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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I would hardly say there is consensus on topics like this, but people that see violence as a means to an end may be more likely to voice exactly that sentiment more vocally and more often.

I personally oppose all forms of violence, but I do think leaders need to be held accountable for their actions. I’m more in favor of punishments in the form of stripping wealth and/or long/lifetime prison sentences depending on crimes levied.

A more tame view isn’t that attention grabby either though. Nor do I personally feel the need to say it either since I’d just wait for prosecutors to actually prosecute the crimes.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (4 children)

    Any punishments are applied by threat of violence. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not sure that distinguishing between threat of violence and applied violence makes you against any form of violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

    I’m not for violence or threatening violence. I am for, saying openly, that crimes committed by leaders should be investigated and prosecuted in a court of law, should there be enough tangible evidence to pursue a case.

    I think in many cases right now there’s enough visible evidence for a case to be built quickly, but as a member of the public that’s not my job to weigh that information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    What is the goal of prosecuting the crimes? To put people in prison. Why do people go to prison? Not because someone says so. Because the group sending you to prison can apply violence to you. All governing is through inherent threat of violence. We as a society agree when that's appropriate. (Or, that's how it should work. Right now, in the US, money decides.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    People are sent to prison not strictly for reasons of violence, but because we as a society has designated certain crimes to have been painful either physically or materially to those that experienced them.

    A hacker or a fraud may not be inflicting physical violence, but that doesn’t mean they are harmless.

    Now what you define as violence can change things a bit, but I personally would define it as a physical or a threat of something physical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment