You can’t even speak frankly here. I came to Lemmy because I was tired of being censored by Reddit, but it seems like this place is just as restrictive on speech as Reddit was.
People, if we are going to talk about systemic change for a better world, violence has to be a tool in the toolbox.
Locking this for similar reasons as I did another recent post, except this one is explicitly encouraging violent action. Further, MasterBlaster420, you seem unable to have this discussion without resorting to insulting people left and right.
See the following:
With this in mind, it would probably be wiser to permanently ban you from this community, but instead I’m giving a temporary ban. I’d encourage you to reflect on how you approach discussing this subject. Rather than suggesting general violence for enacting change, read further on the histories relating to the subject and really engage with them.
Recognize why there’s an aversion to violence, who takes advantage of it to subvert its aims, and whether it may be better to help and organize those that align with you, than repel them into the arms of those you oppose.
Talk about violence on a social media platform is a legal liability. Who should take that risk on? Corporations? Random private citizens who happen to run an instance of lemmy?
If you want to talk about violence so badly, you will have to either find a platform that will take that risk on, or take the risk onto yourself.
If everywhere you go is shit, maybe you’ve stepped on it
maybe. or maybe there’s shit everywhere.
People please remember to not feed the trolls
i’m being completely sincere and honest.
If you consistently run into the problem that nobody wants to hear what you’re saying, maybe it’s time to stop saying it.
I’m not saying EVERY case, but, maybe consider it.
why would i change my fundamental understanding of rational morality based on popular opinion? i believe that there are more limp-wristed pacifists out there than there are warriors with a conscience, but that just means i need to amplify myself even more so people understand what’s at stake.
Your very use of the word limpwristed points the way to why you’re not being taken seriously. If you want to build and promote a violent a movement you need to be the change you wish to see in this world. Start a Matrix server, install Signal, develop a comms SOP and get out to protest and speak with like minded individuals. Arm yourselves, learn tactics and discuss plans in private. Join the SRA https://socialistra.org/
There’s plenty of info on how to do this all over the onion network.
But you sound more like an agent provocateur. There’s a long history of people like you that discredit leftist and anarchist movements. We don’t want you in public spaces shouting violent rhetoric and making us even more of a target for state violence.
hey man, i appreciate your sincere reply and i’ll definitely check out the links. I’m just a little wary of calling myself a socialist - not because i’m not a socialist (i definitely am), but just because it pigeon-holes my goals a little bit, while also alienating a lot of people who may not think of it that way. i just see a myriad of problems in which the only solution is to get rid of the conservatives blocking progress.
also, there really are a bunch of limp-wristed pacifists out there and i don’t see why they shouldn’t be labeled as such. light a fire under their pansy asses.
If you’re actually curious as to where to find these communities PM me and I can send you some relevant info on how to find and engender this kind of frank and open discussion.
You are free to vent your opinion but other people are free to not agree. Or listen. Or care. What you going to do? Enact violence on everybody?
Or, you can just keep thinking that you’re the ONLY one who has ever figured out the solution. 🤷🏻♂️
see? that’s what i’m talking about! i know i’m not alone in thinking “man, all this shit would be a lot easier if there were a lot less conservatives in the world”. but where the fuck do we go to talk about that?
You don’t. You don’t talk about stupid shit like that.
Read what you put in quotes, but replace Conservatives with, well, pretty much anything, and you’ll summarize the philosophy of every genocidal dictator in history.
Here’s an easy example to get you started:
Jews and Hitler.
and you’re foolish enough to be duped by goose and gander arguments, which is why lawful good people will always lose to lawful evil. sorry you don’t get it. wish i could tell you to get back with me in 10 years, but it’ll be too late by then. you’re going to see what happens when you fight fairly with sociopaths.
