Just a reminder that political posts should be posted in the political Megathread pinned in the community highlights.
Final discretion rests with the moderators.
Yeah. I try to explain to my parents that by not literally fighting against the first hint of fascism is how we got here in the US. But nooooo. "Non violent protest is the only ethical protest".
Non violent protest gets you nowhere.
Nowhere at any point in history were rights freely given and maintained.
They are always fought for and maintained in bloodshed.
Oo speaking of the Black Panthers, there's a very rousing movie called Judas and the Black Messiah.
Not an exact line quote but I loved it and I only seen it once so may be inaccurate, "we do not take liberties with our sisters. That is not just your sister, but your sister-in-arms. Now drop and give me 20!"
Specifically in his Birmingham jail letter MLK alludes to Malcom X. Its a call on the white leaders to do its the easy way or the hard way lol. Even MLK was not blind to how the threat of violence made the path of peace more viable.
The civil rights act was not passed because people were afraid. The civil rights act was passed because 'liberal enough' politicians were elected by people who wanted a civil rights act to be passed.
This picture did more to achieve that goal than ANY act of violence. The whole point of these peaceful protests was to get that picture and plaster it onto the front of every newspaper in every major city where people sympathetic to their cause would see it and feel that political action was required.
If White supremacists marched through your streets demanding racist policies, would you go and vote for someone to enact those policies?
If white supremacists started threatening you with violence if those policies weren't passed, would you go and support those policies to stop the violence?
OR would you want to crack down hard on the white supremacists? Would you favor policies barring them from being in your city? Would you favor rules and regulations restricting the rights of white supremacists?
This idea that Malcolm X was the stick needed to scare people into supporting a civil rights movement is unfounded. When you scare people, they will oppose your movement, not support it. If you say 'give me what I want or the city burns,' the people living in that city will say 'we want more police, we want the military in our city, we want curfews, rules, regulations, less rights, we need to stop that person!' Studies show that cities that experienced race riots pivoted MUCH harder to Nixon in the next election. When people don't feel safe, they vote for the person promising safety, not the person promising compromise.
Yes and no. It's important to remember that non-violence is not an end in itself. It is a tactic to be used in an ideological battle against an unjust system of government. The goal of that non-violent resistance is to highlight the injustice of the system by making that system continuously, repeatedly, and consistently reveal itself to be a bully that punches down on people who very clearly and visibly aren't fighting back, and are very clearly adhering to any reasonable interpretation of lawful behavior.
But it is merely a tactic. Just as no one in their right mind would suggest that GIs should have stormed the beachhead of Normandy armed only with harsh language, no one would suggest that violence cannot and should not be used in cases where no one can see what the unjust system is doing, and no one with power cares how they are perceived. If non-violence had been attempted in Bleeding Kansas, for instance, Kansas would have unequivocally become a slave state; the Slave Power wanted to maintain control in the Senate, and maintaining those votes mattered more to them than looking good in the eyes of Northerners.
The question of whether or not lines between the civil rights movement and Bleeding Kansas have been crossed is a question I'm neither qualified nor prepared to answer. I'd guess not, but I'm not really in charge of that decision, and I doubt my ability to wisely make it, if we're being honest. Regardless, while you are absolutely correct that the non-violent tactics of the CRM won the day, there were a lot of historically-contingent facts going into that assessment that no longer hold true. Elites in America had to be use a gentle hand in the 1960s, because a) there was an entire international communist movement out there who were using the nightly videos of Americans being attacked by their own police to push back on American propaganda, that their language that they were the land of the free and home of the brave was nothing but capitalist agitprop, and b) that international movement would have started a fifth column within the United States in a heartbeat.
Neither of those considerations is true today. As a result, elites today are, from a purely realpolitik perspective, a lot more brazen about not needing popular support than they used to be. Which is a rational calculation when international avenues of support for American workers against their governments no longer exist as a viable threat.
Your examples of violence are apt. Those are not protests. Those are battles where your goal is to kill your opposition or beat them into submission.
Yes, an invasion in war is violence. They arent trying to reason with the nazis, the goal is to kill the nazis. In bleeding Kansas, again it was violence as a means of trying to force through legislation through intimidation. It only works if you overpower the state, which the pro-slavery side could not.
If the goal is to change public opinion, votes, and get legislation passed, then violent protest is not effective. It is not the foil to non-violent protest. The civil rights act was passed in spite of violent protest, not because of it.
