I’m a consequentialist and I adhere to the intolerance paradox. Trump has killed millions indirectly, perhaps even millions directly with his policies, and has called for violence against his opponents, even invaded US population centers with the national guard. He is running labor camps and forcing migrants into them with no due process to enrich himself and the private prison industry.
I think Trump should be killed, Putin should be killed, Xi Jinping should be killed, etc. The social contract can never be one sided, that isn’t how anything works.
Typical privileged liberal response. For people target by ICE, they are already in the reign of terror. For women losing their rights, they are already in the reign of terror. For lgbt having their rights removed, they are already in the reign of terror. For those with families in Palestine, they are already in the reign of terror. I’m happy for you, you don’t know any of these groups, you have no empathy for these groups.
Those people being terrorised, no reign of terror. Alex pretti being shot, no reign of terror. A rich cishet white pedophile male being shot? Now you’re terrorised.
Wanna deal with my premises and conclusions now? Would you like to disagree with P1, P2, P3, C1 or C2? Or just tell me your terrorised by fascists having violence visited upon them?
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice […] - MLk letter from Birmingham jail
What do you disagree with? P1, P2, P3, C1, or C2? Or do you want to keep telling me how you’re not terrorised by the current regime, but would be terrorised by fascists having violence visited upon them.
You want to learn from history? Historically, how have fascists successfully been handled?
I just also recognize your suggestions are equally shit and reductive.
Tell me the difference between fascists and those who fight fascists? You: “I can’t”
Actually is it a false dichotomy when neither option exists, is there a word for that? A false fauxchotomy?
Also also, I don’t think indiscriminate is the word you are looking for, as a clear criteria was set here and unless Robespierre truly killed with no criteria they would both fit the bill for discrimination ( even if you don’t agree with their reasoning )
Edit : wait, no it’d need to just be fauxchotomy or that’s a double negative
To my knowledge of the reign of terror, the majority of people killed were the working class, peasants, followed by the middle class — for a series of killings seemingly only pointed at the bourgeois that certainly seems indiscriminate.
If you participate in a system that punishes people with violent retribution indiscriminately, that violence will be visited upon you inevitably. Randomly killing politicians will not solve anything, and I’m not about to detail what will on a public forum. You can take that however you will, I’m not about to continue arguing with blue MAGA.
Edit: oh, and no — I’m not of the opinion that a reign of terror will happen. I think something worse will happen.
While we’re in this hypothetical, JD Vance would have lost the 2024 election. For the most part the current GOP is a cult centered around Trump’s personality and showmanship.
Also something to consider is that if the risks of being a piece of shit like Trump are so high then selfish people will be less inclined to try it. The USA was built around the concept that leaders should fear the public.
No man. In that hypothetical, you would have had a civil war on your hands with Trump as a martyr.
All of his devout cultists would have gone out to actually just murder every “lib”. If you think his cult is a terrorist organisation now, you can’t imagine how bad it would’ve been with him dead.
Murdering the figurehead of a violent movement doesn’t dissipate the impetus, it causes it to explode in every direction.
Look up the murder of Jorge Eliecer Gaitán, or Inukai Tsuyoshi, hell even Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
The death of an evil figurehead is not always the best path forward, because ideally we would want to avoid generalised death, destruction and bloodshed as much as possible.
A civil war might have had less casualties than ending USAID, putting Hegseth in charge of Israel and Iran, and the potential end of US Democracy as a whole. Russia and China aren’t any calmer or less bold by the Trump admin obtaining power, we’re a step closer to widespread war and potential global nuclear annihilation every passing moment.
Clearly the examples you gave aren’t worse outcomes than the Weimar Republic bending over and letting the Nazi Party take power.
This is complete conjecture, you might have just ended up with President JD Vance and no civil war, but a deeply - if not-more authoritarian US administration driven by vengeance that is also more capable.
I really can’t imagine any timeline where Vance is popular. Even republicans think he’s a fat dumb baby. He has less support from Republicans than Hillary had from democrats, which is a pretty stark departure from their usual fall in line behavior. Either way, as I stated, if they knew they weren’t bulletproof it might put a little more caution in their step. For all we know, the attempt’s on Trump’s life and the protests in DC and other cities are what has kept Trump and the SCOTUS from pulling a complete coup.
The Presidential candidate being shot changes thing up quite a bit in this scenario. And I see nothing in how they behave to think they would rein anything in as a response to this beyond not appearing in public themselves personally.
When the optimal solution failed, and it did fail, Trump avoided prison by becoming president, then the next best solution is NOT to surrender. That’s just dumb. Trump becoming president is accelerationism, him becoming dead is a step towards return to normal democracy.
deleted by creator
I’m a consequentialist and I adhere to the intolerance paradox. Trump has killed millions indirectly, perhaps even millions directly with his policies, and has called for violence against his opponents, even invaded US population centers with the national guard. He is running labor camps and forcing migrants into them with no due process to enrich himself and the private prison industry.
I think Trump should be killed, Putin should be killed, Xi Jinping should be killed, etc. The social contract can never be one sided, that isn’t how anything works.
deleted by creator
The world has one fewer asshole in it.
Taken to the extreme, the next asshole steps up, and gets his head blown off. This continues until the person who steps up isn’t an asshole.
Instead what happened was Trump didn’t get his head blown off, and Alex Pretti did.
P1 trump is an asshole
P2 fewer assholes in the world is a better world than one with more assholes.
C1 Had trump been removed from the world, there would be fewer assholes and as such been a better world.
P3 trump would have probably been succeeded by another asshole.
