Progressive Politics

3250 readers

546 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

708

The Nation, oldest progressive newspaper in the US, doesn't pull any punches (www.thenation.com)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Dwazoupp@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech.

That's a nice soundbite.

Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response.

So those are two different things you have right there.

"Op implied that murder was a response to speech" , indeed he got shot because someone thought he deserved it.

"Murder should not be allowed or considered as a response"

This is where is goes off the rails a bit.

OP wasn't saying (or implying) he should have been shot for talking , just that it seems reasonable to assume he had.

"I don't care that this person is dead" isn't the same as "this person deserved to die"

If you can't see how those two things are different i can see why you're struggling.

It shouldn’t be hand waved away like “ah well what did you expect”, or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.

Subjective but you're entitled to your opinion.

"He's dead and the world is a better place overall" is also an opinion to which people are entitled (unless you've been arguing some other kind of free speech? )

And as it seems you are having a hard time with this i'll add the explicit context:

" He's dead and the world is a better place overall ( this doesn't mean i wanted him dead, but i'm not sad that he is ) "

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

You can argue that it's a better place with him gone, but it's a much worse place because it happened and because people are celebrating, because it implies that society accepts murdering people who express differing opinions.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You can argue that it’s a better place with him gone

I wasn't arguing that, but that is my subjective opinion.

but it’s a much worse place because it happened and because people are celebrating

That's more complicated, i partially agree but I'll reserve final judgement for a while to see how it pans out.

because it implies that society accepts murdering people who express differing opinions.

I'm not sure how to tell you this, but open pretty much any historical book of any era and you'll find the same.

I'm not saying it's ideal and each to their own but i am saying i think it's naive to ignore the entire history of humanity (and pre-humanity) and expect this current society to be different for some reason.

A large part of the entire history of our species is built on murdering the "other".

This society and all almost all societies, past and present have accepted/encouraged murdering other groups for stuff and power.

In fact, I'd argue we are better at it than ever.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I agree that it's human nature and always will be. But that doesn't mean it's ok or that we should shrug and say oh well. It means that we need to always be guarding against it and condemning it when it happens. There are times in history where ideological violence has gotten way out of hand, and i believe we can avoid that if we try. And if we instead encourage it then we will have another cultural revolution or holocaust like in China or Russia or Germany.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 6 hours ago

I agree that it’s human nature and always will be. But that doesn’t mean it’s ok or that we should shrug and say oh well.

Agreed.

It means that we need to always be guarding against it and condemning it when it happens.

Agreed, in principle, but i suspect our definitions of what qualifies as "it" will differ greatly.

There are times in history where ideological violence has gotten way out of hand, and i believe we can avoid that if we try.

I think that's naively optimistic, though having it as a goal isn't the worst thing we could be doing.

Also there are times in history where blind optimism has let toxic and harmful ideologies fester and take root.

Think "Paradox of tolerance".

And if we instead encourage it then we will have another cultural revolution or holocaust like in China or Russia or Germany.

That's a hard, giant leap in logic, you'd need to at least have some evidence of direct causation before I'd even consider that as a reasonable line of thought.

But that is only my opinion, with all that entails.