And nothing of value was lost
-
This post did not contain any content.
Let them eat eachother.
-
The problem is that fascists know that normal people are empathetic in this way, and they use it against us. It makes it nearly impossible to stop them (without violence).
At some point you're just bowing down to murderous psychopaths who literally want you dead.
If someone this to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!
-
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I have said absolutely nothing about whether or not to celebrate the death of a nazi, neither does the paradox of tolerance.
Where did I say celebrate death? I said the horrible ideology took a loss. and you claim I'm the one that needs to work on reading comprehension...
-
::: spoiler controversial opinion
These nazi racist fuckheads are still human beings. As unfortunate as it may be and as implausible it might seem, any of us are capable of becoming or raising someone to become entrenched in a bad and hateful ideology. Dehumanizing them doesn't stop their ideas from spreading. In fact, a big part of their ideology is the dehumanization of different groups of people. So please don't encourage that practice.
:::wrote last edited by [email protected]Two counterpoints to this (although I like the spirit):the paradox of intolerance suggests that intolerance will easily spread if we tolerate it. So in a world where tolerance is abundant: intolerance itself should still not be tolerated.
In a way I feel this may be saying the same thing again, but when we speak of protected classes and human rights we generally think of immutable qualities assigned at birth. That is, it’s not okay to discriminate based on things such as skin color, height, sound of voice, heritage, language, race, disability etc. and you get the idea.
Modern ideas stretch this a bit, as sexuality and gender identity have recently (as in within the last century, and only then within more educated cultures) entered as protected facets of human expression due to our understanding of them as involuntary. Even an individual’s personal religion is universally considered to not be up for debate, even though each of the world’s religions are composed of transient beliefs that an individual is allowed to change whether they are comfortable with it or not.
Any group’s ideas for societal idealism do not and should not get these types of protections, because ideas obviously should change if a better idea is presented. It should be agreed upon that whatever utopia is (for however close the human race can get to it), it would need to be universally agreed upon by all living individuals as well as all possible human group permutations. This is seemingly insurmountably large, so some of us tried to take shortcuts by eliminating other groups, and to make a long story short you could say the world universally condemned these ideas as one of the first “global” acts.
The point is, if somebody has:
-
Willingly violated the social contract in defiance of available historical context and public information, and
-
Elected to voluntarily hold that an aforementioned Protected Class of people should be either eliminated or exiled (in service to making their version of utopia easier to achieve), then
Then this somebody has found themselves to be a member of the one group of people (a group founded on voluntary belief) that society at large would be better to either eliminate or exile.
Obviously debate is preferred but one cannot reason with somebody who believes deep down in another group’s inferiority.
-
-
Where did I say celebrate death? I said the horrible ideology took a loss. and you claim I'm the one that needs to work on reading comprehension...
This entire conversation is on a post about the death of a nazi. "the horrible ideology took a loss" sure sounds like "the horrible ideology" of nazism "took a loss" of the death of one of their own.
To go back to the point I was making in that comment, where did I say anything about celebration?
-
Two counterpoints to this (although I like the spirit):the paradox of intolerance suggests that intolerance will easily spread if we tolerate it. So in a world where tolerance is abundant: intolerance itself should still not be tolerated.
In a way I feel this may be saying the same thing again, but when we speak of protected classes and human rights we generally think of immutable qualities assigned at birth. That is, it’s not okay to discriminate based on things such as skin color, height, sound of voice, heritage, language, race, disability etc. and you get the idea.
Modern ideas stretch this a bit, as sexuality and gender identity have recently (as in within the last century, and only then within more educated cultures) entered as protected facets of human expression due to our understanding of them as involuntary. Even an individual’s personal religion is universally considered to not be up for debate, even though each of the world’s religions are composed of transient beliefs that an individual is allowed to change whether they are comfortable with it or not.
