When someone is violent to someone else and doesn’t need to be violent, they are bad.
When someone unintentionally wrongs someone, you try to settle the situation without violence in a way that is fair to both parties.
When they don’t settle or they keep wronging people, you need to escalate.
When the person wronging the people is in a place of money and power, and you cannot escalate, there should be consequences.
I’m not a big fan of vigilantism, If the world ran that way, we’d have a lot of innocent deaths. But if the government and laws don’t protect the people, stuff like this happens, or at least it logically should. If anything, I’m kind of shocked this isn’t more commonplace.
The one hand-wringer downvoting you didn’t see the video of the pregnant zebra watching its unborn fetus ripped from her uterus and eaten, in front of her terrified, defeated, anguished eyes. The hyenas were just surviving, violence wasn’t taking place.
Violence is a tool. Means to an end. Virtually every animal out there will kill anything it can if it perceives it as its only means of survival. No human in their right mind wants to murder a CEO. We’ve evolved past that. We want his company to treat us fairly, not make decisions that literally kill our friends and family members so that they can add a couple of pennies to their already incredibly huge stock price. We’d love for the government or laws to gate that and keep it from happening. We have pretty much zero choice in which healthcare providers we get. If we’re lucky enough to have jobs, we’re stuck with whoever they choose because we can’t afford individual care plans.
This should never have come to violence. They locked in the participants and lobbied to bypass all federal regulations by being state-run, even though they are obviously run/colluded by a single national entity. They knowingly ran for months on an AI system that wrongly refused 90% of all requests, taking their time to fix it instead of overriding and putting it back. We’re talking real deaths here. With the new administration coming in, they’re ready to dismantle any guardrails left.
People are blocked from getting any traction on doing this without violence. If heading the opposite way.
It’s not violence’s fault. Violence wasn’t created or designed. It’s the natural outcome of trapping and killing off people. Any handful of probably a hundred people at that organization could have gotten together and made better decisions for the welfare of their customers. The government could have installed better safety nets to keep it from happening. None of this happened.
It’s easier for people to sit back in their armchairs and bunkers and talk about violence being this heinous evil rather than taking it at what it is, a natural symptom of a failed system. ‘We’ need to stop looking at it like laws are there to keep us from being violent and teach ‘those’ people that laws need to be there to keep us from wanting to be violent in the first place.
I’d like to see oligarchs have ceilings and pay enough into society that they aren’t oligarchs. Then they don’t need to die.
But if they’re going to use their money and power to keep us under their thumb, I’ll welcome any catalyst that brings on change to the advantage of the people.
I fear we’ve let it progress too far. Privatized goods and production can work and have for many many years. We’ve let the corporations infiltrate and own our government. They’ve destroyed the checks and balances. Our governing body is nothing more than an elaborate social game.
When they ruled that corporations were people (1978) and could spend money on ballot initiatives, that should have been a huge red flag. The 1907 law that banned corporate involvement in government was a pillar that kept us mostly honest.
The purpose of the state was never intended to protect and secure the oligarchs, we let the oligarchs make that the purpose.
Depends on how ypu define “works”… not very long ago, poor people were used as a slave labor force for profit. Today, we use prisoners for slave labor. Earliest, we used literal slaves.
Violence is neutral.
Human nature is bad.
When someone is violent to someone else and doesn’t need to be violent, they are bad.
When someone unintentionally wrongs someone, you try to settle the situation without violence in a way that is fair to both parties.
When they don’t settle or they keep wronging people, you need to escalate.
When the person wronging the people is in a place of money and power, and you cannot escalate, there should be consequences.
I’m not a big fan of vigilantism, If the world ran that way, we’d have a lot of innocent deaths. But if the government and laws don’t protect the people, stuff like this happens, or at least it logically should. If anything, I’m kind of shocked this isn’t more commonplace.
deleted by creator
Killing a rapist mid-act is not wrong. Killing an innocent person because they have the misfortune of being insured by your company is wrong.
It was here before we got here, and good and bad are both words of human origin.
The one hand-wringer downvoting you didn’t see the video of the pregnant zebra watching its unborn fetus ripped from her uterus and eaten, in front of her terrified, defeated, anguished eyes. The hyenas were just surviving, violence wasn’t taking place.
There’s always one in a crowd.
I think what theyre getting at, is that in the assailant’s mind it’s justified, or they wouldn’t have done it.
Killing Hitler == Good
Killing a mom for $20 == Bad
Its not the killing that is bad, but the target and reason.
Violence is a tool. Means to an end. Virtually every animal out there will kill anything it can if it perceives it as its only means of survival. No human in their right mind wants to murder a CEO. We’ve evolved past that. We want his company to treat us fairly, not make decisions that literally kill our friends and family members so that they can add a couple of pennies to their already incredibly huge stock price. We’d love for the government or laws to gate that and keep it from happening. We have pretty much zero choice in which healthcare providers we get. If we’re lucky enough to have jobs, we’re stuck with whoever they choose because we can’t afford individual care plans.
This should never have come to violence. They locked in the participants and lobbied to bypass all federal regulations by being state-run, even though they are obviously run/colluded by a single national entity. They knowingly ran for months on an AI system that wrongly refused 90% of all requests, taking their time to fix it instead of overriding and putting it back. We’re talking real deaths here. With the new administration coming in, they’re ready to dismantle any guardrails left. People are blocked from getting any traction on doing this without violence. If heading the opposite way.
It’s not violence’s fault. Violence wasn’t created or designed. It’s the natural outcome of trapping and killing off people. Any handful of probably a hundred people at that organization could have gotten together and made better decisions for the welfare of their customers. The government could have installed better safety nets to keep it from happening. None of this happened.
It’s easier for people to sit back in their armchairs and bunkers and talk about violence being this heinous evil rather than taking it at what it is, a natural symptom of a failed system. ‘We’ need to stop looking at it like laws are there to keep us from being violent and teach ‘those’ people that laws need to be there to keep us from wanting to be violent in the first place.
Oh, a lot of us would love to see our oligarchs dead.
I’d like to see oligarchs have ceilings and pay enough into society that they aren’t oligarchs. Then they don’t need to die.
But if they’re going to use their money and power to keep us under their thumb, I’ll welcome any catalyst that brings on change to the advantage of the people.
That is impossible as long as we live in a capitalist society…
The entire purpose of the state is to protect and secure the power of oligarchs.
I fear we’ve let it progress too far. Privatized goods and production can work and have for many many years. We’ve let the corporations infiltrate and own our government. They’ve destroyed the checks and balances. Our governing body is nothing more than an elaborate social game.
When they ruled that corporations were people (1978) and could spend money on ballot initiatives, that should have been a huge red flag. The 1907 law that banned corporate involvement in government was a pillar that kept us mostly honest.
The purpose of the state was never intended to protect and secure the oligarchs, we let the oligarchs make that the purpose.
Depends on how ypu define “works”… not very long ago, poor people were used as a slave labor force for profit. Today, we use prisoners for slave labor. Earliest, we used literal slaves.
sdfgasdgdsafgadfsgadsfg