If they can elect a felon to the white house, so could we.
Edit: Better image, thanks to @PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
1517 points (97.6% liked)
Political Memes
5676 readers
2730 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've explained in a bunch of ways how murder can and does often have nuance based on who is murdered and why.
You appear to ignore those arguments and keep reverting to "murder always bad. Rape always bad, how are they different?" When the premise "murder always bad" you seem to hold as some universal truth isn't true in a lot of circumstances, some of which I've outlined in other comments.
Sometimes murder makes the world a better place. Sometimes it effects positive change. Not usually, but sometimes. Sometimes murdering a murderer is the only way to stop them from murdering more. Sometimes the murderer is so powerful it is the only way to stop them. The trolley problem.
I've been doing nothing but try and shed light on the fact that murder, regardless of how its seen, never should be championed, but shouldn't be hated though at the same time, to the point where we think murdering the murderer is justified therefore.
You're the one trying to apply inapplicable ethical questions to it, in attempt to justify it. When I'm not arguing it's justification, no amount of murder is just to any degree in my opinion. I've been arguing that your hate is no different from anyone others, including and especially, anyone your hate is intended for.
We shouldn't be championing a murderer the way they're championing a rapist.
That is not a fact. It's an opinion, and an unhelpful one too. What other practical solution was there to the mass social murder of thousands by Thompson and their associates?
It's definitely an incredibly helpful one, that's for sure. I agree it's my opinion but yours falls more in line of that of a murderers considering you're saying that there are circumstances when murder should be championed. Which begs the lesson I wish I would've made my original comment to connotate more efficiently: who's the real bad guy when both are celebrating debately equally as terrible acts?
It's a good question. An issue I see with with this premise, is that one must consider more than an act itself, but also its context, to decide if it's terrible.
To explain what I mean by that, consider this thought experiment:
Evidently, despite committing the exact same violent act, person A is heroic and praiseworthy and prevents large amounts of harm overall, while person B is anti-social and harmful overall. Would you agree that person B is 'the real bad guy' of those two, despite them committing the same violent act?
That also applies to more extreme acts such as murder - that's why we distinguish it from manslaughter and self-defense based on intent rather than the act itself. For example, let's modify that first scenario: if person A was further away and their only way to prevent mass murder was to shoot the gunman, would they be just as bad as the gunman? They're both attempting to shoot a person, but surely person A would not be 'the real bad guy'? In fact, most people would find it appropriate to celebrate person A for saving innocent lives, and find it extremely inappropriate to celebrate the gunman who threatened innocent lives.
For that same reason, people are celebrating the assassination of Thompson, as Thompson's acts as CEO are knowingly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Luigi only killed one person, in an attempt to prevent many many more people being killed by UHC. They are not equal or equivalent. Nor is that equal or equivalent to the acts of Trump as a politician and the mass suffering caused by their policies and the torture caused by their sexual assault of women.
'The real bad guy' out of Trump and Luigi is clearly Trump. Luigi, in fact, is not a 'bad guy'. What Luigi did was defending innocent people from a mass social murderer, which is generally what a 'good guy' does in the overly simplistic worldview of 'good' and 'bad'.
I'm not arguing who's the better man, I'm arguing who's the better groups of people when both are championing iniquity despite their justifications for it. In my opinion neither, considering iniquity to any degree to be nothing but that. I do agree of course it's necessary in plenty of situations, especially considering how barbaric and individualized we still are as a species, but never something to be praised, encouraged or championed to this degree. It wasn't necessary to assassinate yet another CEO in contrast to these more necessary extremes like Hitler for example; he was the farthest thing from a Hitler, thus of course not entitled to the same response. Luigi only put additional influence of violence and hate in the world, handing it over to those that loved the man he murdered, and the wake of their hate influencing others. Like all those that praise this man for stooping down to their level to eliminate the problem.
Healthcare is just doing what any other industry is meant to do: profit. As long as this is the emphasis the problem will continue to persist. So it's not a matter of how many individuals we eliminate it's more a matter of how many minds we change. Minds aren't changed when they're being threatened, insulted or screamed at; only the opposite has that ability.