General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 580

kind of ironic that 30 years later indigenous Honduran activists are frequently murdered by a regime backed by the Obama administration eh

 

So, since I already opened up the pacifist can of worms, I'm going to push back a little here. Again, coming from an intense position of privilege, and the benefit of being able to theoretically moralize behind a keyboard and computer screen — and with a stated position up front that I don't find it "acceptable" to kill people pretty much across the board except in very rare and extreme circumstances. I have that privilege in this country and I know that. First with the police, and virtually every power structure in the country, and second with having no power to have to make a decision about foreign targets or weigh any decision of the safety of the populace.

However, one poster made the case for why foreign targets shouldn't be attacked (one, I've made myself), that doing it outside of a trial, indiscriminately, is unjust, that it creates more problems, and a variety of other reasons:

Should these things also not apply to police as well? Changing these questions around just a tad seems to also advocate for not indiscriminately killing anyone in a police uniform. I can understand your point that for someone to believe the killing of one (alleged terrorist abroad) vs the other (police) is incongruent, but I think once taken apart you wouldn't find many that actually believe in every single instance that to be true. I think that @clucky was making an argument that at some times violence will be necessary, I think that's a similar argument you've made in the past. Not that because it's state enacted vs citizen enacted one is accepted vs the other, but that each specific instance needs its own discussion or frame of reference.

Now the side that say's killing someone with a drone strike half way across the world would make the argument that the amount of decision making that goes into killing like that by the state goes through far more scrutiny than violence against police. I don't think that argument holds up very well. However, they do have justifications for why they believe it's more moral to kill in one situation versus the other. I think that you'd make a similar (but opposite) case for why you believe it's more moral in one situation to kill than the other. There's a justification, or moral reasoning, in both cases that ends with someone, presumably, dying.

To quote from Chomsky:

I am not a committed pacifist. I would not hold that it is under all imaginable circumstances wrong to use violence, even though use of violence is in some sense unjust. I believe that one has to estimate relative justices. But the use of violence and the creation of some degree of injustice can only be justified on the basis of the claim and the assessment-which always ought to be undertaken very, very seriously and with a good deal of scepticism that this violence is being exercised because a more just result is going to be achieved.

I can sit back and post news about music bands and not have to make either decision. I understand my privilege in that case, but I don't think it's as binary as has been presented here for the support of taking a life, any life.

 

Michelle is amazing.

 

The Batman joke is good.

 

Ahhhh, Roger

 

They are literal supervillains.

 

Rudy realllllyyyyyy wants that cabinet seat

 

My entire twitter feed is now filled with Alex Jones, bare chested, on a horse. I am not ok with this.

 

I bet their plot would be better than that last James Bond movie at least.

 

what a portly man

 

HIS HEART BEATS WITH RED BLOOD!!!

 

I lost it at the snorting

 

My biggest hope is that those that attached themselves to the Trump train never work in politics again.

 

Trump's ceiling remains as it ever has.

 

Must just be a bad mic.

 

What people/group is he referring to/yelling at?

 

I have no idea, probably "socialists"

Edit: Now that I think about it it's almost certainly ISIS

 

Antonin Scalia and the End of the Supreme Court As We Know It

Is that even possible?

 

Hey there fellow college students

 

As far as i know, yes, and it's something i've thought about. it's pretty horrifying to think about.

 

WTF has that got to do with what you posted? I know it's Trump's campaign manager sharing this but the fact is these kinds of things are still a problem. We shouldn't make it about the stupid Republicans

 

Because she's openly shilling for Trump?

 

I edited my post. But still?

 

So that tweet didn't bother you? That she's pushing the Muslim delegitimization platform further by posting that to justify her boss' hateful agenda?

 

I don't think I understand the question. What does the blatant spread of Islamaphobia by Trump's campaign manager have to do with wanting to rid politics of these people?