The sanewashing I’ve seen is wild. People crawling out of the woodwork to yap about him being a martyr for dialogue. Saw someone say “we sent a messenger and they shot him”… Aside from the fact that we know nothing about the shooter or their motive, buddy: have you seen the ‘message’? Because, yikes. I don’t think he deserved being killed and i condemn such violence, but i must acknowledge that the world is a better place; that’s just how the cookie crumbles when you live life as a morally bankrupt promoter of abject evil.
A primal example of “live by the sword, die by the sword”. I could swear it’s in one those books they praise so much (for as far as they can read).
That is why the BOOK is read TO them, they are NOT supposed to think about it or the multiple contradictions, just the stories they are told how they are told.
I don’t think he deserved being killed and i condemn such violence, but i must acknowledge that the world is a better place
Normally people quote something like that when they’re trying to point out something damning or draw attention to something that’s internally inconsistent… Is that what you mean?
Is that what you read? What feels inconsistent or worth reexamining here, do you think?
I thought they quoted it because they liked it. I think it’s a sentiment I’ve seen repeated a lot here.
Ah, that could be the case I guess. But it’s not that i had a feeling of inconsistency: it’s just that I could understand how someone may see “violence is unacceptable” followed by “but glad he’s dead” to be disingenuous or some form of hypocrisy without thinking much about it; wouldn’t be the first time that I’ve had such a discussion.
A shortcut to understanding would be: I’d feel the same way if he had been killed by terminal cancer. I hate cancer, and I’d rather we lived in a world without it, and I’d have empathy for him and those who know him. But such a person being gone would still tip the cosmic scales towards a less hateful and othering world. Doesn’t make it right, doesn’t mean he deserved it, doesn’t mean I’d cheer for cancer.
The conservatives have been stroking themselves for decades over the notion of a civil war. What they really mean by this is a permission structure to murder the people they don’t like - if they get to be in death squads under a fascist regime, that is basically serving the same function for them. As long as they get to kill anyone that doesn’t agree with regressive nonsense/isn’t sufficiently “maga” (baby-word meaning loyalty to Taco), anyone that is smarter than them/more educated than them, Blacks, uppity women, non-xtians, anyone speaking a foreign language, Jews, certain media figures and Hollywood celebrities, anyone in the Democratic Party, etc.
They really upped the ante ever since about 2015 or so. It went off the charts when Taco “won” in 2016.
Not surprised to see they are still egging it on.
I’ve literally seen decals on trucks that say “kill your local pedophile.”
They call everyone who doesn’t agree with them a “pedophile,” so they’re just advertising in plain sight that they’re looking to kill someone.
The U.S. loves its sociopaths.
At one point, especially after Donvict’s first election, it seemed like much of the comments I was seeing on Diaspora - until I started to have to start blocking the worst offenders - was from Nazis who couldn’t wait to start killing “Communists” and “cultural Marxists”.
Which they use in nearly the same way the Qanon/Pizzagate dumbasses talk about “pedophiles”. It’s a very loose definition that just encompasses “people I don’t like”.
Archive: https://archive.ph/RygNP