Any group’s ideas for societal idealism do not and should not get these types of protections, because ideas obviously should change if a better idea is presented. It should be agreed upon that whatever utopia is (for however close the human race can get to it), it would need to be universally agreed upon by all living individuals as well as all possible human group permutations. This is seemingly insurmountably large, so some of us tried to take shortcuts by eliminating other groups, and to make a long story short you could say the world universally condemned these ideas as one of the first “global” acts.
The point is, if somebody has:
-
Willingly violated the social contract in defiance of available historical context and public information, and
-
Elected to voluntarily hold that an aforementioned Protected Class of people should be either eliminated or exiled (in service to making their version of utopia easier to achieve), then
Then this somebody has found themselves to be a member of the one group of people (a group founded on voluntary belief) that society at large would be better to either eliminate or exile.
Obviously debate is preferred but one cannot reason with somebody who believes deep down in another group’s inferiority.
My point is less about what rights they might deserve, and more about staying informed and vigilant of the ideological capacities of human beings, including yourself.
-
-
there was an old redditism that the best way to get off with murder is to use your car and call it an accident... I wonder if this is that. Get plastered, kill a nazi, go to jail for 5 years instead of 20.
She lists on her WriteAPrisoner page that her biggest inspiration is Maya Angelou, a black civil rights activist. She also has her bachelor's in journalism. Not impossible lol.
Unfortunately her earliest release date is midway through 2033, 15 years after incarceration in 2018.
-
Jury nullification?
The politics of the victim probably couldn't be mentioned during the trial. They often suppress that sort of stuff
-
This entire conversation is on a post about the death of a nazi. "the horrible ideology took a loss" sure sounds like "the horrible ideology" of nazism "took a loss" of the death of one of their own.
To go back to the point I was making in that comment, where did I say anything about celebration?
YOU didn't say celebrate. I said you're shaming others for celebrating. Again, work on your own reading comprehension before you attempt to take the high road...
-
All that was said was that they are still human. Even if we dislike them. That is all. I find it interesting how defensive people are being about acknowledging that a terrible person is still a person.
If we stop acknowledging a bad person as a being a person, we have become what we hate. Its got nothing to do with caring or not caring about a kkk member dying. All we have reacted to was the claim that the guy wasn't a human. That is the dangerous part.
ICYMI, I didn't want to sound defensive. I mean it's an interesting conservation, and I found it intriguing that I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote yet arrive at a slightly different conclusion.
People don't always look to pick fights, sometimes, it's just about discussion. -
there was an old redditism that the best way to get off with murder is to use your car
Not a redditism. An urbinist-ism. Reddit had a healthy contingent of urbanists, but you'll find us here on Lemmy too, over at [email protected], or [email protected]. (Or, frankly, because it's a movement with significant overlap to anticapitalism, just all around the threadiverse.)
And it's completely true, too. I can easily think of half a dozen cases where someone killed someone else with a car and got away scott-free in my country alone (in fact: with just one exception, the ones that come to my mind are all in my city alone). And only one of those cases even went to court as far as I know.
In Italy there's been a big push against this in the last decade.
There's now a law called "road murder" (omicidio stradale) which makes the penalties for killing someone while driving, especially if intoxicated, more similar to intentional murder (rather than manslaughter). It's essentially aggravated manslaughter, when you cause the death of someone while driving recklessly.
-
Jury nullification?
When did that work last?
-
Acknowledging and understanding they are human DOES NOT mean cowing down or bowing down to them. It means understanding that they're human.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not explicitly. But, in my experience, that is usually the implication when people say that.
These are Nazis. If you aren't fighting them, then you're allowing them to spread their hate.
-
Two counterpoints to this (although I like the spirit):the paradox of intolerance suggests that intolerance will easily spread if we tolerate it. So in a world where tolerance is abundant: intolerance itself should still not be tolerated.
In a way I feel this may be saying the same thing again, but when we speak of protected classes and human rights we generally think of immutable qualities assigned at birth. That is, it’s not okay to discriminate based on things such as skin color, height, sound of voice, heritage, language, race, disability etc. and you get the idea.
