Wow, someone who eats bricks really would talk like that. Well done.
Oh also,
“The law is the survival of the fittest… The law is not the survival of the ‘better’ or the ‘stronger,’ if we give to those words any thing like their ordinary meanings. It is the survival of those which are constitutionally fittest to thrive under the conditions in which they are placed; and very often that which, humanly speaking, is inferiority, causes the survival.”
Seems like you’d agree with this, right?
No, it fucking isn’t. Please, generate a source that shows that more Nazis are stopped by being told they were wrong the whole time (they didn’t know, you see, they thought everyone was having happy fun time) than by being forced to stop. How many people do you think they’d need to kill in the meantime before that is no longer more “powerful?”
I also love how you think you seem thoughtful for referencing rights of the state to take life, as though you give a shit about that either, to defend against killing these men when you’re looking at an image that includes some of the most powerful individuals in this system. How fucking unreal to suggest that you can even make that “tough call,” for people you have no right making a call for at all, and then act like you’re even thinking about them by saying the system they were victimized by shouldn’t have the right to kill the people who are complicit in the violence that effects these victims. Nobody’s even talking about that, because that wouldn’t even be on the board by the very nature of the violence that these men committed and how.
lmao, could you imagine, not having your “rights” respected? You’re so thoughtless and complicit it’s fucking sickening. I won’t be interacting with you again.
“I don’t personally so I maintain what I personally consider to be a better outcome for the world in my mind.”
Stop acting like you’ve both thought this through deeply and aren’t responsible for the consequences of what you advocate for. This is not some fucking opinion on a movie or video game, you are talking about real people who contributed to real violence within a real system that requires that violence to exist and rewarded them for facilitating it. Yes, when you sit here and act as though Nazi reform is more important than whatever their victims want, you are advocating for a way of thinking that correlates with actions that just so happen to devalue the harm done to victims of racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, queerphobia. It does not matter what would be best if we had a thousand years without capitalism or settler-colonialism to reform these men with, we don’t have that and never will. We do have the consequences of their actions, and the people it affects.
Stop hiding around “my personal opinion” or the notion that you’re somehow even remotely concerned about benefitting others, you aren’t concerned, but you are responsible for what you say.
Oh yeah, why aren’t all fascists dead then?
Yes, you are when you say that wishing death is different from wanting perpetrators to change. Even then, this assumes that their changing would be enough for their victims to feel that justice has been done, but again, you don’t care about them. And now there’s no difference so long as the victim can’t personally deliver that justice by killing these men? Wow, how convenient, it’s almost like that way of thinking would mean that they’re responsible to end that harm to be justified in wishing death on these men rather than change.
That your response was to attempt some bullshit first year mind-body problem argument is telling too. You seriously dont give a shit about why these men are bad or how their victims feel, you just saw an opportunity to flex some fantasy morally pure version of yourself. You feel right about that as long as you can be moral about forgiving some monster who didn’t hurt you, is now dead, and therefore can never challenge your stance on them? Nice, yeah dude, you’re so dedicated to the greater good, and morality or reform, or whatever you don’t have to actually change yourself to do.
Go look up Herbert Spencer bud.
Edit: just so this is clear, if you ever thought “survival of the fittest” is a natural selection term coined by Darwin, guess where your understanding comes from. You ivermectin chugging chud.
Right, you ever have your finger nails peeled off with some pliers? What about having your bones broken and purposefully misaligned over and over for months? Or have you spent days forcefully conscious and alert on meth despite having so many parts of your body cut and peeled off that you should have gone into shock and passed out within minutes? No, many people would not choose that over therapy; men, maybe, lol
Another news flash for you: you are a physical thing that exists in a physical world. Physical pain is not “simple,” it is literally the only sensation you experience, including the way that emotional pain manifests because of the neurons firing in your brain. I seriously don’t believe in you’ve grappled with the reality of these things and you don’t deserve to speak as the authority you seem to think you are. You don’t have some deeper, more nuanced understanding of these things, you are being reductive in an attempt to appear thoughtful, and it’s actually so fucking disrespectful to the victims of these men. I wasn’t even going to write this but my god, how self-righteous and pompous.
Y’all always love eugenics jokes. And like always, before you get pissed about me telling you that this is a eugenics joke, yes, equating evolution with intelligence is reliant on eugenicist notions of natural human ability and evolution as a process that picks out the “bad” or “weak” elements of a species.
