Jernalism!

User avatar
Friday
Posts: 6272
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:40 pm
Location: Karma: -65373

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Friday » Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:48 pm

Let me rephrase the question.

Is it moral to blow up the deforestation machine from Fern Gully if everyone involved in constructing and operating it loses their jobs?
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Friday
Posts: 6272
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:40 pm
Location: Karma: -65373

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Friday » Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:50 pm

Let me rephrase it again.

Is it moral for police to point blank spray people who chain themselves to old growth trees directly in the eyes with mace and pepper spray, torturing them, until they give up and leave so that more people can have jobs while the people of the 70s and 80s cheer the police who are torturing people on?
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Upthorn
Posts: 1027
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:41 pm
Location: mastodon.social/@upthorn
Contact:

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Upthorn » Fri Oct 01, 2021 6:00 pm

If it wasn't moral, then people obviously wouldn't be cheering for it!
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 21290
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Mongrel » Fri Oct 01, 2021 6:01 pm

Friday wrote:Let me rephrase the question.

Is it moral to blow up the deforestation machine from Fern Gully if everyone involved in constructing and operating it loses their jobs?

FWIW, I accidentally left off the beginning of the article (I didn't realize it was two screenshots, not one - just fixed my OP), which makes it clear that the author is interviewing someone (Andreas Malm) who is clearly in favour of blowing shit up.

I don't think this really changes your comment, just that it was something more interesting than a boring old case of Betteridge's Law of Headlines.
Image

User avatar
Friday
Posts: 6272
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:40 pm
Location: Karma: -65373

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Friday » Fri Oct 01, 2021 6:32 pm

ok yeah. That second pic helps.

Basically, there's an article I read about the cops spraying people in the eyes (literal torture) who had chained themselves to trees.

The article was about how the people at the time (70s and 80s) cheered on the cops doing it and called the people chaining themselves to the trees "tree-huggers" "stupid hippies" "commies" etc.

The main thrust of the article was about how people who had worked in non-violent protests in other parts of the world (even in India, working directly with Gandhi) came to America and tried the same thing. Only to find it did not work here. Because non-violent protests rely on the greater population being on your side in order to put pressure on the oppressors. But when the people are on the side of the oppressor then non-violence does not work.

So of course everyone brings up MLK instantly. And I say "MLK instructed old black ladies to carry guns in their purses in case they were attacked with lethal force so that they could respond in kind."

And then everyone looks thoughtful.

Basically, the left has had "don't do violence" so incredibly hammered into them by The Man that they have internalized it to a degree that they think violence against property and violence to defend oneself from lethal threats is immoral. Honestly, it's The Man's biggest achievement. And one that is slowly, ever so slowly, starting to unravel, as is evidenced by The New York Times running a headline asking if it's okay to blow up pipelines.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Friday
Posts: 6272
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:40 pm
Location: Karma: -65373

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Friday » Fri Oct 01, 2021 6:37 pm

Here, TL;DR:

I don't know who needs to hear this, but here you go:

It is moral to use lethal force to defend yourself or your loved ones from lethal force.

In certain cases, it is moral to use violence against property, such as empty cop cars, empty cop buildings, pipelines, etc.

Do not listen to people who say otherwise. They are an appendage of The Man. In all cases.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 21290
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Mongrel » Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:04 pm

Friday wrote:Here, TL;DR:

I don't know who needs to hear this, but here you go:

It is moral to use lethal force to defend yourself or your loved ones from lethal force.

In certain cases, it is moral to use violence against property, such as empty cop cars, empty cop buildings, pipelines, etc.

Do not listen to people who say otherwise. They are an appendage of The Man. In all cases.

Yeah this.

The two "MLK definitely believed in self-defence" stories I love most and remember best were.

1) He had so many guns stuffed in his couch that a visiting pastor from another church came over and sat on one that was sticking out, not because it had been hidden improperly, but because the couch was THAT FULL OF GUN.

2) When asked by a reporter how "he defended his man" in light of the movement's principles of non-violence, one of MLK's bodyguards replied "With a non-violent .38 police special."
Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 21290
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Mongrel » Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:45 pm

Also, outside the outright ban on fully automatic weapons dating from the 30's, the fact that the only really lasting and meaningful gun control the US ever imposed was that time blacks started arming themselves en masse.
Image

User avatar
Friday
Posts: 6272
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:40 pm
Location: Karma: -65373

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Friday » Fri Oct 01, 2021 9:17 pm

ImageImageImage

User avatar
Grath
Posts: 2388
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Grath » Sat Oct 02, 2021 2:08 am

Mongrel wrote:Also, outside the outright ban on fully automatic weapons dating from the 30's, the fact that the only really lasting and meaningful gun control the US ever imposed was that time blacks started arming themselves en masse.

1986, with the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act. The regulation from 1934 until 1986 was "you have to pay a tax to the ATF probably-not-coincidentally equal to the price of a Tommygun in 1934 ($200, equivalent of ~$4,083 today if it had kept up with inflation) and you can buy a machine gun." (which is still the case, it's just that the Hughes Amendment said no new sales of machine guns, so it's $200 to the ATF + $5,000+ to the existing registered owner for MAC-10s which are the shittiest but most common/available legally registered machine guns, and you're looking at $20k-$40k for something like an M-16.)

There's another loophole that the ATF has been gradually tightening where if you pay them ~$550 a year and can justify that you're Legitimately Running A Gun Manufacturing Business, they'll let you manufacture machine guns that your business can own as long as you're still actively paying the ATF and in business.

