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?
There is a difference between practical statements and moral statements. You can simultaneously believe that nobody should die (moral belief), while also believing that assassinations are the natural consequence of unchecked capitalism (practical belief).
This is made particularly confusing in English, since the word “should” can use both definitions. eg, you should apologize (moral), vs you should protect yourself (practical)
I am of the belief that Brian Thompson should (moral) have been locked up for his actions. Having failed that, I predict that Brian should (practical) have been assassinated. And he was.
But they were asking why users were enjoying something they purportedly dislike. Regardless of whether you view it as a practical necessity, you should not celebrate his death if you oppose murder overall.
His death already happened. They were not saying someone should go and kill him, they were celebrating the lack of Kirk going forward, the reduction in harm. It is not morally right to plan and execute a murder, but objectively speaking there will be less harm now that he is dead and that is a relief.
i think it’s dangerous to say that something shouldn’t happen, but if it happened it was a good thing. c.f. appeasement
Sorry, I don’t understand, could you clarify the c. f. part?
I mean it as an observation. When Pat Robertson died it was not a murder, so the moral problems with encouraging violence are not involved. His death objectively made the world less hateful. His propaganda stopped and other people with less skill and less of a following stepped in to replace him, but it was an overall reduction. I think it is fair to say that in that situation his death was good for society. That doesn’t mean we should not fund gerontology and research how to keep older people healthy, we should be trying to prevent harm wherever we can. He died of natural causes at 93 so nobody shortened his life, it is morally empty.
When Kirk died the same change in the world occurred. His death meant the removal of the propaganda he was spewing. In the same way as with Pat Robertson we should not cause more of this type of death, in fact we should avoid and prevent as many as we reasonably can. That said, his death reduced harm and that reduction of harm can be celebrated.