This true too. But people wouldn't be organized like this enough to make an impact in the US.
Plus, unfortunately I think what they're trying to do in the US is less about money and more about consolidation of power. Frankly I think we're smoked but there's hope in splintering off into your own self sufficient communities under truly equitable principles.
If we can show others that it is possible for the community to care for itself, we don't have to ask permission to be sheltered, fed, clothed, take up space, to work, to get the medical care we need... Maybe more people would see it and join in. Because it's an investment into the community to make sure everyone is healthy and happy and not about profit.
I genuinely believe the usa is geographically too big. Its why protests are so hard bc there's little risk of the populace physically meeting up.
Also our entire country was designed to keep people from rising up like France. Without universal health care those who can protest can only do so on weekends when the Ptb are at home. And if/when youre arrested youll lose your job bc of no call no show, the financial burden is insane and thats best case scenario. fed charges, permanent disability from police violence, even Death have all happened bc of the brutal Crack downs. Shit a guy with pamphlets was sebyence to 30years.
Add on the pacifist boomer bs and no one can fight back.
The geographic point is a good one, there's so much variety across that nation that it's hard to find a unifying message that you all feel invested enough in.
Beyond that though, all of those other things you listed out - those are the first fights. Your country was designed, but that's not a 'set and forget' process. The shape of a country needs to be iterated, again and again. It requires constant management by engaged voters. But until you sort out things like the healthcare situation + basic job protection, you're not gonna get that because everyone is too busy on the grind. America is still young though, it feels like this it finally going through puberty.
The protests against communism in Poland and Germany were peaceful, berlin wall fell, did it not?
Ofc. not denying that there was bloodshed, but it was the regime that used force
Oh, and around 10 years ago we had ACTA protests that also were not violent
edit: i guess i could also point at protests on ukraine against the pro russian regime... but it started a civil war with pro russian separatists and the russian themselves moved in to annex crimea and 10 years later there is war
A combination of pro democracy protests plus a government sympathetic to democratic reforms led to a democratic government. Taiwan is one of the few countries in the world where democracy scores have increased over the last ten years.
The KMT's long term justification for rule was always to enact Sun Yat-sen's policy of 'tutelage of the people' - that is, that originally Sun back in 1911 had said that he wanted China to be a democracy but at that time, like 90 percent of people were illiterate with no schooling, nor understanding of basic politics. Sun said (and you can certainly argue with this), that until people were reasonably educated and had their basic needs met, an educated elite (the KMT) needed to rule.
By the late 1970s when the process of democratization began, Taiwan was a reasonably prosperous and increasingly educated society, so it was increasingly hard for the KMTs hardliners to resist calls for democracy.
There's load of other aspects of it, but a root cause of the fairly peaceful transition to democracy in Taiwan was that authoritarian rule was built into the constitution as a temporary measure.
Yep. Non-violent protesting is fine for things like boycotting businesses or things where the consequences of the protest failing wouldn’t be catastrophic
We have enough evidence of fascism throughout the last century to know what happens if it is allowed to gain a foothold
I do believe however that the first protest can be peaceful if used as an opportunity for community building and alignment of goals. From there, force and violence are the only languages that fascism understands
It's unfortunate because you have to settle with that fact that there are just genuinely evil people out there that there's no helping, they absolutely want to see others hurt and dead on the basis of maintaining their own status and power. People that get gratification from causing suffering to others that don't deserve it.
They don't answer to reason and kindness.
We also have plenty of evidence that communists are just as dangerous as fascists. If you want to stage an insurrection, you need the support of the people, because otherwise, they will cheer for the military to crush you and use your violence to justify your suppression.
when the other side can show up and turn any protest a violent one, it doesn't work with any number of people. BLM was like 99% non violent and the ones that turned violent was 99% of the time cops turning up and starting violence. Also you see videos of undercover cops who start smashing shit or throw the first bottle giving cops the excuse to run in and start smacking people around.
How much less harm would there be in the world if people protested like Luigi did and the elite class didn't exist and any future 'elite' were too scared of being corrupt and evil to hoard their wealth the same way?
Sorry, your comment has been automatically sent to the pending review queue in an effort to combat spam. If you feel your comment has been removed in error, please send a message to the mods via modmail. Thank you for your understanding!
