The Proud Boys and other militias believe the exact same thing, just swap anti-fascist for anti-traitors who are “the enemy within”. You are proving each other’s point, two sets of extremists advocating for whatever it takes, with both POSITIVE they’re doing the right thing.
Strawman. Yeah, there are differences. It’s not like I support people like Fuentes. I’ve posted several times about him and other hateful people being a reprehensible bastard. For months I posted anti-Trump. But in many ways that matter there are serious similarities or even exact mirrors between groups. Both:
I magically know who should die so I’m right. I’m righteously saving my country, so I don’t need checks and balances or the mandate of the population.
I don’t care if it escalates national violence, even starts a war and gets others killed - I have the right to make the choice that forces consequences on others.
Good people are going to cheer, bad people are going to live in fear and give up their wicked ways, and I’m going to be a hero.
Abandon peaceful, legal options. It doesn’t matter if multiple challenges to Trump are happening at all levels of government, my way is better and we don’t even need to wait.
I’m powerful enough/my side is that the bad guys will die and we’ll win. I’m so scary and capable, you don’t even know.
I’m actually going to sit on my ass posting “fuck them” and telling other people to kill for me because it makes me feel good. Just daily indulgence in the worst brand of power fantasies.
For that last one: The doxing thread would have been hilarious if it wasn’t disgusting before it got taken down. People were all “they’re not near me” and “I hope someone else does it”. Buddy, they’re the guys who pick fights at bars and stall until the bouncer arrives then tell everyone else, “You’re lucky I was held back”. If I was wrong they’d be doing something (and ruining/ending a lot of lives in the process), not talking BS on Lemmy. I’m not telling people to actually act, it should be incredibly obvious I’m saying not to. I’m also saying I don’t need to worry about 99.9% of the big tough internet men doing so. The murder fetishists in this thread are clearly all hoping if the message reaches thousands, one mentally unstable murderer will actually act so they can cheer from the bleachers without consequences.
Not on the side of killing people here but one side wants to kill minorities and other groups while the other wants to kill people who want to kill minorities.
Would you say painting WWII Nazis as evil and fighting a war against them is the same as them invading Poland to subjugate the natives?
one side wants to kill minorities and other groups while the other wants to kill people who want to kill minorities.
A 2nd response after thinking about that part of your question: Both sides want to kill millions, without trial, on the basis of perceived danger. There’s no moral high ground. No rules of war, no official oversight, just civilians murdering their countrymen in large numbers. Demands that, if acted upon, will escalate into enormous bloodshed without giving less destructive, more legal barriers a chance. The people pushing violence are unrepentantly promoting the idea that “if they want to kill then we’ll kill them first”.
Would you say painting WWII Nazis as evil and fighting a war against them is the same as them invading Poland to subjugate the natives?
I wouldn’t say that, but I understand why you’d ask. The Nazis weren’t opposed by sending any civilian angry enough into Germany to shoot civilians they thought were fascists. When Germany invaded Poland, other countries formally declared war (although it took several months before they actually engaged in combat.) In another comment I wrote why I think formal war with rules of war is different than vigilante killing. In a 2nd, I said that if it comes down to army vs. army civil war I’d say fight hard. In yet another, I told someone they were trying to be the WW2 Allies without the army or mandate.
I also wrote about the likely consequence of vigilante killings including handing Trump and the extreme right all the excuses they could ever want, sabotaging legitimate efforts opposing/delaying Trump by organizations like the Pentagon and state governments, and getting their lives ended/ruined. Some folks are trying to equate promoting assassinations with the Allies’ fight against the Axis, and it’s just not the same in characteristics or consequence. Please also bear in mind the killings they are targeted at podcasters and unknown civilians with the assumption that killing these “ground level” people will sort things out.
Yes if it comes to that, and kept bounded by rules of war. Accepting surrender, treatment of POWs, avoiding civilian casualties, rules of engagement and so on. The US isn’t there yet IMO, by which I mean a significant % of people willing to leave their lives behind to fight other Americans. There are serious legal and administrative attempts being made to block the worst of Trump’s policies. But if the US does in fact have a civil war, I am cheering for those opposing fascists. I don’t know how a 43-year-old Canadian could contribute, but I’d be willing to at minimum donate to things like humanitarian aid for sure.
Ok, I have those thoughts sometimes too, especially when I’m angry and hopeless. I usually cut them off because ultimately I don’t think I have the right to kill people outside of the context of a war etc. But there’s nothing illegal about thinking. Clarence Darrow: “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure".
A lot of folks are calling for actual violence though. It’s all over the thread. Incitement is different than just wishing Trump and his cronies would croak.