Modern ideas stretch this a bit, as sexuality and gender identity have recently (as in within the last century, and only then within more educated cultures) entered as protected facets of human expression due to our understanding of them as involuntary. Even an individual’s personal religion is universally considered to not be up for debate, even though each of the world’s religions are composed of transient beliefs that an individual is allowed to change whether they are comfortable with it or not.
Any group’s ideas for societal idealism do not and should not get these types of protections, because ideas obviously should change if a better idea is presented. It should be agreed upon that whatever utopia is (for however close the human race can get to it), it would need to be universally agreed upon by all living individuals as well as all possible human group permutations. This is seemingly insurmountably large, so some of us tried to take shortcuts by eliminating other groups, and to make a long story short you could say the world universally condemned these ideas as one of the first “global” acts.
The point is, if somebody has:
-
Willingly violated the social contract in defiance of available historical context and public information, and
-
Elected to voluntarily hold that an aforementioned Protected Class of people should be either eliminated or exiled (in service to making their version of utopia easier to achieve), then
Then this somebody has found themselves to be a member of the one group of people (a group founded on voluntary belief) that society at large would be better to either eliminate or exile.
Obviously debate is preferred but one cannot reason with somebody who believes deep down in another group’s inferiority.
I agree with all you wrote, and it's a good point well made. However, in the context of what it's replying to, it could be interpreted as condoning the death penalty for extremists, which I disagree with, if it was intended that way.
-
-
My grandfather killed a nazi and became a hero. Ms. Sherry does it and she becomes the enemy. That doesn't seem fair.
It does. When you did not discriminate but happen to do the "right" thing you are not to praise.
-
YOU didn't say celebrate. I said you're shaming others for celebrating. Again, work on your own reading comprehension before you attempt to take the high road...
Except I'm not. My scope has been very limited to the dehumanization aspect. But otherwise I'm done with you arguing in bad faith
-
I agree with all you wrote, and it's a good point well made. However, in the context of what it's replying to, it could be interpreted as condoning the death penalty for extremists, which I disagree with, if it was intended that way.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I see what you mean, in my case I believe that the only viable options are debate then expulsion in extreme cases.
I know I was being somewhat brash when I wrote this (middle of the night where I am) and would likely omit the “or eliminate” part if I written again. I know that was a popular option durning the Nuremberg trials for some of the worst orchestrators but I’m always of the “We have to be better/there has to be a better way” mindset.
-
I hope one day you come to realize this is as stupid of a take as saying, "violence is bad!" towards someone bloodied and bruised who just defended themselves from an attack.
At a certain point, someone deserves to be punched in the face. At a certain point, someone deserves to be treated less than a cordial human being.
Ironically, I still agree with, "we need to remember these are human beings". Yes, yes we do. Because we need to ALWAYS remember the sheer depravity other human beings are capable of. That does NOT mean they deserve respect or even life.
Allowing terrible, despicable people to continue being terrible, despicable people is EXACTLY how we got here. Yes, the paradox of tolerance is a difficult chestnut to crack, as it should never simply be, "I hate who they are". Though when someone espouses the very hate you fear and wants to bring that in to the world, it should be obvious...
Just like violence should not be condoned, self defence cannot be condemned, either. What you ask for is condemning self defense because it is not pretty. In times like this, you NEED to understand the emotional equivalence of self defense. Just because someone is willing to throw a punch in direct response, DOES NOT make them equivalent to the people willing to throw the first punch at someone doing nothing wrong.
Nazis and kkk and other scum are attacking the very humanity you want to defend. Yet you want everyone to continue to allow these attacks. You are FAILING the paradox of tolerance.
Jumping back here to say that
we need to ALWAYS remember the sheer depravity
otherhuman beings are capable of.Is the only thing I'm saying
-
If this situation was reversed, MAGA would have raised $100k for her legal defense by now.
At least 500k
-
If we are taking it seriously, that lady is lucky to be alive let alone able to open a car door at a BAC of .42. Secondly if she was at a .42 and looked that well put together when they let her out of the drunk tank the next morning it's just not fair.
You can get amazing amounts of alcohol in your blood and still function, you just gotta do it slowly.
