Hex wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 11:50 am

losthighway wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 7:59 am

Hex wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:22 am Why the *fuck* do you care about vigilante violence by marginalized people more than the systemic violence by these manipulative assholes who lie and paint us as monsters?

That's a straw man. No one here does.

I don’t believe that; the responses of several people here (and many more elsewhere) certainly indicate otherwise.

Are you preparing to take out the next insurance tycoon? If you are, someone's lofty views on non-violence are not going to stop you. Otherwise we're just people sitting in a room judging things we have never done and will never do. In either position an equal number of business moguls die/survive.

People’s views on violence absolutely affect broader struggles. One of the things I outlined in previous posts is that the law is immaterial, intangible, and only “protects” people in power as long as the concept of it exists in people’s minds and is respected and adhered to. How people react to it affects others, and social pressures can be massive forces in shaping people’s own attitudes and actions. People’s views can mean the difference between movements gaining steam or fizzling out. They might not stop someone who is going to do something anyways, but they can certainly help provide a less hostile environment for them and encourage broader actions.

I do not believe at all that “an equal number of business moguls die/survive” between scenarios where the prevailing social attitudes are “directly killing someone using physical force for any reason whatsoever is unacceptable” vs “some people in positions of power are de facto above the law and use it to enact systemic violence on masses and it’s acceptable to use direct force on them”

But if your engagement with violent struggle starts and ends with making sure people speak with due respect for assassins you're counting on someone else to carry out the grim work. This is the same problem with death penalty proponents, they damn the undertaker to do the task. It's in bad faith from an existential point of view. Killing stains a person in a traumatic way. To champion or encourage a horrific act you could never commit is wrong.

[apologies, dbl post, when I meant an edit; disregard]

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 11:31 am You know though, any causal relationship seems maybe far-fetched to me.

True, but it's 2024. Optics trump all.

losthighway wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:08 pm

Hex wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 11:50 am

losthighway wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 7:59 am

That's a straw man. No one here does.

I don’t believe that; the responses of several people here (and many more elsewhere) certainly indicate otherwise.

Are you preparing to take out the next insurance tycoon? If you are, someone's lofty views on non-violence are not going to stop you. Otherwise we're just people sitting in a room judging things we have never done and will never do. In either position an equal number of business moguls die/survive.

People’s views on violence absolutely affect broader struggles. One of the things I outlined in previous posts is that the law is immaterial, intangible, and only “protects” people in power as long as the concept of it exists in people’s minds and is respected and adhered to. How people react to it affects others, and social pressures can be massive forces in shaping people’s own attitudes and actions. People’s views can mean the difference between movements gaining steam or fizzling out. They might not stop someone who is going to do something anyways, but they can certainly help provide a less hostile environment for them and encourage broader actions.

I do not believe at all that “an equal number of business moguls die/survive” between scenarios where the prevailing social attitudes are “directly killing someone using physical force for any reason whatsoever is unacceptable” vs “some people in positions of power are de facto above the law and use it to enact systemic violence on masses and it’s acceptable to use direct force on them”

But if your engagement with violent struggle starts and ends with making sure people speak with due respect for assassins you're counting on someone else to carry out the grim work. This is the same problem with death penalty proponents, they damn the undertaker to do the task. It's in bad faith from an existential point of view. Killing stains a person in a traumatic way. To champion or encourage a horrific act you could never commit is wrong.

My “engagement” doesn’t start and end with that. It’s only a “horrific” act if you don’t view what the CEO was doing as violence itself. I have never claimed anywhere that I could never see myself committing something like that, and I fail to see the logic where you get “someone encouraging someone else to do something they wouldn’t themselves is wrong” from. You declaring something doesn’t make it true, and I already stated elsewhere I don’t give a shit about morality on its own terms—only when in service of actual, felt effects.

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:00 pm All I can say is, the "logic" is dangerously close to something like Jan. 6. Sure, those people were brainwashed dipshits. And I think they suck. But that's also irrelevant: They believed in what they were doing and thought they were solving an "injustice" w/violence.

That's a shitty precedent that I want no part of, regardless of the ideology behind it. I don't want to live in a society where this stuff becomes any more "normal" than it already is. That's all I'm sayin'.

That “logic” is nowhere near close. On one hand, you have people with demonstrably false beliefs wanting to take control of a government to impose a fascist regime. On the other, you have people who are literally resisting the violence imposed on them because their lives depend on it. The effects and outcomes of both are incredibly different. To equate them because of any similarity in methods is ridiculous. What do you think of the Haitian Revolution, where slaves overthrew and killed their masters? Would you condemn them and compare them to Jan 6 because they both “believed in what they were doing and thought they were solving an "injustice" w/violence.”

I’m begging all of you to consider the same logic and arguments you are spouting here with other examples in history before saying this shit.

