No, more like badly executed self-deprecating humor. I stand by what was deleted. I think accelerationism is like throwing matches at your furniture and yelling “Shazam!” in hopes that it summons a genie instead of burning you to death.
Accelerationism is when people with no power refuse to condone genocide with you, got it
If you have a problem with accelerationism, why not take it up with the people-shaped things of the ruling class who actually have their collective foot on the accelerator?
I swear, bro, it’s okay if we kill you, it’s different for us. We read these books that said it was okay for us, those other auths’ books are wrong and they need the bullet. If we just kill a few more people for the right reasons, it’ll totally be okay.
conditional_soup’s position on killing the guards, commanders and executioners of Nazi concentration camps: “No, you can’t do that, it makes you just as bad as them! You have to debate them in the marketplace of ideas while they exterminate millions of Jews, queers and other ‘undesirables.’”
It’s literally comic book logic. Also no one who holds this belief does so sincerely. Ask them about homeless people, addicts and tweakers, and terrorists and what the state is justified in doing.
Many of these people will absolutely defend Nazis but condemn a victim of addiction to brutality and death.
1,000%. Liberals will say they abhor all violence, but then turn blind eyes to the violence that is necessary to maintain our (relatively) safe and comfortable lives in the imperial core. But when the oppressed commit violence against their oppressors, or a powerful force commits violence in behalf of the oppressed, suddenly liberals are shocked and aghast at the brutality of it all!
TC_209’s position on killing Nazis accidentally didn’t align with the party’s. They are put against the wall by a young officer who didn’t pay attention when they read theory in school.
Did I? Because I was thinking about how the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany until the latter attacked the former. It was only then that the USSR started giving a shit about killin natzis. Which, in total fairness, was kind of generally true of much of the West at that time. The only reason the Holocaust was stopped was that shithead got too big for his britches and pissed off 110% of the right people. It had nothing to do with the noble cause of ending genocide, ending genocide was just a happy side effect.
Ending the Holocaust was the right thing to do, but it was only ever a retroactive point for the war against the Nazis. A lot of their political contemporaries either agreed with them or didn’t have the political will to go to war over it. And yeah, anyone paying attention knew what was going on. Maybe the full scope wasn’t well understood until after the war, but plenty of states knew what was happening.
Has anyone ever been executed for not executing people? Iirc even the nazis didn’t do that. Their einzastzgroupen troops were developing ptsd from killing Jews which is why they invented the gas chambers. You are arguing about complete and utterly nonexistent things.
Not that I know of, tbh. I’m sure that the answer to that question can technically be yes; I’m certain that somewhere across all the horrors of human history, it must have happened, but I can’t think of a case I’m aware of.
I think that arguing about justification is a moot point. Anyone can justify anything if they want to, and that goes twice for states. That’s without wading into the quagmire on the question of terrorism, largely for sanity’s sake. Generally, I think it is always correct to resist a state whose objectives include mass murder.
Is that a yes or a no? You either believe that states have the right to kill people they deem terrorists (whether that’s in good faith or bad is irrelevant) or they don’t have that right period.
There is no in-between; if you can’t answer the question or dance around it then what you’ve told everyone is that even you don’t believe in your own logic
I think that states have not a right, but a requirement to kill terrorists in order to guarantee their continued existence. If they don’t, then they no longer have the monopoly on violence, and the odds that a new state will form increase. It’s the same as anything that seeks to kill another thing to further its own existence. Though, I reject your assertion that one must only absolutely agree or disagree that state violence towards terrorists is legitimate, regardless of whether it’s in bad faith. By that logic, if you agree that the police in China may use deadly force to kill a spree murderer, you necessarily agree to the genocide of Palestine. As the Israeli state functionally considers all surrounding peoples, including Palestine, to be terrorists, they would be justified in committing genocide, because the Israeli state is doing it (in bad faith) to stop terrorism.
I also think that people have a much more legitimate right to resist the state than the state has to propagate its continued existence. It’s really down to whose violence you believe is legitimate, and I tend to air on the side of people over states. Were the native American raids against US settlers legitimate violence? Was the US right to kill the native American terrorists? Was the French Resistance to the Nazi occupation legitimate violence? Were the Nazis right to kill the resistance fighters? The Russian empire and the revolutionaries? Israel and Hamas? It’s states acting on their requirement to maintain and exercise the monopoly on violence. It’s just states propagating their own existence, which they always must do or face extinction; so the question becomes, does every state have a right to secure its existence in the way it imagines itself? No, I don’t believe so. It’s going to do it anyway, because that’s what states do, but I don’t think that the state, as a composition of political elements, has an absolute right to execute its will against all others.
Edit: took out the “free of all harassment”. We’re talking about whether the state has the right to kill terrorists, so the natural assumption is that the state in question has already been harassed.
Removed by mod
I saw this post, went away for a minute to formulate a reply, came back and it was gone
Liberalism is ILLEGAL on hexbear
I’m trying to get on as many shit lists as possible. Really get up against that wall, you know?
ah, the “I was being an obtuse shithead on PURPOSE” move, classic
No, more like badly executed self-deprecating humor. I stand by what was deleted. I think accelerationism is like throwing matches at your furniture and yelling “Shazam!” in hopes that it summons a genie instead of burning you to death.