This is what people always get wrong and I try to explain to people irl. Action, strength, fighting, anger, those don’t have to be inherently evil. They can be very good things when used against actual evil, against entities that want to ruin as much peace in the world for selfish reasons
The problem with that logic begins when you realise that "good/evil" don't exist, and both parties use the same logic to call their opponent evil.
The solution to the problem is way simpler — stop using kindergarten non-existent assumptions like "good" or "evil" — and just do what you think is right, whether you are using the same methods or not. Just be honest with yourself.
Agree, I just can't stand that word. The problem with fighting "evil", is it's so easy to change the definition of what evil means. Depending on who you listen to, one day a murderous despot, the next it's the Smurfs, Gays, Witches, and the next it's just being a Democrat.
This. Once heads start rolling, throughout history, the tendency is to double down and reduce what it takes to qualify to be one of the heads that is rolling. People become opportunistic and see chances to remove others they perceive as obstacles. It's why due process is so damn important; it reduces the chances of bad actors directing a mob, or a mob simply going out of control in its anger.
There is also the other side of the problem. If not enough of the actually bad people are handled, they end up going back to work and organizing again. The roots of most far right and alt right parties in Germany are the Nazis released from prison due to needing them to run the bureaucracy. Due process is important, but sometimes the standards end up too high and people who really should have been imprisoned for life or executed get off in large enough numbers to organize a second time.
No, those Nazis (and some of them were not actually German by birth and were instead scientists who were kidnapped by the Nazis first) were taken by the Allies to there own countries. The idea that the Nazis were released because of the Cold War is a bit flawed, mainly because there was already half a country and buffer countries in the way. Both sides did it, mainly because they couldn't be bothered to run Germany in the middle of the Cold War.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
People I think should know better love to use the French Revolution as shining example of a successful regime change and I ask them what part they like most, the Reign of Terror or the rise of Napoleon and his wars.
France lost approximately an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 in combat alone.
Back in high school I made a presentation on whether or not the French Revolution succeeded. I argued it didn't because it led to the rise of Napoleon and a perversion of what the original goals were.
Do you think French Revolutionary history ended with Napoleon?
Revolutions are messy and complicated. Napoleon took advantage of power vacuums left by the first revolution. Then the exiled Bourbon family regrouped and consolidated around those royal to their family, eventually restoring the monarchy with Louis XVIII. Louis was a regressive ultra-monarchist who rolled back republican progress, censored the press, reduced civil rights, and even strengthened land holding rights for the prior feudal lords to the loss of the bond-holding "middle class" at the time.
This led to more unrest, the July Revolution (1830) and eventually the February Revolution (1848), leading to the Second French Republic.
But oh yes there was Napoleon III who, two years later, declared France yet another empire. But they weren't done yet!
After the failure in the Franco-Prussian war, France become a Republic once again, governing until the government fell to the Nazis in WW2.
Power tends to swing a bit like a pendulum, but each "return" swing comes with new, unique historic contexts. As people learn from the conflicts and failures, they can shift the overall trend, and that's what the French did.
Similar struggles happened with Cuba, while Spain and the US consistently interfered with their attempts to gain freedom from their imperial rulers, they had to go through many rounds of revolution, and they're still under embargo and sanctions to this day.
It is inaccurate to judge the efforts and goals of the first French Revolution as misguided, pointless violence, or failures in a vacuum.
The corporations are already doing things to kill people. Denying medical claims, polluting the environment, and more. The violence has already started.
The complication is that it's rare that violence is so carefully targeted that there is no collateral damage to innocent bystanders or spread to people of less and less culpability.
It requires tremendous self-control on behalf of a movement to target the right people and only the right people. We see this with internet vigilantism--some random person with the same name will get doxxed and harassed. Even if the real target deserves it, things can spiral fast.
The ideas that you should not do to your enemy what you would condemn them for and shouldn't do unnecessary violence (read: vengeance) spread in the wake of massive civil wars that twisted good ideas (english civil war, french revolution, russian revolution, to name a few). They were not made up by "the bad guys", because no one draws parallels between themselves and evil in their own works in the first place.
If you want a suspicious trope in moral fiction, look at the "don't play god" as a standard reason for the villain being evil
I think there's a complicated level of morality here. To use real world examples: The einsatzgruppen in WWII murdering civilians in cold blood? Absolutely reprehensible, should be tried and hung or thrown in jail and throw away the key. The allied troops murdering concentration camp guards in cold blood OR the prisoners doing the murdering upon liberation? I get it.
