Mod Note: I'm bending the "no politics' rule to highlight a disgusting trend I've been seeing on Lemmy lately. Due to the sheer volume of comments fitting that trend and the huge number downvotes given to anyone who speaks out against it, I'm convinced this opinion is truly unpopular in the Lemmy-verse. This is also topical and important enough to merit discussion or at least to provide a point of reflection. So while it touches on politics, that's merely the framing device of current events being used to highlight a larger problem.
As you're inevitably downvoting this, at least take a good, long look in the mirror while you do so.
The sheer number of people here praising the shooter, advocating for, glorifying, or just flat out calling for violence has been a real eye opener and litmus test for the kind of people I've surrounded myself with on this platform. Suffice it to say, a lot of you have failed that test spectacularly.
A rational, independent thinker should be able to condemn this kind of violence even when it's targeted towards their "enemies." Political violence has absolutely NO PLACE in a healthy society, and no one should be praising or advocating for it. No one. Ever. This is one thing that, regardless of the paradox of tolerance, should be universally condemned.
There are, apparently, a ton of extremists here that don't see themselves as such because they believe their extremism is justified and that they're on the right side of history. Ironically, which is what all extremists think.
This goes back further than just yesterdays's events. For example, it's been a common refrain since the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision that, paraphrased, "The current non-dictator president should do dictator things to stop the other dictator". Which is just another flavor of "Extremism is bad except when it's my flavor of extremism".
Don't give me that "it's just gallows humor", "I'm oppressed, and he deserved it", "if you had a time machine, wouldn't you go back to 1934...", "we haven't been a healthy society for X years...", or other excuses. This is a BFD with major implications and ramifications, and y'all Lemmings are treating like we just missed the exit ramp to Utopia and are trying to find a wide spot to make a U-turn.
It's certainly fine to have no sympathy for the guy (I sure as hell don't), but it's another thing entirely to be cheering on, promoting, and/or advocating for extremist stances like those being thrown out lately.
You say you want a better society? Then act like it!
Moments like this are the true test of one's character and intellectual honesty, and I'm beyond disappointed in so many of you.
"Character" is just as much a social construct as gender is. What you call a "test of character" I call a "natural human reaction."
When you learned about all the evil Hitler did, did you scold the people who celebrated his death? What about Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? The US government assassinated Bin Laden and the Iraqi people hanged Hussein- did you decry them not being tried for their crimes? Should people not be happy that Lee Harvey Oswald got what he gave out?
Plenty of historians have drawn parallels between what's happening in the US today and where Weimar Germany was in the 1920's. Obviously I'm not saying that Trump is on the same level as the other people I mentioned, but if a person truly sees the historical connections, do you blame them for trying to avert what comes next using more extreme methods?
The fact is, political violence has been ingrained into American myth since its inception. Every year of public school we're taught that the people who overthrew the government with violence were right to do so because they succeeded, while the people who tried to secede with violence were wrong to do so because they failed. Why would you expect any American to not think otherwise? People like Washington and John Brown are hailed as great American heroes for using violence.
On top of that, Donald Trump is a man that the legal system is bending over backwards to prevent him from facing any consequences whatsoever from crimes he's committed. The "process" isn't working- is it a shock that when the system is failing the people, the people will take matters into their hands? The voice of the people is systematically being silenced; people will therefore resort to whatever means they have to make themselves heard. This is a constant throughout all of human history.
And not just that, but Donald Trump is the head of a political party that shrugs its shoulders when hundreds of children are murdered in schools or churches or malls annually. Every time a school shooting happens, Republicans rush to decry Democrats for "politicizing" a tragedy to avoid any sort of gun control legislation from even being discussed. Should people not feel some sort of vindication at seeing the party that refuses to address gun violence in the US suffering from that refusal?
So, yeah. I think that someone being upset that a person tried to assassinate a political candidate is a rational response. But I also think it's not unreasonable to have other feelings about it too.
I don't think there's necessarily anything inherently wrong with believing that his death would solve whatever issue people hope it would. It's not obvious to me that this would be the guaranteed outcome, but I guess I can't blame anyone for thinking that.
What I do take issue with is endorsing this kind of behavior. I don't want to live in a world where we solve political debates by assassinating the opposition. That's not how civilized people behave. Do I mourn the death of Hitler or shun the people celebrating his death? Of course not. Would I have preferred for him to be caught alive, tried, and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life? Yes.
If Putin accidentally wandered into Finland tomorrow while picking blueberries in the forest and gets arrested, does he deserve to be hanged in the marketplace and made an example of? Yes. Is that what we should do? No. That's what they would do. That is exactly the moment we're supposed to take the moral high ground and show people on the other side that we have principles and we're better than that. This is the test so many people failed today. They act like the people they oppose.
The founding fathers did not attack the British. They declared their independence, and then were invaded. Defense and attack are different things.
It's true that the Confederacy was itself invaded after declaring its own independence, no question. But then what values were being defended? The right to own other humans as chattel? Not quite the same.
The Americans did shoot first. Militiamen marched on powder and arms warehouses in Lexington and Concord and after being ordered to disperse by a British colonial, shot at the regulars assembled there.
Yes, and the Confederates shot first in the US Civil War. However, who fired the first bullet has nothing to do with who is invading who, or who is starting a war. These are all three different things. That would be like saying the first shot of WW1 was the one that killed the Archduke, and not the actual countries that declared war on each other and marshalled their armies.
There are many ways to respond to a single atrocity or even battle. The British could have, if they wished, withdrawn. Similarly, Fort Sumpter could have, if they wished, surrendered.