I am genuinely curious why do you think that you have a right to kill someone in war but not outside of it. Like what are the main differences there (unless you are using law as a basis for this)
No worries. War is unavoidable at times - dictators exist, people get desperate, and so on. There are legalities involved, and they are a concern but aren’t my main concern. Morally, there’s a difference to me between killing someone because I hate them and killing someone because I’m a combatant and so are they. There are strict rules to war that help are supposed to keep things largely ethical - I understand war is never going to be “clean”. Policies like rules of engagement, being able to surrender, treatment of POWs, genuinely avoiding targetting civilians (the world could use more of that right now) and stopping when your country tells you to all matter to me.
Soldiers are not asked to make decisions about who they’ll kill (I mean which armies, not rules of engagement), thus these individuals are not being relied upon for justice. That is a big difference from vigilantism, where a person or mob of people decides who lives and dies. Ideally the leaders of the military and country are making sure war is a necessary last resort and conducted according to rules, and if that isn’t happening then other nations should be condemning and opposing them. It’s like how I think nations need prisons, but I don’t think I should be allowed to take someone hostage because I’m pretty sure they deserve it.
But haven’t you seen countless cases of examples where those strict rules for war have been completely ignored? Russia is just ignoring them completely in Ukraine, Israel is just straight-up conducting a genocide and no western country gives a shit apparently, for the US there are countless cases of shit like the My Lai massacre or the US sponsorships of terrorist organisations in South America…
States are just big systems that exist to give people a monopoly on violence.
Perhaps you didn’t know this, but Russia IS being opposed by to the tune of billions of dollars of support and widespread condemnation for their war of aggression including meaningful economic sanctions and asset seizures. It’s facilitated the killing of just under 700,000 Russian soldiers and tons of equipment according to the Ukrainian government. The only reason NATO won’t deploy troops is because no one wants WW3. Nations are even now considering escalating their support following the deployment of North Koreans.
Israel IS being opposed by huge swathes of the world. If the US (and to a lesser extent other Western countries) weren’t providing diplomatic and military cover for them, they’d have been censured in the UN for decades now and potentially stopped. Long story short, the US is just as at fault for the genocide as Israel due to providing the diplomatic/military means via decades of “blank check” support. So do you think US policy means that civilians should start killing Zionists in America and abroad? Should civilians have killed Biden and his whole cabinet a few months into the war because boundaries on war are being broken?
As far as US atrocities, I don’t think they are going as unnoticed worldwide as you might think. I won’t put words in your mouth, but do you want me to believe that other countries should be sending civilians to kill American voters? If not, then why did you mention those massacres in the context of our conversation about mob killing vs. formal war?
Your argument that rules shouldn’t matter because sometimes they are broken is flawed. I’m not a warmonger, quite the opposite. However, you won’t get me to agree that civilians should believe they have the moral obligation to murder other civilians because wars are sometimes unjust. There are unjust trials. Doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have the right to a trial before they’re killed. There are bad politicians, doesn’t mean all politics should be banned. There are bad marriages. There are bad police. There are bad doctors.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m totally with you, I’m opposed to violence just as you are. I just extend my opposition to violence a bit further, including violence inflicted by states. I don’t want you to change your opposition to violence, I think that’s great. I’m just asking you to consider whether your exemptions given to states engaging in military conflicts is actually justified
I sincerely apologize then - even if I didn’t resort to insults etc., please forgive my undeniably hostile tone. I’ll edit the response. I’ve been under a lot of fire in this thread for opposing vigilantes, and I mistook your position for one of theirs. I may be mistaken again, but you sound like a pacifist. That is a stance I can empathize with and respect, if not honestly espouse myself. I think sometimes violence is a necessary final resort. I believe in trying to reduce harm in those instances by constraining the violence as described above.
Combatant is different. If this was a civil war or something similar (and thus ruled by laws of war) and someone was a combatant you’d be absolutely correct. But the people here are talking about killing a civilian, as civilians, while not at war, and without trial which is definitely murder.
You mean the only other civil war in US history, in the 19th century? Are you actually suggesting that the lack of “forum posts” means anything at all?
Welcome to the 21st century. The world is different than last time.
I guess if you make the 134 million guns owners in America enraged and frightened for their life by providing concrete examples of killing them you can make sure it’s a civil war.
I’m assuming you’re being kind of sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek as it were. If anyone takes it seriously though: if the people you oppose are so incompetent they pose no threat, then why do you need to beat/murder them in the 1st place? If you look up “enemy is both weak and strong”, saying that is actually a defining characteristic of fascism (and I assume other authoritarian ideologies).
Telling other people to commit premeditated murder is, and it’s all over this thread + the original (which I think was taken down).
Anti-fascist action is self-defense.
The Proud Boys and other militias believe the exact same thing, just swap anti-fascist for anti-traitors who are “the enemy within”. You are proving each other’s point, two sets of extremists advocating for whatever it takes, with both POSITIVE they’re doing the right thing.
