sasooli.bsky.social
Even a good thing is not as good as nothing
2,748 posts
152 followers
74 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
If you personally think infanticide and torture are on the same moral level as killing adult fascists then, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
comment in response to
post
McVeigh believed that but he was wrong.
And it's generally accepted that killing an adult for things they're actually helping do is very different from killing a child or torturing someone. I'd never condone those.
comment in response to
post
Ok. Honestly I think we're largely on the same side outside of this issue. Obviously we disagree strongly about the correct way to extirpate Zionism but we all agree that that's the goal we have to fight for. Take care friend.
comment in response to
post
Someone who works for a fascist state and then does charity work to alleviate a tiny proportion of the harm that state causes is still complicit.
comment in response to
post
What false equivalency?
comment in response to
post
Anyone who works for a fascist state is fair game to be fought with violence, regardless of their racial and religious background.
comment in response to
post
Ah ok, so when you asked about who were the right kind of Jews you were talking about your own viewpoint, not mine? Good to know.
comment in response to
post
What makes it antisemitism is not whether the victim is Jewish, or whether the killer knew or thought they were Jewish. It's whether their being Jewish was a contributing motive.
Do you think it would have been antisemitism to kill Brian Thompson in a Jewish museum?
comment in response to
post
No, because the people who Tim McVeigh blew up didn't work for fascists.
Personally I think working for the embassy of a fascist state and furthering its aims is complicity in the same way being a soldier is. You're welcome to disagree of course.
comment in response to
post
Well yeah, preemptively murdering agents of a fascist state is morally justified.
comment in response to
post
It seems likely the shooter knew it was a Zionist event. If not then I would agree it was probably antisemitic.
Which Jewish people do you want me to listen to? I'm a Jewish person and I disagree with you.
comment in response to
post
As an example: we all agree the killing of Brian Thompson was justified. If that had happened in a Jewish museum would it have been unjustified, or antisemitic? Of course not.
Shooting people *because it's a Jewish museum* would be antisemitism. Shooting them *because it's a fascist event* isn't.
comment in response to
post
One of them wasn't Jewish, so no he wasn't one of the right Jews.
I think it would have been better if the shooter had done it somewhere that wasn't a Jewish museum, but I don't think the venue makes it inherently antisemitic.
comment in response to
post
You'll have to ask him. But if someone murdered an agent of the Russian government because of Ukraine I also wouldn't mourn them, and I wouldn't consider it racist against Russians.
comment in response to
post
If Trump or his allies remain in power in the US for the next 20 years and are actively committing war crimes, anyone still working for the US government at that point would definitely be complicit.
comment in response to
post
The situation is complicated when a fascist regime has just taken over or is in the process of taking over. That's not the case in Israel though.
comment in response to
post
Ok. It's still the case that it was organised by a political organisation, not just a Jewish space.
comment in response to
post
They didn't just support the right of Israel to exist though, they both worked for the fascist government.
comment in response to
post
The event being held there was organised by a Zionist political organisation. It wasn't just a random Jewish space.
comment in response to
post
Obviously not every Israeli is complicit. But working directly for a fascist government is an active choice and anyone who makes that choice is condoning fascism.
comment in response to
post
I don't know. I don't even know if he knew what event was being held there. All I'm saying is that it is definitely accurate to describe this as a Zionist event, which was what you were objecting to.
comment in response to
post
The point isn't whether you defend them. The point is that they are clearly and openly a Zionist political organisation.
comment in response to
post
Whatever you think about his murder, he certainly wasn't innocent given he served in the IDF.
comment in response to
post
Why? What's the substantive difference?
If it makes any difference we can draw the comparison with Francoists, or supporters of various South American juntas, rather than the Nazis.
comment in response to
post
I mean their website is pretty open about it, I'm not just making this up.
comment in response to
post
@davidaugust Works also in Italian. 😉
comment in response to
post
The AJC is a Zionist political organisation which works to further the interests of the Israeli regime, so its members are partially complicit in that regime's crimes.
comment in response to
post
I say "we're not at war with them", but obviously Palestinians *are* at war with the fascist regime in Israel. Killing agents of that regime as an act of support for that war effort seems justified even outside the war zone itself.
comment in response to
post
Like to me it's clear that
1) it would be helpful to the war effort to assassinate random Nazi officials during WW2
2) it would have been reasonable to do so even before WW2 to weaken the regime
3) It's reasonable to assassinate fascist officials now even if we're not at war with them
comment in response to
post
Surely there's a fairly straightforward liberatory theory of change that it's useful to kill the bureaucrats engaged in maintaining the fascist state?
comment in response to
post
From the AJC's website: "We work proactively around the world to expand Israel’s ties with strategically important countries"
This is a political organisation. Targeting it because of its politics isn't the same as targeting someone because of their race/religion.
comment in response to
post
Nazis make it into a team sport whether we like it or not, because they decide they're on one team and everyone decent is on the other team. Obviously it's nice if you can persuade people not to support Nazis, but when you can't it's 100% justified to kill them.
comment in response to
post
The continued existence of the super-rich also has enormous knock on effects which are not desirable.
And, as I've said before, we of course need an international solution.
comment in response to
post
Ok. As I said, I'm aware a wealth tax wouldn't be a perfect solution. But since you don't seem to have any better ideas I'm going to go on being in favour of it.
comment in response to
post
So what's your alternative plan for eliminating the existence of billionaires? Again I'm not saying it would be easy, or work 100%, or even that it's the best way to do it. But it would still be better than our current approach, which is to not even attempt to eliminate them.
comment in response to
post
I'm not saying it would be politically easy to achieve, I'm saying it would be good if we could manage to do it. I think we both agree there's no easy, 'magic-bullet' solution.
comment in response to
post
But they were only aiming to take up to 1.5% in the highest bracket. If we aimed to take, say, 99% we'd get much more - not all of it of course.
comment in response to
post
Also, even if a wealth tax on the super-rich doesn't get us a huge amount of income, it's still good to just reduce the number of super-rich people. Obviously we all agree that the very existence of billionaires is a horrendous stain on society. Getting rid of a few would be worth it.
comment in response to
post
Yes, it's true that the 1,000 richest people on their own won't give us much. But that's true of income tax as much as wealth tax.
comment in response to
post
It seems like you're conflating "should we tax lots of people a bit or a few people a lot" with "should we tax income or wealth". (And if course the answer in both cases can be a bit of both).
comment in response to
post
The worst part about it is that it wasn't their boss.
comment in response to
post
Obviously I don't think they'd be happy to do it. I'm saying we should tax them, not just ask them nicely to give us some money. Very confused as to what I've said would give the opposite impression.
comment in response to
post
Even "it's good they're dead" is not the same as wishing death on someone when they're alive. But I think "I don't give a fuck" is less than even that.
comment in response to
post
Right, and the person you replied to didn't say they wished death on them just that they didn't give a fuck once they were dead.
comment in response to
post
Democracy's not perfect but I certainly agree it would be better for the ownership of companies and factories and so on to be democratically decided by their workers rather than by a few rich dickheads as it is now.
comment in response to
post
Well the ownership by private individuals of the means of production is definitionally the most defining characteristic of capitalism, and all the restrictions on freedom and democracy that entails.
comment in response to
post
I said "if they'd been in power for decades", which they haven't.
comment in response to
post
Why are those more important than simply removing their wealth altogether?
comment in response to
post
Even if it was an accident that the people killed were fascists, it's still reasonable not to mourn them.