Oldie but goodie.

Transcript: Tweet by the SRSLY wrong podcast. Content: “message to my enemies: when the revolution comes you’re not just gonna get the wall, buddy, you’re gonna get four walls, a roof, clean clothes, good food, education, and quality health care because that’s what every human being alive deserves”

  • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Because people who want to target the weak and innocent over the greedy and abusive are the biggest enablers of the world’s problems.

    Considering despite having access to the Internet and all the resources that entails, they still spout such nonsense means they can’t be convinced otherwise through reasoning.

    In other words, for a better world they need to go. They chose the hard way and I’m sick of catering to them as people suffer.

    The better question to ask is will you radicalise before the world is dead?

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      So, who’s gonna decide who’s gonna get shot? How will you avoid a Robbespierre situaion?

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Imagine posting such a meme (and claiming you support anarchism) but being (or acting) completely ignorant of the paradox of tolerance…

        The reason we don’t have human rights for all is because of people with a vested interest in oppressing others and the systems they maintain, and most will never willingly just give up their power (yes, including the power to be one up from the bottom but being able to punch down at another marginalised group, eg immigrants).

        Which is why there is zero room to tolerate bigotry and oppression, nor those who, given a chance to be better, still refuse.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I never claimed I was against self defense. I just refuse to accept the IDF’s definition of the word.

          • DessertStorms@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Have you replied to the wrong person? If not, what the fuck does the IDF’s definition of anything have to do with this conversation?

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Sorry if that flew over your head. I still refuse your premise that I condone the violence of bigots if I don’t support stalinist death squads.

              Defending against a bigot’s violence is self-defense. Executions by death squads aren’t.

              • DessertStorms@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Nothing flew over my head, you’re just trying to muddy the waters.

                I am the farthest thing from a Stalinist, and I am not in support of death squads.

                What I am in support of, as I mentioned in my comment, and knew you would ignore (I went back and highlighted it for you), is giving them plenty of opportunity to stop being bigots (they get them every single day). But when they continue to refuse - meaning they are actively threatening the lives of marginalised people, I am no longer obligated to care for their safety nor tolerate their behaviours, which they openly declare they are willing to kill and die to preserve.

                The fact that you and others here are more concerned for the hypothetical safety of the bigot in this thread than you are for the actual safety of the people they are an active and very real threat to, says it all really. You only support self defence on your terms, but you’re not the one being threatened, so that’s not how it works.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  meaning they are actively threatening the lives of marginalised people, I am no longer obligated to care for their safety nor tolerate their behaviours

                  Yeah. That’s self-defense. I never claimed I was against self-defense (It’s a meme, buddy).

                  The fact that you and others here are more concerned for the hypothetical safety of the bigot

                  Never said anything of the sort. Please stop twisting my words.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          and claiming you support anarchism

          Did you know there is an entire school of anarchism devoted to nonviolence?

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        At the end of the day, it’ll just be the people in charge of whatever band of rebels comes out on top, and whatever local faction of them ends up in power across the country as a result of that. That’s all the founding fathers of the US were. We like to think of them as heroes, but they and their constituents were just the guys who got to choose who was a traitor and who wasn’t. History painted the winners more colorfully than they were, as it always does.

        I’m sure the birth of my country was a terrifying time for anyone who wasn’t squarely proven to be aligned with the revolution, and the same will be true when people have had enough in modern times as well.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          At the end of the day, it’ll just be the people in charge of whatever band of rebels comes out on top

          Yeah, reminds me of why I prefer anarchism, i.e. bottom-up decision making.

    • punkisundead [they/them]@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      You are literally thinking about executing someone because of ONE comment they made and somehow act as if that is going to safe the world. Its just ridiculous.

      I am in no way or form against violent revolution, insurrection, riots, antifascist violence, self defense or plain revenge. But you just said that someone deserved to be executed because of one comment. Idk how a world where this is possible is something worth fighting for and I guess in the end, we wont be on the same side after all.