When someone intends to enslave or kill you, your family, or your friends. If they try to strip you of your rights and otherwise destroy your society and way of life, then killing them is not murder. It’s self defense.
Comment on For No Reason in Particular Here's a Bunch of Games Where You Kill Nazis
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 days agoIf that’s true, the comment being downvoted like this is… interested. On Lemmy, you’re either a Nazi killer or lover, which is interesting since 99.999999% of people here have never killed anyone, let alone a Nazi. We can say fuck Nazis but also say that murder is wrong.
youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 2 days ago
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Then get started. You first.
youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I am going to resist in whatever way is available to me. Right now that means defending people in my community from ICE. If the situation around me does heat up to the point of armed conflict I know what side I will be on.
catloaf@lemm.ee 2 days ago
Yes, though self-defense may be justifiable.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Yes of course, just about anyone would agree.
Sidenote: my comment is also being downvoted. People just can’t handle the smallest amount of nuance…
Adalast@lemmy.world 2 days ago
No, he is right. The only people ‘cosplaying’ Nazis are Nazis. If you are an actor on stage or film cast to play a Nazi then you are doing your job. If you don a SS pin and a swastika armband you are a fascist and actively advertising yourself as a threat to those around you (unless they look like you). This is “hate speech” which means that it is “free speech” and thus should be protected from government interference. It, on the other hand, can also fall under “fighting words” which are not protected. It all depends on context. In the context of a fascist wannabe dictator taking office who is openly promoting violence against minorities and showing blatant support of white supremacist groups like proud boys and KKK, it falls under the latter. It is also speech that removes ones self from the social contracts of “tolerance”, “compassion”, and “safety”. Just like any contract, the privileges and protections are only afforded to those who are a party to the contract. If someone goes out in a Nazi ‘cosplay’ and gets gunned down, beaten, savaged, spat on, or verbally assaulted they have no room to complain since they wore “speech” that said “I support or intend to do harm to those in my community and I am a threat.”
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I was referring to the reaction to the top level comment. A bunch of people getting pissed as though if you say murder is wrong then you are defending Nazis. This is just mental laziness.
Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Killing Nazis isn’t wrong in the slightest. The USA has a rich history of doing exactly that.
We do have to make sure that they’re actually Nazis though. Maybe if their leader were to perform two back to back obvious sieg heil salutes then we could know for sure.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think that dehumanizing other humans is something to be on the watch for. It doesn’t make you a Nazi to wonder if you’re also morally unsound
Adalast@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I can see that point. I get the same thing sometimes when I casually defend social media companies censoring speech. That is why I usually do it like I did here; direct, verbose, and overtly unambiguous.
People do need to have an understanding that applying an ideal to all people does not mean that you condne the behavior of anyone in specific. I do, personally, hold the philosophy that social contracts need to be mutual and by nature cannot be applied ubiquitously. That is the essence and source of the Tolerance Paradox. That is the most easily digested version, but all social contracts hold the same paradox. Tolerance, compassion, inclusion, safety, etc. The only reason any of of them function is because we all agree on them. It is safe to drive becuse we all agree that that yellow line means we don’t cross it. We are safe standing on a subway platform because we all agree not to push each other onto the tracks. We are able to lead peaceful lives because we agree not to accost each other in public spaces. We are confident we can shop in stores, attend churches, spend time in parks, and move about in life because we include each other in our spaces.
Those who do not do these things forfeit the confidence they hold in those contracts. If you own a store or business and exclude some group, you should expect to be unwelcomed in the spaces of others. If you express hateful commentary or accost people, you should expect to be accosted and to not lead a life of peace. If you openly declare yourself as a threat to the health, wellbeing, and/or safety of other members of society, you are not owed any of those things. Period. That is the solution to the Social Contract Paradoxes. Those who are not party to them are not protected by them. It would be like if I signed a contract with a roofer to replace my roof and my neighbor started demanding they replace his roof too under my contract. They are not a party to the contract so they derive no benefit from the contract.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There is a pretty big flaw in this argument. Tolerance does not mean “do not murder”. We do not tolerate plenty of people that we don’t kill.
timewarp@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You’re literally bringing up driving privileges & laws. The social contract you have is the US legal system. You don’t get to go murder or attack people cause you decided they deserved it while you still try to claim you’re following the social contract.