But yes, if you'd like new gun control regulations to be passed, the quickest way to achieve that is to start arming black people.

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 21290
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Mongrel » Sat Oct 02, 2021 2:34 am

Ah, thanks for the correction.

In fact that just confirms it more I guess? It being in 1986 arguably means the Hughes Amendment was an extension of Reagan's work in California?
Image

User avatar
Grath
Posts: 2388
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Grath » Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:24 am

The Hughes Amendment is named for William Hughes (D-NJ), and it was passed in the middle of the night while most of Congress was absent in a weird just-voice-vote while the rest of it was passed with recorded votes (and Charles Rangel (D-NY) refusing to take a recorded vote on the amendment over protests from other members of congress) but that said, the Republican-controlled Senate of 1986 did pass it on to Reagan himself who signed it into law. That said, given that the Black Panthers had pretty much faded into disrepute and obscurity by then (thanks to the FBI assassinating Fred Hampton, who was forming a wide coalition of the oppressed to resist the system) I think it's not necessarily straight racism that got the Hughes Amendment passed. That's unlike a lot of American gun control which is typically pretty racist, including the second amendment itself which was notably changed from the original wording James Madison drew from in Virginia's constitution to make sure that Southern states could legally have bands of armed men roving the countryside to round up escaping slaves. (A role which remains almost unchanged in their descendants the modern police force, other than more recent carve-outs that civilians can't own the type of guns/equipment that the police do to guarantee a disparity of access to force.)

But this is getting off-topic; point is, the police and the system aren't there to help or protect us and it's ethical to use force to defend ourselves from their force.

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 13170
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Thad » Sat Oct 02, 2021 12:10 pm

Mongrel wrote:The two "MLK definitely believed in self-defence" stories I love most and remember best were.

1) He had so many guns stuffed in his couch that a visiting pastor from another church came over and sat on one that was sticking out, not because it had been hidden improperly, but because the couch was THAT FULL OF GUN.

2) When asked by a reporter how "he defended his man" in light of the movement's principles of non-violence, one of MLK's bodyguards replied "With a non-violent .38 police special."


MLK's feelings on violence as self-defense were, like everything about the man, more complicated than the two-dimensional caricature we're usually given.

But they're also more complicated than out-of-context anecdotes like these.

He owned guns in the '50s, and (as the NRA loves to tell people) applied for a concealed carry but was denied.

But he changed his position later in life, as he studied Gandhi and spoke with contemporaries in the movement and became more committed to nonviolence. He got rid of his guns and eventually wouldn't even allow his bodyguards to carry weapons. He expressed misgivings about violence even in self-defense, though it's a question he struggled with.

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 13170
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Thad » Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:36 pm

And speaking of the right-wing noise machine: Alex Jones must pay damages to Sandy Hook families after calling shooting a ‘giant hoax,’ judge rules

It's a default judgement. The judge didn't even rule against Jones on the merits of the case, she did it because he repeatedly disobeyed court orders.

AIUI this is rare; usually default judgements occur because a defendant didn't show up at all. Jones had to really piss off the judge to get this result.

User avatar
Friday
Posts: 6272
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:40 pm
Location: Karma: -65373

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Friday » Sat Oct 02, 2021 2:31 pm

Jury decides the amount eh

I hope they make him sell his fucking kidneys
ImageImageImage

User avatar
mharr
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:54 am
Location: UK

Re: Jernalism!

Postby mharr » Sat Oct 02, 2021 2:57 pm

Gods it's good to see at least a few of these fucks push it too far.

KingRoyal
Posts: 745
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:32 am

Re: Jernalism!

Postby KingRoyal » Sat Oct 02, 2021 3:16 pm

I'm surprised that the guy who said he forgot basic information about his kids because he had chili for lunch managed to really piss off a judge
signature

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 21290
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Mongrel » Sat Oct 02, 2021 4:10 pm

Yeah Jones is one of those guys who's been huffing his own fumes for way too long for his act to be mere grift anymore, even if it only started as that.
Image

User avatar
Yoji
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:12 pm
Location: Screamtown

Re: Jernalism!

Postby Yoji » Sat Oct 02, 2021 4:21 pm

Goddamn, I forgot about the Chili Defense.

I often think about people like Trump and Jones and those who defend them. Like, imagine they aren't rich and famous, but just some rando or a member of your family doing the same thing.

If they were recorded yelling about secret Muslims or bragging about sexual assault, would you really defend them? Would you let them into your house? Would you even be on speaking terms with them? Because if you do, I can't help but think you're either incredibly naive or you ARE people like Trump and Jones.

Mongrel wrote:Yeah Jones is one of those guys who's been huffing his own fumes for way too long for his act to be mere grift anymore, even if it only started as that.

Yeah, it's that situation where you're either dangerously crazy or just pretending, but the distinction doesn't really matter anymore.
Image: Mention something from KPCC or Rachel Maddow
Image: Go on about Homeworld for X posts

User avatar
IGNORE ME
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Jernalism!

Postby IGNORE ME » Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:56 pm

Yoji wrote:I often think about people like Trump and Jones and those who defend them. Like, imagine they aren't rich and famous, but just some rando or a member of your family doing the same thing.

If they were recorded yelling about secret Muslims or bragging about sexual assault, would you really defend them? Would you let them into your house?


Yes.

Would you even be on speaking terms with them? Because if you do, I can't help but think you're either incredibly naive or you ARE people like Trump and Jones.


Yes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests