So killing is not okay except when its internet-approved vigilantism?
Example: “Polititian commutes death sentences” Lemmy be like “good”, but then when “Politician condemns assassination” Lemmy have a problem with condeming political violence?
(Like Gavin Newsom commutes all death row immates in California vs when Democratic polititians condemned Luigi Mangione)
Or are these different groups of Lemmings?
there is no such consensus. nice try tho.
Let’s check
We need more Green Marios
The prosecutors won’t enforce the laws against them, and the courts wouldn’t accept it if they did.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
This post reads like an llm agent trying to play human. Probably not that idk. But over 50% of engagement is from chatbots now across social media.
One of the reasons a justice system exists is to keep people from taking it into their own hands which leads to endless revenge/honor killings and feuds that last forever. It can also be less harsh, at least in some ways, than what the aggrieved may do on their own. However, when the justice system refuses to apply justice, expect people to start taking things into their own hands. This can manifest in plenty of ways (jury nullification, no witnesses seeing anything somehow, etc.) and has happened many times over the years.
If people see great harm being done with no justice, they may take things into their own hands. There aren’t a lot of ways that are actually going to make a difference that an individual can do (a sociopath isn’t going to give a shit about a letter or petition). If the justice system will not do good by the people, their means are limited as they cannot inflict the type of legal and financial pain a justice system can. As such, they turn to the only thing they know might work.
I believe we should abolish the death penalty. Half of me would really like to keep it for those in positions of power over others who abuse that (police, politicians, abusive caregivers, etc.), especially if there’s a chance they could get back out, but it’s better to be rid of it entirely. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to cheer if an arms dealer is fed to a woodchipper or those responsible for immense pain and suffering and death of others are no more when the justice system does not deliver justice.
edit: pre-coffee spelling > me
People against death penalty1 think the state shouldn’t be given the right to murder people. That’s it.
These people want the system to work, without the need of murdering anyone, let that be by the state or the people.
The very same people agreeing that a murder was beneficial for the system and the people doesn’t contradict that. It’s simply a symptom of the system being broken and the state not doing enough to fix it for the people.
And one of the reasons that people think the state shouldn’t have the power to kill people is that the system is broken.
You need the death penalty and mob justice for people who are above the law.
Punch up, not down. Violence used to fight for freedom and against an oppressor: good. Violence by the state: bad. This is not an inconsistent position.
It is though. See Charlie Kirk’s murder. He wasn’t the state, he didn’t kill anybody, yet his murder is openly relished.
He disagreed with their “state”, so his assassination is celebrated.
To be clear, I can’t talk for all people, so this is just my opinion. Charlie Kirk definitely caused violence that killed people. He was an agitator and escalated violence against vulnerable people. He lied about all sorts of things including gun violence and worked for his whole career to undermine the safety of people he disliked.
When he died the overall hatred against trans people was reduced. The opposition to gun control was reduced. The trolling and doxing was reduced. His entire ecosystem was disrupted when he died.
If an individual does something wrong by killing someone that has a certain moral valence to it. If they do the same to a group of people I don’t see any difference, they are still acting towards people with violence, it is just diluted and obscured. The fact that one violent right wing person used a gun to kill another right wing person is ironic and has a certain symmetry, but the part that makes me feel no sympathy for Kirk is that his actions were causing harm up to and including death to people and when he was killed the overall level of death was reduced, not increased.
No state should have the power to kill citizens. This is not justice or a good thing to have in your society. But in a society where murder happens there definitely are worse and better instances, and this particular instance was a net reduction in deaths. All of the people who would have been killed by Kirk’s rhetoric are alive because he died. It wasn’t right, but it was less wrong.
So no, he was not the state acting on others, but he was a person acting to kill others just as his assassin. He caused deaths just as surely as the shooter and there was irony in it being by a white right winger with a gun. The reduction in deaths was worth celebrating just as commuting the sentences of those on death row is. It is morally right to want less death and torment, and while it would be morally wrong to cause a death, from a utilitarian perspective I would not quibble over the results here.
