As tech giants rush to build infrastructure, some residents who live near data centers say a constant low-frequency vibration is ruining their health and homes.
Yeah, the violence would be in the name of justice and retribution!
The chimpanzee method, as you call it, is the best form of justice for those sub-human billionaire and multi-millionaire urchins who kill, rape, and eat children.
Unless, of course, you’re okay with that form of violence? Are you okay with the violence inherent in the capitalist system?
Like where do you draw the line for violence and retribution?
Don’t put words in my mouth, they taste too salty.
To an extent violence is an effective tool: that I can definitely agree with. There’s never been any social progress without blood being shed on some level.
It’s when it turns into a gratuitous means of communal catharsis that it becomes inherently counterintuitive by serving no other practical outcome than creating murderers and dehumanizers out of progressives. And these sub-humans and urchins you speak of are, whether you like it or not, extremely human, and even further than that are direct products of the societies that we’ve been complacent in for our entire lives and, likewise, we are also products of.
So to answer your question clearly, I draw the line at violence when it’s in the name of the abstract: not only because I oppose things like the death penalty as a matter of principle, but because violence for an ideal or ideals is valuable to no one and nothing. No one gains anything material by destroying for the sake of it. It’s just that: destructive. Something I wish we humans learned a long time ago, but I digress.
Yeah, the violence would be in the name of justice and retribution!
The chimpanzee method, as you call it, is the best form of justice for those sub-human billionaire and multi-millionaire urchins who kill, rape, and eat children.
Unless, of course, you’re okay with that form of violence? Are you okay with the violence inherent in the capitalist system?
Like where do you draw the line for violence and retribution?
Don’t put words in my mouth, they taste too salty.
To an extent violence is an effective tool: that I can definitely agree with. There’s never been any social progress without blood being shed on some level.
It’s when it turns into a gratuitous means of communal catharsis that it becomes inherently counterintuitive by serving no other practical outcome than creating murderers and dehumanizers out of progressives. And these sub-humans and urchins you speak of are, whether you like it or not, extremely human, and even further than that are direct products of the societies that we’ve been complacent in for our entire lives and, likewise, we are also products of.
So to answer your question clearly, I draw the line at violence when it’s in the name of the abstract: not only because I oppose things like the death penalty as a matter of principle, but because violence for an ideal or ideals is valuable to no one and nothing. No one gains anything material by destroying for the sake of it. It’s just that: destructive. Something I wish we humans learned a long time ago, but I digress.
https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too