this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
1353 points (97.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36158 readers
644 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The difference is no one is cheering on school shooters. Luigi did what he did for a good reason. He is not crazy, or evil like a school shooter

I'm saddened there haven't been copycats yet. Hopefully that means people are just taking their time in planning like Luigi did.

People can learn from his mistakes and maybe the next one will get away.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

So it's okay because you like it?

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Is it okay to support Ukraine shooting Russians?

Violence is inherent in our systems. Violence is inherent in politics. States are literally founded and upheld through violence (the military and the police). Believing anything else is just closing your eyes to the violence that happens every single day, and making you powerless against injustice.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not denying that. I'm pointing out that we choose when it's okay to glorify violence. Denying that this glorifies violence denies that we choose when it's legitimate. It covers that choice up with a screen that says this is violence and that's not violence.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

because you like it

we choose when it's legitimate

I might be inferring the wrong thing here, but do you believe that human rights exist?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Yes, it's not an incompatible theory. The Harm principle for example is all about balancing one person's rights with another. Or put another way, choosing when violence is legitimate.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just because you can't tell the difference between this guy and a school shooter doesn't mean other people can't, or that the distinction is arbitrary. This guy killed more Americans than Bin Laden and his death was celebrated.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Fucking team politics. Just because I'm challenging how you view the world does not mean I'm on the other team.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I understand what you're saying. The answer is yes, we choose when violence is justified.

Lemmy doesn't do well with nuanced discussion. The communication dilemma present is the lack of the bridge between where one party in the discussion wants to continue narrowing the parameters of discussion until we are left with a binary choice (the quantum side of discussion) and the other party wants to keep the discussion broad and cognizant of all the variables (the general relativity side of discussion).

Both sides have valid reasons for existing. Usually you do have to narrow parameters in order to actually come up with a solution or action to implement. Similarly to how in a valid experiment you attempt to control all variables except what you're testing. But you also have to be aware of all the variables in the first place to adequately control them.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And from what I've seen, narrowing it to glorifying violence is nothing more than an attempt to terminate the discussion altogether.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, that may be true. Some people have their minds made up and they somehow think any further discussion is somehow a weakening of their position or something like that.

I like to think that any fear of discussion simply means you're afraid your reasons aren't sound and you don't want to question the reality that you may be acting on emotions rather than reason. I think you can definitely have this discussion rationally and still end up supporting what happened.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Oh I know you can have this conversation rationally and come out supporting the shooter.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That was a serious question. If things are okay just because we like them and not okay just because we don't then what kind of morals are acting on? Yeah it came because I was frustrated that people can't seem to get off trying to evade the idea of glorification. But it's still serious, if your knee jerk reaction is to say it's not a glorification because it's justified then you run a real risk that vigilantism is only part of. Authoritarian states work the same way.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If things are okay just because we like them and not okay just because we don’t

That's not the situation, nor what anyone is asserting. Who are you talking to?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I see that all over this thread and this issue.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No because it was warranted and deserved. Take a look around, this is not an edgy opinion. The majority of Americans feel the way I do, why is that?

I am one of the most non-violent people. I've never struck a person in 35 years of life. The only time violence is warranted is when it is a response to violence. Social murder warrants actual murder. Tens of thousands dead vs one CEO dead. You are crying about the wrong death

From just above. Literally the person who made me ask that question. And sure enough it's a call to mob violence while maintaining they are non violent. This is how this shit gets out of hand.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

None of that amounts to this:

If things are okay just because we like them and not okay just because we don’t then what kind of morals are acting on?

The reasons this was justifiable have been explained to you ad nauseum. You insist on pretending like its an arbitrary whim despite that. Do you cry every time a drug cartel kingpin gets shot?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They literally appealed to the band wagon and a nebulous concept of "social murder".

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You absolutely suck at articulating a point. Here, let me do it for you: the problem with vigilante justice is that the lack of a process around who gets got means that eventually someone is going to kill someone who didn't deserve it. While Brian Thompson was a worthless parasite who literally thrived based on how much he could increase human suffering, the answer is to reform the systems that allow him to exist, rather than calling for random people to take matters entirely into their own hands and kill whomever they deem unworthy of life. The answer is to bring genuine health care reform into the democratic realm and get to a point where health insurance companies that have a direct profit-motive to deny as many claims as possible either do not exist, or are regulated to within an inch of their lives.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That's a great point but if you look at some of my other comments here, it's not the one I'm making. I am against mob violence. But by articulating our limits we can also limit the possibility that this spills over into higher level mob violence that targets the hated person of the day.

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No because it was warranted and deserved. Take a look around, this is not an edgy opinion. The majority of Americans feel the way I do, why is that?

I am one of the most non-violent people. I've never struck a person in 35 years of life.
The only time violence is warranted is when it is a response to violence. Social murder warrants actual murder. Tens of thousands dead vs one CEO dead. You are crying about the wrong death

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're confusing 60 percent support for healthcare reform with 60 percent support for murder. Off the internet this is a highly contentious act.

You cannot be non-violent and pro-murder. That's incompatible.

I haven't once said the murder was a bad thing. You've just been assuming that because I'm out here challenging your ideas about yourself. You need a better internal guide than, that felt good unless you're really lying to yourself and you're hoping for mob violence. You need a strict guide as to when it's permissible. The first step to doing that is to admit that you are glorifying a violent act.

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Lethal injections are non-violent murder....

I wish Luigi had another tactic to use, but we know the legal system will not serve the individual over the half-trillion dollar company.

The system has made violence the only option. I don't glorify the violence itself, I glorify ending the life of a man who led a company whose denials kill 40 people per day. If anything Luigi acted in self defense, and in defense of the American people.

HERO