I understand what you are getting at, but he doesn't deserve sympathy. This man has directly made the world significantly worse, by inflicting and inciting violence on others. If you do not wish to get involved in a violent act in order to decrease the total amount of violence in the world, that's perfectly reasonable. I also think it's fine to decide that violence is not for you, and wish to have no part in it while also recognizing that violence happens in the world and sometimes the outcome of that violence is for the better or for the worse.

I personally strive to commit as little violence as possible in the world. I'm a peaceful person who wishes to uplift and care for others. But I also have very little sympathy for folks who are violent towards others, because they are actively making the world worse. In a perfect society, we could rehabilitate or humanely control/prevent this violence, but we do not live in a perfect society. I cannot be tolerant of the intolerant because it feels better to hope for their salvation. This world demands that we be intolerant of those who advocate for violence because the outcomes when we tolerate them are horrific and result in much more violence and tragedy in the world.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I agree with you, but in the eyes of many, people like US have made the world worse. I'd also argue that we all make the world worse one way or another, even if it's just via consumption under capitalism. This is why judgement can not be subjective or street-justice. It has to fall within the social contract, even when talking about someone that has broken it. If we are truly equal, then even the worst have to be treate equally

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Okay but we're literally dealing with a person (and a group of people backing him) who have literally been positioning themselves to pull off a coup by legal mechanisms. They literally have the Supreme Court rubber stamping Trump's immunity even though he stole classified documents, and then refused to return them, unlike every previous President who understood things like national security. Judge Cannon even dropped the case the day he became the Republican nominee, specifically citing Thomas' concurrence in which he talked about an unrelated issue that has been repeatedly ruled on already, the issue of Special Counsel funding. They have corrupted the court system already. They also espouse a deeply hateful and hurtful ideology that isn't above killing innocent people to achieve their ends. Trump has also made it fully clear that he plans to contest the election if he loses. They also plan on trying to use legal trickery like the fake electors just like last time, in other words, cheating. (EDIT: Honestly it's the scariest part of JD Vance as VP. His law degree and how fucking vicious he is. He's going to kick the ratfuckery into high gear) Trump has spoken constantly about "military tribunals" for his enemies. His former advisers readily admit they had to talk him down from killing people all the time during his previous administration.

They are literally dismantling the legal mechanisms that allow us to hold them accountable via the social contract.

Do you understand how what you're suggesting doesn't work in those circumstances?

How are we able to treat them equally and equitably when in the process of trying to do that, we allow them to dismantle the very systems that give us the power to do so? The only result after that is for us to be under their boot, and that point, they don't care about things like justice and will stomp that boot on our face... forever. They've made it clear they only care about power, going back a long time.

We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. -Karl Rove

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't get what argument you're making. Because our enemy would behead us, let's behead them first? If that sounds better to you than Trump's "retribution", sure. But to me it's retribution with extra steps, not justice.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We're just saying Trump doesn't deserve sympathy and Kyle Gass doesn't deserve ostracism for a bad joke.

You're the one arguing that we need about how we need to treat them equitably. I just am responding to your argument. I certainly don't think we should be advocating extra-judicially assassinating Trump, but we could stop playing these games where we act in any way that these people are acting in good faith and start actually treating the corrupt parts of the legal system like they are, at the very least. Fuck, we could have done that twenty, thirty years ago, too.

We're four months out from this, from real despotism truly coming to roost in the US, the real issue is the fact that it's even gotten to this point at all.

So argue all you want about equitable treatment, but all any of us were saying was it was a dumb thing that Jack turned on a friend of decades over this, all because Kyle spoke his mind in a joking fashion, especially because of how violently retributive Trump is. He has made it his whole personality and cult for nearly a decade now. It's exhausting. It wears people down. I forgive them for running out of patience with it. It doesn't mean we actually think that Trump getting shot by some crazed gunman is the best solution. It does mean, though, that sometimes, because of the mountains of undue stress that Trump causes people, they might get fed up and say something stupid, sinking to Trump's level. I'm willing to forgive that. That's all I'm arguing, which is why it's so confusing that you came in here to argue that if we show no sympathy we're no different than Trump.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You said yourself man: I'm arguing for treating everyone equally. If you don't like that, sure bro, you do you. I'm sure you'll find a million ways to justify treating people differently, just like those you hate so much do.

[–] t3rmit3 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Treating people badly based on intrinsic traits is bad. That's what the people we abhor do.

Treating people badly because of their actions and choices is not only good (otherwise you can't reward people for doing well), but necessary.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

People are not dogs. Punishment/reward conditioning leads to the greedy short term thinking that put the US (and arguably the world) in the situation it is right now. Also, who gets to decide what must be punished and what must be rewarded? The state? God?

[–] t3rmit3 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Are you arguing against laws or rules in general, or just ones that have punishments?

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

I think you're responding to the wrong one here buddy. I'm the one arguing for the rule of law, people above me are arguing for extra-judicial assassinations. Might want to read the whole thread. Lol

[–] prole 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Learn about fascism. Please. If we don't stop this before it's too late (might already be), we are in for a very very bad time.

I truly don't think most people can grasp just how fucked we will be if the Republican party accomplishes its stated goal of "dismantling the administrative state."

It will be interesting to see how they pin it on the left when all these idiotic welfare -receiving Trump voters inevitably lose their benefits.

Unfortunately, we will never have a fair election or peaceful transfer power ever again if he wins.