It really weirds me out that gratuitous violence as a response to societal injustice is so common on Lemmy, if not across Humanity as a whole. Like let’s say this back-to-basics style of justice comes about in modern society and all the relevant assholes are subjected to it. What then? At least, what would the violence even be in the name of? Retribution? How is that productive in any way?
I realize this is a pretty disproportionate response to a relatively banal comment, but I see sentiments such as this one (either intended as sarcasm or not) so often here that I’m essentially using this as a catch-all spot for my thoughts on it.
I’ll just end this tangent with a quote about this sort of thing from a guy way smarter than me (and I promise I’m not just trying to be pretentious it actually applies.)
Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other. - My buddy Albert Camus
Yeah, the violence would be in the name of justice and retribution!
The chimpanzee method, as you call it, is the best form of justice for those sub-human billionaire and multi-millionaire urchins who kill, rape, and eat children.
Unless, of course, you’re okay with that form of violence? Are you okay with the violence inherent in the capitalist system?
Like where do you draw the line for violence and retribution?
Don’t put words in my mouth, they taste too salty.
To an extent violence is an effective tool: that I can definitely agree with. There’s never been any social progress without blood being shed on some level.
It’s when it turns into a gratuitous means of communal catharsis that it becomes inherently counterintuitive by serving no other practical outcome than creating murderers and dehumanizers out of progressives. And these sub-humans and urchins you speak of are, whether you like it or not, extremely human, and even further than that are direct products of the societies that we’ve been complacent in for our entire lives and, likewise, we are also products of.
So to answer your question clearly, I draw the line at violence when it’s in the name of the abstract: not only because I oppose things like the death penalty as a matter of principle, but because violence for an ideal or ideals is valuable to no one and nothing. No one gains anything material by destroying for the sake of it. It’s just that: destructive. Something I wish we humans learned a long time ago, but I digress.
Ah, the chimpanzee method.
It really weirds me out that gratuitous violence as a response to societal injustice is so common on Lemmy, if not across Humanity as a whole. Like let’s say this back-to-basics style of justice comes about in modern society and all the relevant assholes are subjected to it. What then? At least, what would the violence even be in the name of? Retribution? How is that productive in any way?
I realize this is a pretty disproportionate response to a relatively banal comment, but I see sentiments such as this one (either intended as sarcasm or not) so often here that I’m essentially using this as a catch-all spot for my thoughts on it.
I’ll just end this tangent with a quote about this sort of thing from a guy way smarter than me (and I promise I’m not just trying to be pretentious it actually applies.)
I think you are just seeing the pot boil over more and more.
It wasn’t like this 2 years ago.
Yeah, the violence would be in the name of justice and retribution!
The chimpanzee method, as you call it, is the best form of justice for those sub-human billionaire and multi-millionaire urchins who kill, rape, and eat children.
Unless, of course, you’re okay with that form of violence? Are you okay with the violence inherent in the capitalist system?
Like where do you draw the line for violence and retribution?
Don’t put words in my mouth, they taste too salty.
To an extent violence is an effective tool: that I can definitely agree with. There’s never been any social progress without blood being shed on some level.
It’s when it turns into a gratuitous means of communal catharsis that it becomes inherently counterintuitive by serving no other practical outcome than creating murderers and dehumanizers out of progressives. And these sub-humans and urchins you speak of are, whether you like it or not, extremely human, and even further than that are direct products of the societies that we’ve been complacent in for our entire lives and, likewise, we are also products of.
So to answer your question clearly, I draw the line at violence when it’s in the name of the abstract: not only because I oppose things like the death penalty as a matter of principle, but because violence for an ideal or ideals is valuable to no one and nothing. No one gains anything material by destroying for the sake of it. It’s just that: destructive. Something I wish we humans learned a long time ago, but I digress.
https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too