C2 had that asshole been removed from the world, the world would have fewer assholes still, and be better for it.
Instead we have fewer nurses.
Ah yes, the reign of terror — that worked out so well last time.
Typical privileged liberal response. For people target by ICE, they are already in the reign of terror. For women losing their rights, they are already in the reign of terror. For lgbt having their rights removed, they are already in the reign of terror. For those with families in Palestine, they are already in the reign of terror. I’m happy for you, you don’t know any of these groups, you have no empathy for these groups.
Those people being terrorised, no reign of terror. Alex pretti being shot, no reign of terror. A rich cishet white pedophile male being shot? Now you’re terrorised.
Wanna deal with my premises and conclusions now? Would you like to disagree with P1, P2, P3, C1 or C2? Or just tell me your terrorised by fascists having violence visited upon them?
So, let’s examine the possibilities:
You are a U.S. citizen and therefor a hypocrite for not having died on your sword already.
You are a foreigner with no skin in the game who should be focusing on problems at home (because there are).
Robespierre was killed by the end of the reign of terror. Maybe you should look at what happens when we indiscriminately kill people*.
Edit: because I don’t just disagree with them, fuck the conservatives — I just also recognize your suggestions are equally shit and reductive.
What do you disagree with? P1, P2, P3, C1, or C2? Or do you want to keep telling me how you’re not terrorised by the current regime, but would be terrorised by fascists having violence visited upon them.
You want to learn from history? Historically, how have fascists successfully been handled?
Tell me the difference between fascists and those who fight fascists? You: “I can’t”
Purging comments. It’s clearly got heated, so I’m just purging the chain.
Removed by mod
A false dichotomy? In this economy?
Also neither of them make sense.
Actually is it a false dichotomy when neither option exists, is there a word for that? A false fauxchotomy?
Also also, I don’t think indiscriminate is the word you are looking for, as a clear criteria was set here and unless Robespierre truly killed with no criteria they would both fit the bill for discrimination ( even if you don’t agree with their reasoning )
Edit : wait, no it’d need to just be fauxchotomy or that’s a double negative
To my knowledge of the reign of terror, the majority of people killed were the working class, peasants, followed by the middle class — for a series of killings seemingly only pointed at the bourgeois that certainly seems indiscriminate.
If you participate in a system that punishes people with violent retribution indiscriminately, that violence will be visited upon you inevitably. Randomly killing politicians will not solve anything, and I’m not about to detail what will on a public forum. You can take that however you will, I’m not about to continue arguing with blue MAGA.
Edit: oh, and no — I’m not of the opinion that a reign of terror will happen. I think something worse will happen.
While we’re in this hypothetical, JD Vance would have lost the 2024 election. For the most part the current GOP is a cult centered around Trump’s personality and showmanship.
Also something to consider is that if the risks of being a piece of shit like Trump are so high then selfish people will be less inclined to try it. The USA was built around the concept that leaders should fear the public.
No man. In that hypothetical, you would have had a civil war on your hands with Trump as a martyr.
All of his devout cultists would have gone out to actually just murder every “lib”. If you think his cult is a terrorist organisation now, you can’t imagine how bad it would’ve been with him dead.
Murdering the figurehead of a violent movement doesn’t dissipate the impetus, it causes it to explode in every direction.
Look up the murder of Jorge Eliecer Gaitán, or Inukai Tsuyoshi, hell even Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
The death of an evil figurehead is not always the best path forward, because ideally we would want to avoid generalised death, destruction and bloodshed as much as possible.
A civil war might have had less casualties than ending USAID, putting Hegseth in charge of Israel and Iran, and the potential end of US Democracy as a whole. Russia and China aren’t any calmer or less bold by the Trump admin obtaining power, we’re a step closer to widespread war and potential global nuclear annihilation every passing moment.
Clearly the examples you gave aren’t worse outcomes than the Weimar Republic bending over and letting the Nazi Party take power.
This is complete conjecture, you might have just ended up with President JD Vance and no civil war, but a deeply - if not-more authoritarian US administration driven by vengeance that is also more capable.
I really can’t imagine any timeline where Vance is popular. Even republicans think he’s a fat dumb baby. He has less support from Republicans than Hillary had from democrats, which is a pretty stark departure from their usual fall in line behavior. Either way, as I stated, if they knew they weren’t bulletproof it might put a little more caution in their step. For all we know, the attempt’s on Trump’s life and the protests in DC and other cities are what has kept Trump and the SCOTUS from pulling a complete coup.
The Presidential candidate being shot changes thing up quite a bit in this scenario. And I see nothing in how they behave to think they would rein anything in as a response to this beyond not appearing in public themselves personally.
Robespierre has entered the chat.
Demanding Trump go to prison is a consequence.
You’re an accelerationist.
That’s a demand.
Him actually going to prison would be a consequence if it ever happened.
Also two things can be true at once, wanting consequences and those consequences accelerating something can both be true.
Speaking from a purely technical viewpoint I’m not sure how you get acceleration from this assassination. What would accelerate exactly?
When the optimal solution failed, and it did fail, Trump avoided prison by becoming president, then the next best solution is NOT to surrender. That’s just dumb. Trump becoming president is accelerationism, him becoming dead is a step towards return to normal democracy.
Why? The US government directly under Trump’s command is already assassinating US Citizens via ICE for political reasons.
A good quote that I don’t know who to atribute to but ‘I don’t wish death upon anyone, but there are obituaries that I’ll read with great enthusiasm.’
Then you are wrong, simple as.
Only way to get him out