this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
550 points (98.4% liked)
Political Memes
2340 readers
276 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Eh, if the punisher was real I think he would be killing the same people that wear his symbol and that would be beneficial.
This narrative has already been addressed in both the comics, and last Daredevil season.
I think the cons of being okay with murderous vigilantism far outweigh whatever good the vigilante is trying to accomplish.
Yeah, we should roll over and die and not inconvenience the centrists.
False dichotomy.
I disagree. Two words:
Luigi Mangioni
Sure, it's all well and good when the vigilante kills someone you want dead. But we're not talking about whether any particular act of vigilantism is of benefit to society, we're talking about the kind of society you'd wind up with if such vigilantism were considered okay. Because a whole lot more people would be dying, and not all of them would be the people you want dead.
Most of them probably wouldn’t be because the people willing to employ such measures -typically- aren’t the sort of people decent people would agree with on most matters of who deserves what.
Don't worry, that's not your reality, yours is way worse
Silent down vote because you don't understand the reference. You're so disappointing. Your parents lied, you aren't special.
Perhaps. I'm somewhat partial to many worlds.
I 100% agree with your first sentence. That is exactly the reason why I gave the answer of Luigi Mangioni.
That's what I want though. I would rather those who hold a monopoly of violence to go after people I want to be gone after. However, those who hold the monopoly of violence go after people they deem appropriate. If those who hold the monopoly of violence go after people I want I am against vigilantism but if they don't I will support any act of vigilantism that goes after people I want but not acts of vigilantism that don't.
Luigi Mangioni showed me an instance where I supported the ends (retribution against health insurance CEOs) over means (proper monopoly of violence). If you only follow means rather than ends exclusive than those who control the means and choose which means you follow will choose the ends you will arrive at. Why would I give away the ends prematurely and have someone else define it, probably for their own benefit?
What you wrote is not new.
It was written and critiqued for a long time both in Western and Eastern philosophies of statecraft.
See Thomas Hobbes' Laviethan and the Chinese mandate of heaven:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
Vigilantism encompases all non state violence, both organised and anarchy. It includes (un)organised political terrorism (Luigi Mangione) and personal vendettas. You make no distinction between the two in your response.
This is why I agree with the first sentence. To say that all vigilante violence leads to poorer conditions for the poor is wrong. People can agree with a subset of non-state violence and disagree with another subset.