• jaek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Killing other humans is often justified. For instance, it would be completely justified to kill someone who was in the process of shooting up a school.

    In the same way, billionaires are guilty of causing the deaths of millions of people through their hoarding of necessities. Killing the billionaires would allow this wealth to be redistributed, saving potentially millions of lives.

    • BigBenis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I think the difference is that a school shooter is in the middle of a violent act and is an immediate threat to the lives of anybody around them. Usually the only way to put an end to the harm they’re causing is to meet that violence with the same level of violence. It’s not a just act, it’s a tragedy, but it’s ultimately necessary to prevent further injustice.

      Hoarding an incomprehensible amount of resources and lobbying for a system is easier to exploit is amoral and causes harm to our society but it is not a violent act and is not an immediate threat to anybody’s life.

      These memes spreading violent rhetoric against a class of people this community is at odds with is starting to feel like other corners of the internet that I don’t want to be involved in.

      • jaek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        53 minutes ago

        It absolutely is a violent act. In the same way that locking a person in a cage is a violent act, depriving people of the things they need to live is a violent act.

        The fact is, simply asking these people to stop hoarding and polluting is not going to work (duh).

        Is there a non-violent solution?