406
I said something along the lines of:
"Wow, I haven't had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while."
Along with
"Nah, the more dead ~~corpos~~ dragons, the better."
In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.
...
Good ole' civility clause.
Whats the paradox of tolerance?
.world mods have never heard of it I guess.
I'm torn between π° and π, but that's clearly a case of PTB.
All those comments boil down to "yay, he died!". This is not a call for violence dammit - the violence already happened, and it was done by an unrelated party. It is not a threat either, unless you expect the person to be resurrected and killed again.
If you don't want to see people to cheer for the death of shitty people, then create a rule for that dammit. Be transparent. LW is following the steps of
.mland Reddit to enforce rules in an obnoxiously opaque way, and calling its users a bunch of gullible trash - "I'm going to ban you and claim that it was for something you didn't, and the other morons/users/trash won't even notice it! lol lmao".It's worse than that. Someone who's too gullible to follow the conclusion Popper reached there would simply watch it and do nothing. They [likely the admins; I'm not sure on who, let us not witch hunt] are actually defending the intolerant.
It's celebrating death and murder. Which is reprehensible. If you need a rule that says "be a good person" then there is something very wrong.
The admin team did not claim "it's celebrating death and murder", but specifically that it violates the terms of service. Go read the ToS - it does not.
And, if you're OK with admins that list one rule, then lie that the user violated it to enforce another, hidden, rule... then you're probably better off in Reddit.
If there was such a subjective rule, and the grounds for a "good person" were anyhow sane and humane, the ones getting banned would be the ones wishing the continued existence and ability of someone like that CEO, to decide "Those poor 'people' can pay enough to satisfy my greed. I'd say to let those things die."
But a good person is not the one who wants the poor to live, right? Or apparently that's what you consider it to be.
A good person doesn't wish death upon anyone. It's that simple.
What a stupid thing to write or believe.
Less stupid than believing people deserve to die.
In this situation at least someone would die. It's like the trolley problem; not playing it is playing it for one side.
Not wishing for the death of that PoS is effectively the same as wishing the death of his victims.
So, following your (frankly stupid, oversimplistic, short-sighted) reasoning, there's no good person.
Things are never simple. And the only ones who claim otherwise are the ones who are OK being a dead weight and a burden to the others, due to their short-sightedness.
Like you are doing - you're effectively praising the death and suffering of poor people because of some "alas, poor CEO".
If you think the company will somehow magically stop denying people simply because the CEO died, then you are naive. This isn't a trolley problem. You are celebrating someones death, good people do not do that. It is simple. You just want it to not be, so you can tell yourself "I am a good person" and carry on as you were, with hate in your heart.
Someone got a crystal ball! They claim to know what others think! No, wait, it's just a liar/assumer/bullshitter putting words in my mouth, while changing the goalposts from "the morality of cheering some PoS dying" to "the impact of the PoS's death".
But answering your bullshit, no, I don't think that the company will stop denying people because the PoS kicked the bucket. Or because people are cheering his death. And this does not change the morality of cheering his death or, in your case, effectively cheering the death of his victims. Is this clear now?
Side note: your "it's that simple." can be safely rephrased as "it's complex but the complexity inconveniences me, so I'm smearing mud over my eyes to not see it and I expect others to do the same". The morality behind the value of life becomes a bloody mess in situations where the dead is responsible for other deaths.
You literally called it a trolley problem as if their death would magically change how the company works. You talked about the impact of his death, not me.
Even if it did, cheering for someone's death is bad. It comes from hatred. All you are doing is convincing yourself that an objectively bad thing to do is good, so you can sleep better at night. That's why you feel the need to insult me. It's not a complex situation with nuances. You want to hate the person that died, you want to celebrate their death. That makes you a bad person.
I did not call it a trolley problem; I compared it with one, in a very specific way ("not playing it is playing it for one side"). That's why there's a bloody "like" there.
Still confusing your assumptions with what I said.
As I already explained, this simplistic = idiotic view goes out of the window once the someone in question is responsible for earlier deaths.
Now assuming what motivates people. *rolls eyes*
Sorry to be blunt but if you're going to make shit up non-stop, as you are doing, I'm not going to waste my time further with you.
Quick question, how did you feel when Osama bin Laden died?
You cry when you learned Hitler died or are you just upset because this guy's still warm?
Paradox of tolerance again. The guy actively helped kill people via his policies, why should we not celebrate his death?
There is a difference between "tolerance" and "murder"
The guy murdered people. The guy was murdered. He literally died how he lived. Are we then supposed to be in mourning for him?
There is a difference between mourning and celebrating death...
Lets go back to the start. The person murdered was a horrible, reprehensible human being. Why should we not celebrate his death? As somebody else asked, would you not celebrate Hitler's death? The same principle applies here.
Why shouldn't you celebrate death? Because a good person doesn't celebrate someone's death.
That's your subjective view. You're welcome to regard me as a no-good person by your standards. Regardless, I'm still happy to see a burden on society removed. Hitler dead? Yay. CEO who killed thousands of people dead? Yay.
The morality of wishing death upon people is not subjective. It's simply that hateful people convinced themselves that their hate is something that is valid and normal.
That's fine. I respect your right to have your own moral code, as long as you don't try to enforce it upon me :)
I respect your right to not have a moral code yourself :)
People celebrated when Sadam Hussein got killed, so clearly some deaths are fine
No, they aren't. The death penalty being abolished in most of the civilised world is evidence of that. Public deaths are a result of hatred - and making decisions based on your hate does not mean you are a good person - quite the opposite actually. So is celebrating the hatred of other people.
This asshole had far more blood on his hands than the guy who shot him. That fact doesn't change just because he was hiding behind a ton of bureaucracy to kill. His death is objectively a good thing for the world. Now the rest of these dickheads have something to think about whenever they're considering new policies that will deny people healthcare.