If it’s not right for them, it’s not right for us. I understand there are times when a person’s opinions and character deserve harsh criticism, but providing information that may result in real-world violence is different.
Man, some of the takes here make me sad. Thanks to those who upvoted the idea that ethics don’t change when someone is sure they’re right in changing them “this time”. I want to be clear - I’m not painting all or even most Lemmy users with this brush. However, what I’m seeing lately is such a disconnect to me:
“Woke snowflakes aren’t people” “Women are property” “Hamas (aka all Palestinians) aren’t people” = outrage at the dehumanization (very rightfully so).
But then: “Trump voters are Nazis and Nazis aren’t people” “The people who didn’t vote or voted 3rd party are just as bad as them” = upvotes, “they don’t deserve rights” and “when they suffer it will be justice” comments. (To reiterate, I’m not saying everyone here, but enough to be worrying.)
This election broke people, and I really don’t like how readily some who claim to be ethical are supporting what seems to me to be hate speech by way of dehumanization. If Trump had lost and his followers were saying similar things but pointed it at “woke leftists” or “communists”, you all would be incredibly upset (rightfully so). Even though the Trumpers saying those things would truly think they were saving their country, the way some people here seem to think they are.
The moment you see people who voted for Harris assaulting third-party voters, you let me know. Some of the takes are over the top, but where they’re coming from is completely understandable. Dehumanization is an attempt to rationalize away empathy to prevent guilt and trauma from what people think is the fight to come.
The moral high road is littered with the corpses of people who tried to fight fair. In self-defense, there are 2 rules: a battle not fought is a battle won, and, if you have to hurt a man, hurt him so bad that you need never fear his vengeance.
If doxxing a couple of assholes like this is enough to intimidate the bigots who are now emboldened to attack and rape people and save even a few lives, then it’s worth it - we’ve solved things with rule number one. If it doesn’t stop them, then fyi: the back of the eye socket is thin enough to push through with your thumb and into the brain behind it. There’s no such thing as “fighting dirty” when it comes to survival. There’s no room for mercy when somebody is trying to kill you, and these people have tried before and say that they’re going to try again.
We all hope it doesn’t come to that, but it is better to be prepared and not need it than to wish you had it when the jackboots are stomping on you. And when somebody has told you who they are, you believe them. If it quacks like a Nazi, swims like a Nazi, and goose-steps like a Nazi, then it ain’t a duck.
Ok, I believe you are sincere and appreciate the perspective. There’s a difference between doxing Nick Fuentes, and doxing every trump voter. (In my opinion)
Do you believe violence can ever be considered justified? If you are a pure dogmatic pacifist, I believe your position is logically consistent.
If not: what circumstances can justify violence? Can the police or the military act within morality? Is justice defined by law or outcome?
If the state is unable or unwilling to protect a marginalized group of people, at what point does it become moral to defend themselves?
Well, thanks for talking to me in good faith. I’m trying to make good faith arguments. It’s really difficult to give a hard line about where violence is just because I’m sure ambiguity exists.
Talking about the military: a declaration of civil war to save the country is a lot different than “his house is flammable” or “it would be a real shame if he was dealt with at night” which are exactly the kinds of things being said about Fuentes right now, on Lemmy. He’s undeniably a piece of shit, but vigilante killing isn’t alright. There are good reasons why soldiers killing others in the context of anti-fascist formal war would be treated differently than mob justice. If soldiers took it upon themselves to kill Fuentes without a declaration of civil war or something similarly legal, that would just be a crime or deployment of troops against American citizens. E.g. Lincoln didn’t tell Northerners to head South and start indiscriminately killing to end slavery, it was a war with rules like the chance to surrender, etc.
Things like actual rape and murder should merit at least an attempt at justice within the bounds of law. And as far as I know, Fuentes hasn’t done either - people right now want him dead because of his words. As an example, people didn’t kill the January 6 protesters - they got put through the legal system and were punished. Would you argue that it would have been a proud and just moment in US history if those hundreds of rioters should have been identified and murdered back in 2021, by other civilians, without trial? I know Trump might release them - does that possibility mean they should have been murdered by a counter mob back then? The J6ers weren’t just talking like Fuentes either, they straight up attempted a coup.
Israelis regularly kill non-violent Palestinians in the West Bank. They put Palestinians, including children, into prison without charges or trial, and some of them end up raped and tortured. It’s called administrative detention and it’s done because “the threat must be contained”. It’s also an enormous injustice. I feel the same way about extrajudicial killings of civilians, even if I think they’re terrible people. I wouldn’t support Ukrainian forces slaughtering Russian towns that could be proven to support Putin, even though I hate Putin.
It’s the election loss that seems to be fuelling the rapid escalation of rhetoric here on Lemmy. I saw lots of bullying before, but not many people calling for actual killing. Why is it that the election loss, alone because nothing else has happened yet, made vigilantism ethical?
As far as I know, people are not being killed or imprisoned yet on mass scales. Women are being threatened, but those instances are being investigated and there’s a growing pushback against that behavior. People are preparing legal opposition to proposed prison camps for undesirables. What I’m saying is the incitement I am seeing is based on possibilities, with no willingness to see if society figures out less radical solutions like legal challenges or societal pressure.
Doxing, say, women who’ve had abortions or trans people so they can be imprisoned or killed by 3%ers is just fundementally different than doxing a murderous fascist in order to protect people’s lives.
When it gets into preemptive self defense…probably murder? But what if you are reasonably sure it will be too late to defend yourself later? Do you let yourself or those you love die? But people can weaponize that line of thinking in bad faith, they murder someone and say it was self defense because the other guy was definitely gonna do it. It seems too awful to allow, and yet for some people, it might be the only thing that stops them from getting killed. Clearly nobody should be expected to wait until the knife is in their neck to say, “well, at least I waited long enough to make sure I should have already done something”.