Fascists: I want systemic violence against anyone that isn’t a white cis het man.
Leftists: I want violence against people who advocate for systemic violence against marginalised groups.
Absolutely undistinguishable :p
Strawman. Yeah, there are differences. It’s not like I support people like Fuentes. I’ve posted several times about him and other hateful people being a reprehensible bastard. For months I posted anti-Trump. But in many ways that matter there are serious similarities or even exact mirrors between groups. Both:
I magically know who should die so I’m right. I’m righteously saving my country, so I don’t need checks and balances or the mandate of the population.
I don’t care if it escalates national violence, even starts a war and gets others killed - I have the right to make the choice that forces consequences on others.
Good people are going to cheer, bad people are going to live in fear and give up their wicked ways, and I’m going to be a hero.
Abandon peaceful, legal options. It doesn’t matter if multiple challenges to Trump are happening at all levels of government, my way is better and we don’t even need to wait.
I’m powerful enough/my side is that the bad guys will die and we’ll win. I’m so scary and capable, you don’t even know.
I’m actually going to sit on my ass posting “fuck them” and telling other people to kill for me because it makes me feel good. Just daily indulgence in the worst brand of power fantasies.
For that last one: The doxing thread would have been hilarious if it wasn’t disgusting before it got taken down. People were all “they’re not near me” and “I hope someone else does it”. Buddy, they’re the guys who pick fights at bars and stall until the bouncer arrives then tell everyone else, “You’re lucky I was held back”. If I was wrong they’d be doing something (and ruining/ending a lot of lives in the process), not talking BS on Lemmy. I’m not telling people to actually act, it should be incredibly obvious I’m saying not to. I’m also saying I don’t need to worry about 99.9% of the big tough internet men doing so. The murder fetishists in this thread are clearly all hoping if the message reaches thousands, one mentally unstable murderer will actually act so they can cheer from the bleachers without consequences.
Not on the side of killing people here but one side wants to kill minorities and other groups while the other wants to kill people who want to kill minorities.
Would you say painting WWII Nazis as evil and fighting a war against them is the same as them invading Poland to subjugate the natives?
A 2nd response after thinking about that part of your question: Both sides want to kill millions, without trial, on the basis of perceived danger. There’s no moral high ground. No rules of war, no official oversight, just civilians murdering their countrymen in large numbers. Demands that, if acted upon, will escalate into enormous bloodshed without giving less destructive, more legal barriers a chance. The people pushing violence are unrepentantly promoting the idea that “if they want to kill then we’ll kill them first”.
I wouldn’t say that, but I understand why you’d ask. The Nazis weren’t opposed by sending any civilian angry enough into Germany to shoot civilians they thought were fascists. When Germany invaded Poland, other countries formally declared war (although it took several months before they actually engaged in combat.) In another comment I wrote why I think formal war with rules of war is different than vigilante killing. In a 2nd, I said that if it comes down to army vs. army civil war I’d say fight hard. In yet another, I told someone they were trying to be the WW2 Allies without the army or mandate.
I also wrote about the likely consequence of vigilante killings including handing Trump and the extreme right all the excuses they could ever want, sabotaging legitimate efforts opposing/delaying Trump by organizations like the Pentagon and state governments, and getting their lives ended/ruined. Some folks are trying to equate promoting assassinations with the Allies’ fight against the Axis, and it’s just not the same in characteristics or consequence. Please also bear in mind the killings they are targeted at podcasters and unknown civilians with the assumption that killing these “ground level” people will sort things out.
Ah, so you aren’t opposed to killing fascists, you just want it to be done on the orders of a military.
Yes if it comes to that, and kept bounded by rules of war. Accepting surrender, treatment of POWs, avoiding civilian casualties, rules of engagement and so on. The US isn’t there yet IMO, by which I mean a significant % of people willing to leave their lives behind to fight other Americans. There are serious legal and administrative attempts being made to block the worst of Trump’s policies. But if the US does in fact have a civil war, I am cheering for those opposing fascists. I don’t know how a 43-year-old Canadian could contribute, but I’d be willing to at minimum donate to things like humanitarian aid for sure.
I didn’t tell anybody to commit murder. I’m just watching hopefully.
Ok, I have those thoughts sometimes too, especially when I’m angry and hopeless. I usually cut them off because ultimately I don’t think I have the right to kill people outside of the context of a war etc. But there’s nothing illegal about thinking. Clarence Darrow: “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure".
A lot of folks are calling for actual violence though. It’s all over the thread. Incitement is different than just wishing Trump and his cronies would croak.