Well, the actual thing is, we didn’t have anything to do with that.
I’m not glad that a person died. But the irony of his final words being about how gun violence is the necessary price of our society right before being shot in the neck is Chef’s Kiss.
But the irony of his final words being about how gun violence is the necessary price of our society right before being shot in the neck is Chef’s Kiss.
His last words were about dogwhistles.
“How many mass shootings were comitted by trans people last year?”
“Too many!”
*conservative cheering*
“How many mass shootings were there in general last year?”
“counting or not counting ‘gang violence’?” (Read : Was it ethnic minorities?)
*gets shot, conservatives run up to get bloodsoaked merch to sell later*
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/elder-tiktok-eldertiktok11-video-at-charlie-kirk-shootingI’d prefer no violence. Since that’s currently not an option, I prefer the violence be pointed at oppressors like Kirk. Nothing of value was lost.
He wasn’t the state, but he made his entire career out of punching down so belonged in the same category. He helped cause a lot of undue suffering for a lot of people.
You read some obituaries with pleasure
He was the most prominent front-facing figure of the largest propaganda group supporting the administration.
He disagreed with their “state”, so his assassination is celebrated.
He disagreed with the state allowing black people to be pilots. Oppression through money is still oppression.
See Charlie Kirk’s murder. He wasn’t the state, he didn’t kill anybody, yet his murder is openly relished.
I love how several of the commenters disagreeing with you just result in reinforcing your point.
He disagreed with their “state”, so his assassination is celebrated.
But, yea, this is the overall thread. For many, it’s a team sport and being on the right team means your murdering is OK.
Kirk was OK with people being shot. “Small price to pay for freedom”. Bet he changed his mind right after he was the one. I do not celebrate his shooting, but I prefer him being shot over innocent people. And I know you understand that but decide to be a cunt. Don’t be like Kirk.
The average murderer awaiting a death sentence was a threat to one or a few people. We as a society understand that a human can be emotional or impaired and as a result commit the crime. As a society we believe in punishment…but for some they debate if death makes us the same as them.
They are a singular.
For CEOs and corps, they are multiple and harm many. They have built a system to allow this, they are not a danger to a few, they are a danger to us all. They can bypass law and have overreach in pretty much all locations. Not only are they not willing to change, they will happily watch us all die.
It’s the few VRs the many. This is not a single murder it’s a war.
This and also the many (disproportionately black&racialized) people on death row who had unfair trials or were falsely accused.
We have visible and open proof of the CEOs damage to humanity and guilt.
You are making a false assumption: Not everybody on Lemmy is on board with vigilante shit. It was also cheered for by plenty of people in plenty of places - to answer the question of why they were celebrating it, I would speculate that it felt to them like there is no other recourse. No matter what they did, they couldn’t afford medical care even when they had paid vast sums of money already, that’s a lot of pain and frustration. I can’t say I am surprised by the reactions by people all over the Internet.
Not everybody, but certainly the majority.
Just look at the this very thread.
My comment is at the top already, by your logic, it would still suggest that the premise is flawed.
At the writing of every comment in this sub-thread so far, your comment has less votes than one glorifying this exact behavior.
1 less at the time of commenting and I would not be surprised to see even that small gap disappear. I just made that post too. The other comment has been around longer. I don’t contest that a lot of people celebrated it but 1) that was definitely not just Lemmy/the Fediverse and 2) even here there are plenty of people who oppose the idea of vigilantes, possibly even a majority but if not, still certainly a significant amount.
Edit: My post has been up for less than 30 minutes and it already surpassed the comment in question, which to be clear stated, “Punch up, not down. Violence used to fight for freedom and against an oppressor: good. Violence by the state: bad. This is not an inconsistent position.” <-not exactly a ringing endorsement of vigilantism per se, but more of an explanation to the question posted in regards to the view of people taking that position
Legal institutions can jail people for life, but vigilantes can’t. Kidnapping a CEO and ethically keeping him alive in a private blacksite for life (food, entertainment, medical care (ironically)) is cost prohibitive and also much harder to pull off.