Also I love how you say you don’t want to live in a society where this becomes any more “normal” than it already is. I’m *already* living in that society you fear. There are *millions* of people who are. And you don’t fucking stop it from happening to more and more people by letting the people and systems who create those conditions to continue unimpeded. When you yearn for nonviolence but primarily in the sense of those who are victims of systemic violence fighting back, rather than the systemic violence of those in power oppressing them, you’ve completely lost the plot. You want nonviolence, then you need to get rid of oppressors and the systems that enable them, and if you think they are just going to give it up without fighting (all while continually enacting violence on the marginalized), you live in a fantasy world with no basis in reality.

I get being viscerally uncomfortable with what happened. I’m not asking anyone to be comfortable with it. But to condemn it with strong moral language, I ask once again, what the fuck do you think is a better option at this point? Given the political landscape, gerrymandering, the enforcement of capitalism, the militarization of police, your broad condemnation of shit like this condemns marginalized people to suffer and die quietly, and expects that somehow that strategy is going to lead to, after who knows how many centuries of oppression and genocide, enough people to band together and vote these nasty brutes out and they’re just gonna accept it and everything is just gonna be peachy. Fucking fantasy brain

Hex wrote:

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:00 pm All I can say is, the "logic" is dangerously close to something like Jan. 6. Sure, those people were brainwashed dipshits. And I think they suck. But that's also irrelevant: They believed in what they were doing and thought they were solving an "injustice" w/violence.

That's a shitty precedent that I want no part of, regardless of the ideology behind it. I don't want to live in a society where this stuff becomes any more "normal" than it already is. That's all I'm sayin'.

That “logic” is nowhere near close. On one hand, you have people with demonstrably false beliefs wanting to take control of a government to impose a fascist regime. On the other, you have people who are literally resisting the violence imposed on them because their lives depend on it. The effects and outcomes of both are incredibly different. To equate them because of any similarity in methods is ridiculous. What do you think of the Haitian Revolution, where slaves overthrew and killed their masters? Would you condemn them and compare them to Jan 6 because they both “believed in what they were doing and thought they were solving an "injustice" w/violence.”

I’m begging all of you to consider the same logic and arguments you are spouting here with other examples in history before saying this shit.

The terrifying thing is that many of those Jan. 6 goons will gladly use the same logic on you. Hell, they already do. But "see!?" they'd crow as an excuse for some act of violence. And so, it escalates.

They're beyond wrong, of course. But that would be their excuse. And so, you play right into the trap by thinking like they do.

And we're not talking about colonial Haiti. We're talking about now. The slavery argument is pretty off the mark b/c such people depended on their "masters" for every facet of their lives. And had no freedom of movement. Which is a lot more extreme than being saddled w/crippling healthcare debt, to which this bastard was but one tangential tentacle of many, many, many, many. And Haitians set up a (granted, pretty messy) state as a viable alternative; their plan was not just killing some dude to make a vague point. Killing one CEO—or even all the CEOs—is probably not a step towards national healthcare. B/c there will just be... more CEOs. Blue Cross has already exploited it for PR purposes (you can keep your anesthesia, peons; even though our decision likely predated this event, aren't we fucking thoughtful?). And insurance companies are already militarizing their security for corporate fuckos. Again, hit the insurance industry in the purse instead. Just don't fucking pay them.

I don't find it the least bit unreasonable to not want to live in a 2024 society where mob rule and/or vigilante justice are normal. It will unleash all manner of sloppiness, stupidity, and more violence. The problem is when everyone starts thinking shit is justifiable b/c they're "right." Whether that violence is coming from an ethical standpoint I happen to personally agree w/or not is quite irrelevant.

Hex wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:44 pm I have never claimed anywhere that I could never see myself committing something like that, and I fail to see the logic where you get “someone encouraging someone else to do something they wouldn’t themselves is wrong” from.

Be real. Are you willing and able to kill an unsuspecting person?

As for the logic, you don't need Nietzsche and Sartre to parse this out (although I find them helpful here). It's as raw as "you won't hunt for your meat" or "you talk a lot of shit but you don't throw down". We are all accustomed to these critical questions about conviction and operating from a place of authenticity.

The executioner has to clean the shit off of his axe. What kind of dreams do you think the guy who works the gallows has? Would you do his job? Are you comfortable sitting back and sending him assignments? There is a large cross section of society that is quite comfortable doing so, but we wouldn't care for those folks.

Hex wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:44 pm You declaring something doesn’t make it true,

Right. Likewise. That's kind of why these discussions exist.

Hex wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:44 pm and I already stated elsewhere I don’t give a shit about morality on its own terms—only when in service of actual, felt effects.

But you have to understand that is in itself a moral argument. You have come to the ethics debate with a rough kind of utilitarian justification for murder. There's a well made road map for it made by people smarter than either of us, I just don't particularly buy it. I mainly don't think it's fair to condemn people sitting around the crap/not crap thread for their take when you're sitting indoors gabbing about it with the rest of us.

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 1:29 pm Blue Cross has already exploited it for PR purposes (you can keep your anesthesia, peons; even though our decision likely predated this event, aren't we fucking thoughtful?)

I imagine that's how they hoped it would look but again, optics trump all. Just looks like they've shit themselves.