I am genuinely curious why do you think that you have a right to kill someone in war but not outside of it. Like what are the main differences there (unless you are using law as a basis for this)
No worries. War is unavoidable at times - dictators exist, people get desperate, and so on. There are legalities involved, and they are a concern but aren’t my main concern. Morally, there’s a difference to me between killing someone because I hate them and killing someone because I’m a combatant and so are they. There are strict rules to war that help are supposed to keep things largely ethical - I understand war is never going to be “clean”. Policies like rules of engagement, being able to surrender, treatment of POWs, genuinely avoiding targetting civilians (the world could use more of that right now) and stopping when your country tells you to all matter to me.
Soldiers are not asked to make decisions about who they’ll kill (I mean which armies, not rules of engagement), thus these individuals are not being relied upon for justice. That is a big difference from vigilantism, where a person or mob of people decides who lives and dies. Ideally the leaders of the military and country are making sure war is a necessary last resort and conducted according to rules, and if that isn’t happening then other nations should be condemning and opposing them. It’s like how I think nations need prisons, but I don’t think I should be allowed to take someone hostage because I’m pretty sure they deserve it.
But haven’t you seen countless cases of examples where those strict rules for war have been completely ignored? Russia is just ignoring them completely in Ukraine, Israel is just straight-up conducting a genocide and no western country gives a shit apparently, for the US there are countless cases of shit like the My Lai massacre or the US sponsorships of terrorist organisations in South America…
States are just big systems that exist to give people a monopoly on violence.
Perhaps you didn’t know this, but Russia IS being opposed by to the tune of billions of dollars of support and widespread condemnation for their war of aggression including meaningful economic sanctions and asset seizures. It’s facilitated the killing of just under 700,000 Russian soldiers and tons of equipment according to the Ukrainian government. The only reason NATO won’t deploy troops is because no one wants WW3. Nations are even now considering escalating their support following the deployment of North Koreans.
Israel IS being opposed by huge swathes of the world. If the US (and to a lesser extent other Western countries) weren’t providing diplomatic and military cover for them, they’d have been censured in the UN for decades now and potentially stopped. Long story short, the US is just as at fault for the genocide as Israel due to providing the diplomatic/military means via decades of “blank check” support. So do you think US policy means that civilians should start killing Zionists in America and abroad? Should civilians have killed Biden and his whole cabinet a few months into the war because boundaries on war are being broken?
As far as US atrocities, I don’t think they are going as unnoticed worldwide as you might think. I won’t put words in your mouth, but do you want me to believe that other countries should be sending civilians to kill American voters? If not, then why did you mention those massacres in the context of our conversation about mob killing vs. formal war?
Your argument that rules shouldn’t matter because sometimes they are broken is flawed. I’m not a warmonger, quite the opposite. However, you won’t get me to agree that civilians should believe they have the moral obligation to murder other civilians because wars are sometimes unjust. There are unjust trials. Doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have the right to a trial before they’re killed. There are bad politicians, doesn’t mean all politics should be banned. There are bad marriages. There are bad police. There are bad doctors.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m totally with you, I’m opposed to violence just as you are. I just extend my opposition to violence a bit further, including violence inflicted by states. I don’t want you to change your opposition to violence, I think that’s great. I’m just asking you to consider whether your exemptions given to states engaging in military conflicts is actually justified
I sincerely apologize then - even if I didn’t resort to insults etc., please forgive my undeniably hostile tone. I’ll edit the response. I’ve been under a lot of fire in this thread for opposing vigilantes, and I mistook your position for one of theirs. I may be mistaken again, but you sound like a pacifist. That is a stance I can empathize with and respect, if not honestly espouse myself. I think sometimes violence is a necessary final resort. I believe in trying to reduce harm in those instances by constraining the violence as described above.
it isn’t murder if they are an enemy combatant.
Combatant is different. If this was a civil war or something similar (and thus ruled by laws of war) and someone was a combatant you’d be absolutely correct. But the people here are talking about killing a civilian, as civilians, while not at war, and without trial which is definitely murder.
Who gets to decide it’s a civil war?
Historically it’s leaders like presidents, governors, legislative bodies, and generals. Not forum posts.
You mean the only other civil war in US history, in the 19th century? Are you actually suggesting that the lack of “forum posts” means anything at all?
Welcome to the 21st century. The world is different than last time.
I guess if you make the 134 million guns owners in America enraged and frightened for their life by providing concrete examples of killing them you can make sure it’s a civil war.
They’re mostly retarded so it’ll be fine.
I’m assuming you’re being kind of sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek as it were. If anyone takes it seriously though: if the people you oppose are so incompetent they pose no threat, then why do you need to beat/murder them in the 1st place? If you look up “enemy is both weak and strong”, saying that is actually a defining characteristic of fascism (and I assume other authoritarian ideologies).