I think I found the best condolences to the CEO’s family: “What a tragedy! If only we could’ve kept him secured in a government facility 24/7 forever, he would’ve lived!” (aka: life in prison 😉)
Because there’s a huge difference between killing a convicted criminal as a “deterence” to other criminals, and killing a tyrant to make them stop hurting people en masse.
The death penalty is an ineffective deterrent used by a facist state.
Luigi is a messsage sent by a fed up populace.
What do you mean bullies and people defending themselves are completely different things?
Luigi is a messsage
What do you mean bullies and people defending themselves are completely different things?
Brian Thompson threatened the life of Luigi Maginone just before Luigi murdered him? This is fresh news. You have a source?
Brian Thompson caused untold amounts of suffering and death through denying healthcare his customers paid for and never would be held accountable because society doesn’t hold people like him accoutable. Stopping someone who leads a system that causes death and suffering is self defense.
There is a difference between practical statements and moral statements. You can simultaneously believe that nobody should die (moral belief), while also believing that assassinations are the natural consequence of unchecked capitalism (practical belief).
This is made particularly confusing in English, since the word “should” can use both definitions. eg, you should apologize (moral), vs you should protect yourself (practical)
I am of the belief that Brian Thompson should (moral) have been locked up for his actions. Having failed that, I predict that Brian should (practical) have been assassinated. And he was.
But they were asking why users were enjoying something they purportedly dislike. Regardless of whether you view it as a practical necessity, you should not celebrate his death if you oppose murder overall.
His death already happened. They were not saying someone should go and kill him, they were celebrating the lack of Kirk going forward, the reduction in harm. It is not morally right to plan and execute a murder, but objectively speaking there will be less harm now that he is dead and that is a relief.
i think it’s dangerous to say that something shouldn’t happen, but if it happened it was a good thing. c.f. appeasement
Its actually very easy.
Nazi/ Corporate fuck = 🔪 Normal People = jail
The difference is also that one is being punished by the state already; the other will never be punished by the state, while the populace continues to suffer from their actions - and so the only punishment we can mete out that actually sticks is violence.
Because an individual person is different from a nation state.
Violence in the myth logic of states is something i as a subject surrender to the state, so that whatever the state as representative of the people decides can be accomplished, so even just from that very classic liberal perspective there should be oversight and curtailments over the use of violence by the state. Nominally courts fill this role but even there it’s not hard to find a good argument that a justice system should never be allowed to kill, or make any irreversible decision.
Now I don’t really believe in the Mythos of nation states very much. I do however belive that powerful people within nation states governments as well as surrounding them can be quite bad for the majority of humanity.
Simpler and probably commo selfish reasoning here on lemmy : "I can see myself on death row but not as Luigis target. "
Luigi rules, death penalty is stupid.
I don’t see any inherent contention between the two examples you’ve given. Someone that is justice minded is looking for two things: 1) a system that punishes those who commit wrongs, and 2) a system that only punishes those that meet the criminal criteria.
It is a colorable argument that health insurance executives ought to have culpability for their decisions, yet the legal system allows them to skate. It is also a colorable argument that some/many/most prisoners sentenced to death in California were wrongfully convicted, or their trial/punishment was swayed by improper bias (ie racism), and thus such an imperfect system ought to not result in irreversible error (ie execution of someone who didn’t meet the criteria).
So killing is not okay except when its internet-approved vigilantism?
Please do not reduce nuance into nullity. There are vanishingly few people that will assert that killing (even self defense) should always be prohibited; this is a strawman. And “internet vigilantism” is more than just words on a screen, but actions undertaken that happen to be online. Take, for example, the good work of DDoSecrets, which is unquestionably a form of vigilantism, yet daylight is the best antiseptic for corruption. The world is not black and white; rather, it is complicated.
