killing a man in a debate is 100% evil and one of the most fascist things ever happend in America
1 week ago | 62
I'm a 35 year old man, I have a 5 year old kid, bills to pay, it cost over $100 to just leave my house, and I have to go into work tonight. I can't pretend to remotely care about what happened to a random political enfluincer I've never even met. Make no excuse, our corrupt overlords are salivating over how they can spin this This isn't the left vs the right, it's the rich vs the poor...
1 week ago | 68
When Violence and politics mix they will start an almost unending cycle good luck america your Freedom is turning to madness
2 weeks ago | 112
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
1 week ago | 25
An eye for an eye is a lot deeper than it seems. It mostly speaks of proper response, measured action. If someone uses violence against you, it may be your only proper response. More importantly, it also makes it obvious that if you feel the need to fight an idea, you do it with another idea. An eye for an eye, words for words, act in accordance. Now that people spend their lives online, many have become so detached from reality they now seem to think that taking a life because of spoken words is fine. It makes sense to them, to equate what's being said to horrible action, although never happened, they act as if so. Pure illness
1 week ago | 14
Many revolutions that we regard as vastly improving things were done with violence. In principle, you should try to avoid it at all cost, but if there's no other way to end mass opression it becomes justifiable. And here comes the difficult part: "how do you determine if what you're dealing with is real opression or not?". You just need real understanding for that, and not impulsive reactions that we so often see today. But for the sake of simplicity you can just assume that violence is always wrong and you'd be right about 90% of the time.
2 weeks ago | 63
The Intolerance Paradox. The only way to create a tolerant society is to be intolerant of intolerance. Sometimes that means violence. It's also always acceptable to protect others
1 week ago | 85
Define "threat". If by threat you mean someone has a weapon to me or my family, then I can justify meeting violence with violence. If by threat you mean "Waaa you said something I didn't like" then no.
1 week ago | 1
Luigi mangione was justified, Charlie Kirk's killer was not. Brian Thompson's responsible for the deaths of many just because it was too expensive for them to live. Charlie Kirk just had shitty opinions
2 weeks ago | 46
All I can say is, if violence is your first thought and/or chief goal against someone who offends you, you need self-control.
1 week ago | 3
Context is crucial, and violence should be the last tool we use to achieve any means, but I will use it if all other options have been exhausted and the alternatives are too negative by my estimation, at least on an individual level.
2 weeks ago | 18
the US government uses violence every day to get what it wants, whether that’s bombing another country, interfering with international elections or starting wars. its interesting that this shooking has been condemned by almost all US politicians, but they are the same people allowing children to die in schools, civilians to die in wars to further their own agendas etc ect. seems to me that they like violence when they get what they want out of it
1 week ago | 28
This poll and these comments reveal why only 144,000 will be taken up. This world is so morally skewed.
1 week ago | 3
I’d say context matters. But I also think that assassinations like that are just bad.
2 weeks ago | 25
The issue I have with the second one is that people do genuinely believe Kirk was somehow a great threat that could only have been dealt with this way. There are people who have convinced themselves that even the mild activist is deserving of death due to some assumed threat they pose.
2 weeks ago | 76
Only to DESTROY Evil, total annihilation, with the foreknowledge that Evil will birth again. Evil's source is not material
1 week ago | 1
No, he should have been put in prison for telling people to bail the guy who hit Paul Pelosi with a hammer out, but shooting him does not achieve any good. If anything it will radicalize people to the far right. I do think that it's bad that this happened, but I am also frustrated that this is all that's being talked about considering there was a school shooting at the same time. The media cares about public figures more than children.
1 week ago | 6
I vote that America keeps their evil in America. The rest of us are sick of hearing about it.
1 week ago | 0
Aperture
Is violence justifiable? In the wake of the Charlie Kirk shooting, an act that has rattled political discourse, does violence ever become a legitimate means to achieve moral or political ends? Which of these statements comes closest to your view? Vote and explain your answer below.
2 weeks ago | [YT] | 236