I’m not even arguing against violent revolution. I’m arguing against the idea that you can make systemic changes by assassinating CEOs and this is being demonstrated right now.
Hey Mods: FWIW, this comment wasn’t advocating violence. There is a stark difference between a call to action, and a call to apathy. It was tongue-in-cheek describing perhaps trying to make generalizations about certain methods of political change being ineffective with a sample size of one is just bad science. More data is simply needed.
More philosophically, I am vehemently against the idea that violence doesn’t solve problems or it is somehow taboo because it is a absurd to believe. These are comforting lies we tell ourselves when the state’s monopoly on violence is used all the time to solve problems. Not much happens in history without consequences that draw blood. And it is pants-on-head crazy to pretend that isn’t the true.
All of that said, of humanity’s previous attempts to enact social change, usually a lot more of the aristocracy needs to be personally affected in not so pleasant ways. I don’t really think this event was even an attempt at change. And since no one else has really tried to copy the alleged killer, and it is unlikely that anyone will, even if this was intended as change, no change is gonna happen. And so here we are, not really all that sad about the dead dude because of what he represents, but also not all that happy that there was another dude running around gunning people down, even if we’re pretty indifferent about who he gunned down
Very droll, but this is exactly the kind of thinking that lets people sit back and expect other people to take care of these problems when they should be out in the streets or on their phones or, at the very least, using the power of the internet to get others involved.
Sure, and that’s also a big problem. But just expecting other people to solve this one on your behalf with a bullet in the right brain is not going to work.
Maybe. But notice how that narrative has disappeared from mainstream media entirely. Back when people running printing presses were on the side of the revolutionaries, things escalated.
It’s a bad narrative no matter how broadly you want to make it.
You cannot assassinate your way out of systemic issues. You certainly can’t just sit around and wait for other people to assassinate people on your behalf and expect it to make things better for you.
But sure, keep hoping for the next Luigi to come along and end capitalism with one well-placed bullet.
I’m not even arguing against violent revolution. I’m arguing against the idea that you can make systemic changes by assassinating CEOs and this is being demonstrated right now.
Removed by mod
Hey Mods: FWIW, this comment wasn’t advocating violence. There is a stark difference between a call to action, and a call to apathy. It was tongue-in-cheek describing perhaps trying to make generalizations about certain methods of political change being ineffective with a sample size of one is just bad science. More data is simply needed.
More philosophically, I am vehemently against the idea that violence doesn’t solve problems or it is somehow taboo because it is a absurd to believe. These are comforting lies we tell ourselves when the state’s monopoly on violence is used all the time to solve problems. Not much happens in history without consequences that draw blood. And it is pants-on-head crazy to pretend that isn’t the true.
All of that said, of humanity’s previous attempts to enact social change, usually a lot more of the aristocracy needs to be personally affected in not so pleasant ways. I don’t really think this event was even an attempt at change. And since no one else has really tried to copy the alleged killer, and it is unlikely that anyone will, even if this was intended as change, no change is gonna happen. And so here we are, not really all that sad about the dead dude because of what he represents, but also not all that happy that there was another dude running around gunning people down, even if we’re pretty indifferent about who he gunned down
Very droll, but this is exactly the kind of thinking that lets people sit back and expect other people to take care of these problems when they should be out in the streets or on their phones or, at the very least, using the power of the internet to get others involved.
You’re not wrong. But everyone has other things they would rather do than deal with shitheads. It is so exhausting.
Sure, and that’s also a big problem. But just expecting other people to solve this one on your behalf with a bullet in the right brain is not going to work.
Removed by mod
Maybe. But notice how that narrative has disappeared from mainstream media entirely. Back when people running printing presses were on the side of the revolutionaries, things escalated.
What I am noticing is the pervasive narrative that if a few more (very replaceable) CEOs die, America’s healthcare problems will be solved.
I get that they are all replaceable. It reads as a broader statement against all industry, rather than just healthcare.
It’s a bad narrative no matter how broadly you want to make it.
You cannot assassinate your way out of systemic issues. You certainly can’t just sit around and wait for other people to assassinate people on your behalf and expect it to make things better for you.
But sure, keep hoping for the next Luigi to come along and end capitalism with one well-placed bullet.