Never thought I’d see the day where, when it comes down to it, JaBles shows he has no spine and folds like the cheap suit his character wore in school of rock.
Shrug… I always assume gun enthusiasts have a dozen or more. If you’re going to have one or two, you may as well have a dozen. You can only pop one at a time anyway.
I know many folks don’t like guns but since guns are allowed, it’s worth understanding that collecting them and learning about them is a hobby just like any other.
All gun enthusiasts I know have many. And if I could be arsed going through the necessary paperwork of getting ownership permits (Not murican), I would as well.
I’m not what you’d call an “enthusiast”, I just hunt. And between friends and relatives, you just kinda end up with extra shotguns and rifles. I give some to new hunters but it seems like the old relatives all get out of it and if they know you hunt, you end up with them
I read these stories about “lunatic gunman had a dozen firearms” and cue up look-away-meme.
It is an atlantic article but it’s from the 90s and an excerpt from a book. America was already Zion, but Jews integrated too much for the hyperconservatives.
Yeah, but because he only did so after it became obvious that it was a problem because conservatives stacked the court, basically both sides are the same!
This is false, there is no law stipulating the number of justices. There have been as few as 6 before, and we could have easily increased that to 23 during the first 2 years of Biden’s presidency if Dems were interested in preserving justice and willing to remove the filibuster.
I’m not sure why you believe this is false? From www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx : “Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?: The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.”
Oh I see, I think it was a misunderstanding. I just meant there’s no law stipulating a particular number. Perhaps the OP could have said it better that it’s “set by Congress,” and they did correctly point out Congress can change it further.
There IS a law stipulating the number of justices. The number is not set by the constitution, which I think is where you got the idea. Changing the law that sets the number would require an act of Congress, which means a 2/3rds majority in the Senate because of the filibuster rule. 50% could overturn the filibuster rule and then stack the court, but 2 right leaning Democrats from Republican states refuse to overturn the filibuster rule, so it’s just not possible unless more progressives are in the Senate.
Getting a more progressive Senate is hard because it’s not proportional representation. North Dakota with a population under 1 million gets the same number of Senators as California with 40 million. Rural voters are wildly over-represented in the Senate.
Not that it will get passed now, but if he did that 2 years ago, everyone would be saying that there isn’t any good indication these things are truly a huge issue. Now that it is out that they are taking bribes, working directly in conflicts of interests, and clearly doing things in contradiction to duty, there is a much stronger case.
Making a change with the fundamental design of the of the separation of powers will always be, nearly, impossible, and completely so without strong demonstration of why they need to be changed.
The Supreme Court has always been susceptible to corruption and bribery, which is how corporate power and influence has been expanded to the virtual oligarchy we have today. That said, the current court outed itself as biased and broken when they wrongly handed the 2000 election to W Bush. I don’t believe corrective actions at any point during the Biden presidency could have been legitimately questioned, and certainly not after the SC stripped women of the right to bodily autonomy over 2 years ago.
What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.
He could not have. Nor was he himself convinced of the need, and for good reason, until the SC’s presidential immunity ruling and the more recent evidence of their corruption. I think Laurence Tribe is a good person to get context from, and unless I’m mistaken he has never, before now, called for SC reform despite having written entire books on it. IOW, this is all kind of new.
It’s crazy how often I see people doing this; they’re ardently against Trump’s efforts to turn the presidency into a dictatorship, while at the same time complaining that Biden didn’t do x y, or z when those aren’t things that fall under his purview.
What do they want?? Dictatorship is ok if it’s the neo-liberal I like?
Instead of trodding out the tired old excuses of Sinema and Manchin time and again for doing absolutely nothing, I suggest that instead Biden actually tries something. He could demand they be removed from the party. He could go to their home states in their home districts and loudly campaign for them to come around, all the while screaming from the rooftops how badly their constituents are being screwed by their reprehensible policies and refusal to cooperate. Force them to comply, or ensure their removal from office.
But no, Biden is not this kind of leader. Instead he thinks of them as friends, and would never seek to challenge their positions for a meaningful political agenda. Perhaps this lack of initiative to deliver for the people is why Biden is so wildly unpopular, and hurtling towards a landslide defeat to the criminal traitor Trump in November. Trump may be a totally fake populist, but at least his messaging resonates with the pain and suffering felt at this time by the American people. Of course Trump has no agenda other than self enrichment, but he at least says things that people want to hear. DC insiders such as Biden, Manchin, and Sinema are totally oblivious to that reality.