Both are wrong. Both are extrajudicial killings committed by a military force with little to no real oversight. But the context around the allied one makes me go, "yup, that's morally wrong, but also those guys they killed are among the worst people in human history, commiting one of the worst crimes man has ever invented, so I understand."
Now obviously there's more to it than that. The SS guys were acting on orders, which (to me) makes it a whole hell of a lot worse, while the allied troops were reacting to a systemic genocide in real time, but no comparison is ever truly 1:1.
I think the real trick is that the problem with retributive justice is that it's not applied evenly, fairly or even to the correct person. The number of false positives makes the whole system a wash in my eyes, and really makes for terrible situations. The number of lynchings or race riots started because of a bold faced lie about a minirity are astounding.
And this sounds like the exact same argument Hitler used to go after Jewish people and Stalin used to go after political dissenters, and Putin used to go after Ukraine and Israel used to go after Palestine and Trump used to go after queer people.
"Violence against the people I claim are after me is righteous." Its the same refrain every time.
I do want a response. Which is why I posted this under "Controversy". I think it could lead to an interesting discussion with a variety of viewpoints presented coherently and civilly. I'm not sure what point you are making.
Due to your karma being less than or equal to negative 100, you may not comment freely on r/Snorkblot. Your comment has been sent to our moderator queue for review. To increase your karma, please participate in other subreddits. Thank you!
But if you just meet energy with energy than you'd just be back to square one and you wouldn't be fine with that. You need to gain something for your efforts suddenly it's not like for like anymore.
The point is vengeance continues a cycle of violence and the act itself is corrosive to the person who did it. Those things may be of secondary concern in the context, but the idea that non violent resistance never works like some people are commenting is just entirely false.
A eye for an eye only leaves the attacker and the victim injured, and leaves neither blind. It's also the basis of every civilized justice system in the world-you did <x> harm, now you must make reparations in equivalency.
What you are describing is not a 1 to 1 exchange, it's an ever spiraling escalation.
The phrase literally is "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" because you dont end up stopping at losing a singular eye and eventually everyone loses at some point, how often do you think.someone comes back for revenge and then the target or affiliates just says "yeah you got yours I guess we stop here that was fair"
How often have you ever seen two people get in a conflict one punches the other punches back and they just stop there
Also no the justice system isn't based on equal reparations, sentences are rarely "you get what you did"
Wow, what a world view! If no one can judge harm then no one can decide on it, which is what would lead to the spiraling escalation you think you are advocating against.
Civilized societies create a consensus around how much harm certain actions cause in order to remove individual outliers and vigilante actions. And they absolutely attempt to enforce equivalency by trying to make the victim as whole as possible with some additional rehabilitation for the perpetrator.
Of course there isn't an easy method to equivocate harm, because everyone has their own world view and experiences, but we do the best we can.
Justice systems don't work on equivalence
We are literally discussing "eye for an eye" from the Code of Hammurabi which heavily influenced all future justice systems...
I think the generalization of it is the problem. There is a difference between guillotining the evil tyrant who somehow keeps getting into power even after being defeated…that’s just a question of efficacy….vs taking 2 weeks before the execution to rape them non-stop with lemons covered in razor blades….that is a recreational choice that raises an eyebrow or two.
How do you know the version of history you are told is the correct one. The narrative is that they had to defend themselves because of October 7. If they win, that will live on in history, not the other sides version.
I'm not a colonial power expanding my borders into other people's countries through violence and expulsion of the natives.
I trust the Israeli public's intention of genocide by their publicly stated views. And through the violent destruction of their neighbors so intense it can be viewed from space.
When every disagreement could lead to death, people do tend to behave fare more respectfully. Now, I am not a madman, and I think we need real training, not just in how to effectively use firearms, bit more importantly how to settle disputes WITHOUT using firearms.
I believe that these skills should be taught in public schools, and free training should be provided to every adult who missed out on learning those things
When every disagreement could lead to death, people do tend to behave fare more respectfully
No, they really don't. There are plenty of people who are stupid, arrogant, short-sighted or naïve enough to be convinced it could never happen to them. And there are others who quite simply don't want to take the shot.
All that sort of society does is create one where those who are best at inflicting violence can do whatever they feel like.
Now, I am not a madman, and I think we need real training, not just in how to effectively use firearms, bit more importantly how to settle disputes WITHOUT using firearms.