Darwinism is a concept that only refers to how traits are passed on through physical reproduction, not what normative values those traits have in terms of “good” or “bad.” What you’re referring to is more akin to social-Darwinism, which was a pseudoscientific concept that emerged in the late-nineteenth century as a catch-all rationalization of social inequities along the lines of arbitrary social values like industriousness, naturalized class, racism, ableism, etc.
Unsurprisingly, it was popular among Nazis. I hope you understand the irony in applying it here to make fun of a person who subscribes to an anti-science concept promoted by fascists.
Edit: and there you are, predictably pissed, as chuds often are. Seriously, this is one thing libs on here get extremely upset about because of how it reveals their inherently fascist tendencies. Y’all pride yourselves on being smarter than these people, but won’t spend more than a minute to consider whether you’re right to subscribe to your understanding of things. I know none of you looked up what I just talked about, because it is so demonstrably true that this way of thinking descends from bigotted intellectuals and relies on bigoted worldviews to make sense that you’d shut up if you did.
I think the morality here is fine, but you’re ignoring the reality of the harm that these people cause when you act like wishing death upon them is inherently immoral and contradictory to the belief that human beings are capable of and bettered by change.
Whether or not these things are true, these people are not going to change, either because they’re dead and the damage is done, or because there is nothing that will force them to stop what they’re doing besides that death. You’re talking about people who advocate and facilitate genocide on the scale of millions, billions if you recognize the potential harm from climate change and their roles in defending capitalism against climate change mitigation. Yes, I wish death on them, because that cannot continue but will continue so long as this system exists and this system exists to maintain their positions of power. These people want to kill me personally (Charlie Kirk literally advocated for my genocide until his dying breath), and millions of others whom are also justified in prefering them dead over reformed. I don’t care about an altruistically “ultimate” punishment, I care about not being killed brutally for no reason at all, and that doesn’t require me to sacrifice the ideal that people can change.
Focusing on the idealistic underpinnings of these things exclusively is a tremendous sign of privilege as person who is not immediately affected by the actions that these men committed themselves to. Guess what, they won’t repent or recognize their actions, not because of their “weak egos,” but because this system privileges them and insulates them from the consequences of their actions and any retribution that may be inflicted on them as a symbolic challenge to this system. These men would rather die than change or lose that privilege, and they’re killing on scales our brains can’t even actually comprehend for much less than that. To act as though it is a sign of altruism yourself to value moral purity over the practical reality that their violence is only ended through their deaths is much more selfish than you seem to realize. Even further, I don’t think you get to pick the ultimate punishment for someone who apparently hasn’t threatened you the way they do me or the victims of their genocide. I don’t care about punishment at all, but I certainly wouldn’t refuse death or violence as a punishment to someone whose entire family was killed by these men, or whose ancestral home was uprooted and poisoned, or whose children have to live scared their entire lives, or who was raped as a child and then publicly shamed for resisting them.
Maybe apply some of that purported empathy to an understanding that the moral purity of some fucking powerful men is not more important than the victims of their violence or the justice they seek. And before you say some other shit about how you know better for the satisfaction of those victims, consider that they may never be able to heal until that desire for punishment is satisfied, and then explain why their healing is less important than these men healing from “evil.”
Edit: This guy is a terrific example of how liberals will weaponize “morality” selectively to harm vulnerable groups. This is a person who does not view fascism or systemic violence as a problem, do not take their stance as coming from any genuine place of empathy or desire for the greater good.
This whole “elites” talk is a very convenient way to redirect systemic criticism toward individualized justice and action. Liberals respond positively to these narratives as it presents a system that is functional save for the few naughty ne’re-do-wells who are intentionally making it worse.
The reason why ownership is threatened is because the material limitations of production are quickly confining an economic system that relies on infinite, progressive growth to exist. Yes, ownership is “dangerous” to this system in that it presents a potential endpoint of profit when the product has been purchased once and never again, as opposed to an ongoing revenue stream, but the control is incidental to the digital age, not emergent from it. What this meme refers to is “debt,” which has always been used under capitalism as a form of control, but ownership remains a concept as it always has. You do legally own a license to that service, the same way you own a license to your electricity, water, and internet services, and because of that precedent, access to a thing qualifies as an ownership in of its own. All ownership is arbitrary, since it isn’t actually a real thing, which means pathologizing one arbitrary form of ownership over the other inevitably validates the concept of ownership at all, which was the root problem.