So, in effect: “idk do SOMETHING”? Or say the magic words that make his opponents agree with him?
There’s an absurd idealism in some circles that saying the right words at the bully pulpit will let you achieve your goals and convince the people standing in your way to acquiesce. It does not work that way.
I think I see what you’re saying actually. Because yeah, that did work for Trump. But I think this is a fundamental difference between left and right (or center left and right if you prefer). The right values loyalty above even right wing ideology. The left doesn’t have that same kind of hero worship or allegiance.
Biden doesn’t. Trump does. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. The court will rule that nothing Biden does is an official act, while Trump could literally murder random people on 34th st, and it would be an official act.
People need to be upset at Biden not doing things he has the ability to do, not things he doesn’t. Fixing SCOTUS isn’t going to happen without either a major legislative change or now (thanks to SCOTUS) Biden doing some major unsavory things he has absolute immunity for.
On that last part, you’re not understanding the full awfulness of the ruling. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. Biden has no immunity because this supreme court will 100% rule that anything Biden does is not an “official act”.
What would that have solved exactly? Those seats wouldn’t have been won by anyone further left anyway. The problem is that North Dakota and California get the same number of Senators, despite the former having literally 50x more people.
Which is why keeping the filibuster has generally been in the best interest of the left, even if it’s not ideal right now. I think the Democrats are absolutely fooling themselves if they think the R’s will respect the filibuster if it’s in their way at this point though.
You don’t have to replace them next election with a far left candidate, just one that won’t betray the party like those two shit-heads. You run the risk of losing the seat to the GOP but it was half GOP anyways and its worth it to maintain party discipline. Kick two senators out and no other senator is going to risk their career disobeying the party.
Also what this utter nonesense about maintaining the filibuster? It can be removed with a simple majority and the GOP does so whenever they have that majority. Its been that way for decades. Saying “It’d be nice if the GOP kept the filibuster when they were in power so we will keep it when we’re in power.” is absolute bullshit. Democrats aren’t naiive idealists, they just want excuses to not do what their voters want.
There’s no way there was enough public support for that notion right after the overturning of Roe v Wade. Even now it’s critical enough to first release he would consider it to test the waters.
The problem is his supporters are too stupid to know it was one of their own that attacked him and they instantly think it’s an evil Democrat even when they’re told differently because that’s been the conservative propaganda rhetoric for 7 decades now.
Republicans are too brainwashed to realize the ones they’re supporting are the evil ones.
They’re not told differently. Alex Jones and Roger Stone have been pushing the AntIFa!!! boogeyman all over right wing media. They’ve been told that’s the narrative and it won’t matter what reality is, they will ignore it.
Gaza was an open air prison enforced by Israel taking total control of Gaza’s borders, both north and south and even their sea border. It was a humanitarian crisis of people dying from lack of supplies like food and water.
I do, I have more than just what not to do, I was hoping you could elaborate on an option other than violence. But it seems you can’t.
Before I give you what I think Hamas should do, are you declaring that you have no better option than violence, since that’s the only thing we eliminated? Unless that is, you advocate for violence.
The violence was already happening, im advocating for self defense. You and a bunch of people get kidnapped and locked in a room with no food or water, youre watching people dying. You either dont believe, or dont care that they were dying.
Serious question for anyone who believes political violence is never ok: at what point on the timeline do you think it was ok to respond to Hitler with violence?
1923 Beer Hall Putsch? SA violence in the early 30s? The Nazi party being sworn into power in 1933? Reischstag Fire? Night of the Long Knives?
Trump already has the support of a bought and paid for corrupt court, and we’ve already had Jan 6th. He’s promised to be dictator on day 1.
It never the answer to advocate for it in a non-political venue where you’re part of a group that can associated with your comment without their consent. He torpedoed their careers as a band.
I hate Trump, but I don’t want him to be made a martyr and I’d be pissed off if I was Jack Black and this guy fucked up our public performances without my knowing about it first.
I really doubt he torpedoed their careers. The joke was no worse than lots of jokes Trump has made, such as about Nancy Pelosi’s husband. If the partnership ends, it’s because of Jack Black, not because of people clamoring for them to stop touring.
Repeating from another comment: It won’t be safe for them to perform in public, at least in the short term. They had to cancel this tour because the dude goaded literally crazy mother fuckers with guns. This isn’t like when the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush. This painted a target on their backs.