Well, I agree with that bit. But I stand by the idea that "democratization of violence" is a fantasy. Everyone having a gun doesn't make us all equal, cause someone will always be the faster shot and it just creates a society that favours those who don't hesitate to take it.
The presence of the gun is only a deterrent because those who are quicker to resort to it are typically the ones who wind up dead, and normally sooner than later. There's always a faster draw, and those who use force readily are almost never ready to be outgunned.
Equality is forged by the understanding that others' freedoms end where yours begin.
The presence of the gun is only a deterrent because those who are quicker to resort to it are typically the ones who wind up dead, and normally sooner than later.
That sounds creepily like eugenics to be honest. Its been true for all of human history: the more violent are more likely to die, but that hasn't done much to curb human violence, cause the same factors that often make people more violent keep being repeated each generation.
Its not something you can breed out of the population.
There's always a faster draw, and those who use force readily are almost never ready to be outgunned.
Now that I do agree with.
Equality is forged by the understanding that others' freedoms end where yours begin.
I was listening to an interview with someone from the rojava like 10 years ago, when she talked about justice and fighting isis, she said vengeance was for the weak. I think about that shit
There's no benefit to anyone in taking revenge. It doesn't make anyone whole again, and most of the time the deterrent value is a lot lower than people assume. On the other hand, prevention is hugely important. If someone is likely to do something again then taking permanent measures to make sure they can't had a pretty high likelihood of keeping harm from reaching any future victims.
Note: deterrence rests much more heavily on the immediacy and certainty of consequences than it does on the severity of the consequence. Possibly tortured to death in 20 years makes almost no difference in the minds of criminals, but definitely getting punched in the face right now works pretty consistently.
"If you murder a murderer, the number of murderers stays the same" ya, but from then on out, its just net profit, I dont become 2 murderers if I take out another
This comment section is just filled with a bunch of foreign actors trying to incite political violence amongst Americans and a bunch of brain dead basement dwellers just lapping it up like children 😭
This is missing the point. So I will explain in a way that makes more sense. If freedom fighters are fighting a tyrannical government that summary executes anyone who speaks out against them succeed, but then execute anyone who had even the hint of an association with said government and also anyone who criticizes them, what was the point? They didn't replace the old, they just recycled their ideology and slapped on a new name under the guise of "justice." How many times has this happened in the last 70 years?
Vengeance against evil doesn't necessarily make you just as bad as the evil you're inflicting judgement upon. But whether or not it gets there depends entirely on how the vengeance is handled — did you take out any bystanders? Did you kill the people who were just doing their jobs?
This one of the reasons why I enjoy the Dishonored series. They're like a Rorschah (I almost certainly spelled that wrong) test — your choices reflect what you value and your actions
It’s so vigilantes aren’t killing the wrong people or blood feuds aren’t constant. Now, if someone’s demonstrably evil enough to risk these, that changes the conversation, but in general vigilante revenge is bad.
Que the thousand year conflict between cultures where both side have committed countless atrocities against eachother with many innocent life destroyed in the process.
The primary problem is that the good and evil are relative. I assure you that despite appearances evil people believe they are good and as soon as you start taking vengeance, you will then be perceived as the evil one. The only people in history who are viewed as good were the ones who either resisted peacefully or who overthrew evil and then disappeared into obscurity afterwards.
Makes me think of the meme where a goody goody character says something along the lines of “if you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world stays the same” and then the morally ambiguous character replies with “I’ll kill two”
“Good guys” vs “Bad guys”. Who are these good guys? The United States? There are a lot of people in the world who believe the United States is the bad guy. I don’t, but it puts the whole idea of good versus bad into perspective. The cycle of violence and vengeance has been going on in the Middle East for centuries. Under your theory, the good guys should’ve won a long time ago. But really we’re seeing there are no good guys and there are no bad guys. You watch too much television. Turn off the television and read for a change.
I mean, isn't that something worth interrogating? If your conscience tells you everything you do is absolutely fine, how can you be sure it's not lying to you?
The reality is that no one can undo a wrong like murder. All that’s truly left is doing what’s right for society to prevent it from happening again. Was it an accident or was it intentional? If it’s intentional, how could you possibly be sure it’s not going to happen again? You can’t, so vengeance is a way of balancing the social contract.