Also, I can’t help but scoff at the proliferation of this kind of discourse now that middle-class people’s toys are getting more expensive. Material insecurity and rent seeking certainly functions in this system in the way described above, and that insecurity has been intentionally inflicted on marginalized and vulnerable groups historically, but that isn’t why they’re doing it to middle-class and above property owners who have a vested material interest in maintaining this system anyway. It’s just a consequence of the unreality of capitalism as there is not actually an infinitely continuous material world to draw from and create new commodity demands through. They need profit streams for this system to continue, so they eat into the product itself and commodify elements of it to create those streams.
I’m glad more privileged people are finally talking about this, but it’s important to remember that they will also subscribe to narratives that reproduce as much of their way of life as possible while addressing the perceived injustice they’ve now experienced. “Elites” as some vague, disembodied benefactors of this system neglects the reality that yes, your middle-class parents and their suburban home on dispossessed indigenous property bought through materials and labour extracted from colonized spaces in the global south are also “elites,” in that they benefit from the way this system is organized and distributes material necessities. Be careful about accepting populist narratives that will inevitably reproduce the inequities and violence of this system which will inevitably result in the power and wealth disparity this meme references as the real cause of society’s problems.
Yeah, libs have been slipping on the eco-fascism like a pair of custom-made shoes.
When you make a joke, you must accept the risk – and honestly, inevitability – of it not being funny. Refusing to accept this risk is what makes so many “comedians” into insecure shills.
The ol’bot excuse. As though you could get those things to actually criticize the shit libs like you you say. Don’t comment if you don’t want to eat shit.
Yeah sure dude, you’re so chill.
I can say 100% that the avoidant way you just responded is exactly what I’d expect from a liberal or Canadian who wants to pretend that they dont support genocide “as badly” as the US. Spineless.
Yup, that is what the whooooole comment is about.
Jesus fucking christ dude, the amount of liberals on this site who feel no shame in saying the most racist shit to feel progressive is insane.
What the fuck does that mean, that Canada is five years behind? They exist on the same fucking planet, in the same system, on the same continent. There is no “well, France is Germany from the 1980s you see, on account of there being differences in rhetoric,” because it’s fucking stupid to act like that is what differentiates states. The only purpose in making the distinction you’re trying to make is to obscure the commonality between these states and therefore the specificity of their tactics based on the groups they target. No, Canada is not some “gentler” version of the United States, its tactics of racism and genocide differ due to its population and political conditions, to act like it is because they’re “nicer” is fucking racist.
You just fucking did that when you said starlight tours were inflicted on “marginalized people,” when no, they were specifically directed at indigenous people. It is racist to suggest that this and lynchings against black men in the US south are equivalent, as the circumstances under which they happened were distinct despite both groups being racialized. And guess what, Chattel slavery existed in Canada too, Canadians attended minstrel shows, Canadians segregated businesses, and Canadians continue to be racist against African American and other black groups in the country. Just because plantations and a slave-based economy did not emerge in Canada, that does not mean Canadians are magically inocculated from those racist perceptions, which means you should not take the absence of lynching as a sign of some sort of value in social justice. When you act like racism targets all groups equally, you’re reducing it to “when you’re bad to non-white people,” which functions to obscure the actual purpose that this system uses racism for.
Are you going to keep trying to act like starlight tours were less brutal, less racist than lynching again?
Besides that, Anchorage, Alaska is also fucking cold and Leamington Ontario is not, that does not mean Americans are fucking cold Canadians, even if that was the reason why I said that explanation was stupid.
No, stop trying to minimize it. Canada is a settler-colonial state, which means it is fundamentally genocidal. The state has supported US imperialism for the better part of a century now, and quite literally finances genocide all over the goddamn world.
Stop with the fucking millennial-core bullshit about the sorry moose syrup or whatever the fuck, no, they’re not just “colder Americans,” they’re Americans. Canada and the US are two white settler states that span the continent with unprotected borders, they’re culturally and politically aligned by merit of their shared interest in white supremacy and capitalistic extraction. Canadians differ only regionally in the same way there’s differences between fucking Texas and Minnesota. The notion that there is somehow only two cultures across this expanse of differing material conditions accepts the imperialist assertion that the settler state can dictate the national identities and cultural norms of the spaces they dominate. These states do not fucking own the space they violently enforce their will over.
I know these people, Canadians are not fucking polite, they’re privileged rule followers. I fucking hate Canada the way I hate the United States, both need to end as all imperialist systems do.
Ma’am, she was talking 'bout burgers.