Targets on their back while touring Australia, which has gun control? There are trump supporters and right wing nutjobs here but its a different political and legal atmosphere than america.
He did this as he feared being canceled IMHO, more than fear for safety. If it was safety, they would say that. Likely there was already the start of a relationship breakdown. Or jack feared more for his movie career as he is likely lined on both sides of the political spectrum.
Turns out someone was recently shot in Perth. Looks like it is possible, even with WA’s new gun laws.
Furthermore unless the world done shrank on me, a “world tour” I would surmise isn’t just exclusive to Aus and then they live there and never leave. Chances are at some point that tour (or y’know, going home) would bring them back to the states.
Its possible to be hit by a meteorite. We were talking risk, not possibility. At least I was. The chance of being shot for anyone in Australia is extremely low. The chance of being shot is high in America, relative to most other countries and all other developed countries. Its not even close.
Tbf, the odds of getting shot in America are still pretty low too, it’s about 12k/350mil/yr, whatever the math is on that. It is possible though however unlikely, so maybe that answers your “targets on their back while touring aus blah blah gun control” question. Evidentially, it is indeed possible to be shotbin Australia.
Low, in absolute terms. Relatively, its incredibly high.
Like 40 times higher. As I mentioned, it is possible they could be hit by a meteor, but even more unlikely. By your logic, the realaroce risk is nor important, so we could just as easily say that’s the reason for the cancelation.
Nobody said it was impossible to get shot in Australia. It just doesn’t make sense in context to be a reason to cancel shows in Australia.
Well the main difference is I don’t think it’s possible for meteors to target famous people for political reasons, where it is entirely possible for humans of any nationality to do so, and since there are guns and people do get shot in aus, the chance is greater than 0%, and seemingly this was enough for JB.
Frankly if you know it’s possible why feign incredulity?
Did he though? I can’t imagine KG’s sentiment is an unusual one except among the MAGA cult and milquetoast centrists, and even then only the cultists could probably maintain a sustained boycott (although even then I don’t think things have been going too poorly for Bud Light lately).
I’m not sure I buy the trump as martyr either. No one has quite been able to replicate his “charm” among the faithful, so with him gone are centrists going to be more swayed? I’m not convinced.
It won’t be safe for them to perform in public, at least in the short term. They had to cancel this tour because the dude goaded literally crazy mother fuckers with guns. This isn’t like when the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush. This painted a target on their backs.
He said out loud what most progressives think and they’re known to be progressives so I don’t think their crowd cares, if anything they’ll get more famous
I would not be ok with anyone I work with painting a target on my back. The rightwingers in the USA are lunatics. See Pelosi’s husband getting attacked with a hammer. No matter what I might think, I am not ok with anyone putting me at risk of violence without my say.
“Most progressives” do not think it works be OK to assassinate a political opponent, but that flippant “joke” makes it sound like a normal and reasonable position.
I think most progressives would be dishonest if they said they didn’t have a moment where they hoped Trump has died when they learned that he got shot.
You’re correct of course, when the news broke my initial reaction was “this would be fucking great”, but it didn’t take long to realise that it wouldn’t have the desired effect.
You been off lemmy recently or something? Most clearly do support it. Every thread here there’s one or two pacifists decrying violence with downvotes and justification for murder in replies. Most people on lemmy are progressive, and I’d be willing to bet this isn’t the only progressive hangout that has been having the same experience.
I don’t really follow you. Yes Lemmy is a progressive hangout. Opinions here are not indicative of the larger population, nor even the larger population of progressives.
Basing an opinion of what “most” progressives want based on Lemmy comments is absolutely absurd.
Regardless, I guess I’m one of those few pacifists who don’t think violence is the best course of action. Trump needs to be slaughtered in the election and then go to jail.
It doesn’t take much insight to understand that Trump being assassinated would be the start of a dark period in history, not the end.
Tbf, by this logic, we can never say “most X Y” without having the actual data to back it up, and neither of us do, so stalemate I guess. All either of us have is empirical.
I’m not arguing with your pacifism, I’m just arguing with the premise that most progressives aren’t literally saying “dammit why’d he miss” right now.
When is it okay if it’s against whichever politicians you like?
I don’t understand why people tend to forget that opinions vary. There literally cannot be a moment where everyone agrees someone can only be stopped by violence. Don’t worry though, sadly like 95% of Lemmy has been proud of this bloodlust the past few days. Your opinion is popular.