Guys, there is the thing called nuiance and levels/layers. Most people ain't batting an eye if you kill an evil SOB... you start taking out his family, inparticular his young children, that becomes another story. Also before the obligatory, "that's their own fault for being evil," comments that logic is not only proven flawed, does spongebob meme showing all the multitudes of historic examples that literally changed nothing long term, but is also exactly the kind of stupid assholery that gives them ammo against us. So just fucking stop at punishing perps.
If someone killed your child and you kill the murderer, you’re still better than them imo. But if you avenge by killing their child, you’re pretty much as bad as them. Not all vengeances are equal
And this is the inevitable outcome of not teaching any sort of philosophy. Watch a movie then my uneducated friend. See the tragic tale of the man seeking justice, wreaking destruction and killing wholesale in the pursuit of justice only to wind up in the exact same moral position as his hated foe.
The word character has several different meanings. You used the word with one meaning in your question and with a different meaning in your conclusion, thus employing the fallacy of ambiguity to commit the fallacy of presumption.
Two men see each other regularly over many years. They're in the same building, and speak often of worldly and local issues. They recognize they are growing old together. One is a prisoner, and one is a jailer.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
and various similar ones I also believe was made up by people who wanted push this idea so people would logically overlook corrupt and evil actions and let them get away with it by assuming they were just incompetent and made a mistake.
Opps, they didn't intentionally forgot to mention their other homes when claiming expenses while serving as politician to scam more money, it was just a mistake, let it go.
There are so many of these little sayings and they always basically add up to, listen if you can't completely and obviously prove malice or a deliberately corrupt action... just let it go man, just let them get away with it. Seems overly convenient.
Buddhism is lovely philosophy, but when they held power in Tibet they treated the peasants no better than medieval feudal lords did. Including brutal punishments for running away.
As with all religious and political belief systems it's less important to hear believers and leaders say when they have no power than it is to look at what the did when they had it,
“If you inject substances into my arm that make me peacefully go to sleep, you’re the same as me who butchered all those people while eating baked beans and fruit loops.”
I understand why John Wick shot that guy… well the guy from the second movie.
I don’t think vengeance is a necessary great idea. The Nazis were put on trial & some were executed. I think the war crimes committed by this administration should be prosecuted.
because the REAL idea is if you begin to think of yourself as self righteous in using violence only against those who deserve it, what defines someone who "deserves" it can be easily warped.
often the bad guy is someone who is exactly that. they think they are self righteous in what they do. they think they ARE the hero.
but then the writing is dog shit because it's always 1 of 2 scenarios.
the bad guy has killed like, THOUSANDS of people, is unquestionably in the wrong, and will continue to do harm if not taken out. you are not stooping to their level by taking them out. you're a hero. but they frame the hero's violence against the villain as somehow the same when it is clearly not.
the hero has already killed like dozens or hundreds before getting to the main villain and then all of sudden there's a moral dilemma in killing the villain lol.
and it's almost always the writers just not understanding that motivation plays into it. what was the motivation of the villain to kill? greed? genocide? power? and what is the motivation of the hero to kill the villain? well it's to stop the villain lol. so no it's NOT the same, the hero isn't being self righteous.
I really like the way this is handled in Men At Arms (GNU Terry Prachett). If you find yourself at the wrong end of a sword hope to whatever gods you believe in that the person weilding it is a bad man. Because a good man won't talk, they wont gloat, they wont justify their actions or find their morals, they'll just kill you - immediately and quickly.
So all of the Batman comics I’ve been reading are just propaganda? This sounds exactly like something that Bruce fucking Wayne would finance and campaign for. Oh the humanity!
That is exactly the point. The whole, "Don't kill us, or you'll be just as bad as us!" is just so they can go to jail for a few years before getting out to commit more villainy.
Some people will bring up nonsense about a "cycle of vengeance", but you can avoid the cycle of vengeance by getting vengeance on the evil person's trusted acquaintances so that there is no one left to get vengeance back on you. But, let's be honest, if you're getting vengeance on someone evil no one is going to care. Another evil person is going to use the opportunity to just walk into the power vacuum, they aren't going to try to get vengeance on you.
I mean, all species are, but I feel we're uniquely doomed. We have the ability to know better, but we're not going to simply change so much over time that we stop being human, or change what it means to be human. Rather, we're going to end ourselves.
At least the other animals aren't learned enough to know better.
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
Just a reminder that political posts should be posted in the political Megathread pinned in the community highlights. Final discretion rests with the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.