Sorry to hear he’s in a stable condition.
Jesus dude. I know right wingers can be absolute cunts but wishing death on them? Really?
Yeah.
I don’t tolerate the intolerant.
If you tolerate the intolerant, the tolerant society shifts to intolerant.
There is a difference between not tolerating their shit and wishing people’s death.
Edit: spelling
Nah. fuck em
Violence is supposed to be the last resort to deal with them, I don’t see how this is in any way helpful, good or justified.
The last resort according to whom? It’s no law of nature or physics.
The last resort according to basic self preservation.
The other side have guns too. What do you think they’re gonna do when you start killing their people?
One side is gonna lose in the end. That is all that matters. The world is ruled with violence. Non-violence only is beneficial to those currently in power.
Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence. How are you going to preserve yourself when you let people run around who want to opress or kill you?
One side is gonna lose in the end.
And there are plenty of times where this is done non violently.
Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence.
Yes. As a last resort. That doesn’t mean never using violence. It means using it for self preservation, not just because you disagree with them.
Wishing him dead is fine in my book (since I don’t believe in magic anyhow) however encouraging assassination of political figures (as this may turn out to be) is not wise because in future it will be your guy who gets assassinated.
It is in everyone’s interest to have peaceful elections to sort out our differences.
“our guys” are being assasinated every day, dying from tough working conditions, starving away on the streets, getting killed by police, dying in another pointless war to see which group of rich people get to exploit a certain corner of the earth, being led to suicide by homophobic and transphobic retoric spread by these people…
So you do not tolerate yourself?
You might want to read this blog post on this subject. What I’m quoting here is the central message, but do yourself a favor and actually read the rest and don’t just respond based on this quote
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted; the purpose of your group’s acceptance is to let people feel that they have a home, and someone who actively tries to thwart this is incompatible with the broader purpose of that acceptance. Prejudice against Nazis is not the same as prejudice against Blacks, because one is based on people’s stated opposition to their neighbors’ lives and safety, the other on a characteristic that has nothing to do with whether they’ll live in peace with you or not. Freedom of religion means that people have the right to have their own beliefs, but you have that same right; you are under no duty to tolerate an attempt to impose someone else’s religious laws on you.
[…]
If we interpreted tolerance as a moral absolute, or if our rules of conduct were entirely blind to the situation and to previous actions, then we would regard any measures taken against an aggressor as just as bad as the original aggression. But through the lens of a peace treaty, these measures have a different moral standing: they are tools which can restore the peace.
The only good fascist is a dead fascist.
Wow, that’s too bad. Anyway, who wants some pizza?
I refuse to feel the same way about bad things happening to bigots as I would if they happened to better people.
The insistence that anyone should is misguided at best and abusive at worst. It’s okay to have different opinions based on people’s words and actions. That’s not prejudice. It’s just regular judice.
So to get this straight: An advocate for the democratic movement against the religious fascist regime in Iran, who was officially declared a terrorist by the iranian regime, was (almost successfully) assassinated and the people in this thread do not condemn or even celebrate it, because he was an elected far right politician almost ten years ago.
@Drama_durch_Lama @gigachad yep pretty much. Just because you dont agree with someone’s politics doesnt mean its oke to cheer them being shot in the face. The only time thats oke is during a war.
I’m not to familiar with spanish politics so I will refrain from commenting on it. In my home country far right politicians from 10 years ago would be normal rightwing today, policy wise that is. We had a far-right politician here who got shot and murdered 20 years ago. Today he’d be far left.
I don’t want to condone violence, but I feel like Spain knows a little too well what happens when we let fascists get comfy…
Accepting violence as a valid political tool for anything other than an absolute last resort is the exact thing that leads to complete and utter chaos. You have to keep in mind that your side is probably not the only side with guns, and those on the other side are also telling themselves that there are plenty of examples of what happens when you let communists get comfy.
Now, I would obviously say that one of these sides is much more in the wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that, unless you want a politics of everyone shooting at each other, political violence should essentially always be condemned, even if it’s against your political foes.
That pacifistic stance is based on ideals, but ignores the reality of history and politics. Not everyone shares those ideals, nor are they objectively right. Violence is the only good tool against fascism. Where it fails to stop it, non-violent means would also fail.
They are a little ahead of schedule if our goal is to revive last century’s events exactly 100 years afterwards, the civil was was from '36 to '39.
Count the years from the beginning of the revo to the civil war. Count the years from then to 24 and reflect in America’s devolution.
Violence against elected officials is not compatible with democracy. To those cheering at this act of violence: you are as violent and authoritarian as the people you loathe. Shame on you.
yeah if they don’t die it’s not democratic
Hitler was elected.
He is not a currently elected official. He hasn’t been in office since 2014. He isn’t even running for any office. He is retired and “active” as a lobbyist for the ‘National Council of Resistance of Iran’ and ‘European Friends of Israel’.
While no motive has been established, I doubt it’s related to spanish politics since he is basically irrelevant there. If the attempt was politically motivated, it’s way more likely to be related to the current events in Israel and Gaza. Or his general stance on the current Iranian government. He is considered a terrorist by the Iranian government.
So there is no threat to democacy and people cheering at this are just happy that a shitty person got hurt. Which still isn’t the best mentality.