Who gives a shit what a fascist considers themselves to be? I’m not trying to talk fascists out of being fascists. Talking has never defeated conservative fascism.
Yeah, mine applies to any topic, yours applies to ones where your agenda is preserved and unquestioned.
Not a surprise with your username that you’re super into violence when it’s wielded against your enemies. I’m sure you clutch pearls every single time it goes the other way.
Clearly there are politicians that people like. Watch:
Fuck Joe Biden, he sucks and all politicians are scum including AOC and Bernie.
Context of important. For many of us “like” of politicians is relative.
Joe Biden fucking sucks and is way too close to death to be making decisions that he’ll never have to see the consequences of. But, he’s a hell of a lot better than a fascist and the fake leftist Putin stooges that are trying to help get said fascist elected. He’s also done a lot more for the working class than most US presidents in the last 50 years.
AOC is a politician who is a woman of color with working-class roots. Compared to other politicians, I like her. However, I’ve been less fond of her voting record on things like the rail strike, which feels like a betrayal. Could be just having to choose battles and “play politics” but, I have no way of knowing as I don’t have personal contact or rapport with her. So, overall, neutral, relative to other politicians, like.
Bernie is a politician who has been on the right side of history for a lot of social issues. I don’t really agree with him in everything, like gun control but, that could well be a strategic thing. Again, overall, neutral leaning positive, relative to other politicians, like.
See? There’s one. Relative or not, you like her enough to say you like her. I’m counting it.
I’m just saying, we can’t really sit here and pretend nobody likes any politicians. Hell two hole (as in ass, pun intended) instances here simp for Stalin so hard it makes their пизда wet. Sure he’s dead but an autocrat is a politican nonetheless.
I’m with you, I actively hate all politicians. In fact you have better stuff to say about them than I would, but we aren’t everyone. Some people clearly love politicians.
In fact you have better stuff to say about them than I would
That’s partly from my near-pathological optimism that I developed as a coping strategy for untreated ADHD and depression. I involuntarily see a silver lining in most things.
Some people clearly love politicians.
… Yeah. That’s a weird one to me. I suspect it is a neurodivergent thing but it’s up there with celebrity worship and other parasocial relationships. I can rationalize my way through it but I don’t “get it”.
That’s partly from my near-pathological optimism that I developed as a coping strategy for untreated ADHD and depression. I involuntarily see a silver lining in most things.
Hold the fuck on did I write this and forget?! Lmao dude same, though I am also full of hatred for authority, so on this one it clashes haha.
I suspect it is a neurodivergent thing
Do you mean the politician lovers, us, or both? Lol in any case you may be right, I don’t get it either but I do see them around.
Do you mean the politician lovers, us, or both? Lol in any case you may be right, I don’t get it either but I do see them around.
I was thinking myself (and likely yourself). I am diagnosed ADHD and have a sibling diagnosed with autism, which means that I’m also most likely on the spectrum. My “not getting it” also seems in line with perceptions of social hierarchies that are common in autistic people. It’s also why I’m ideologically an anarchist - rigid social hierarchies are fundamentally contrary to a just society.
I happen to agree with Mr. Adams here, but again I must refute the idea that nobody likes politicians.
Hell trump has a fucking cult, they clearly like him and he is a politician, ipso facto some people like some politicians. They exist, it is an undisputable fact frankly.
Oh, across the broader population you’re absolutely correct. In that initial comment, I was referring to the users here on lemmy. Sorry, “we” can be rather ambiguous.
That’s the thing. Violence should never be the answer. The problem is that the worst of us count on other people not fighting. So, when it’s actually time for violence, it’s too late.
Yup, exactly this. DARVO is the standard abusers’ playbook, and it also applies to oppression.
D is Deny/Downplay. “No, oppression doesn’t happen. And if it does, it’s not as bad as you’re making it out to be.”
A is Attack. When they can’t deny it anymore, they’ll go on the offensive. Try to redirect the focus back to the victim. “Well what about…”
RVO is Reverse Victim and Offender. When outright attacking the victim doesn’t work, they move on to playing the victim. Make the real victim look bad, to garner sympathy. Pretend to be the helpless one in the situation, and say that the victim is attacking you for no reason.
When the oppressed fight back, the oppressors will act offended and use it to further victimize the oppressed.
Please read Federalist 46. Madison explicitly argues that the right to bear arms is reserved for several purposes, one of which is to prevent the encroachment of the federal gov’t on states and local polities. Madison specifically indicates a tension between militias and federal gov’t forces.