Accelerationism is when people with no power refuse to condone genocide with you, got it
If you have a problem with accelerationism, why not take it up with the people-shaped things of the ruling class who actually have their collective foot on the accelerator?
Michael Richards changed his look
I swear, bro, it’s okay if we kill you, it’s different for us. We read these books that said it was okay for us, those other auths’ books are wrong and they need the bullet. If we just kill a few more people for the right reasons, it’ll totally be okay.
conditional_soup’s position on killing the guards, commanders and executioners of Nazi concentration camps: “No, you can’t do that, it makes you just as bad as them! You have to debate them in the marketplace of ideas while they exterminate millions of Jews, queers and other ‘undesirables.’”
It’s literally comic book logic. Also no one who holds this belief does so sincerely. Ask them about homeless people, addicts and tweakers, and terrorists and what the state is justified in doing.
Many of these people will absolutely defend Nazis but condemn a victim of addiction to brutality and death.
1,000%. Liberals will say they abhor all violence, but then turn blind eyes to the violence that is necessary to maintain our (relatively) safe and comfortable lives in the imperial core. But when the oppressed commit violence against their oppressors, or a powerful force commits violence in behalf of the oppressed, suddenly liberals are shocked and aghast at the brutality of it all!
TC_209’s position on killing Nazis accidentally didn’t align with the party’s. They are put against the wall by a young officer who didn’t pay attention when they read theory in school.
You walked yourself into the position of arguing against killing Nazis at concentration camps. Go home.
Did I? Because I was thinking about how the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany until the latter attacked the former. It was only then that the USSR started giving a shit about killin natzis. Which, in total fairness, was kind of generally true of much of the West at that time. The only reason the Holocaust was stopped was that shithead got too big for his britches and pissed off 110% of the right people. It had nothing to do with the noble cause of ending genocide, ending genocide was just a happy side effect.
Ending the Holocaust was the right thing to do, but it was only ever a retroactive point for the war against the Nazis. A lot of their political contemporaries either agreed with them or didn’t have the political will to go to war over it. And yeah, anyone paying attention knew what was going on. Maybe the full scope wasn’t well understood until after the war, but plenty of states knew what was happening.
Has anyone ever been executed for not executing people? Iirc even the nazis didn’t do that. Their einzastzgroupen troops were developing ptsd from killing Jews which is why they invented the gas chambers. You are arguing about complete and utterly nonexistent things.
Not that I know of, tbh. I’m sure that the answer to that question can technically be yes; I’m certain that somewhere across all the horrors of human history, it must have happened, but I can’t think of a case I’m aware of.
Do you think states are justified in killing terrorists? Yes or no?
I think that arguing about justification is a moot point. Anyone can justify anything if they want to, and that goes twice for states. That’s without wading into the quagmire on the question of terrorism, largely for sanity’s sake. Generally, I think it is always correct to resist a state whose objectives include mass murder.
Is that a yes or a no? You either believe that states have the right to kill people they deem terrorists (whether that’s in good faith or bad is irrelevant) or they don’t have that right period.
There is no in-between; if you can’t answer the question or dance around it then what you’ve told everyone is that even you don’t believe in your own logic
tl;Dr: No, not a right, but an obligation.
I think that states have not a right, but a requirement to kill terrorists in order to guarantee their continued existence. If they don’t, then they no longer have the monopoly on violence, and the odds that a new state will form increase. It’s the same as anything that seeks to kill another thing to further its own existence. Though, I reject your assertion that one must only absolutely agree or disagree that state violence towards terrorists is legitimate, regardless of whether it’s in bad faith. By that logic, if you agree that the police in China may use deadly force to kill a spree murderer, you necessarily agree to the genocide of Palestine. As the Israeli state functionally considers all surrounding peoples, including Palestine, to be terrorists, they would be justified in committing genocide, because the Israeli state is doing it (in bad faith) to stop terrorism.
I also think that people have a much more legitimate right to resist the state than the state has to propagate its continued existence. It’s really down to whose violence you believe is legitimate, and I tend to air on the side of people over states. Were the native American raids against US settlers legitimate violence? Was the US right to kill the native American terrorists? Was the French Resistance to the Nazi occupation legitimate violence? Were the Nazis right to kill the resistance fighters? The Russian empire and the revolutionaries? Israel and Hamas? It’s states acting on their requirement to maintain and exercise the monopoly on violence. It’s just states propagating their own existence, which they always must do or face extinction; so the question becomes, does every state have a right to secure its existence in the way it imagines itself? No, I don’t believe so. It’s going to do it anyway, because that’s what states do, but I don’t think that the state, as a composition of political elements, has an absolute right to execute its will against all others.
Edit: took out the “free of all harassment”. We’re talking about whether the state has the right to kill terrorists, so the natural assumption is that the state in question has already been harassed.
Bro it’s a vegeta meme. Stop taking it seriously.