Ok
if we are going to talk about systemic change for a better world, violence has to be a tool in the toolbox
If we are going to talk about change, we should absolutely talk about it, discuss it, vote on candidates instituting it. Violence is the instant death of talk, discussion, and the democratic process.
sounds like what a lawful good sucker would say.
violence is the beginning of a wonderful conversation if you’re serious about change. if you’re a naive sucker that thinks that YOUR generation will be the one that finally does it through democracy, then lol. just lol.
i believe in democracy. we just need to eliminate about 10% of the voters that keep the wrong institutions in power.
show me how it will change any other way in time to avoid the dystopia at our doorstep.
sounds like what a lawful good sucker would say.
Mmm.
I’m just curious…where do you live? What country?
USA
violence is the beginning of a wonderful conversation
Whose a good little authoritarian? rubs cheeks You are! You’re the good little authoritarian!
i absolutely would use authoritarian measures to ensure that fewer creatures suffer. if you think liberty is at the top of the priority list, then you’ve been brainwashed by american libertarian values.
deleted by creator
cute quote. didn’t read the book. it sounds like what someone without a spine or real moral compass would say. it’s really not that hard to understand right and wrong. people want to make you think that it’s all too complicated, but it’s really not.
EDIT: you pussies sure can use the downvote button, but yet you can’t make a worthy counter argument.
Removed by mod
I’m not advocating anything but effective solutions. I don’t want to see people suffer, not even my enemies (unless their suffering serves to deter others from standing in the way of humanity).
Removed by mod
i’m opposed to suffering. a quick and mostly painless death is still in the realm of possible solutions. I would only advocate for something more cruel if it would pave the way for less suffering. this is all basically a trolley problem we have to solve.
Removed by mod
this is so hard to explain to someone who’s just concretizing their world view. there’s a lot of philosophy and practical application involved with my line of thought, so please bear with me.
first of all, i’m pragmatic. this is not about retribution or revenge. this is about plain and simple problem solving. what’s the problem? too many things are suffering and we have the power to reduce that suffering. why can’t we do it? because there are too many people who disregard the suffering of others. it’s about altruistic vs narcissistic beliefs. i don’t believe that everyone in the world is altruistic by nature. there are certainly sociopaths who will never learn to consider anyone but themselves. modern society has enabled those people to rise to the top and influence many others.
what’s the solution? to build an altruistic society based on rational thought and logic. some people say that those concepts are incompatible, and that logic favors an individualistic society. i think that most of the people that believe this more or less see the world through an economist’s lens. but if you really look at the whole of society and its history, there have always been people advocating for an altruistic society. this is why we have the humanities as a branch of academia.
but none of that really matters because, in the end, society has been molded by the victors, and made in the image of whatever the conquerors held as their values. i propose that we, the altruists, use that same model of might-makes-right to form the society that we want to see. really, there is no objective morality, so ultimately, we’re all just beating each other over the head to get what we want. why don’t we beat each other over the head to make a lasting world that favors compassion?
you might say that those concepts are incompatible, but i ask you to take a look at the long-term, big-picture view. yes, the steps to achieve what we want look messy, but we’re talking about securing a future for untold generations to come. if you think about the lifespans of countless future generations, it more than justifies the bloody steps we would have to take now to achieve it.
in the past, i might have said “we’ll get there. the history of society has always been 2 steps forward, one step back”, but we’re now running out of time. we could see serious extinction events in this century if we don’t act YESTERDAY to get a hold of the situation. there are so many innocent creatures that don’t deserve what we’re unleashing on the world right now. furthermore, i see us only having a small window of time before the sociopaths that run the world develop the tools to keep us under their thumb for a very long time, if not forever.
so with that in mind, an ‘ends justify the means’ approach is more than justified.
i don’t think that really answered your question. you want a list of grievances? just take a look at most of the threads here on Lemmy - everything that everyone is sick and tired of. that is my list of grievances.
Removed by mod
what a cop-out response to well thought out statement. you come off as vapid and shallow. i’m old enough to be over getting laid. i’m married, son and we’re both as happy as we can be. would you like to address my points now, junior?
What in the Balenciaga is that photo
deleted by creator
