@0x4d6165 ok, how should I make a comment about being opposed to political violence without someone telling me why I’m wrong?

Because I say right there that I don’t much care which side it comes from.

This is why I have stopped talking about politics. Except for tech policy, and rarely then.

@thegibson I would like an acknowledgement of the context of that violence. Just saying “all violence is bad” is lacking desperately needed nuance. Yes all violence is bad, but the reason it’s happening is extremely important.

You stopped talking about politics because you can’t have people who largely agree with you push back on questionable assumptions and framing? If you can’t handle being told you’re (partially) wrong, that sounds like something to work on tbh

@0x4d6165 @thegibson completely disagree with this. all violence is bad, the end. no nuance or finger pointing. it's bad. full stop.

why is this so hard for you to parse?

@Cat @0x4d6165 @thegibson if someone shot hitler just before he started killing people, is that a un-nuanced bad thing? is there no nuance at all to that action? would the people of the future look back at this person and go “they shouldn’t’ve done that?”

@shroomie @thegibson @0x4d6165 that's a bizarre hypothetical thought experiment. someone could also have shot Hitler and it made him more powerful than ever, a martyr for the Nazi Ideology, who gives a shit, it didn't happen. either way violence is not the answer, ever. Hitler should not have needed to be shot because Hitler should not have used violence.

@Cat fuck you

@0x4d6165 well said.

@Cat what else is there to say to someone who thinks fascists literally trafficking people into slavery is the same as one off nutters murdering people?

@Cat @thegibson @0x4d6165 “hitler should not have needed to be shot because hitler should not have used violence” like. okay yeah but hitler did use violence, it was a core part of his ideology. if someone were to go to baby hitler and exorcise the evil out of him or some shit that would have been better than shooting him, but that never happened, and allows a context where a violent act is nuanced and potentially justifiable.

@0x4d6165 I dunno, you still seem to have a lot to say. I said my piece, you're clearly angry but that's not my problem. I hope you find peace.

@Cat “you seem angry” gee I fucking wonder why. Go fuck yourself

@shroomie @thegibson @0x4d6165 you're misunderstanding my whole stance: no violence ever. easy. you can argue well violence happens all you like but I believe it shouldn't and if it does then we've failed.

@Cat @thegibson @0x4d6165 yes, i agree with that, but also, that is impossible.

@shroomie @thegibson @0x4d6165 it's not, I've never been violent with anyone in my life, there's no hate in my heart. the people I keep in my life are like that too.

the sad part is you can't save everyone, all you can do is your best for you and yours and welcome any refugees from the wars.

@Cat @thegibson @0x4d6165 i was talking about violence on a global scale lol

@shroomie @thegibson @0x4d6165 there's no such thing. violence always boils down to one individual. be it pulling a trigger, pressing a launch button or giving an order.

@thegibson

there are so many things i think there should be no "other side" to that seem to attract bad takes:

- violence and killing are bad
- all people should feel safe, have a place to live, enough food, as much education as they want.
- the two rarest things in the world, yet always said with "common": sense & courtesy

the two things that always seem to make these "truths" an argument? politics and religion

@Cat @thegibson @0x4d6165 but you can’t control all individuals! your perfect violence-less world requires every member be equally capable of fully controlling each other, and that most of those members being pacifists who are also willing to force their pacifism on others

@Cat @0x4d6165 @thegibson and even that won’t be able to stop one guy in a cave with an ak-47 that nobody knows about

@shroomie @thegibson @0x4d6165 you're right, you can't. but I reject the idea of pacifism being forced on anyone it has to be a choice.

anyway this is the crux of Gibson's problem, people need to acknowledge that you can be anti-violent in a violent society, both these things can be true. in fact I'd argue even further the only way to end a violent society is to be anti-violence, there's literally no other way.

@shroomie @thegibson @0x4d6165 again this is all hypothetical, if there's no hate, if there's no situation in humanity's heart where violence is an option then the man in the cave and the AK-47 don't exist.

@Cat @thegibson @0x4d6165 doesn’t make violence always equally bad and unnuanced

@Cat @thegibson @0x4d6165 and there will always be hate in humanity’s heart. someplace somewhere there will be a man in a cave with an ak-47, and we won’t be able to raise or convince that out of him.

@shroomie @thegibson @0x4d6165 then we'll never see eye to eye on this, in my mind violence is all equal, there is no right violence, only wrong. Hitler's violence was wrong, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong. all equally wrong. there's no nuance or degree of violence and if you can't accept that then we'll always live in a violent world.