Have fun glorying in your power fantasies and then doing nothing and grumbling about how you really would have.
P.S. On the very, very slim chance you really are mentally unstable enough to do so, don't kill anyone. It's not going to end well for you or the nation.
I AM a leftist. I'm a socialist (not communist) who believes in systems akin to Scandinavia's. I support Bernie Sanders and policies like universal healthcare, living wages, and a strong social network of supports. What I'm not is a short-sighted violence advocate convinced that they're in a group of untouchable heroes that will save the world via illegal murder and get away with it.
Ok buddy, you kill your way to a safe nation. What's actually going to happen is you'll die or ruin your life, and Trump will get all the proof of radical left terrorism he needs to do things like deploy the military in civilian areas.
To people advocating violence in this thread - let's just ignore the immorality of convincing civilians to assault and kill other civilians. It's clear that premeditated murder is something these folks are unrepentant about if they're sure it's justified. So instead:
<wink>
". For essentially everyone posting this crap, again thankfully, it's just internet power fantasies and hoping someone impressionable commits the crime and takes the consequences.I'm not defending fascist trash like Fuentes, but I am opposing these calls for angry internet "warriors" to start killing. Instead of telling everyone to murder their fellow citizens, how about protesting and visibly showing support for the women and minorities being targeted? How about making sure every American knows about measures like Gavin Newsom "Trump-proofing" California, or all the people and states already setting up legal challenges to things like mass deportations. What about making sure people know the Pentagon is furiously planning to resist and delay controversial orders? I assure you the Pentagon, state authorities and civil liberties organizations have far more effective and legal plans than angry Lemmy users convinced they're going to punch and kill their way to a safe nation.
Nazis deserve nothing but bullets to the head
I thought you just wanted him afraid? Sounds like you too actually want him literally killed without charge or trial - good thing you don't consider it worth the drive since the most likely outcomes are you die or ruin your life. And spur revenge violence either way when people turn him into a martyr. Fuentes is an awful human being for advocating terrible things, don't be like him but just on an opposite side. Thanks for a quote to add to my main post that really illustrates people actually wanting violence and not just "innocent" doxing btw.
Nothing? I addressed and rebutted your argument that your "there’s not a lot that wouldn’t be justifiable if necessary" (aka killing Fuentes) would prevent "tens of millions of deaths". You seem to think "killing mouthpieces" is going to be some magical event that makes hateful people reconsider (as opposed to spurring them to violence of their own). Also, I'd like to add it's ridiculous hyperbole - 3.8 million people are estimated to have died in the 20 years of the Vietnam war. Just over 900k died to violence in all the post 9-11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Finally, even if you don't care about going to prison or dying, hopefully others reading will.
You go ahead and be "guided by morality not legality" while you do try to convince others extrajudicial violence is alright. All because you believe killing people outside the law, and getting people killed in return, is productive if you're sure it's right. You use the example of cops carrying guns, but they're not under license to kill everyone they disagree with nor is it considered moral (since you don't care about legality). Can you imagine if your example cops were guided by your principles, ignored law, and killed everyone they suspected might be a dangerous criminal on the chance it would reduce suffering? I'm thankful you're almost certainly all talk, and let's hope no one else listens to your posts about "silencing mouthpieces" and "making it dangerous". That's a recipe for mass violence, lawlessness, and associated suffering.
Violence should be a last resort, used only within bounds that keep if from being a crime/war crime, and definitely not exercised by everyone at will if they're pretty sure it's productive.
Maybe you just want him to stew. But the whole point of my post is that people providing the specific examples I give don't just want him doxed or even just protested - they're actually calling for violence or murder. I don't like Fuentes, and I'm not defending him as a person AT ALL. It took 3 minutes of looking up who he was to be disgusted by him. That doesn't justify the blatantly illegal violence people are pushing for. Most of the big talkers will never do a damn thing either, which is actually a good thing because the most likely outcomes are they die or ruin their lives. I just hope their posts about teaching Nazis via violence don't get someone more impressionable to ruin their life.
It's insane to think killing Fuentes is going to prevent tens of millions of deaths. For starters, even a lot of Republicans want little or nothing to do with him. 2nd, if he is so dangerous, do you think his followers (who you argue are capable of killing many millions) are just going to throw up their hands at his death and go "whelp, that finishes it for us"? They'll become more hateful, and much more likely to become violent in return.
What you are pushing for is also very illegal. If you ever stop talking big and start doing, the most likely outcomes are you die or ruin your life. I'd say put up or shut up, but please don't - vigilantism is wrong and I don't want to see deaths or you and others suffering the outcomes even if I disagree with you. Worse, posts like yours might convince someone impressionable or less mentally stable to attack Fuentes and ruin their life instead because folks like you got angry. Plus the whole cascade of violence or even revenge killings situation.
The tolerance paradox is the idea that the one thing tolerant people cannot tolerate is intolerance. Doing so allows intolerance to take root and potentially win because it's unopposed. Which I agree with. Where I split from some people in this and other threads is I don't believe that not tolerating intolerance = killing those you consider intolerant. I know you only said punching, but if people start beating people en masse (and a lot of people are considered Nazis nowadays) it's going to escalate very quickly. Plus some are already calling for more than punching.
So instead of opposing them legally, you want to jump straight to violence? I guarantee that will make a martyr out of Fuentes, give Trumpers evidence about how "the enemy within" is dangerous and destructive, and lead to people you support and care about being killed in return.
Telling people to use violence first is not a plan for a safe nation, and it's very illegal as well. If you ever stop talking big on a forum and actually commit the violence you push for others to do be prepared to spend the rest of your life in prison, and rightfully so. Even worse, someone mentally unstable might read all these posts and go do it themselves and ruin their life. In no way is that the ethical choice, even if you are personally convinced it's worth it.
Violence should be a last choice, it should be kept within bounds that prevent it from being a crime/war crime, and should never be done by whoever is angry enough to kill people identified as dangerous by an internet forum.
Yeah, I've proven to be a real fan of Fuentes in other parts of this thread... Take off with the insults and assumptions. You think someone like Bernie Sanders is going to tell his followers to kill Fuentes? I guess he's a fascist too huh? Here's what I actually oppose - blatantly illegal mob justice. Fuentes is a bastard, but that doesn't justify some angry internet dude committing an act of premeditated murder. Are you going to kill everyone with an ideology you consider dangerous? While convinced it's to prevent suffering no less. What about when, if Fuentes dies because of things he says, the right makes him a martyr and example of how dangerous "the enemy within" is making America? What if the fellow countrymen who you so hate start killing you and people you support/care about in return? Is that your plan for a safe nation?
It's taken like 4 days post-election for people to escalate to calling for violence against people they've identified as Nazis. All in the name of ethics no less. I can empathize with the anger and feeling of helplessness. It's still ridiculous and heart-breaking that less than a week after a loss there's hundreds of upvotes for people pushing extrajudicial cold-blooded murder and violence in the name of righteousness. Unrepentantly so I might add.
P.S. Don't tell me the folks hinting at this crap aren't talking about murder. Even if, and that's a big if, they only meant beatings or the like (still illegal) that would degenerate into lethal violence basically immediately. You personally have already said you don't want to use words alone.
Amen. Defy the urge to race to the bottom, even if it's borne out of genuine, understandable grief and frustration.
If you're in the wrong place, I'm here with you. There are ways to deal with people that aren't dehumanization and vigilante mob justice. We're 4 days past the election. I think we need to see if society can pull through and avert disaster with less escalation and violence.
E.g. there are a lot of legal challenges being prepared for the militarized internment camps that Trump campaigned on. Also, the things he promised are simply outside the logistical scope of agencies to provide. "For one, it’s entirely impractical from an operational standpoint. The law enforcement capacity needed to both secure the border and carry out mass raids in the interior of the US simply does not exist."
Maybe things will get bad enough in the US to justify a civil war or something similar. It's happened before (although even then it wasn't just whoever felt violent killing each other - it was war with rules). Or maybe things like legal challenges, impossible scope, and half the nation's disapproval will keep it from getting to that point. I'd like to keep extrajudicial violence off the table until we know.
Sorry about the length, it's a detailed subject. First, thank you for talking to me in good faith - that means a lot to me. I'm trying to make good faith arguments. It's really difficult to give a hard line about where violence is just because I'm sure ambiguity exists.
Disingenuous. The Lemmy users supporting doxing him aren't leaving it at that. They aren't even suggesting just protesting his house or otherwise acting legally. From the thread where he's doxed:
In this thread:
Do you believe all those quotes are advocating legal things? We're 4 days past the election and people are already talking vigilante violence.
Edit: Any pretense is gone and people are unrepentantly cheering for Fuentes to be assaulted, killed, his house lit on fire, and so on. It's all over the responses. So yeah, "it's just doxing, why are you guys opposed?" is disingenuous. The post I'm responding to would read "It's just killing people to stop the killing of people" if it was representative of the actual opinions here.
I'm going down in flames with you if need be. Wrong is wrong.
I can see scenarios where violence becomes necessary, but not as vigilantes and it should be at the very end of the list.
Man, some of the takes here make me sad. Thanks to those who upvoted the idea that ethics don't change when someone is sure they're right in ignoring them "this time". I want to be clear - I'm not painting all or even most Lemmy users with this brush. However, what I'm seeing lately is such a disconnect to me:
This election broke people, and I really don't like how readily some who claim to be ethical are supporting hate speech by way of dehumanization. If Trump had lost and his followers were saying similar things but pointed it at "woke leftists" or "communists", you all would be incredibly upset (rightfully so). Even though the Trumpers saying those things would truly think they were saving their country, the way some people here seem to think they are.
I don't know if he coined the phrase, but he's one of the first. "Nick Fuentes, an influential white nationalist podcaster, appears to be one of the early instigators in promoting the phrase on November 5. His X post, “Your body, my choice. Forever.” has since received 35 million views."
No worries, I'm Canadian and I had to look it up. Nick Fuentes is one of the online bastards preaching open hatred. "Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American far-right political pundit and live streamer who promotes white supremacist, misogynistic, and antisemitic views." Apparently he's so vile even other extremist Republicans are torn about associations with him - more in that article.
Stalin as an example of a Western Fascist is ludicrously off the mark. Look up Fascism vs. Communism, and read about Hitler's relationship with Stalin - "Though they never met or even spoke, Hitler and Stalin loathed each other on political grounds. Both men hoped to buy time to prepare for the future Nazi-Soviet war they knew was inevitable." Mussolini's revolution killing tens of millions? You need to retake history and politics my dude.
As for Hitler, the numbers you are talking about aren't his takeover of Germany - they're WW2. Unless your argument is that killing Fuentes/other social media personalities is going to stop WW3 (and I have no idea what group of nations you think are going to full-blown war with the US because of Fuentes/others) you need to stop using "tens of millions" for harm prevention by "silencing" these dudes. It is, indeed, hyperbole.
Cops: You are are saying, over and over, that killing people to stop suffering is right. You are absolutely talking about killing people who are SAYING things you don't like. Fuentes is not an active shooter - I can't even find a criminal record for him of any kind. I can read what you write. "You kill the Nazi leader to stop the minorities getting murdered" - you want people you have decided are dangerous to die now to prevent possible future harm. Exactly what I wrote.
Whatever, I'm not going to challenge your morality anymore - it's clear you think you have a right to declare when someone deserves to die. You've made it clear you don't care about laws. I wrote a post hours ago that ignores morality completely (and most of legality) about the likely actual consequences of the vigilante war you and others are proposing. It's near the top of this thread if you want to read it.