"if you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world stays the same "
"Sure, but if I don't kill the killer, the amount of victims will go up. And that would be on me, for not stopping the killer. You fucking hippie buffoon"
I feel like this is why LOTR resonates with so many people, because it definitely takes a stance on matching violence with violence when all the other options are gone. (Especially the books)
People will be like "well if you kill them you'll just be the new murderer"
I don't think killing a guy who has repeatedly been getting off scott-free murdering children or something and putting an end to a bunch of innocent people suffering would be as bad as him but ok
If vengeance against evil is bad why are governments allowed to declare wars and execute criminals? Seems like this notion exists to keep people in line.
Exactly. We celebrate it all the time in our stories but when it’s us, suddenly it’s bad? People really only accept and respect resistance, respect violent resistance, as an historical fact or a hypothetical.
Is this the "so much for the tolerant left" argument in different pants?
It's OK to be intolerant of intolerance. If someone is a racist homophobic bigoted asshole I'm going to call them out on it. That "freedom of speech" applies equally to both parties.
I think the logic there is that if someone takes pleasure in hurting evil people, their definition of evil will likely get broader and broader to get more pleasure.
we only got were we got because we stopped killing corrupt rulers and other "elite" and allowed them to forget that they are as mortal and fragile as anyone else - and quite outnumbered
Males will also say that using our right to stand our ground will mean we will spend our life in prison so don't do it. They want us to be too afraid to stand up for ourselves. I say die motherfucker, die.
Hero 1: "But if we kill him, won't that make us just as bad?"
Hero 2: "No. He's been eating orphans to gain the Powers of Torment. We want to kill him to stop that from happening! Those two things are not even remotely close to equivalent."
Hero 1: "Good point."
Yup, I'm all for trying to redeem people and fix things without violence, but some people will never be redeemed and if you try to fix it without violence many more people will be hurt/killed. There is no redeeming the Joker, Batman should just kill him.
Issue isn't that it makes you "as bad", issue is that different people have different definitions of who is "evil". So we can't let it be as simple as "I think your beliefs are harmful" or "I think you did this bad thing".
But some cases are pretty clearly righteous acts, like iconic character Luigi
the stance I have is that killing JUST for vengeance will likely feel hollow, there has to be a greater goal at play. if vengeance is included in your direct action then go ahead! Just try to accomplish a bit more at the same time
There is one notable exception. A good man who spends his life on revenge, gets it, and is fully satisfied with the results. Also ends up being a job interview of sorts.
I prefer Justice, but I’ve found myself defending vengeance because instead of the spirit of things, people had to go and split hairs on verbiage and piss me off.😮💨
The way I see it, we are way beyond the point of justice or punishment. I don't want them just being jailed or dead by a headshot, I want them to suffer, as much as possible, suffer a thousand pains for each tear dropped by the ones I care about.
I WANT IT TO BE VENGEANCE!
if you just act out of anger and vengeance you just become them, and even if you succeed , you've built a new world order based on their ideals: vengeance, hate, anger, violence. fertile ground for THEM.
that doesn't mean we have to just sit and accept it quietly
It's presenting a false dichotomy where vengeance or passive acceptance are the only options.
It's possible to actively resist evil, and also to take steps to prevent it from reoccurring (reluctantly using violence when necessary), without crossing the line into vengeance/hate territory.
All I hear is the sound of your tongues lapping at the transphobic boot on my son’s neck. Perhaps there’s a better place for your noble moralizing than a post about how fighting back is not as evil as oppression and anyone who says it is, is part of a psyop…
I do not want to hear your moralizing, as you split hairs. You don’t know me. Maybe YOU should learn how to engage a stranger on their own post before condescending to them. My god. You don’t own morality here and maybe, just maybe, now is not when a stranger (or her audience) wants to hear from you
No, *you're* past violence, now that you've got the power. Several hundreds (hundreds of thousands if you count COVID) died at your hands, and now you're asking *us* not to fight back?
Comments
"So you're saying I need to kill at least two of them. Good note."
"Sure, but if I don't kill the killer, the amount of victims will go up. And that would be on me, for not stopping the killer. You fucking hippie buffoon"
I don't think killing a guy who has repeatedly been getting off scott-free murdering children or something and putting an end to a bunch of innocent people suffering would be as bad as him but ok
It's OK to be intolerant of intolerance. If someone is a racist homophobic bigoted asshole I'm going to call them out on it. That "freedom of speech" applies equally to both parties.
https://bsky.app/profile/morg...
we only got were we got because we stopped killing corrupt rulers and other "elite" and allowed them to forget that they are as mortal and fragile as anyone else - and quite outnumbered
"Because guillotines rely on gravity."
I think Chickn Nugget should do a vid on this
Hero 2: "No. He's been eating orphans to gain the Powers of Torment. We want to kill him to stop that from happening! Those two things are not even remotely close to equivalent."
Hero 1: "Good point."
But some cases are pretty clearly righteous acts, like iconic character Luigi
Of course, there are bad terrorists, but again, its almost always a government applying the label to a group that opposes them.
Something to think about.
It's very telling when the current party in power is calling peaceful protesters terrorists just because their beliefs don't align with their policies
I WANT IT TO BE VENGEANCE!
if you just act out of anger and vengeance you just become them, and even if you succeed , you've built a new world order based on their ideals: vengeance, hate, anger, violence. fertile ground for THEM.
that doesn't mean we have to just sit and accept it quietly
It's presenting a false dichotomy where vengeance or passive acceptance are the only options.
It's possible to actively resist evil, and also to take steps to prevent it from reoccurring (reluctantly using violence when necessary), without crossing the line into vengeance/hate territory.
we didn't say anything about not fighting back
there's a difference between resistance, fighting back, and vengeance, hatred.
the boot is on my neck too , I just don't think absorbing nazi ideology is the best way to get rid of Nazis yknow
You’re simply proving the point.
No, *you're* past violence, now that you've got the power. Several hundreds (hundreds of thousands if you count COVID) died at your hands, and now you're asking *us* not to fight back?
Jesus, the absolute GALL of Fascists.