2A, in the minds of the Founders, was to repel any monarch or tyrant, to explicitly include any agent of the federal gov’t.
Personally, no. But, I’m a “no-first-strikes” pacifist. Violence harms the victim, the perpetrator, and those who witness it directly or indirectly. It can also cause great harm to efforts to affect political and social change.
However, I think that history does show that it has an important role, supposing its adherents follow strict ethical constraints and do not attempt to install themselves as bosses (something that is not terribly common in history). For non-violence to be truly effective, it needs to be clear and plausible that violence is the alternative. The Labor Movement had the likes of The Molly Maguires. The suffragettes had the likes of the WSPU. And the non-violent anvil of Dr. King had the hammer of Malcom X.
What you’ve done is proposong a solution without clearly defining the problem. That makes your question sound appealing, it makes it sound rhetorical, but actually is meaningless without context.
Supposed the shooter had succeeded in his objective. One might imagine that Joe would win in November, maybe. But four years from now there would be a different candidate with just as bad views on those same issues, and the institutional problems that allowed Trump to gain power would still be in place.
Is gambling on 4 years of possible peace worth legitimatizing the policy of executing people whose political views you don’t like? That’s something you have to decide for yourself.
Many fundamental issues facing the country today go back decades. Pick your poison. Stacking the courts is an old strategy. Citizens United happened long ago. Redistricting and gerrymandering have been happening for decades if not centuries. All of those things matter, none of them were caused by Trump, and none of them would be fixed if Trump were gone. The systemic weaknesses can only be fixed by implementing systemic solutions, whatever those might be.
I don’t think I need a complete solution to be of the opinion that Hitler needed to be met with violence at some point. Of course we can’t know that Trump will be the same, but is there a possibility that his election in November leads to at least decades of Christofascist laws being enacted, if not a civil war? Perhaps by the time it becomes obvious that we’ve reached that point it’ll be too late.
Maybe Joe’s win this year will only put off the inevitable. But maybe it’ll lead to someone the next election with enough guts to give SCOTUS what they want and show them what a president with immunity can do, and the 6 who voted for making the president a king will end up in a black site until their more suitable replacements can be installed. At which point hopefully the corrupt ruling can be overturned by justices who aren’t being bribed. I don’t know shit about the law but I trust that if someone like Kagen says political assassinations are now legal, that’s further into fascism territory than I want our country to be.
You ask if gambling on 4 years of peace before something worse happens is worth it. I’d ask if gambling on a Trump election in November is something the US will survive. I guess we’ll see, because there’s no way in hell Biden’s doing anything illegal-- oh sorry, I meant any of the now legal things that Trump won’t hesitate to do when he’s “dictator day one”.
I get a lot of downvotes whenever I ask this and very rarely responded to, but if violence is the solution, why have you not started the violence, or at least started gathering people together?
I no longer live in the US, plus I’m fat, lazy, and have no idea how to organize people or start a revolution. If it were up to me I’d lose the war to fascists. But that doesn’t change the fact that someone should probably do something about fascists. And if violence isn’t the answer and you’re someone who’s similarly worried about fascism, why haven’t you gotten around to a getting started on a non-violent way to solve the problem?
I’m simply of the opinion that at some point along the way, talking nicely to Hitler wasn’t going to change anything. I’m just wondering where along that point in time people think that was.
It’s not really a question directed at you personally, sorry. It’s one I ask all the time when people start crying about how the glorious revolution should start or the guillotines should come out.
I would think that if Trump was going to remove his own term limits so he could be President for Life and then start murdering his political rivals, it would have been in his first term when he had the House, Senate, and Supreme Court locked down. As it stands, he’s only going to be in power for another four years, worst-case scenario. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that (which is a big part of why he isn’t President for Life). I’m not going to sit here and say when it’s okay to start killing politicians, other than that we aren’t there yet.
I’d like to ask you a question as well: if Trump died, what do you think would have happened? Do you think that 100% of the gun-toting pro-Trump militias throughout the country would have laid down their arms and admitted defeat? Do you think that the political faction that is, on average, more likely to own and use guns than the left, would have said “well that sucks I guess”? Do you think that Democrats across the country would be safe? Or do you think it would be a Shot Heard Cross the Coasts that would have started a free-for-all of political violence that the country hasn’t seen in decades - perhaps centuries?
