a tangled framework of refusing to see the violence of the status quo - the violence that provides the empire with its wealth, the violence that preserves the sanctity of property and private fiefs, the violence that deprives the public of their survival needs, the violence that subjugates and marginalizes everyone who doesn’t fit into the ruling class’s machine, the violence that quickly crushes anyone who dares challenge this inequitable and monstrous system - as violence while simultaneously condemning everything that goes against it as violence. You’ve got the Hollywood movie morality system where the hero’s moral triumph is in refusing to enact vengeance, in refusing to permanently end the threat the villain poses (which may be conveniently resolved as the narrative contrives to see the villain simply die by happenstance, the hero’s goal accomplished but his hands unstained), and the villain’s moral failing is in breaking from prescribed methods of the status quo to accomplish some goal (especially when it sets up the villain as someone with a righteous cause or legitimate grievance who’s just “going too far” which then requires the swerve to make sure the audience starts rooting against them).
Unfortunately for us all, the entities with the vast majority of weapons and power are (and have been) doing everything they can to inflict violence upon the most desperate and vulnerable people in society. The people carrying out these actions cause very real harm, both in the forms of massively oppressive social violence and also outright physical violence. There is a very serious difference between the man who attempts to exploit and murder other human beings for his own gain and satisfaction - in this case, literally Adolf Hitler - and the people who use violence to overthrow that ruling ideology of unceasing human suffering.
In other words, it should be obvious now more than ever that we don’t live in a perfectly neutral world where the people who have all the guns are 100% neutral arbiters of peace, as much as I wish that were the case, and the people who are inflicting harm always have and always will use as much force as possible to continue their machinations of suffering and death. That being the case, the solution to the problem unfortunately necessitates something more impactful than “Killing is bad, don’t do it!”
I can appreciate the idealism, but this is regrettably not a valid stance, at least for the foreseeable future. You may find value in a book like Peter Gelderloos’ The Failure of Nonviolence(that’s a free full-text link)
![[Cw: hitler getting a Nuremberg necktie] Absolute cinema. Edit: lib in the comments! Get'em before I ban'em](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/cf316ce1-e0d1-40c5-a200-9ebb40455d02.jpeg){kind=link}
Again I come back to that it’s more socially acceptable to want to kill leftists in the usa than fascists.
Libs did love telling queer people to „go to gaza“ and presumably get killed. They take great pleasure in the whole „leopards ate my face“.
The difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans fantasize about killing leftists (which is basically any deviation form their norms) by their own hand, while dems fantasize about others killing leftists for them with a crocodile tear in their left eye and the satisfaction of the validation of their moral supremacy in the right.
OK but maybe no one should kill anyone?
You’re saying “OK but maybe no one should kill anyone?” on a post featuring literal Hitler?
Are you joking?
it was really uncivil of hitler to kill himself instead of entering into a debate
Nuremberg trials were just one large debate.
i mean, yeah kinda
“Killing is bad!”, I yell, while two SS guards put me on a train heading to the nearest Nazi concentration camp.
is that litteraly happening now?
yes
Removed by mod
If I were on a boat with Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, and a gun with two bullets, I’d shoot Hitler seven times and highfive Mao & Stalin as we sail together into luxury gay space Communism, the end.
Bro Mao Zedong killed as many people as ww2 😭
Hey can you give us a source on that?
Removed by mod
I dunno if I’d rather shoot Hitler myself or hand the gun to Stalin.
But don’t you see? Shooting Hitler would make you just like Hitler.
No, shooting a Nazi saves lives, nothing the Nazis did was ever to save lives.
I mean, yes, but the joke is that Hitler shot himself.
Stalin would whip out his big spoon and eat the gun, best to get the job done before he has a chance
I wouldn’t be surprised. Great communist, he just has a tendency to eat everything. Like Pooh Bear in a world made of hunny.
I’d holster thr gun and do Hitler barehanded cause bullets ain’t free
You really need to interrogate your ethical beliefs a bit further.
Like you’ve been indoctrinated into a tangled framework of refusing to see the violence of the status quo - the violence that provides the empire with its wealth, the violence that preserves the sanctity of property and private fiefs, the violence that deprives the public of their survival needs, the violence that subjugates and marginalizes everyone who doesn’t fit into the ruling class’s machine, the violence that quickly crushes anyone who dares challenge this inequitable and monstrous system - as violence while simultaneously condemning everything that goes against it as violence. You’ve got the Hollywood movie morality system where the hero’s moral triumph is in refusing to enact vengeance, in refusing to permanently end the threat the villain poses (which may be conveniently resolved as the narrative contrives to see the villain simply die by happenstance, the hero’s goal accomplished but his hands unstained), and the villain’s moral failing is in breaking from prescribed methods of the status quo to accomplish some goal (especially when it sets up the villain as someone with a righteous cause or legitimate grievance who’s just “going too far” which then requires the swerve to make sure the audience starts rooting against them).
no one is forcing you to murder people, and my point is, no one should murder anyone
You don’t have a point. You have a false sense of morality
Unfortunately for us all, the entities with the vast majority of weapons and power are (and have been) doing everything they can to inflict violence upon the most desperate and vulnerable people in society. The people carrying out these actions cause very real harm, both in the forms of massively oppressive social violence and also outright physical violence. There is a very serious difference between the man who attempts to exploit and murder other human beings for his own gain and satisfaction - in this case, literally Adolf Hitler - and the people who use violence to overthrow that ruling ideology of unceasing human suffering.
In other words, it should be obvious now more than ever that we don’t live in a perfectly neutral world where the people who have all the guns are 100% neutral arbiters of peace, as much as I wish that were the case, and the people who are inflicting harm always have and always will use as much force as possible to continue their machinations of suffering and death. That being the case, the solution to the problem unfortunately necessitates something more impactful than “Killing is bad, don’t do it!”
Tell this to our enemies, they’re all mass murderers
I say it to everyone, and it used to be that the left found this idea to be self-evident.
I feel like the right has baited the left into the idea of violence for the specific purpose of justifying violence against them.
It’s an endless cycle unless you draw the line at murder.
Lmfao cycle of violence type bullshit holy fuck this guy is libbed out
Too bad they’ve been banned, because I’d really love to see them try to explain when this was the case. Are they talking about the 60’s hippies lol
By what logic should we follow this guideline and what credentials do you have to make the argument?
I can appreciate the idealism, but this is regrettably not a valid stance, at least for the foreseeable future. You may find value in a book like Peter Gelderloos’ The Failure of Nonviolence(that’s a free full-text link)
I disagree that murder is a valid stance
Killing in self-defense isn’t murder
bad bit
oppa gangnam style