this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
662 points (85.8% liked)

Political Memes

5509 readers
1986 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mo_lave@reddthat.com -5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Okay…? Why does the rich Saudi kid’s opinion on how civilians are totally okay to murder matter here?

Probability-wise, you're mad that Bin Laden even thought of murdering civilians in the first place. Bin Laden didn't care because in his view, they're virtually combatants i.e. valid targets for a struggle that you disagree with, to put it mildly.

… how is that the same logic? Please, explain to me how “It’s okay to disrespect people who served in the armed forces of a revolt whose sole purpose was slavery” and “It’s okay to murder civilians because they pay taxes” is the same logic?

The intensity of the desired action (mere disrespect vs. murder) is very different, but its logic is the same from my perspective: I want to do X on Y because I don't like that Y does Z. Let's take the "okay to murder civilians because they pay taxes" hypothetical sentiment. Though very remote, it's not impossible for an unhinged enough anarchist to believe this and actually act on it.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Probability-wise, you’re mad that Bin Laden even thought of murdering civilians in the first place. Bin Laden didn’t care because in his view, they’re virtually combatants i.e. valid targets for a struggle that you disagree with, to put it mildly.

I can say infants are virtually combatants, and it doesn't make it so. Why is his insane argument at all valid?

The intensity of the desired action (mere disrespect vs. murder) is very different, but its logic is the same from my perspective: I want to do X on Y because I don’t like that Y does Z.

... what

"I want to put murderers in jail because I don't like that murderers kill people"

is thus the same logic as

"I want to murder gay people because I don't like that gay people have sex with the same gender"

are you fucking shitting me right now

[–] mo_lave@reddthat.com -3 points 10 months ago

are you fucking shitting me right now

No. It's really the same logic. Otherwise, homophobia would not be even a thing anywhere in the world.

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

I'm thinking that by your logic, you would also urinate on the graves of Vietnam veterans, many of whom had no choice, because they were conscripted, and either lacked the means to avoid conscription or were unable to flee the US.