You must log in or # to comment.
Because I can’t afford to even travelbfar enough to give them a visit, for starters.
Cycles of violence.
The price of empire
The oppressors are well armed and well organized through the time and battle tested bureaucratic institutions of the state
Shouldn’t, not can’t (at least not with that attitude)
There’s a reason it’s pushed so hard, and it’s because people in power don’t want to lose the golden goose that is American apathy. They can oppress us as much as they want, and we think having the moral superiority of taking it on the chin makes us strong. It doesn’t.
deleted by creator
True, the guy who killed Hitler was basically Hitler himself.
I hate this trope, such unoriginal writing
It’s Cold War propaganda.
Literally “Animal Farm” in a single sentence.
The good version of this is in Transformers One.
spoilers
Orion Pax and D-16 just lead a revolution to overthrow the state, and are deciding what to do with the old head of state. D-16 wants to kill him and burn this motherfucker to the ground. But Orion reminds him that they’re creating a new government with their actions right now, and they need to embody the principles they want to see. D-16 doesn’t want to hear it because he’s angry. Orion gets in the way, and D-16 shoots him.
And that’s how Orion Pax gets the Matrix of Leadership and becomes Optimus Prime. By thinking about the future and what sort of world his actions are creating.
It’s the difference between defense and vengeance. In Transformers One they had already defeated the big bad and had the support of the other transformers, so killing him then was an unnecessary act of revenge. It’s different when you’re still fighting and the big bad’s death could make a difference in the outcome.
Counterpoint:
He’s interacted with the trolly, now he’s responsible for the one death and must be punished accordingly
Historically, almost all social progress has come from stopping before you kill your oppressor and making him reorganize the system in a way that works better. Just killing the oppressor usually only gives you another one a short while later.
Also historically, a small minority of oppressors ever accepted a truce where they reorganize the system. And killing the ones that didn’t let people run the dice again with a new one.
Historically, Europeans aren’t very interested in reorganizing their slave colonies until you start beheading them
If we’re fine with resorting to violence to get what we want, we’re no better than them. If you kill a murderer, the number of murderers in the world remains the same…
BUT, this doesn’t mean we should never, ever resort to force as a final, last, desperate act, but only when there’s no other option.
As with Batman, the number only remains the same if you only kill one murderer. Kill two, and that’s a net positive!
What Gotham really needs is safety bars around acid pools and more than one licensed therapist, preferably one that doesn’t turn into a manic pixie dream clown
It’s hard to argue with that!
I dunno man, killing a genocidal maniac makes someone a hero in my book.
I’d say we throw that hypothetical person a parade. During which, they are presented with various awards, and accolades. Definitely an honorary doctorate somewhere too. We would then of course need to nominate that person for a Nobel peace prize—and I’d bet they’d win.
we’re no better than them.
The slave doesn’t want to be better than the slaver, they want to be free.
If you kill a murderer, the number of murderers in the world remains the same…
Lmfao, you really cannot be serious with this kind of reasoning, right?
If you are serious, here’s an equally as ingenuous counter argument:
- If you kill two murderers or more you will have effectively reduced the number of murderers in the world…
There’s an argument that murder is unlawful killing of another human. If ending the life of a murderer is done lawfully, the number is m-1.
I am not claiming that I support this theory, just putting it into the discourse as a thing that some folks could easily believe.
Also, it’s semantics as the argument you’re making still perfectly holds if the word murderer is swapped for ‘killer’