A whole line of thinking that can be prevented by nazis not openly threatening rape, which is the real headline here.
I’m going down in flames with you if need be. Wrong is wrong.
Martin Luther King Jr. “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate…”
I can see scenarios where violence becomes necessary, but not as vigilantes and it should be at the very end of the list.
You literally refuse to understand the reasoning and will only see this at surface value. Things are approaching the level of fucked that can only be fixed with a come to Jesus moment (so to speak).
If you can’t or won’t understand what is actually at stake and how dire things are, just do nothing on the sidelines and see how long it is before your starts to seem a LOT smaller than you thought it was.
It’s you who refuse to understand. You don’t tolerate a Nazi. I think the next several months will hopefully be eye opening for people like you (one can hope).
If it’s not right for them, it’s not right for us. I understand there are times when a person’s opinions and character deserve harsh criticism, but providing information that may result in real-world violence is different.
Man, some of the takes here make me sad. Thanks to those who upvoted the idea that ethics don’t change when someone is sure they’re right in changing them “this time”. I want to be clear - I’m not painting all or even most Lemmy users with this brush. However, what I’m seeing lately is such a disconnect to me:
This election broke people, and I really don’t like how readily some who claim to be ethical are supporting what seems to me to be hate speech by way of dehumanization. If Trump had lost and his followers were saying similar things but pointed it at “woke leftists” or “communists”, you all would be incredibly upset (rightfully so). Even though the Trumpers saying those things would truly think they were saving their country, the way some people here seem to think they are.
The moment you see people who voted for Harris assaulting third-party voters, you let me know. Some of the takes are over the top, but where they’re coming from is completely understandable. Dehumanization is an attempt to rationalize away empathy to prevent guilt and trauma from what people think is the fight to come.
The moral high road is littered with the corpses of people who tried to fight fair. In self-defense, there are 2 rules: a battle not fought is a battle won, and, if you have to hurt a man, hurt him so bad that you need never fear his vengeance.
If doxxing a couple of assholes like this is enough to intimidate the bigots who are now emboldened to attack and rape people and save even a few lives, then it’s worth it - we’ve solved things with rule number one. If it doesn’t stop them, then fyi: the back of the eye socket is thin enough to push through with your thumb and into the brain behind it. There’s no such thing as “fighting dirty” when it comes to survival. There’s no room for mercy when somebody is trying to kill you, and these people have tried before and say that they’re going to try again.
We all hope it doesn’t come to that, but it is better to be prepared and not need it than to wish you had it when the jackboots are stomping on you. And when somebody has told you who they are, you believe them. If it quacks like a Nazi, swims like a Nazi, and goose-steps like a Nazi, then it ain’t a duck.
Ok, I believe you are sincere and appreciate the perspective. There’s a difference between doxing Nick Fuentes, and doxing every trump voter. (In my opinion)
Do you believe violence can ever be considered justified? If you are a pure dogmatic pacifist, I believe your position is logically consistent.
If not: what circumstances can justify violence? Can the police or the military act within morality? Is justice defined by law or outcome?
If the state is unable or unwilling to protect a marginalized group of people, at what point does it become moral to defend themselves?
Well, thanks for talking to me in good faith. I’m trying to make good faith arguments. It’s really difficult to give a hard line about where violence is just because I’m sure ambiguity exists.
They are literally gathering lists of outgroups and minorities right now. Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.
I don’t care about their safety anymore. They don’t care about mine. What’s that phrase they like to regurgitate? FAFO?
Doxing, say, women who’ve had abortions or trans people so they can be imprisoned or killed by 3%ers is just fundementally different than doxing a murderous fascist in order to protect people’s lives.
Outcome matters.
It’s OK if I do it.
Unbelievable.
Yes, actually, there’s no obligation to extend the protections of the social contract to those actively attempting to destroy it.
Why are you so invested in the rights of Nazis? They’re not people
Self defense isn’t murder.
When it gets into preemptive self defense…probably murder? But what if you are reasonably sure it will be too late to defend yourself later? Do you let yourself or those you love die? But people can weaponize that line of thinking in bad faith, they murder someone and say it was self defense because the other guy was definitely gonna do it. It seems too awful to allow, and yet for some people, it might be the only thing that stops them from getting killed. Clearly nobody should be expected to wait until the knife is in their neck to say, “well, at least I waited long enough to make sure I should have already done something”.
A whole line of thinking that can be prevented by nazis not openly threatening rape, which is the real headline here.
Yes, it is okay if you do it, as long as it’s to a Nazi
That’s a term that has lost all meaning, thanks to people like you.
Nick Fuentes is literally an unabashed neonazi lmao
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Fuentes
Huh. I thought you were using “nazi” the way the other side uses “fake news”.
I can’t believe my comment got removed for saying that it’s a good thing when Nazis get doxxed
I’m going down in flames with you if need be. Wrong is wrong.
I can see scenarios where violence becomes necessary, but not as vigilantes and it should be at the very end of the list.
You literally refuse to understand the reasoning and will only see this at surface value. Things are approaching the level of fucked that can only be fixed with a come to Jesus moment (so to speak). If you can’t or won’t understand what is actually at stake and how dire things are, just do nothing on the sidelines and see how long it is before your starts to seem a LOT smaller than you thought it was.
It’s you who refuse to understand. You don’t tolerate a Nazi. I think the next several months will hopefully be eye opening for people like you (one can hope).
I’m saying the same thing you are. The only good nazi is one who has been giving a one-way ticket, leaving existence.
No, I’m saying the same thing you are!