Wdym... don't ye see the bad in assassinating (ex-)president Trump...
Bruz, I cannogt believe the incivility of this radical leftist to say this shit, man! I thought this was like Reddit...
Show
😭 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
- Show
The most perturbing question for the liberal is the question of violence. The liberal’s initial reaction to violence is to try to convince the oppressed that violence is an incorrect tactic, that violence will not work, that violence never accomplishes anything. The Europeans took America through violence and through violence they established the most powerful country in the world. Through violence they maintain the most powerful country in the world. It is absolutely absurd for one to say that violence never accomplishes anything.
Today power is defined by the amount of violence one can bring against one’s enemy — that is how you decide how powerful a country is; power is defined not by the number of people living in a country, it is not based on the amount of resources to be found in that country, it is not based upon the good will of the leaders or the majority of that people. When one talks about a powerful country, one is talking precisely about the amount of violence that that country can heap upon its enemy. We must be clear in our minds about that. Russia is a powerful country, not because there are so many millions of Russians but because Russia has great atomic strength, great atomic power, which of course is violence. America can unleash an infinite amount of violence, and that is the only way one considers America powerful. No one considers Vietnam powerful, because Vietnam cannot unleash the same amount of violence. Yet if one wanted to define power as the ability to do, it seems to me that Vietnam is much more powerful than the United States. But because we have been conditioned by Western thoughts today to equate power with violence, we tend to do that at all times, except when the oppressed begin to equate power with violence — then it becomes an “incorrect” equation.
From "The Pitfalls of Liberalism" by Kwame Ture
No. We may all be Americans, but MAGA is an alt-right hateful term, and I will never align myself with that.
We can align as Americans and condemn violence, but that means condemning all violence.
Do you condemn the violence necessary to continue the existence of America?
Genuinely, if Trump is a genuine risk to democracy and risks increasing support to Israel, why must he be defeated in a vote? Like, if he becomes Hitler 2 and erases democracy and ups the genocide, is that okay with you because he won the vote?
So what happens if Trump wins and goes full hitler? You just gonna line up to get carted off to a camp? Because this seems to be something you libs also think. So if that is the stakes then when does violence become acceptable?
I am genuinely curious how far your absolute pacifism goes.
Or what about the violence being funded by our government being inflicted on Palestinians and still being perpetrated against Native people here?
That violence is okay with you right?
Don't lie to yourself you people fucking love violence when it benefits you.
No. We may all be Americans, but MAGA is an alt-right hateful term, and I will never align myself with that.
We can align as Americans and condemn violence, but that means condemning all violence.
/ seriously Well, have ye heard of the term "chickens coming home to roost"? I think that's what Trump had coming for him, I guess...
I condemn such political violence, but I wouldn't have shed a single tear for Trump.
Fuck MAGA. Fuck Trump.
Why condemn it? Violence is an unfortunate tool, but a tool nontheless, and abandoning it when oppressors use it without care just means you aren't taking things seriously. Hitler should have been assassinated.
By weighing all violence as immoral you are not ruling it out completely. You make it a last-resort, where you avoid one great injustice with a lesser injustice - a lesser injustice which you still face consequences for.
The alternative is morally sanctifying some murders, which leads to 'morally justified' murders being done by all political sides (since they each view themselves as 'the moral ones'), and which eventually gets twisted into the party in power murdering their opponents with impunity because it's 'morally justified'.
Moralism itself is just a tool to justify the status quo. Nothing is inherently good by maintaining "civility," especially if violence is the status quo.
Shooting Nazis is good. Shooting Gazans is bad. Violence is a tool, but not always the correct one, nor is it never correct.
I think that is a misreading of why moral codes come into being, and I am not trying to preach moralism.
Moral codes are not universal truths, but instead rules of engagement for maintaining order within a system, and they exist within every social scope, though their level of detail tends to decay as the scope becomes more interpersonal. They're not really a tool of the state, but instead just a human tool. The state just codifies its own and disseminates it into the social collectives it rules.
My statement above is a moral observation about political morality within the US, and which I view is generally a useful rule within any democratic political system (I am referring to systems which have a structure and voting system associated with democratic processes, not necessarily ideal or actual democracies).
I am also not saying that this moral code is necessarily good for us or the system itself at any given moment, but stating why this moral code exists in the first place, and why anyone who is apart of our system and wants that system to survive (whether that be for avoiding personal turmoil or political ideology) will continue to condemn assassination attempts from any side.
Moral codes are not universal truths, but instead rules of engagement for maintaining order within a system, and they exist within every social scope, though their level of detail tends to decay as the scope becomes more interpersonal. They're not really a tool of the state, but instead just a human tool. The state just codifies its own and disseminates it into the social collectives it rules.
Yes, moral codes are generally arbitrary. When wielded by the state to maintain the status quo, it becomes a tool of the state.
My statement above is a moral observation about political morality within the US, and which I view is generally a useful rule within any democratic political system (I am referring to systems which have a structure and voting system associated with democratic processes, not necessarily ideal or actual democracies).
The US isn't truly democratic. Both major parties serve the interests of their donors, ie huge Capitalists, and the candidates presented fit with that alignment. In this manner, political pressure outside the scope of "civility" is presented as immoral, despite civility itself being used to perpetuate anti-democratic structures.
I am also not saying that this moral code is necessarily good for us or the system itself at any given moment, but stating why this moral code exists in the first place, and why anyone who is apart of our system and wants that system to survive (whether that be for avoiding personal turmoil or political ideology) will continue to condemn assassination attempts from any side.
Yes, this is why Biden has batted more for Trump than any child murdered in Gaza. Biden needs civility to remain, or else he too will become a target.
- ShowLiberals being useless and ceding ground to the right for the sake of "civility" once again.
I'm not MAGA, but anyone that supports assasination as a tool of politics is a traitor to the constitution and a terrorist against the people and should be dealt with accordingly
It wouldn't have mattered if you kill Hitler. Someone else would have risen up and taken power, eventually kicking off WW2. The conditions in early 1930s Germany were too ripe not to have a demagogue take total power there. If you wanted to prevent those events from happening, you prevent the great depression, not kill some leader of a nation
True, someone else would have taken his place, but not immediately. If you can't prevent the depression, you have to struggle on the ground.
Dealt with accordingly? You mean like assassinated? Just for their political beliefs about assassination? Sounds pretty terroristic, man
Do you condemn the violence necessary to continue the existence of the United States?
