• duviobaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        We are not going to sit here and watch people get killed for no reason just for nothing to happen to the terrorists in return. As terrorists, they deserve to be treated as terrorists. A hundred years ago killing Nazis after the liberation of Germany was the right thing to do, but now it’s supposed to be wrong?

        • jimbo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The dude who shot her was killed by the police. What more were you thinking should have been done to him?

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So what are you recommending? It sounds like you’re recommending pre-emptive violence towards people with no crime, no trial, no jury. That is likely to end badly. It’s also likely to be used as an excuse to kill people who aren’t involves in hate in the first place.

              • duviobaz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                All i am saying is that if someone were to kill one of those terrorists, they wouldn’t get my pity

                • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What do you define as “one of those terrorists”? Any person who is a conservative, or any person who has already murdered someone for being gay? Or somewhere in the middle?

    • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.

      Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world’s problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a gap a mile wide between doing nothing and stooping to the same level of violence. Come on…

          • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It’s about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn’t accomplish that, and in this case I don’t blame them.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              All I’m saying is there’s a that universally every nation in the world has constructed laws on this; that just because you disagree with an opposing view vehemently you cannot strike out physically, violently. Inevitably, if you abandon this notion, then it will backfire by those most willing to commit violence — and in that regard, we revert back to survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all mindsets. When that happens, will we have “reduced suffering in the world?”

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.

        • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.

          One could make the argument war didn’t get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn’t mean its a good argument.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn’t the US.

          The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that’s ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Honestly, the gun culture is way too entrenched among the right wing for something like that to be viable and any attempt at meaningful gun legislation will ignite the civil war I’m talking about.

            The right wing is open and emphatic about their willingness to wage war with the government to be able to keep their weapons. And they are serious. There’s enough of them that they could give our military a good run for its money.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No they wouldn’t. Our military doesn’t even need to respond most of the time, just the cops, and when they do these jackasses are so poorly trained and organized, The National Guard doesn’t even get to play with their big toys.

              Source: lefty (in both ways) Navy Veteran, and there are way more of us than the braying jackasses want to admit

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                But not enough to stop them without the left shedding their unhelpful way of thinking on the matter and mobilize, and you know that.

            • Drgon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lately I’ve been thinking that if congress got shot up as often as schools did, we would have sane gun control with bipartisan support

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s basically how it’s been, only with a very racist bent. Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.

                I agree with you that once people start popping off politicians that we’ll see real change on the matter. And then the right wing will be signaled to fight once they see mass disarmament programs begin, and it’ll be downhill from there.

                • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.

                  Negative. Gun Control in the United States predates the founding of the country and it was both racist and classist from the very outset. As documented in that link Gun Control laws have been around for over 200 years and were instituted against Blacks but also against the Irish, the Chinese, and Native Americans.

                  Your comment is based on The Mulford Act, a stupid and racist piece of California legislation passed with bi-partisan effort and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to publicly armed Black Panthers. It wasn’t even close the first serious gun control law to get passed.

                  For instance Mulford was modeled on The Sullivan Act enacted by New York State in 1911. It intentionally targeted Italian immigrants, another distinct minority at the time.

                  This country has ALWAYS enacted Gun Control in response to racial and class elements.

                  • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Okay, fair, my bad. You’re right.

                    Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So? In what world does that necessitate you owning a gun? One where Robert Evans’s civil war happens?

              The idea that everyone needs to be strapped because a few morons are, is paranoid race to the bottom thinking, not how you make a better future.

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                The real world where without it, I stand a very high likelihood of being raped or murdered at the slightest aggression of an angry male who will always carry a power advantage over me without them, you psychopath.

                • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Oh yeah, Canadian and European women are just casually murdered and raped all the time cause they’re not strapped. That’s so totally a thing that happens and we all hear about in the news day after day!

                  • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes, they are. 1in 6 of all women on average are raped in their lifetime. Girls under 18, those rates are 1 in 4. And many of them could have been prevented if they had a firearm.

                    And you’re evil for claiming otherwise. And for insinuating women should have to accept any risk of being raped at all just to not offend your sensibilities. My sensibilities are more important than yours.

                • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re more likely to be killed by a mosquito than raped, and men are far more likely to be murdered than you. You might want to reevaluate your threat assessment.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.

        They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I dunno. I’ve thought, for quite some time, that we’ll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I’m increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I’m horrified by violence and probably wouldn’t have the courage to do so.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).

          Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.

          At minimum, teach your children why we don’t do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hope you realize that you’re falling right into the far-right playbook. This right here is their goal. Not sure if you’re familiar with ProPublica’s research but they seek to muddy the waters. The whole punch a nazi thing actually helps their recruitment. They turn around and go, “See? They’re no better. They claim to preach these beliefs about a civil society and freedom of speech and not preemptively striking, yet here we are.”

          • brognak@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            Either way they lie and recruit the same. I’d much rather just punch the Nazis and anyone who sides with them.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              In a way wouldn’t we all. But this is clearly posturing anyway since I’m not seeing much in the way of nazi punching. For instance we saw how many nazis were in DC on January 6th or at Charlottesville, yet not much punching occurred.

              Either way there are better ways to undermine their goals.

              • carbonated@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah because rational humans were at home being their non violent selves having no idea what was about to unfold. How stupid are you?

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That just helps prove my point. One side is just not violent to begin with and to expect to beat violence with violence from a group unwilling to stoop to such a level themselves is absurd. Either way there are better ways to solving the problem. Nobody is going out “punching nazis” as much as it may feel cathartic to say. That will literally just land you in prison and feed their cause.

      • girlfriend@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.

      • ph00p@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        All the downvotes you’re getting on this one… YIKES I don’t think this is a very good community.

    • sumofchemicals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.

      That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be “right” it’s still a strategic error. It’s much harder to build than destroy and any “successful” deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.

      Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action