So killing is not okay except when its internet-approved vigilantism?
Example: “Polititian commutes death sentences” Lemmy be like “good”, but then when “Politician condemns assassination” Lemmy have a problem with condeming political violence?
(Like Gavin Newsom commutes all death row immates in California vs when Democratic polititians condemned Luigi Mangione)
Or are these different groups of Lemmings?
Not everybody, but certainly the majority.
Just look at the this very thread.
My comment is at the top already, by your logic, it would still suggest that the premise is flawed.
At the writing of every comment in this sub-thread so far, your comment has less votes than one glorifying this exact behavior.
1 less at the time of commenting and I would not be surprised to see even that small gap disappear. I just made that post too. The other comment has been around longer. I don’t contest that a lot of people celebrated it but 1) that was definitely not just Lemmy/the Fediverse and 2) even here there are plenty of people who oppose the idea of vigilantes, possibly even a majority but if not, still certainly a significant amount.
Edit: My post has been up for less than 30 minutes and it already surpassed the comment in question, which to be clear stated, “Punch up, not down. Violence used to fight for freedom and against an oppressor: good. Violence by the state: bad. This is not an inconsistent position.” <-not exactly a ringing endorsement of vigilantism per se, but more of an explanation to the question posted in regards to the view of people taking that position