While I do think that the right of the people to govern themselves has certain implications I won’t get into here, it also means we have legislative options on the table. You have freedom of speech, which is why we can ask questions like yours and mine. We have the right to assemble, form parties, and elect officials. Let’s use those rights while the government hasn’t decided to destroy them yet; and if they ever do, let’s take the discussion to a more anonymous forum like on Tor or I2P.
Do you think that 100% of the gun-toting pro-Trump militias throughout the country would have laid down their arms and admitted defeat? Do you think that the political faction that is, on average, more likely to own and use guns than the left, would have said “well that sucks I guess”? Do you think that Democrats across the country would be safe? Or do you think it would be a Shot Heard Cross the Coasts that would have started a free-for-all of political violence that the country hasn’t seen in decades - perhaps centuries?
I don’t think either of those scenarios would happen. Maybe a civil war’s coming, but we’re not there yet. Or at least not quite yet.
As it stands, he’s only going to be in power for another four years, worst-case scenario.
I think worst case scenario outside literal king trump is project 2025 ensures enough gerrymandering and partisan hackery gets put in place such that dems never again see house and senate majorities or the presidency in our lifetimes, and then the freedoms that are the will of the vast majority like Roe continue to fall. Gay marriage will be next, guaranteed.
I’m not going to sit here and say when it’s okay to start killing politicians, other than that we aren’t there yet.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but like I mentioned in another comment, with a bribed SCOTUS giving the legal power to execute political rivals to the president (according to Kagen anyway), by the time the first dem pols are up against the wall it might already be too late. Which is why I asked where someone should’ve stepped in with Hitler-- I don’t know history well enough to draw enough parallels to make an educated guess, but things look a little bleak the way it’s going.
Political violence cuts both ways. I don’t think anyone thinks what happens to politicians go against the cartels in Mexico is good or healthy system. For democracy to work we can’t have people constantly fear for their lives. Sure Trump is a terrible human being but I don’t want my candidates living with the same fear. So our only choice is to condem it. Also when bad acting becomes the norm bad actors will thrive. If political assassinations becomes the norm do you think morally justified “good guys” assassin going after Hitlers are going to win/out pace organized crime like what we see in Mexico?
At the end of the day ends don’t justify the means. Violence breeds Violence. In this modern age if we want to create a peaceful society we have to do it peacefully. Violence might be an appealing means to an end and while we might have the moral high ground but they use the same logic to justify their violence.
Choosing to travel through time to kill a historical figure is easy because we know exactly what will happen if nothing is changed.
Killing a modern day figure is different because we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. We can guess, but that’s it.
For example, at what point would it have been appropriate to assassinate Smedley Butler? 92 years ago today, it might have seemed like he was poised to become a dictator.
Yeah, good point. He was actually much more aligned with the goals of his assassin, Gavrilo Princip, than Princip knew. Princip thought he was doing something that would help the Bosnian / Serb cause, but instead he killed someone who might have given the Bosnians / Serbs more autonomy.
The thing is, I’m sure that there are cases where political killing actually makes things better. Obviously, it often makes things worse. But, it must be true that sometimes it makes things better. The problem is, that there’s no alternative history you can consult to prove it. You can just speculate about what might have happened if that person had not been killed.
For a random example, take Carlos Castillo Armas. He was put in power in Guatemala thanks to a CIA-backed coup. The US was involved partially because the democratically elected president was thought to be under the influence of Russia. But, more importantly, he was doing things that were hurting the bottom line of American fruit companies. When he took power, he started doing dictator things: rounding up and killing opposition, shooting protesters, revoking civil liberties, etc.
Then, 3 years after he took power, he was assassinated by a bodyguard.
What happened after that was probably not good for Guatemala. There were 36 years of civil war, and a lot of unrest. On the other hand what if Armas had been able to consolidate power? Would decades of dictatorship have been better or worse?
Also, killing an established, truly evil dictator almost never results in a happy democracy. But, that’s probably because the dictator has destroyed all checks and balances, wrecked every institution that a working society needs, and eliminated anybody who might be a threat. So, if a dictator is killed, the result is often chaos, or another dictator taking over. But, if you eliminate someone who might have become a dictator, who’s to say that they really would have become one?
Predicting the future is hard, predicting the past is easy.
Ever since this incident when U.S. politicians collectively argued that political violence was not okay, I have thought ‘I wonder how Fred Hampton would feel about these folks denouncing political violence?’ -I admit I don’t know the answer to this question, but when I consider the specific people going around vocally denouncing political violence, I’m not so convinced that those same people don’t protest too much.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.